Dr Shaun Peck's presentation to the CRD's Core Area Liquid Waste Management Committee September 22nd 2010
My congratulations to the committee in making some progress in the last six months towards planning for the “least cost option” for the land based sewage treatment ordered by the Minister of the Environment – with the very preliminary cost estimate is now $782 Million with operating costs of $14.5 Million a year and revenues of $3.1 Million a year.
Here are comments on three reports before you to-day.
Agenda item 5: REGIONAL SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAM – 2009 ANNUAL REPORT AND RESULTS OF FIVE-YEAR REVIEW (2004–2008). The CRD has an exemplary program whose successful results are in to-days report. I was amazed to read that in 2009 - almost seven tonnes of medications were collected as a result of the residential outreach program – that is a lot of pills!
Agenda item 6: TRUCKED LIQUID WASTE PROGRAM – 2009 ANNUAL REPORT AND RESULTS OF FIVE-YEAR REVIEW. Trucked liquid waste is non-domestic liquid waste that cannot be legally discharged to sanitary sewer or stormwater systems, and must be transported by truck to be disposed of offsite. This is another successful program carried out for little cost compared with the cost of building land based sewage treatment plants. It should be noted that limited progress has been made in engaging senior government agencies in Trucked Liquid Waste management issues. (Could we hear more information on this?) Information collected by the program indicates that future efforts should be focused on improving municipal catch basin waste management practices.
Agenda item 7: CORE AREA STORMWATER QUALITY PROGRAM – ENHANCED STORMWATER DISCHARGE INVESTIGATIONS. It is good news that the number of high risk discharges has decreased from 42 to 28. If we care about protecting the marine environment this is one of the most important CRD programs because these are discharges directly onto the beaches and therefore are a potential public health hazard. The rainwater report from the University of Victoria: “Re-inventing Rainwater Management: A strategy to protect health and restore nature in the capital region” noted several episodes of environmental damage (fish kills) as a result of chemicals being discharged into rain or storm water drains. There is no coordinated rainwater source control program in the region for chemical contaminants. If this was pursued as diligently as the sewer source control programs we would not have the undesirable marine environmental effects (such as fish kills) that occur when chemicals are discharged into the storm water drains. Surely more emphasis should be placed on this in the future. The SETAC panel recommended – that there needs to be regional governance of rainwater – rather than piecemeal efforts by the 13 individual municipal jurisdictions that make up the CRD Board.
With regards to your current plan for land based sewage treatment that has been approved by the Minister of the Environment I have a number of questions:
- Are not the current publically released costs very preliminary?
- Can the costs be reduced more? Why resource recovery – nice to do or cost-benefit? (Does it not require 25% more capital costs and increased operating costs to achieve this before the offsetting revenue?)
- Will the provincial and federal governments each commit to their 1/3 funding of capital costs?
- Will the Federal Government modify their proposed regulation based on input from scientists and public health officials?
- Will Federal Government reconsider funding after hearing from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities about the costs?
- How much disruption of the community will occur if a pipe has to be built from McLoughlin Point to the Hartland land fill?
- Will another sludge treatment site be found?
- Is the proposed trucking or barging of the treated sludge for incineration in the lower mainland really the best solution?
- What will be the environmental impacts of creating and disposing of this sludge or bio-solids?
- Are you - the elected officials trying hard enough to look after the taxpayers interest?
You have made some progress – the $782 Million is now only the cost of eleven blue bridges. That is the subject of a City of Victoria referendum on November 20th.
Some final comments for to-day:
I was pleased to read in the minutes of your June 23rd meeting:
“That staff be authorized to continue to explore options to further improve the proposed system configuration to ensure that it is the most cost effective solution that will meet environmental and social needs and comply with provincial and federal regulations”.
In a June CRD press release that Chair Young stated:
“We will continue to investigate opportunities to refine components that will improve the economic performance of the system and reduce any negative environmental or neighborhood impacts.”
I hope you will be receiving staff reports that address these issues.
If you consider the overall Environment, Land Based Sewage Treatment Plants for Victoria will have a net adverse effect if the Marine, Land and Global environment is considered.
Thank you,
Dr Shaun Peck, Public Health Consultant
Member of Responsible Sewage Treatment Victoria www.rstv.ca
Board member of the Association for Responsible and Environmentally Sustainable Sewage Treatment. www.aresst.ca