1 / 35

“We are all downstream" April 23, 2002

“We are all downstream" April 23, 2002. Munster Wastewater Treatment. Lagoons April 10, 2002 . Historical Review. Lagoon Study Period 1992-1997. Expenditures $4 million Sealing of sewers Low flow toilets Environmental Study Report Recommended upgrade of lagoons for $7.7 M

millie
Download Presentation

“We are all downstream" April 23, 2002

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. “We are all downstream" April 23, 2002 Munster Wastewater Treatment

  2. Lagoons April 10, 2002 Historical Review

  3. Lagoon Study Period1992-1997 • Expenditures $4 million • Sealing of sewers • Low flow toilets • Environmental Study Report • Recommended upgrade of lagoons for $7.7 M • First pipeline capital cost estimate $9 M (Life Cycle Cost $14.43 M) • $467K lagoon upgrade report never found

  4. Treatment Alternatives Period 1998-1999 • An additional $5 million spent, total now $9 million • New alternatives letter from Mayor – Chair • 474 residents sign a petition in support of advanced “treatment” technologies

  5. City/Regional Council MotionMarch 1998 • Munster wastewater treatment facility must: • Improve the level of treatment (tertiary) • Meet MOE compliance schedule (1 year) • Guarantee the price (fixed price not cost plus) • None of these requirements are met by the City’s pipeline proposal

  6. City’s Request for Proposalsfor Treatment Alternatives • Land Application (spray irrigation) • Subsurface discharge (into groundwater) • Discharge to watercourse (Jock River) • A pipeline was not an alternative

  7. Evaluation of Treatment Alternatives • Solicitation of Munster residents • The Comment Sheet • Modification of bidder’s prices • Qualitative subjective scoring method

  8. The “Comment Sheet” • Single mail out • Poorly designed layout and content • Respondents asked to identify themselves • 69 households responded therefore accuracy is very poor • Results unusable for the purpose

  9. How did we get here? • 1992 -1997 Lagoon Studies • 1998-1999 Treatment Alternative Studies • 2000-2001 Ontario Municipal Board • 2002 – Peer Review of Studies

  10. Over a Decade, $12.7 Million SpentAnd No Solution $650,000 /yr

  11. Understanding of Alternatives Expressed by PLC and MCA Executive on Comment Sheets

  12. Modification of Bidder’s Prices • Onsite bids • Capital cost was increased 54% • Operation & maintenance was increased 200% • Pipeline • Capital cost was increased 30% • Operation & maintenance was increased 5%

  13. Scoring of Alternatives • Score for alternatives • Pipeline score range 1.31 to 5.05 • Onsite plant score range 1.28 to 4.88 • The City's scoring method can not statistically determine a preferred alternative

  14. Pipeline Route Alternatives • Public Consultation Process? • Public Liaison Committee members were asked on membership form if they support a pipeline!! • Pipeline route through Richmond’s streets never communicated to Richmond residents – even as of today

  15. The Challenge Period2000 - 2001 • Additional $3 million spent, total now $12 million • Ontario Municipal Board hearing • City continues to spend on pipeline even while OMB hearing is taking place • City appealed OMB decision 4 times at taxpayer’s expense and lost each time

  16. The Third Study Period 2002+

  17. The OMB Decision • City was “advised” to consult with interested parties- City will not say who these are • City was “advised” to re-evaluate the second consultant’s work using a disinterested third party

  18. City’s Response to OMB Decision • R.V. Anderson was hired for $179,000 to do a peer review of Conestoga Rovers’ work (estimate was $50K) • Conestoga Rovers is doing a peer review of R.V. Anderson’s work for a pipeline/onsite treatment study in King City, Ontario • Conestoga Rovers used Munster to support R.V. Anderson's pipeline selection in King City • R.V. Anderson provided cost estimates for 1998 Munster sewage alternative report to City • A Councilor pronounces that the City already knows a pipeline is the new study outcome – CTV, February 27, 2002

  19. The Pipeline • 11.6 kilometer forcemain – re-pumped six times over 70 km to ROPEC • Meets none of City Council’s criteriaand none of City’s own Wastewater Master Plan criteria • Many installation and operational problems • Cost plus construction over 2 or more years – capital cost of $14 million plus

  20. Richmond Fen City’s Mitigative Jack & Bore and Trenching Where is the pipeline going? 5meters 2 meters 5meters for safety Minimum 2.4 meters for frostprotection

  21. History of City’s Pipeline Capital Cost Estimates

  22. Onsite Treatment • Meets all of City Council’s criteria • Approved by City and Ministry of Environment • Fixed capital cost of $3.2 million • One year to build

  23. Onsite Treatment System A New York State Trial Proved • “(onsite) systems provide removal of wastewater treatment parameters to levels approaching drinking water quality” • “(onsite) systems can be used over a wide range of flow conditions; are easy to operate, maintain and monitor; are extremely reliable and user friendly; and consistently produce exceptional effluent quality” • Study was accepted by the City in December 1997

  24. Meeting Your Priorities withan Onsite Treatment Plant • Keeping clean water in the watershed • Protecting the environment • Controlling construction and O&M Costs • Minimizing Installation Time

  25. Onsite and the Watershed • Enhances Jock River flow with clean water • Prevents surface and groundwater siphoning down the pipeline trench • Assists in meeting Jock River watershed objectives

  26. Onsite and the Environment • Eliminates lagoons and sewage leakage • Prevents further pollution of Richmond Fen with road salts and oils flowing along trench bed • Eliminates impact on Richmond’s wells, septic systems and lagoon usage • Meets future MOE tertiary treatment objectives now

  27. Onsite and Costs • Saves $17 million in life cycle costs • No future broken pipeline repair costs and associated environmental damage • No pipeline cleaning and unplugging • Fixed price rather than cost plus

  28. Onsite and Time • 1 year versus 2 or more years to build

  29. Life Cycle Cost Summary *Repairing Franktown Road will add $2,500,000 * Does not include cost of business and homeowner disruptions, personal safety and environmental risks and loss of 500 building sites in Richmond

  30. Advantages of Munster Onsite Treatment for Richmond Residents • Munster sewage removes 500 homes from Richmond plan – the Richmond pipeline upgrade will cost $8 million or more • Avoids major disruption of homes, businesses, streets, infrastructure and quiet enjoyment

  31. Advantages of Munster Onsite Treatment for Richmond Residents • Avoids potential damage to wells, septic systems, driveways and landscaping • Reduces use of Richmond lagoons • No tax implications

  32. Stop Studying and Just Do It! • 1996 – Pipeline rejected by City • 1997 - Onsite plant capabilities accepted by city and MOE • 1998 – Onsite plant is 4 times less expensive and twice as fast to implement • 1999-2001 City still doesn’t get it • 2002 – Onsite plant could be in place by this time next year

  33. What’s Next? • Making sure yourinterests are heardand met • Ensuring all City ratepayers know the real facts • Ensuring the OMB ruling is enforced • Whatever else it takes to do it right!

  34. Question & Answer "If you refuse to accept anything but the very best, you will very often get it." W. Somerset Maugham

More Related