Report to/Rapport au:
Environmental Services Committee
Comité des services de l’environnement
and Council/et au Conseil
02 May 2003/le 02 mai 2003
Submitted by/Soumis par: Rosemarie Leclair,
General Manager/Directrice générale
Contact/Personne-ressource: Richard Hewitt, Director, Infrastructure
Services Branch/ Directeur des services et travaux publics
580-2424, ext. 21268, Richard.Hewitt@ottawa.ca
|
|
Ref N°:ACS2003-TUP-INF-0007 |
SUBJECT: MUNSTER
HAMLET WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY –
RE-EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES AND
RECOMMENDED
SOLUTION
OBJET : INSTALLATION
POUR LES EAUX USÉES DE MUNSTER HAMLET – RÉÉVALUATION DES SOLUTIONS DE RECHANGE
ET SOLUTION RECOMMANDÉE
REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS
That
Environmental Services Committee recommend Council:
(a)
receive the “Munster Hamlet
Wastewater Treatment Facility Re-Evaluation of Alternatives Final Report”,
dated 16 December 2002, prepared by R.V. Anderson Associates Limited to comply
with the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board to re-evaluate three treatment
alternatives (mechanical treatment plant discharging to the Jock River (CMS),
pipeline and Snowfluent®);
(b) approve the implementation of the
pipeline alternative as the recommended solution for Munster Hamlet Wastewater
Treatment.
Le
Comité des services de l’environnement recommandera au Conseil :
(a)
de recevoir le rapport Installation
pour les eaux usées de Munster Hamlet – réévaluation des solutions de rechange du
16 décembre 2002, préparé par R.V. Anderson Associates Limited conformément à
la décision de la Commission des affaires municipales de l'Ontario de réévaluer
trois solutions de rechange pour le traitement des eaux usées (traitement
mécanique déchargeant dans la Jock River (CMS), pipeline et Snowfluent®);
(b) d’approuver la mise en œuvre de la
solution « pipeline » comme solution
recommandée pour le traitement des eaux usées de Munster Hamlet.
Munster
Hamlet is a small residential community of approximately 1,300 people located
in the west rural area of the City. For
several years, the existing lagoons and spray irrigation treatment system has experienced
problems in managing the municipal sewage from the community. In addition, there are concerns with the
integrity of the lagoon cells. Leakage
has been documented by City staff and through various reports that have been
prepared over the past several years.
Investigation and on-going monitoring has determined there are currently
no impacts on adjacent wells or the two communal wells servicing the community.
In 1995, the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton
(ROC) engaged the engineering firm of Totten Sims Hubicki Associates (TSH) to
undertake an Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine the preferred means to
remedy the problems with the existing lagoon and spray irrigation treatment
system. The results of the study, as
documented in the “Munster Hamlet Sewage Treatment Environmental Study Report”
(ESR) dated January 1996, recommended upgrading/expanding the existing
facility. There were several Phase 2
Order (formerly “bump-up”) requests submitted to the Ministry of Environment
(MOE). The Minister denied all requests
in January 1997.
In 1997, the former ROC proceeded with the
preliminary and detailed design for upgrading/expanding the existing lagoon and
spray irrigation treatment system. TSH
was engaged to complete the work.
Prior to the implementation of this solution,
the former ROC received an unsolicited proposal in early 1998 for an on-site
proprietary treatment facility. As a
result, Regional Council, on 11 March 1998, directed staff to re-evaluate
treatment options and prepare an addendum to the ESR.
In April 1998, the former ROC engaged the
engineering firm of Conestoga-Rovers and Associates (CRA) to complete the
re-evaluation, on an independent basis, take into account any new information
and to solicit and identify other applicable treatment alternatives.
Design-build proposals were received by the
former ROC in July 1998. The
submissions were used as a means to obtain information for price-guaranteed
alternatives to be considered by CRA.
CRA completed their assessment of treatment
alternatives for the Munster Hamlet Wastewater Treatment Facility and issued an
addendum to the ESR documented in the “Addendum for the ESR Class EA Wastewater
Treatment System Expansion/Upgrade” dated May 1999. The addendum recommended that Munster Hamlet be connected to the
central sewage collection and treatment system by means of a pipeline to
Richmond. There were several Phase 2
Order requests submitted to the MOE. The
Minister denied all requests in October 1999.
An amendment to the Regional Official Plan was
required to implement the pipeline solution and provide servicing for Munster
Hamlet. The amendment was approved by
Regional Council on 12 May 1999 but was appealed by several
interested parties to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB).
Regional Council, at its meeting on
26 January 2000, approved the award of a contract to Doran
Contractors Limited to complete preliminary and detailed designs and project
management for construction of the pumping station and forcemain. The former ROC entered into a Professional
Engineering Agreement with Doran Contractors Limited, dated January 2000, to
complete the work. Work under the
agreement was suspended 02 June 2000, pending the outcome of the OMB
hearings.
The OMB considered the appeal of the amendment
to the Regional Official Plan from March to July 2000 and released its decision
in June 2001. The City was directed to
re-evaluate three of the alternatives (CMS, pipeline and Snowfluent®). In accordance with the OMB decision, the
re-evaluation had to be completed to the satisfaction of City Council. The OMB advised the City to consider the
following factors:
“1. The City is advised to consider retaining a qualified person or persons who has or have not been associated with the project so far to undertake a re-evaluation of the three treatment alternatives;
2. The City is advised to consider instructing the evaluating person/s to critically assess the Weighted Additive Method and employ it with modifications if necessary and if found appropriate, and assess the treatment alternatives;
3. The City is advised to consider
instructing the evaluating person/s to also employ the standard qualitative
assessment of merits and demerits of the alternatives;
4. The City is advised to consider
instructing the evaluating person/s to seek facts and opinions from the
interested people, the CRA, and the proponents of the treatment alternatives to
ensure a thorough canvassing of all the facts and opinions and take account of
them in both the quantitative and qualitative methods of evaluation, including
an explanation why certain facts and opinions were disregarded;
5. The City is advised to consider
instructing the evaluating person/s to make a recommendation based upon both
the quantitative and qualitative methods.”
Corporate
Services and Economic Development Committee, at its meeting on
03 July 2001, authorized the seeking of leave to appeal the OMB
decision. To minimize delays, staff
also brought forward a report recommending an Action Plan to satisfy the OMB
decision. Environmental Services Report
No. 6 was approved by Council on 11 July 2001. The Action Plan included the retention of a
consultant to conduct an independent re-evaluation of the three alternatives.
A Request for Proposal (RFP) was distributed to
four consultants in October 2001.
The consultants were selected to submit proposals based on their
experience in the environmental engineering field and their in-depth knowledge
of the Environmental Assessment process, wastewater treatment technologies and
municipal infrastructure systems. The
firms had no previous involvement in the matter.
On 29 October 2001, Divisional Court
denied the leave to appeal the OMB decision.
Staff completed the review and evaluation of
the consultant proposals, submitted in response to the RFP, in December
2001. Each proposal was evaluated on
the basis of the experience of the firm, experience and qualifications of key
members, understanding of the objectives, approaches and methodologies to
complete the assignment, availability to conduct the assignment and cost.
An Information Previously Distributed Memo
dated 05 February 2002, listed on the Environmental Services
Committee Agenda of 26 February 2002, advised the Department selected
the engineering firm of R.V. Anderson and Associates Limited (RVA) and would
enter into an agreement with them to complete the re-evaluation of three
alternatives for the Munster Hamlet Treatment Facility.
RVA submitted a final work plan for the
assignment dated 12 February 2002.
The work plan involved completing a detailed review of relevant
background information, EA and methodology review of the addendum to the ESR
completed by CRA, re-evaluation of the three treatment alternatives including
completing sensitivity analyses, interviews and stakeholder consultation and
preparation of a final report outlining their findings and recommendations.
The report was submitted to the City by RVA on
16 December 2002. The results
of the report were presented to the public in Munster Hamlet that evening. RVA recommended the City proceed with the
implementation of a communal wastewater treatment system (CMS or Snowfluent®)
for Munster Hamlet.
RVA concluded that, based on their evaluation
of the EA process followed by CRA in the preparation of the addendum to the
ESR, the requirements of the “Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) Class
Environmental Assessment for Water and Sewage Projects” were met for Munster
Hamlet.
Based on the quantitative analysis completed by
RVA, the December 2002 Report concluded that, from an environmental
perspective, any one of the three alternatives could be considered as a viable
and acceptable solution and have merits and issues associated with them that
would need to be overcome if any of them were to be successfully implemented.
It is important to recognize the
December 2002 RVA Report was prepared under a specific set of constraints
or guidelines in response to the OMB ruling directing the City to undertake the
re-evaluation. These included only
re-evaluating three specific alternatives identified in the OMB ruling (CMS,
pipeline and Snowfluent®) and completing the re-evaluation with exactly the
same criteria and weighting as the original matrix evaluation completed by CRA. The challenge of the assignment for RVA was
to determine a rationale for recommending one of the three alternatives in the
face of an inconclusive quantitative re-evaluation. This was consistent with the OMB Hearing, which in spite of
significant efforts, was unable to confirm the selection of one of the
alternatives.
The RVA report identified the following
qualitative issues associated with each alternative:
The 2002 December RVA Report made a
recommendation in favour of a communal wastewater treatment system largely
because of the cost differential determined for the pipeline in consideration
of comparable environmental issues. The
report also identified the need to investigate a number of issues with the MOE
and further aspects of implementing the recommended alternative to ensure cost
and time impacting issues were sufficiently understood.
Additional investigations and consideration of
these issues were completed following the receipt of the December 2002 RVA
Report to ensure due diligence prior to recommending an appropriate solution
for Council approval. These issues
included regulatory and procedural requirements of the Environment
Assessment Act; conditions that may be imposed by the MOE to obtain a
Certificate of Approval (C of A); the need and availability of additional land
that may be required for the communal systems; timing of implementation;
associated costs; risks and environmental impacts.
Since RVA was very familiar and knowledgeable
of the issues associated with the implementation of each alternative, they were
engaged to assist the City in completing the additional investigations.
RVA submitted a Technical Memorandum dated
30 April 2003 providing supporting information to outline the
implications of implementing each of the three alternatives (reference Annex A).
RVA
conducted additional investigations including more substantive discussions with
the MOE, CMS, Northern Watertek (Snowfluent®) and Doran Contractors Limited
(pipeline), to provide a clearer understanding of the implications of
implementing each of the three alternatives.
The CMS (now owned by Seprotech) alternative is
a mechanical treatment plant with discharge to the Jock River (reference Annex
A, Figure 3). The treatment system
proposed by CMS involves flow equalization, primary and secondary treatment
using the ROTORDISK™ process (rotating biological contractor), tertiary
treatment using dual point chemical addition and sand filtration (Dynasand
filter), and ultra violet (UV) disinfection prior to discharge to the Jock
River. The discharge options include
discharge to a dry ditch to the Jock River or a pipeline directly to the Jock
River. The spray irrigation system and
all but one lagoon would be decommissioned.
The lagoon would be used for temporary storage of peak flows and on an emergency
basis. CMS, in their design/build
submission, proposed the existing lagoons be converted to a constructed wetland
that could be used as an emergency bypass in the event of an unexpected upset
condition at the treatment plant.
The pipeline alternative involves the
upgrade/expansion of the pumping station at Munster Hamlet and construction of
a forcemain to Richmond via Munster Side Road and Franktown Road (reference
Annex A, Figure 2 and Annex B). The spray
irrigation system and all but one lagoon would be decommissioned. The lagoon would be used for temporary
storage of peak flows and on an emergency basis. The pipeline route was selected based on the “Wastewater Pipeline
Route Alternative Evaluation” dated April 1999 completed by CRA as part of the
addendum to the ESR in 1999. The
addendum identified that further investigation is required to specifically
route the pipeline in Richmond for connection to the Richmond Pumping Station. The design phase would include public
involvement to finalize the route within Richmond.
The Snowfluent® alternative (owned by Northern
Watertek) is a land application process using the Snowfluent® system in the
winter and intermittent sand filtration followed by spray irrigation in the
summer (reference Annex A, Figure 1).
The proponent has proposed using the same equipment and land area for
both summer and winter operating modes.
Each mode uses two cells of the existing lagoons, which would be
refurbished to provide storage of 100 days for an average flow of 575 m3/day. Wastewater would be stored in the lagoons
between the winter and summer operations and when the Snowfluent® snow making
system or intermittent sand filtration/spray application processes were not
operating. During winter, wastewater
from the lagoons would be pumped to towers where it would be converted to snow
using a process known as “atomizing freeze-crystallization”. The snow is dispersed in piles over a
dedicated land area. The snow making
system would operate from November to March.
Based on an existing facility located at Westport, it is expected the
snowmelt would occur during the warmer weather, typically from April to the end
of June. During summer, the proponent
has proposed that effluent from the intermittent sand filter would be spray
irrigated from June to October to the same land used for Snowfluent® snow
applications. Operations would be
carried out at off-peak energy cost periods for both operating modes.
The three alternatives were further assessed in
the following areas:
From an Environmental Assessment Act
perspective, the pipeline is an approved solution and can proceed to
implementation. The MOE has confirmed,
in a letter to the City dated 18 March 2003 (reference Annex C), that
a pipeline solution can proceed under the existing addendum to the ESR in 1999.
If either of the communal treatment
alternatives (CMS or Snowfluent®) is to be implemented, an addendum to the ESR
is required. The MOE has advised that any selection of an alternative solution
must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental
Assessment Act. As a minimum, this
would entail re-evaluation of all six alternatives, as identified in the
addendum to the ESR prepared by CRA in 1999.
The EA approval process (addendum) could be
completed in approximately 6 months; however, if Phase 2 Order requests are
submitted to the Minister for review, the process could be extended to 12 or
more months.
Discharge Requirements for Certificate of
Approval (C of A)
The CMS alternative requires a discharge to the
Jock River. MOE has confirmed that any
discharge to the Jock River would need to meet the requirements of their
Abatement Policy for Point Discharges to the Rideau system. This means it would need to meet the
Provincial Water Quality Objectives for Total Phosphorus (TP) of 0.03
mg/l. A similar system has been
approved by the MOE for the Village Walk development in Manotick. The C of A was issued in 1997 and has a
design objective of 0.03 mg/l TP and a compliance TP of 0.04 mg/l, based on a
monthly average. This criterion is
expected to be similar for Munster Hamlet.
The discharge criterion would be the same whether the plant has a
dry-ditch discharge or is piped directly to the Jock River. The ability of the CMS alternative to meet
the discharge criterion for TP has not been demonstrated. Although the proponent has guaranteed the
criterion can be met, a full-scale plant using dual sand filtration after the
ROTORDISK™ process has not been identified which demonstrates the design
objective (0.03 mg/l) and compliance monthly average (0.04 mg/l) for TP can be
consistently achieved. The C of A would
likely contain a condition that a back-up system be constructed should the
discharge criterion for TP not be met.
The C of A for the pipeline alternative would
not be an issue since the forcemain directly discharges to an existing pumping
station and ultimately to the R.O. Pickard Environmental Centre (ROPEC) and the
Ottawa River. The existing requirements
of ROPEC’s C of A would be the applicable discharge criteria to be met.
The MOE guidelines for Snowfluent®, relative to
C of A reviews, identifies the technology as an experimental process. While the process is not necessarily viewed
in that way today, the issues in the guidelines are those with which an
application for approval is evaluated.
The requirements for information and additional studies from the
proponent, in support of a C of A application to the MOE, include:
In accordance with the MOE guidelines on land
application rates and buffer zones, additional land is required if the MOE does
not accept the same land can be used for summer and winter operations. The specific requirement will not be known
until the MOE reviews the C of A application and supporting studies are
provided addressing soil permeability, etc.
Preliminary studies by the proponent suggests no new land is
required. This would need MOE approval
before it is accepted.
The City is required to operate the Munster
Hamlet Treatment Facility in accordance with the C of A issued under the Ontario
Water Resources Act. The compliance
requirements of the existing C of A are currently not being met.
The City is currently working under a voluntary
abatement program to address the environmental problems. The program, agreed to between the City and
MOE, includes the provision for annual trucking of excess sewage from the
Munster Lagoons to ROPEC, monitoring of groundwater in the areas adjacent to
the lagoons, an extension to the period of time that spray irrigation is
permitted, and increase in spray irrigation application rates. Staff have increased the level of
maintenance on all equipment associated with the facility to minimize the
likelihood of equipment failures having an adverse effect on the surrounding environment.
Voluntary abatement programs do not affect the
ability of the MOE to proceed with prosecution for ongoing or past
non-compliance. The program for Munster
was last modified in 1998 to address delays resulting from the decision to
re-evaluate alternatives for the Munster Hamlet Wastewater Treatment Facility.
The MOE
advised the adequacy of the voluntary abatement program to achieve compliance
with Ministry legislation and policy is currently under review by the Ministry
(reference Annex C). The MOE has
requested the City provide an updated action plan for the resolution of the
environmental problems at Munster Hamlet.
The MOE has received an application for an
investigation under the Environmental Bill of Rights for alleged contraventions
of the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water
Resources Act in relation to the Munster Hamlet Wastewater Treatment
Facility. It is alleged the City is in
non-compliance with the C of A for Munster Hamlet and the current sewage system
is impairing the quality of the Jock River.
The Ministry will inform the City, the applicants and the Environmental
Commissioner of Ontario of the decision on the application by
21 June 2003.
Penalties under the Environmental Protection
Act and Ontario Water Resources Act for non-compliance and risk of
adverse effect could range from $100,000 - $500,000 for first and second
offences and $10,000 per day for administrative penalties. If the Corporation is found guilty of
impairing Jock River water quality, additional fines up to $6,000,000 could be
imposed.
Timing is extremely important as it relates to
the approval process and implementation of each alternative. The most significant impact is associated
with the additional costs to haul sewage from the Munster Lagoons to ROPEC, in
accordance with the voluntary abatement program (approximately $500,000 per
year). The MOE has advised the time
required to develop, approve and implement any alternative should be given full
consideration in the decision-making process (reference Annex C).
It is extremely likely that a Phase 2 Order
request will be submitted to the Minister should another addendum be prepared
to implement an alternative solution to the approved pipeline. There were several Phase 2 Order requests submitted
regarding the ESR by TSH in 1996 and the addendum to the ESR by CRA in
1999. Although, all requests were
denied by the Minister, delays of approximately 5-9 months were experienced in
both cases. It is anticipated, due to
the controversial nature and extensive history of this project, the EA approval
process, including addressing Phase 2 Order requests, could take approximately
12-18 months to complete.
It is anticipated the time period for all
alternatives to complete the design and preparation of tender documents and/or
preparation of design/build documents is approximately 10 months. Construction and commissioning is
anticipated to be completed in an additional 12 months.
An estimated implementation timeline comparing
the three alternatives is shown in Annex D.
This includes the impact of 12 month and 18 month periods to obtain EA
approvals for the communal alternatives.
It is important to compare costs for each
alternative as consistently and fairly as possible. The challenge associated with the cost information prepared in
previous reports is the technology proponents prepared actual “design/build”
proposal costs with expectations that one of the alternatives would be
implemented. These costs were
subsequently used as part of the EA process.
As time has progressed, proponents, in varying degrees, updated these
costs and challenged consultant efforts to normalize the costs for comparison
of each alternative.
Subsequent to the December 2002 RVA Report,
additional comments and input have been received from the proponents and given
appropriate consideration.
RVA has revised the capital cost and 20-year
life cycle costing, for the pipeline, to reflect an inconsistency of accounting
for costs associated with the hauling of sewage, not included in the other
alternatives.
Other costs have been considered to reflect the
anticipated actual costs of the implementation of each alternative. These costs include technical requirements
to secure a C of A (i.e., additional studies, investigations, etc.) and costs
for hauling sewage based on timing of implementation.
The economic analysis completed by CRA, as part
of the addendum process to the ESR, was based on a 20-year life cycle
period. RVA conducted their
re-evaluation on the same basis, in accordance with the decision of the
OMB. Additional life cycle costing
analyses for 60 and 90-year periods was subsequently conducted as a comparison
assessment based on the following life expectancy and/or assumptions:
Based on the actual life expectancy of the
infrastructure and implementation costs for each alternative, it is more
appropriate to use a 60-year life cycle costing (including other costs) for
comparison purposes.
A summary of capital costs and life cycle
costing comparisons is shown on Annex E.
As indicated in the December 2002 RVA Report,
from an environmental perspective, any of the three alternatives could be
considered as a viable and acceptable solution. RVA recommended the implementation of a communal wastewater
treatment system. The pipeline
alternative was not selected as the preferred option primarily based on higher
capital costs.
Based on a 60-year total life cycle costing
(reference Annex E), the costs become very close for all alternatives and could
be considered a neutral issue.
It comes down to two issues: timing of implementation
and risks.
The City is currently at high-risk given the
existing Munster Hamlet Wastewater Treatment Facility is in non-compliance with
the C of A. The receipt of an
application for an investigation under the Environmental Bill of Rights for
alleged contravention of the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario
Water Resources Act and the pending decision by the MOE heightens this
risk. The MOE has requested an updated
action plan for resolution of the environmental problems at Munster. The action plan must contain specific
milestones and projected dates against which progress can be measured. The adequacy of the existing voluntary
abatement program is in question and under review by the Ministry.
There are high risks associated with the
implementation of the communal alternatives.
It is anticipated the EA approval process could take approximately 12-18
months to complete.
There are risks associated with the ability to
acquire additional land, as required for the Snowfluent® alternative in
accordance with the MOE guidelines, and the potential for delays if
expropriation procedures are necessary.
If the CMS alternative cannot meet the
stringent MOE discharge criterion, the City would be out of compliance and be
required to implement a plan to make the necessary changes. The City would be at risk and could be
charged under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act and the
Ontario Water Resources Act. The
extent of risk would be dependent upon how well the proponent protects the City
by ensuring compliance.
If additional or unknown delays associated with
obtaining approvals under the Environmental Assessment Act or obtaining
a C of A, risks will escalate and costs incurred for additional hauling of
sewage (approximately $500,000 per year).
There are low risks associated with the
implementation of the pipeline alternative.
This alternative is 12 months and possibly 18 months ahead of the
communal systems from the perspective that it is currently approved under the Environmental
Assessment Act and does not require further process under this
legislation. The project can proceed to
implementation. The pipeline
alternative is a secure and reliable option and can be designed and constructed
to minimize risks of failure.
The pipeline alternative is recommended as the
preferred solution for Munster Hamlet Wastewater Treatment. The pipeline is a viable and effective
solution that can be implemented in the shortest time period, at a reasonable
cost and minimizes the overall risk to the City. This will enable the City to resolve the environmental problems
at the Munster Hamlet Wastewater Treatment Facility to the satisfaction of the
MOE and OMB.
Staff proposes to move forward with
implementation of the pipeline solution immediately following Council approval.
Work under the existing agreement for
Professional Engineering Services between the former ROC and Doran Contractors
Limited, dated 18 January 2000, for completion of preliminary and
detailed designs and project management for construction of the pumping station
and forcemain, was stopped on 02 June 2000, pending the results of
the OMB Hearing. The agreement would
need to be re-negotiated to ensure the scope of work addresses all issues that
have been identified as time has gone on.
Some preliminary design has been done by Doran Contractors Limited.
It is recommended the project be completed
using the traditional design, tender and construction method. This type of project is typically delivered
on this basis. The uncertainty of rock
quantities makes this a difficult type of contract to prepare on a
“design/build” basis and there is minimal opportunity for innovation and
potential cost savings that may be achieved through a “design/build” process. The City is very experienced in delivering
pipeline projects using traditional methods.
Pipeline installations are well prescribed by City standards and
Provincial specifications. Proceeding
otherwise could introduce other unknown risks.
Assuming overall control and responsibility for the project by the City,
at this time, will increase the likelihood of ensuring all related issues are
appropriately assessed during the design and construction phases.
Accordingly, staff intends to terminate the
agreement with Doran Contractors Limited.
Legal Services has advised the agreement can be terminated and without
additional costs, in accordance with the terms and conditions.
Staff will proceed with the selection of an
engineering consultant to complete the design and preparation of tender
documents. The design would include the
following:
The project would be tendered in late winter
2004. Construction would commence
spring 2004 and be completed, including commissioning, by late spring
2005. There are opportunities for
reducing the overall construction period by tendering in multiple phases or
imposing tight timelines to require contractors to fully utilize their maximum
resources.
CONSULTATION
The
project has involved extensive evaluations of treatment alternatives and public
consultation carried out in accordance with the MEA Class Environmental
Assessment process.
An information session was held on
16 December 2002 at the Munster Elementary School to discuss the
results of the December 2002 RVA Report.
Further
public consultation will be conducted as part of the design of the pipeline
routing in Richmond. The public will
also be provided updated information regarding construction of the project by
means of Public Notices and Public Information Sessions.
The total estimated capital costs (reference
Annex E) to implement the pipeline solution is $7,100,000 - $8,100,000. Funding, in the 2002 Capital Budget, Order
No. 900221, Munster Hamlet Wastewater Treatment Facility is as follows:
|
Approved Budget to Date |
$12,642,000 |
|
Total Paid and Committed |
$6,207,088 |
|
Balance Available |
$6,434,912 |
By termination of the agreement with Doran
Contractors Limited, an additional $1,025,587 will be available, for a revised
Balance Available of $7,460,499.
Sufficient funds are available to proceed with
the design and preparation of tender documents. The 2004 Capital Estimates will identify additional funds for the
project, if required, within the approved 2003 Capital Budget and four-year
forecast, under the Waste Water Collection Program.
Annex B - Pipeline Route from
Munster Hamlet to Richmond
Annex C - Ministry of Environment (MOE) letter dated
18 March 2003
Annex D - Estimated
Implementation Timelines
Annex E - Cost Comparisons for all Alternatives
Staff
will proceed with the implementation of the pipeline solution, subject to
Council approval.
ANNEX ‘E’
COST COMPARISON
|
No. |
Cost Considerations |
Alternative |
||
|
|
|
Snowfluent® (Northern Watertek) |
Pipeline |
CMS (Seprotech) |
|
1. |
Capital (per Dec 2002 RVA report) |
$3.3 - $3.7 M |
$6.6 - $7.6 M |
$3.5 - $4.3 M |
|
2. |
20-year life cycle (per Dec 2002 RVA report) |
$5.0 - $5.4 M |
$7.6 - $8.6 M |
$5.7 - $6.4 M |
|
3. |
Capital (updated following review of Dec 2002 RVA report) |
$3.3 - $3.7 M |
$6.1 - $7.1 M |
$3.5 - $4.3 M |
|
4. |
20-year life cycle (updated following review
of Dec 2002 RVA report) |
$5.0 - $5.4 M |
$7.1 - $8.1 M |
$5.7 - $6.4 M |
|
5. |
Other costs: (a) Technical requirements to complete EA, obtain C of A, etc. (b) Additional hauling costs based on timing of
implementation. |
$0.8 M $1.5 M |
(included in above capital costs) $1.0 M |
$0.08 - $0.1 M $1.5 M |
|
6. |
Total anticipated Capital cost (incl. other costs) |
$5.6-$6.0 M |
$5.1 - $5.9 M |
|
|
7. |
Total life cycle costing (including other
costs): (a) 20-year life cycle (b) 60-year life cycle (c) 90-year life cycle |
$7.3- $7.7 M $9.4 - $9.8 M $9.5 - $9.9 M |
$8.1- $9.1 M $9.2 - $10.0 M $8.9 - $9.7 M |
$7.3 - $8.0 M $9.4 - $10.2 M $9.5 - $10.3 M |