Princeton Wastewater Servicing Study

Public Information Centre No. 2April 11, 2012

Slide 1

Water System Update

System will be commissioned in May and ready for connections

All properties will receive notification at that time CSAP program has been reviewed by Council and

the maximum cost to residents for water has been capped at $9,500.

Princeton residents will pay will this amount and not the actual cost of $12,600 (after CSAP grant).

Presentation Agenda

Finalized Problem/Opportunity Statement Alternatives Evaluation of Alternatives and Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Results Public and Agency Consultation Study Schedule and Next Steps

Slide 2

Purpose of PIC

To present, review and discuss results of preliminary evaluation of alternatives

To gain input from the Community on the information presented

Slide 3

Study Background During the Princeton Water Servicing Study, the County

received a petition signed by 130 Princeton residents, requesting that a wastewater servicing study be completed for Princeton

Upon receiving the petition: Oxford County Public Works and Public Health and Emergency

Services Departments reviewed all un-serviced and partially serviced villages

A priority list was developed for wastewater servicing studies based on public health and environmental concerns

Princeton was identified as having the highest priority for investigating wastewater servicing alternatives

Slide 4

Study Objective

Princeton Wastewater Servicing Study Objective

Overall objective of the Princeton Wastewater Servicing Study is to develop a wastewater servicing plan for the Community of Princeton that is environmentally responsible, socially acceptable and economically sustainable

Slide 5

Class Environmental Assessment Process

Completion of an Environmental Study Report (ESR) and placement on public record for 30-day review period

Design and Construction of the Preferred Solution

Development and Evaluation of Alternative Design Concepts for Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Development and Evaluation of Alternative Solutions

Existing Data Collection Review and Analysis

Phase 1Problem or Opportunity

Phase 2Alternative Solutions

Phase 3Alternative Design Concepts for

Preferred Solution

Phase 4Environmental Study Report

(ESR)

Phase 5Implementation

We Are Here

Princeton Wastewater Servicing Study involves completion of Phases 1 to 4 of the Municipal Class EA process

Slide 6

Existing Conditions

Wastewater treatment is currently provided by on-site wastewater septic tank systems

Analysis of existing septic systems was completed to: Estimate the age and status of existing systems based

on available records Identify what type of replacement wastewater system

could be installed on each property based on the requirements of the current Ontario Building Code

Slide 7

Existing System Age

Life span of a typical septic system is 20 to 25 years Some systems can function effectively for 35 years

Slide 8

Existing Septic Systems

Number of systems that are now between 0 and 25 years old (Constructed between 1987 and the present)

37 (18%)

Number of systems that are now between 25 and 35 years old (Constructed between 1977 and 1987)

16 (8%)

Number of systems that are now more than 35 years old (Constructed before 1977)

154 (74%)

Total number of systems 207 (100%)

Ontario Building Code

The Ontario Building Code (OBC) specifies requirements for on-site wastewater treatment systems. Key requirements are:• Allows for the installation of conventional and advanced

treatment Class 4 sewage system where technology selection and tile bed size is based on local soil and groundwater conditions

• Specifies a number of required clearance distances between the tile bed and a building, and the tile bed and the property line

• A replacement Class 4 system can be installed where the required clearance distances are not met under the Compliance Alternatives section of the Ontario Building Code as long as the capacity of the replacement system is not greater than the existing system

Slide 9

Current Ontario Building Code Requirements

Slide 10

Existing Septic Systems

Estimated number of properties where the existing system is less than 35 years old (constructed in 1977 or later)

52 (25%)

Estimated number of properties with existing systems more than 35 years old that can accommodate a conventional septic system

90 (43%)

Estimated number of properties with existing systems more than 35 years old that can accommodate an advanced treatment system

52 (25%)

Estimated number of properties with existing systems more than 35 years old that cannot accommodate a conventional or advanced treatment system and will require a holding tank

12 (6%)

Total number of systems 207 (100%)

Summary of Existing Conditions

Many existing septic systems will need to be replaced in the near term due to age

Replacement systems will need to comply with the current Ontario Building Code

It is estimated that 43% of existing septic systems are able to accommodate a new conventional septic system

Remaining properties will require an advanced treatment system or a holding tank

Slide 11

Future Growth in Princeton

Moderate growth within the existing community boundary is anticipated

Existing population (residential and equivalent non-residential) is estimated to be 833 persons including 629 residents plus an equivalent non-residential population of 204 persons

Future population (residential and equivalent non-residential) is estimated to be 1,518 persons

Slide 12

Future Growth in Princeton

Projected future wastewater flow for the Community of Princeton is 455 m3/d

Slide 13

050100150200250300350400450500

0200400600800

1000120014001600

Pro

ject

ed F

low

(m

3/d

)

Pro

ject

ed P

op

ula

tio

n

Year

Total Population and Flow Projections for Community of Princeton

Residential and Non-Residential Population Flow Projection

2011 Future

Problem/ Opportunity Statement

Develop a wastewater servicing plan for the existing Community of Princeton that is environmentally responsible, socially acceptable and economically sustainable

It is estimated that 154 of 207 existing septic systems (74% of all existing systems) are now more than 10 years older than their design life and will require replacement in the short term due to their age

Slide 14

Alternative SolutionsAlternative Solution Description

Alternative 1 – “Do Nothing” No action to address existing systems by either property owners or the County

Alternative 2 – Upgrade Existing Private On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems

Upgrade existing systems to Class 4 or 5 systems to meet current Ontario Building Code requirements. Individual property owners would upgrade their systems when needed over time

Alternative 3 – New communal wastewater collection system and wastewater treatment system to service Princeton

Construction of lower cost septic tank effluent type wastewater collection system and new treatment facility in Princeton to collect and treat wastewater

Alternative 4 – New wastewater collection system and diversion of wastewater for treatment to the Woodstock Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)

Construction of conventional sewers, a new pumping station, a new forcemain and upgrades at the Woodstock WWTP to convey and treat wastewater from Princeton at the Woodstock WWTP

Slide 15

Alternative Solutions

Alternative Solution Description

Alternative 5 – New wastewater collection system and diversion of wastewater for treatment to the Drumbo Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)

Construction of conventional sewers, a new pumping station, a new forcemain and upgrades at the Drumbo WWTP to convey and treat wastewater from Princeton at the Drumbo WWTP

Alternative 6 – New wastewater collection system and diversion of wastewater for treatment to the Paris WWTP

Construction of conventional sewers, a new pumping station, a new forcemain and upgrades at the Paris WWTP to convey and treat wastewater from Princeton at the Paris WWTP in Brant County

Slide 16

Evaluation of Alternatives

A broad range of evaluation criteria was used to evaluate the alternative solutions

Alternatives identified as having high impacts that could not be mitigated were eliminated from further consideration

Evaluation was conducted to identify the most feasible alternatives for further evaluation

Slide 17

Evaluation Criteria

Natural Environment

Impacts on water resources

Impacts on terrestrial resources

Impacts on groundwater resources

Technical Environment

System complexity

Increased operating requirements

Need for additional studies

Approval requirements

Risk

Social Environment

Impacts on residents during operation

Impacts on residents during construction

Impacts on future development

Economic Environment

Estimated capital cost

Estimated Annual O&M cost

20 Year Life Cycle Cost

Potential to stage implementation

Need for property acquisition

Slide 18

Evaluation of AlternativesAlternative Summary of Evaluation

Alternative 1 – “Do Nothing”

• Discharges from non-functioning septic systems will impact area watercourses, terrestrial resources, and groundwater systems.

• High potential for odour and nuisance impacts from non-functioning septic systems.• No additional costs over existing.

Alternative 2 – Upgrade Private On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems

• Alternative will reduce pollutant loadings to the environment.• Development will be allowed to proceed on new lots in Village that can accommodate a septic

system. • Where existing systems are being replaced, compliance alternatives provisions of the Ontario

Building Code can be used to allow installation of a conventional system that does not meet the clearance requirements as long as the capacity of the new system does not exceed the old system capacity.

• Individual property owners will be responsible for replacing their existing systems. • Capital cost of $3.0M and Life cycle cost of $4.7M.• Residents will not be eligible for Community Servicing Assistance Plan Funding (CSAP).

Alternative 3 – New Communal Wastewater Collection System and Treatment System to Service Princeton

• Alternative will reduce pollutant loadings to the environment.• Potential operations and construction impacts can be mitigated through good site selection.• Increase in system complexity and operating requirements for Oxford County.• Capital cost of $7.2M and Life cycle cost of $8.7M.• Implementation of alternative can be staged.

Slide 19

Evaluation of AlternativesAlternative Summary of Evaluation

Alternative 4 – New Wastewater Collection System and Diversion of Wastewater for Treatment to the Woodstock Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)

• Alternative will reduce pollutant loadings to the environment.• An exception to the intra-basin transfer restriction will be needed to allow

wastewater generated in the Grand River Watershed to be discharged to the Upper Thames River Watershed.

• Capital cost of $10.0M and Life cycle cost of $10.6M.• High risk that intra-basin transfer exception will not be granted.

Alternative 5 – New Wastewater Collection System and Diversion of Wastewater for Treatment to the Drumbo WWTP

• Alternative will reduce pollutant loadings to the environment.• Potential operations and construction impacts can be mitigated through good site

selection.• Increase in system complexity and operating requirements for Oxford County.• Capital cost of $12M and Life cycle cost of $14.8M.

Alternative 6 – New Wastewater Collection System and Diversion of Wastewater for Treatment to the Paris WWTP in Brant County

• Alternative will reduce pollutant loadings to the environment.• Potential operations and construction impacts can be mitigated through good site

selection.• Risk that an Inter-County agreement could not be successfully negotiated. • Capital cost of $10.6M and Life cycle cost of $12.8M.

Slide 20

Summary of Evaluation Results

Alternative Solution 1 - “Do Nothing” was eliminated from further consideration as: High impacts on water resources, groundwater resources,

adjacent land owners, and the risk of continued groundwater contamination

Alternative Solution 4 - New Wastewater Collection System and Diversion of Wastewater for Treatment to the Woodstock Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) was eliminated from further consideration due to: High risk that the required intra-basin transfer exception will not

be granted

Slide 21

Alternative Solution 5 – New Wastewater Collection System and Diversion of Wastewater for Treatment to the Drumbo WWTP was eliminated from further consideration due to: High Life Cycle Costs and requirements for additional study

Alternative Solution 6 - New Wastewater Collection System and Diversion of Wastewater for Treatment to the Paris WWTP was eliminated from further consideration due to: Potentially high risk that negotiations could be unsuccessful and

high Life Cycle Costs

Slide 22

Summary of Evaluation Results

Summary of Evaluation Results

Two Alternatives were identified to be carried forward for more detailed evaluation, namely:

Alternative 2 – Upgrade Private On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems

Alternative 3 – New Wastewater Collection System and Treatment System to Service Princeton

Slide 23

Alternative 2Alternative 2 – Upgrade Existing On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems

Alternative requirements Replacement of existing systems with Class 4 and Class 5 systems that meet the current Ontario Building Code (OBC) requirements where existing systems have exceeded their design life. Specific requirements are:

• 90 conventional Class 4 sewage systems• 52 Advanced treatment Class 4 sewage systems• 12 Class 5 sewage systems (holding tanks)

Estimated Capital Cost $3.0M (conceptual level cost estimate)

Estimated Annual O&M Cost $127K (total cost to all residents)

Potential Implementation Period Implementation would be the responsibility of individual property owners and would proceed on an as-needed basis as existing systems require replacement

Concerns/ Issues with this Alternative

•The installation of new on-site wastewater systems for new development properties in the existing Village boundary can only proceed if the property can accommodate the installation of a Class 4 sewage system•Community Servicing Assistance Plan (CSAP) funding will not be available to property owners•Where OBC Compliance Alternatives are used to support the replacement of an existing system, no increase in capacity will be allowed

Slide 24

Alternative 2 – O&M Costs

Operating and maintenance costs/property for a Class 4 system are estimated to be in the range of $100/yr

Operating and maintenance costs/ property for a Class 5 system are estimated to range from:

160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

1 Person Occupancy 2 Person Occupancy3 Person Occupancy 4 Person Occupancy

Wastewater Generation Rate (L/person/d)

Ann

ual O

&M

Cos

t

$1,600/yr for single occupancy with a low wastewater generation rate to $13,000/yr for 4 person occupancy and a high wastewater generation rate

Slide 25

Alternative 3Alternative 3 – New Communal Wastewater Collection and Treatment System to Service

PrincetonAlternative requirements Construction of new STEP/STEG communal wastewater collection system, a

new pumping station, and a Recirculating Sand Filter treatment facility with a subsurface discharge

Estimated Capital Cost $7.2M (Conceptual level cost estimate)

Estimated Annual O&M Cost $114K

Potential Implementation Period Implementation of new treatment facility can be staged to meet servicing requirements

Concerns/ Issues with this Alternative

Property acquisition will be required for a new treatment facility in Princeton

Notes:1. STEP/ STEG – septic tank effluent pumping system/ septic tank effluent gravity system2. Estimated capital cost does not include costs of any works on private property (connection and interceptor

tank)3. Existing residents will receive CSAP funding and will pay $12,500/ connection. CSAP funding does not cover

costs for required works located on private property

Slide 26

Short Listed Alternatives – Estimated CostsCosts Alternative 2 -

Upgrade Existing Private On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems

Alternative 3 – New Communal Wastewater Collection System and

Treatment System to Service Princeton

Estimated Capital Cost $3.0M $7.2M

Estimated Capital Cost/ Lot $6,500 - $17,500 depending on technology required

$12,500 after CSAP (existing lots)$27,500 (development lots)

Estimated Annual O&M Cost $127K $114K

Estimate of Annual O&M Cost/Lot $100/yr - $13,000/yr depending on technology, water use and occupancy

$544/existing lot/yr

Estimated 20 Year Cost to Residents $4.7M ($22,800/existing lot)

$8.7M($24,700/existing lot)

Notes:1. Community Servicing Assistance Plan (CSAP) funding will apply a 25% grant for the public sector costs for existing developed properties. 2. Alternative 2 costs will be borne directly by individual property owners.3. Alternative 3 costs do not include any costs which will be incurred by property owners for private property portion of wastewater system

connections.4. Alternative 2 estimated 20 Year Cost to Residents includes present value of capital cost and the present value of individual systems operating

costs over a 20 year period based on an interest rate of 4%.5. Alternative 3 estimated 20 Year Cost to Residents includes present value of capital cost after the CSAP funding and the present value of

wastewater rate fees over 20 year period based on an interest rate of 4%.6. Conceptual level cost estimates. Expected accuracy of -30% to +50%.7. All costs are in 2012 dollars. CSAP funding will be indexed to construction costs in future.

Slide 27

Public Consultation

We are looking for your feedback on Alternatives 2 and 3

Your feedback will be considered in the detailed evaluation

The detailed evaluation will conclude with a recommended preferred solution that will be presented at Public Information Centre No. 3

Slide 28

Next Steps

Receive and consider public input Complete detailed evaluation of Alternatives 2 and 3 and

select a recommended preferred alternative Develop and evaluate alternative design concepts for

implementing the recommended preferred alternative Hold Public Information Centre No. 3 to present the

recommended preferred alternative and recommended preferred alternative design concept

Finalize preferred design 30 day public review and comment period for the

Environmental Study Report

Slide 29

Questions and Discussion

Slide 30