Click here to join us on Facebook
CRD Sewage Committee
ACTION:
COMMENTARY, PRESENTATIONS and ANALYSIS:
- Open Letter to CRD: A Sewage Plan For The People (Atwell)
- Open Letter to CRD: A Sewage Plan For The People (Atwell)
- Presentation to CRD Sewage Committee (Newcomb)
- Presentation to CRD Sewage Committee (Peck)
-------------------
CRD SEWAGE NEWS
- Citizens should be concerned about sewage project (CRD Director Vic Derman)
-------------------
INTERNATIONAL SEWAGE NEWS
- Guernsey Sticks with Marine-Based Treatment
LETTERS
- SEND IN YOUR LETTERS!
------------------------------
ACTION:
CRD Sewage Committee
Atwell:
At yesterday's CRD sewage committee meeting (11 September) , CRD Directors were critical of CRD staff because the presentation they were about to hear did not include an accompanying report nor was the presentation provided in advance.
So directors rejected the presentation and put it off until the next meeting in October...
It's a good thing this doesn't happen at the CRD Commission where they are spending the big bucks, right? Guess again:
http://www.youtube.com/
So directors rejected the presentation and put it off until the next meeting in October...
It's a good thing this doesn't happen at the CRD Commission where they are spending the big bucks, right? Guess again:
http://www.youtube.com/
The CRD Committee of the Whole meeting that was going to address CRD staff's biosolid's report (land application of biosolids, etc) has been cancelled.
CRD Directors turned down hearing the staff presentation today at the CALWMC meeting today because no report or presentation was provided in advance.
The presentation was to be on financial and technical implications of a distributed sewage system. Pros? Cons? Who knows...we won't know until next month.
Guest presenters showed up but were pretty grim faced by this decision.
------------------------------
COMMENTARY, PRESENTATIONS and ANALYSIS:
Introduction
Over the months and years much has been debated about the CRD sewage project: its merits, the regulations, the environmental impact and the cost.
When we take stock of the project today and look to the economic benefits, there are definite shortcomings to acknowledge. Environmental benefits are minimal with great concern in the community around the land application of biosolids. Social impacts will be equally great with as yet unknown costs and ability to fully mitigate them.
These three criteria comprise the famous triple bottom line yet for those keeping score and seeing room for improvement in all areas, it is still the overall cost that is the most pressing item because to date, the front end of this project has proven very expensive having exceed all financial expectations.
Costs out of control
Back in 2009, Mr. Kalynchuk in his former role as sewage project lead told the press, "How much Stantec is paid...will likely be around one per cent of the project's total cost".
During that period, the project was estimated as costing $1.2b, or $12m for Stantec and that estimate was quote, "to take the project through the design, procurement, construction and then post-construction (phases)".
The Stantec bill to date is already over that amount by $2m and the 1% budget estimate by $6m even though construction has yet to begin. What will the final bill be for this one advisor?
At the last CRD Commission meeting on August 23rd, staff reported that the fees for procurement advisors had gone beyond expectation because the scope of the effort had been underestimated.
READ MORE: https://www.facebook.
------------------------------
Presenters to CRD sewage committee are invited to submit their presentations to me for inclusion - and better if you have your own website to link to.
Presentation to CRD Sewage Committee (Newcomb)
WORLEY-PARSONS EIS IS NOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT UNDER THE BC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT NOR FEDERAL CEAA, BUT ALSO DOES NOT SUPPORT THE HIGH RISK IMPLICATIONS OF THE COVERING STAFF MEMO, AND THIS IS A CRITICAL ISSUE FOR THE CRD BECAUSE RELATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT OF VARIOUS SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS AND LOCATIONS OPTIONS HAS BEEN MISSING.
READ MORE:
----------------------------------
Presentation to CRD Sewage Committee (Peck)
Dr. Shaun Peck
September 11, 2013
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you again. I will speak to agenda item seven – effluent discharge monitoring – the stage 2 Environmental Impact Study.
This report is about the new deep sea outfall being planned at McLoughlin point that will be 2 KM offshore, with a 200 meter diffuser, sixty meters below the surface of the ocean. It will be very similar but larger than the present deep sea outfalls at Clover and Macaulay points that are effective in ensuring that the present effluent is treated naturally by the marine environment.
READ MORE: http://www.rstv.ca/
------------------------------
CRD SEWAGE NEWS
CRD SEWAGE NEWS
Citizens should be concerned about sewage project (CRD Director Vic Derman)
VIC DERMAN
TIMES COLONIST
SEPTEMBER 10, 2013
Recently, by motion, I asked the Capital Regional District board to request both an independent analysis of the core area sewage-treatment project and a new Request for Expressions of Interest.
The analysis would have examined net environmental benefit and value for money, while the REI would have allowed alternative approaches to come forward.
Had the motion passed, the CRD’s Core Area Liquid Waste Committee would have determined whether to comply.
Since the motion failed (interestingly, only core-area committee directors were allowed to vote), it’s time to decide whether to press on or just let the current proposal proceed. The essential question is whether due diligence has been done.
To be specific: Have appropriate priorities been established to shape this project? Is the project consistent with broader regional sustainability plans such as the regional growth strategy? Has it been evaluated for net environmental gain and value for money? Have sufficient opportunities been provided for alternative approaches to come forward? And finally, has consultation and decision-making created public confidence and support?
In all cases, the answer is no. Undoubtedly, one priority is to meet federal and provincial requirements. But spending the better part of a billion dollars to build this project, with additional operating costs, should accomplish much more.
Most certainly, environmental gains should be maximized. Treatment should deal with emerging chemicals and provide high-quality effluent. The current project proposes only secondary treatment. Tertiary treatment, especially systems such as ultra-filtration, can provide much higher-quality effluent and more effective removal of chemicals.
Yes, the proposed plant could be upgraded to tertiary standards but when, and at what cost?
Even more important, resource recovery should be optimized. Climate change is likely the greatest threat humanity faces. Large projects in particular must aim to minimize net energy use, maximize energy recovery and minimize greenhouse gases.
Proponents of the current project point out that it does have some resource recovery and greenhouse-gas reduction. That’s like saying your car is fine because it has four wheels. With major infrastructure in remote locations, it’s unlikely that resource recovery and environmental gains are anywhere near maximized.
As for broad regional sustainability planning, the current project has been developed in relative isolation. Will it be a good fit? With limited environmental gains, it’s hard to see how it could be.
All of this raises questions such as: “Just what are we getting for this huge expenditure?” and “Couldn’t we do better?” They haven’t been adequately answered.
Yes, some analysis has been done, but largely by CRD consultants directed by staff firmly committed to the project. That’s simply not objective enough. An independent analysis of net environmental gain and value for money is needed.
A new REI that encouraged alternative proposals would also help to answer the legitimate questions swirling around this project. It’s virtually certain that designs featuring decentralized smaller plants could accomplish better environmental outcomes. Would they be financially competitive? Given reduced pumping, recent technological improvements and the value of energy recovered, it’s entirely possible they might be.
The more the public learns about this project, including snafus such as the Viewfield Road purchase, the more concerned and skeptical they become. They have a right to be concerned. Due diligence has not been done. It could have been done years ago when I first brought forward similar motions, but it wasn’t.
It’s way past time to ensure our present choices are appropriate and defensible. The citizens of our region deserve no less.
- Vic Derman is a Saanich councillor, CRD director and a member of the CRD Core Area Liquid Waste Committee.
http://www.timescolonist.com/
VIC DERMAN
TIMES COLONIST
SEPTEMBER 10, 2013
Recently, by motion, I asked the Capital Regional District board to request both an independent analysis of the core area sewage-treatment project and a new Request for Expressions of Interest.
The analysis would have examined net environmental benefit and value for money, while the REI would have allowed alternative approaches to come forward.
Had the motion passed, the CRD’s Core Area Liquid Waste Committee would have determined whether to comply.
Since the motion failed (interestingly, only core-area committee directors were allowed to vote), it’s time to decide whether to press on or just let the current proposal proceed. The essential question is whether due diligence has been done.
To be specific: Have appropriate priorities been established to shape this project? Is the project consistent with broader regional sustainability plans such as the regional growth strategy? Has it been evaluated for net environmental gain and value for money? Have sufficient opportunities been provided for alternative approaches to come forward? And finally, has consultation and decision-making created public confidence and support?
In all cases, the answer is no. Undoubtedly, one priority is to meet federal and provincial requirements. But spending the better part of a billion dollars to build this project, with additional operating costs, should accomplish much more.
Most certainly, environmental gains should be maximized. Treatment should deal with emerging chemicals and provide high-quality effluent. The current project proposes only secondary treatment. Tertiary treatment, especially systems such as ultra-filtration, can provide much higher-quality effluent and more effective removal of chemicals.
Yes, the proposed plant could be upgraded to tertiary standards but when, and at what cost?
Even more important, resource recovery should be optimized. Climate change is likely the greatest threat humanity faces. Large projects in particular must aim to minimize net energy use, maximize energy recovery and minimize greenhouse gases.
Proponents of the current project point out that it does have some resource recovery and greenhouse-gas reduction. That’s like saying your car is fine because it has four wheels. With major infrastructure in remote locations, it’s unlikely that resource recovery and environmental gains are anywhere near maximized.
As for broad regional sustainability planning, the current project has been developed in relative isolation. Will it be a good fit? With limited environmental gains, it’s hard to see how it could be.
All of this raises questions such as: “Just what are we getting for this huge expenditure?” and “Couldn’t we do better?” They haven’t been adequately answered.
Yes, some analysis has been done, but largely by CRD consultants directed by staff firmly committed to the project. That’s simply not objective enough. An independent analysis of net environmental gain and value for money is needed.
A new REI that encouraged alternative proposals would also help to answer the legitimate questions swirling around this project. It’s virtually certain that designs featuring decentralized smaller plants could accomplish better environmental outcomes. Would they be financially competitive? Given reduced pumping, recent technological improvements and the value of energy recovered, it’s entirely possible they might be.
The more the public learns about this project, including snafus such as the Viewfield Road purchase, the more concerned and skeptical they become. They have a right to be concerned. Due diligence has not been done. It could have been done years ago when I first brought forward similar motions, but it wasn’t.
It’s way past time to ensure our present choices are appropriate and defensible. The citizens of our region deserve no less.
- Vic Derman is a Saanich councillor, CRD director and a member of the CRD Core Area Liquid Waste Committee.
http://www.timescolonist.com/
------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL SEWAGE NEWS
Guernsey Sticks with Marine-Based Treatment
News that Channel Island of Guernsey is firm on its resolve to keep with marine-based sewage treatment in spite of pressure from advocates for land-based sewage plant:
"Guernsey sewage 'must be pumped into sea'":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl
- ARESST communicated to Guernsey Government (GG) about Victoria's sustainable, environmental marine-based sewage treatment and GG referred to Victoria's situation to support their continued marine-based treatment:
"Guernsey States sticks with natural sewage treatment":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl
"Guernsey sewage 'must be pumped into sea'":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl
- ARESST communicated to Guernsey Government (GG) about Victoria's sustainable, environmental marine-based sewage treatment and GG referred to Victoria's situation to support their continued marine-based treatment:
"Guernsey States sticks with natural sewage treatment":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl
------------------------------
LETTERS
LETTERS
SEND IN YOUR LETTERS!
