Engineers’ Statement of Agreements and Disagreements
OMB Order No. 1012 Issued July 12/2000

Ontario Municipal Board
Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 5
Proposed Munster Hamlet Wastewater Pipeline
The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton
OMB File No. O 990089

In accordance with the Board’s Order No. 0851 issued June 7/2000, the engineers with CRA who are consultants with the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, and the engineer who is a consultant for the CMS System have held a series of Meetings (4 Days) to explore the feasibility of coming to an agreement upon the optimal means of mitigating the problem with the existing five-cell lagoon system in the Community of Munster Hamlet.  In accordance with the Board’s subsequent Order No. 1012 issued July 12/2000, this document constitutes the Engineers’ Statement of Agreements and Disagreements.

 

            POINTS OF AGREEMENT

1.1       Design Flows - based on the evidence that has been adduced at the hearing, and additional data obtained by CRA from the RMOC Engineering Staff, it was determined that peak sewage flows, particularly during the Spring freshet, are higher (4 to 5 times ADF), and sustained for a longer period than originally anticipated.  Based on the available information, the Engineers agreed on the following revised design sewage flows for Munster Hamlet:

               Annual Average Day Flow (AADF):           575 m³/Day or 6.65 L/s (unchanged from 1998 RFP)

               Sustained Peak Flow:                                 25 to 30 L/s (Based on 2-week condition - April 1999)

               Unsustained Peak Flow:                              45 L/s (Up to 3.0 Hours)

1.2      CMS Modified Design - Of the 2 alternatives proposed by CMS, the addition of 3^rd rotating biological contactor (RBC) as the preferred approach for modification of CMS Plant to accommodate revised peak sewage flow criteria (2 alternatives evaluated by Mr. Pellerin).

1.3      Wetland - improvement in the impact on aquatic and terrestrial habitat provided the wetlands are properly operated.

1.4        Selection of ferric chloride for H₂S control.

 

POINTS OF DISAGREEMENT

2.         DESIGN MODIFICATIONS - CMS TREATMENT PLANT WITH JOCK RIVER DISCHARGE

Mr. Pellerin proposes implementation of a 3^rd rotating biological contactor (RBC), operating in parallel with the two (2) RBC’s proposed in the original design by CMS.  This approach increases the plant capacity by 50% to 10.0 L/s, from the current design of 6.65 L/s (ADF).  The primary/secondary clarifier and dual stage filtration (DynaSand) would also be designed for 10.0 L/s.  As originally proposed, flow equalization for unsustained peak flows (45 L/s for 3.0 hours) is proposed to achieve a constant flow rate to the filters.

The modified CMS Plant allows for continuous discharge to the Jock River for sustained peak flows up to 10.0 L/s.  At sustained peak flows exceeding 10.0 L/s (Spring melt period) the treated effluent is diverted to the constructed wetland.  In this instance, the diverted flow receives full treatment in the plant.  However, the filters, which normally operate in series, would transfer to parallel operation, providing a filtration capacity of 30 L/s.  The UV system would also have capacity to disinfect the sustained peak flow of 30 L/s.  With the proposed modification, a highly treated effluent is discharged from the CMS Plant to the wetland (Pellerin).

The operating mode proposed provides the wetland with some limited nutrient and water necessary to sustain the wetland plants through the growing season.  This water, together with contribution from annual precipitation, dissipates through a combination of evaporation, evapo-transpiration, sublimation and groundwater recharge (Pellerin).

            CRA notes that the level of effluent quality to the wetlands is undetermined under wet weather
            conditions.

Mr. Pellerin can advise CRA that treatment to tertiary levels, through filtration, phosphorus removal, and UV disinfection, will be attained throughout wet weather conditions. 

2.1      Efficiency and reliability of mechanical treatment plant system discharging to the Jock River under wet weather conditions (CRA).

Mr. Pellerin (CMS) advises that the plant as modified,  discharges treated effluent to the wetland (not the Jock River) under wet weather conditions, and is designed to accommodate the modified peak sewage flow criteria agreed upon by the Engineers.

CRA is concerned with wet weather operations.

 

2.2       Impact of wetlands; following below are CRA’s concerns with keeping the existing sludges in the lagoons. 

                2.2.1   potential for odours (CRA);

                2.2.2  potential for sulphide generation and toxicity to biota and fish, as occurred in Listowel, Ontario (CRA);

                        Mr. Pellerin questions the source of sulphide generation referenced by CRA.  The constructed wetlands, as proposed by CMS for bottom sludge remediation and treated effluent by-pass in wet weather conditions, do not produce a toxicity problem.  The Munster wetlands will receive highly treated effluent from the CMS plant, whereas the constructed wetlands in Listowel were implemented as a wastewater treatment system.

                         CRA does not agree, the characteristics of the treated effluent are undetermined at this time.

                                        2.2.3  potential for off-site leaching and off-site migration of nutrients to further deteriorate groundwater and Jock River water quality due to leaching of the majority of nutrients particularly phosphorus from dying plant tissues (CRA);

                        Mr. Pellerin disagrees on the basis that any phosphorus migrating to the shallow groundwater from the CMS constructed wetland would be adsorbed in the overburden clay soils. Migration of phosphorus to the Jock River is remote in this instance.  CRA’s own hydrogeologist has indicated a 20 year time frame for groundwater in the vicinity of the lagoons to reach the Jock River.

                        CRA notes that the existing lagoons have up to a 40% leakage rate.

                2.2.4  wetlands are not managed i.e., not harvested or monitored essentially resulting in recycling of phosphorus between the soil and plants, as the plant detritus of one season is recycled to the tissues next growing season resulting in no net loss in phosphorus (CRA);

                       The concern regarding complete recycling in un-managed wetlands raises a point which is insignificant.  As is the case with a natural wetlands, the CMS proposed wetland does not require harvesting in the manner in connection with its intended function (Pellerin).

                        CRA does not believe this to be insignificant.

                2.2.5  approvability of wetlands by MOE may require further investigation in light of the sensitivity of the receiver and previous experience with hydrogen sulphide toxicity (CRA);

                        When previous experiences (Listowel) are not utilized to improve environmental management, we have little to show for progress.  If we do not learn we regress rather than progress.  The MOE is certainly aware of the learning experience (Pellerin).

                      The wetland design presented by CMS in the original RFP process draws on the world renowned constructed wetland expertise of Boojum Research Limited, and is proposed as a natural means of decommissioning the existing lagoons (to remediate bottom sludges).  In addition, based on the additional flow data received from the RMOC (1999/2000), the wetlands will accept treated effluent from the CMS plant during sustained peak flow conditions, which occur primarily in the Spring melt period (Pellerin).

2.3       Impact of dry-ditch discharge, CRA is concerned with the following:

                2.3.1   enrichment and conveyance of agricultural contaminants to Jock River due to contact with nutrients in the treated effluent (CRA);

                       Agricultural runoff to Copeland Road ditch will discharge to the Jock River irrespective of dry-ditch discharge.  Furthermore, the high quality of treated effluent from the CMS plant will significantly dilute any nutrient rich agricultural runoff to the Copeland Road ditch, thus enhancing the quality of runoff entering the Jock River at that point (Pellerin).

                2.3.2  perceived and potential health and liability risks from open conveyance of treated wastewater (CRA);

                       The CMS plant provides a level of treatment that satisfies MOE requirements for dry-ditch discharge, as confirmed by Mr. Pellerin in direct consultation with MOE Eastern Regional Office.  Mr. Pellerin is not aware of any objections of local residents, perceived or real.

                2.3.3        ecological impact on ditch habitat (CRA);

                       The proposed discharge results in a water quality improvement and therefore a positive impact on ditch habitat.  A ditch with a continuous flow of clean water supports a habitat of far greater diversity than one which is dry (Pellerin).

                        CRA does not necessarily agree.

2.4        Impact of dynamic operational conditions (CRA):

                2.4.1  washout of attached biomass on RBC media during spring melt as a result of the high shearing velocities resulting from tripling the hydraulic loading (CRA);

                      The CMS plant as modified is designed for the hydraulic loading rates agreed upon by the engineers.  The internal baffling and serpentine flow pattern through the RBC prevents washout, and shearing velocities are not attained in this instance.  RBCs are responsive to both hydraulic and organic load fluctuations, and the CMS design provides for a high level of treatment when discharging to either the wetland or the Jock River (Pellerin).

                2.4.2  prolonged recovery times to re-establish biomass due to slow sludge yields inherent in attached growth system such as RBCs (CRA);

                        The modification of the CMS plant together with the inherent resiliency of RBCs to hydraulic fluctuation, serves to maintain biomass throughout the range of flow conditions agreed upon by the engineers.  Recovery time to re-establish biomass is irrelevant (Pellerin).

 

3.         ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

3.1       In CRA’s opinion, an economic analysis between CMS’s mechanical treatment plant and the pipeline to Richmond was not conducted due to the different delivery approach being proposed for each option.

Mr. Pellerin believes economics to be an important planning issue irrespective of the mode of delivery, and has assessed capital cost for (i) the CMS Plant as a design-build, based on detailed design information, facilitating assessment of a fixed price design-build cost; and (ii) pipeline costs (estimate) which cannot achieve the same level of accuracy, due to uncertainty with regard to such fundamental design factors such as final route selection through Richmond, geotechnical (rock) conditions, pipe size and material, and by-pass cell requirements in Munster.

CRA notes that the CMS proposal is based on CMS’s understanding of the delivered product.  It is inevitable that there will be cost changes as well since not all of the design basis was presented in the 1998 RFP.  There may be operational, control, and material changes that could affect the CMS price.  Furthermore, there may be approval agency issues that could affect price as well.  Therefore, there is uncertainty with the CMS price as well.

Mr. Pellerin finds this statement of CRA peculiar, as it implies that CRA did not disclose the full design information in its own 1998 RFP, which document was prepared in association with RMOC staff.  Further, Mr. Pellerin advises that CMS has already received approval from MOE and the RMOC for a plant designed to meet the same effluent criteria, as required for discharge to the Jock River.  Therefore, CMS is well aware of the operational, control and material requirements of the RMOC, and the approval agency (MOE) issues as well.

 

3.2       Capital costs for the modified CMS Plant have been assessed by Mr. Pellerin at a detailed level, on the basis of design-build implementation as contemplated in the 1998 RFP (CRA).  These costs are all inclusive of design, approvals (including Addendum to ESR), construction, contingencies and taxes (PST).  The costs reflect the 50% increase in plant capacity to 10.0 L/s facilitating continuous discharge to the Jock River, and the provision to by-pass treated effluent to the wetland at a sustained peak flow up to 30 L/s (Pellerin).

The capital cost for design-build implementation of the CMS Plant is $3,331,594.  An additional 5% allowance $166,580. has been added to cover RMOC Engineering and Administrative Costs for a Total Capital Cost of $3,498,174.  A breakdown of the Total Capital Cost of the Modified CMS Plant is attached (Pellerin).

 

3.3       Mr. Pellerin has completed detailed rock quantity calculations based on OMM/Trow information, resulting in an estimated quantity of 5892 m³ (refer to attachment).  Based on the information available on the proposed pipeline alternative, Mr. Pellerin has estimated the cost of the pipeline at $6,883,296., excluding Taxes and RMOC Engineering and Administrative Costs (Pellerin).

CRA adds  - Mr. Pellerin’s capital costs for the pipeline is $4.855,040.  To this is added $1,2000,000 for design and construction management (Doran Contract), $100,000 for Richmond Route selection and $728,258 Contingency (15%).

           Based on additional information now available, CRA has adjusted the pipeline costs as follows:

                •      Based on a conventional design/tender/construction approach and taking into account the new 1999 and 2000 flow data and the 1999 geotechnical information completed by OMM/TROW, CRA have estimated the pipeline capital costs to be $5,500,000.00 (includes 15% Contingency and 15% Engineering).              

                •     Although CRA believes a 200 mm pipe is adequate, the above costs, as an upset scenario, is based on a 250mm HDPE, DR11 pipe material, which has a similar ID to a 200 mm CLDI pipe, with a burial depth of 2.0m.  This line is capable of transferring approximately 45 L/sec.

                •      If a design-build approach were used, as proposed by TPL in 1999 and making the necessary adjustments to reflect the more accurate geotechnical information available today, the capital cost was estimated by CRA tp be $4,865,000.00.

                •      CRA has estimated 20-year present worth O&M costs to be $937,000.  The 1998 ESR pipeline O&M costs were increased to include:

                                •              annual pipeline pigging;
                                •              5-year cleaning of the holding cell; and
                                •              sewage collection O&M costs of $4,000/year.

 

4.          PIPELINE ISSUES

In order to further evaluate the proposed pipeline from Munster Hamlet to the Richmond Pump Station with respect to the (i) natural environment, (ii) social environment, (iii) land use, (iv) economic and (v) technical criteria, Mr. Pellerin identified the following issues requiring clarification.  These are presented below together with CRA’s disagreement in italics.

4.1.1    Munster No. 1 Pump Station may be retained as part of the lagoon by-pass system, and this must be considered for the purposes of the evaluation (Pellerin);

Munster 1 Pump Station would not be retained based on CRA’s evaluations completed in 1998 and early 1999 (CRA).

4.1.2    Terracing of Cell No. 1 is proposed to create a “fairly deep” sump to allow by-passed sewage to be drawn back to the Munster No. 1 Pump Station.  As the lagoon bottom is located at rock surface, an allowance for rock excavation is required (Pellerin).

Lagoon/Holding Cell; CRA does not agree with Mr. Pellerin’s position on holding cell construction.  Terracing is an option that may be selected during detailed design.  Should terracing of the holding cell be selected during detailed design, the cell elevations could be constructed in a manner whereby fill would be used to minimize or eliminate rock excavation. Terracing provides the advantage of only having to disturb a small portion of the cell when used for a small volume of storage.

 

4.1.3    The proposed gravity sewer from the lagoon by-pass sump back to the Munster No. 1 Pump Station will require substantial rock excavation.  An allowance for the capital and O&M costs for this sewer and its associated rock excavation is required (Pellerin).

Lagoon/Holding Cell; CRA does not agree with Mr. Pellerin’s position on construction of a separate gravity sewer.  Other options to a new gravity sewer include using the existing forcemain to drain the lagoon/holding cell or a small pump station at the holding cell (i.e., no new sewer required).  The most appropriate option will be selected during detailed design.  CRA’s cost estimate includes actuated valves at the new pump station and using a portion of the existing 200 mm dia forcemain to fill and drain the holding cell.

 

4.1.4    The new Munster Pump Station will also require substantial rock excavation in close proximity to residential properties along Dogwood Crescent, Munster Hamlet.  Pre and post structural audits of these homes together with vibration monitoring during blasting should be included (Pellerin).

Rock excavation for the new Munster 1 Pump Station has been included based on a borehole located near Munster 1 Pump Station.  A pre- and post-rock excavation structural audit of homes along Dogwood Crescent is a low cost item and good practice when excavation of rock is encountered (CRA).

 

4.1.5   Pump Station Building - as a much larger generator is required together with fuel storage, and chemical addition (ferrous chloride) for H₂S control, a new building meeting the current RMOC specifications for a generator room and chemical storage should be included, such that the same standard as that proposed for the mechanical plant is met (Pellerin).

CRA does not agree with Mr. Pellerin’s statement.  Sufficient floor space area exists within the Munster 1 Station metal clad enclosure for the generator set and chemical storage and feed system.  There is an existing unused storage room in Munster Station that is available for use for the chemical system.  Therefore, no new building is required.

 

4.1.6   Forcemain Depth - based on RMOC engineering standards, the forcemain requires a minimum depth of cover of 2.40 metres.  The forcemain diameter (OD) and bedding depth for rigid or flexible pipe (depending on the material selected) must then be added to determine the full depth of excavation.  Further, if the forcemain is to be located in the travelled portion of the roadway or its zone of influence, a greater depth of bury may be necessary, as indicated by Mr. Jeff White, P.Eng. of Delta Engineering who has expertise in this area (Pellerin).

CRA does not agree with a 2.4 m depth of cover.  The depth of frost should govern.  Based on MOE Guidelines for the design of Sanitary Sewage Works the frost penetration depth for the Ottawa area is calculated as 1.6 to 1.9 m depending on the type of soil material.  Frost penetration is greater than 2 metres for poorly graded gravel and rock, however these materials will not be used for backfill above the pipeline.

For evaluation CRA has used a 2.0 meter depth of bury to top of pipe.

The RMOC guideline of a 2.4 meter cover is for Regional watermains and not sewer forcemains.  Forcemain depth is determined on a case by case basis.  It is CRA’s understanding that the current OMM design was based on a 2.0 m bury to top of pipe.  Note that sewer forcemains operate at different temperature than a watermain (CRA).

It should be noted that the RMOC guideline of a 2.4 meter cover is based on road centerline elevation.  Therefore when a pipeline is placed along the shoulder of the road (as proposed for the sewer forcemain) the actual depth of cover would be in the range of 2.2 to 2.3 meters (CRA).

Instead of increased bury depth, other options for frost protection on pipelines include rigid insulation placed in backfill (CRA).

In Mr. Godin’s own testimony he indicated a 2.4 m depth of bury to be the criteria required for the proposed pipeline (Pellerin).

 

4.1.7  Trench Depth - as the actual forcemain material currently proposed is unknown, a minimum depth of excavation of 2.85 metres should utilized for quantity calculation.  This allows for up to a 250mm diameter pipe (HDPE) plus depth of granular bedding material (Pellerin).

CRA does not agree with Mr. Pellerin’s line of thinking here as the exact pipe material will be determined during final design and will have a minimal impact on depth of excavation.

 

4.1.8  Rock Quantity Contingency - the geotechnical investigation undertaken to date (OMM/Trow) consists of boreholes at spacings up to 100 metres, with no rock probing between borehole locations.  Given the limitations of this information with regard to the spacing of boreholes, a sizable contingency should be carried in the rock quantity take-off calculation for the known portion of the pipeline route (Pellerin).

CRA does not agree with Mr. Pellerin that additional contingency should be carried on rock quantities.  It should be noted that a substantial overall contingency was carried in the cost estimate.  The borehole rock profile looked consistent and did not indicate a highly variable profile.  It is just as conceivable that the borehole information that the borehole information overestimated rock excavation quantities as Mr. Pellerin’s claim that it underestimated rock excavation quantities.

Mr. Pellerin adds that it is normal practice to apply an overall estimating contingency (15%) at the preliminary design stage, particularly when fundamental design issues are still undecided.  In addition, it is also normal practice to apply contingencies to specific rock and earth quantities, particularly where quantity calculation is based on preliminary geotechnical information (Pellerin).

 

4.1.9    Jock River crossing - crossing of the Jock River at Richmond, and connection to the Richmond Pump Station is to be undertaken by open trench excavation.  As rock is located close to the surface at this location, rock excavation (blasting) will be required.  Potential impacts to the existing forcemain and any other utilities must be mitigated.  Again, pre and post structural audits of adjacent buildings together with vibration monitoring during construction will be required (Pellerin).

CRA does not agree with Mr. Pellerin’s statement that the crossing of the Jock River will be undertaken by open trench excavation.  CRA’s review of the Richmond Pump Station drawings indicate that the existing line crossing the Jock River has a variable depth of cover in the range of 1.5 to 2.8 m.  This should be sufficient to allow for several options for the method of pipe crossing for the Jock River.  Again, the exact method will be determined during final design.  Furthermore, it is speculative to assume large quantities of rock excavation at the Richmond Pump Station and Jock River Crossing.

Mr. Pellerin adds that it is irresponsible to dismiss this factor in the absence of definitive information.

 

4.1.10  Rock Excavation in Richmond Village - rock may be encountered on the pipeline route through portions of the Village of Richmond (other than Jock River crossing).  As this is currently an unknown, a suitable contingency for additional rock excavation and mitigation measures must be added (Pellerin).

CRA does not agree with Mr. Pellerin’s statement.  CRA noted that during their pipeline route study they reviewed well logs in Richmond which indicated an overburden of 3 to 5 m cover over rock.  The rock profile drops off at Richmond.  CRA did not feel that an added rock contingency should be added for the pipeline through Richmond.

 

4.1.11  Rock Quantity Calculation - Mr. Pellerin has now completed detailed rock quantity calculations based on OMM/Trow information, resulting in an estimated quantity of 5892 m³ - refer to attachment (Pellerin).

CRA’s estimated rock quantity is 3,500 m³ based on OMM/Trow information, and a 900 mm wide by 2.5 m deep trench.

For rock quantity calculation, Mr. Pellerin recommends a  standard trench width of 1050mm (OD + 800mm) for a forcemain < 400mm in diameter, together with the 2.85 m depth noted under item 4.2 above.

 

4.1.12 Impact to Private Wells - contingency measures and funding must be in place for both temporary and permanent impact to shallow private wells along the proposed pipeline route (Franktown Road and Richmond Village), due to the potential for draw down of the shallow aquifer through the pipeline bedding material, both in areas of permeable soils and/or as a result of rock excavation (blasting) activities (Pellerin).

CRA did not concur with Mr. Pellerin that contingency measures should be carried for both temporary and permanent shallow wells along the pipeline route since construction contingency measures would address this impact.

 

4.1.13  Private Well Monitoring - monitoring of private wells pre, during and post construction will be required to establish background conditions, as well as short and/or long term impacts of the pipeline construction. 

CRA does not agree that monitoring of the shallow wells during construction is required.  However, CRA noted that detailed design should investigate this further as the costs to maintain would be minimal.

  Mr. Pellerin notes that it is impossible to establish the success of a construction mitigation measure and
  associated costs, unless background conditions are first established.

 

4.1.14  Trench De-watering  - open trench excavation is proposed through the Richmond Fen.  Provision for trench de-watering in areas of permeable soils should be considered as well as mitigation of groundwater movement both during construction, and long term through the pipeline bedding material (Pellerin).

CRA does not agree with Mr. Pellerin’s statement.  There are several options for the construction methodology for the pipeline that travels adjacent to the Fen.  It is inaccurate to assume the type of methodology at this time as it will be a detailed design issue and will also be impacted as to the time of year construction takes place.  Depending on the time of season for the construction, the degree of dewatering may be minimal.  Competitive bidding will result in low cost pipeline installation in the area as demonstrated by TPL’s 1998 proposal to the RMOC.  Furthermore, use of HDPE one pass trench installation is not affected by water depth.

As stated in evidence, Mr. Pellerin notes that TPL’s 1998 proposal costs were incomplete as confirmed by Regional Engineering Staff before Corporate Services Committee of Regional Council in January 1999.

Mr. Pellerin’s stresses that trench de-watering requirements are an unknown, and given the permeable soils identified by OMM/Trow, reasonably conservative assumptions must be made until such time as further details are available.

 

4.1.15  Sedimentation in Pipeline - the precipitant formed by the reaction of ferrous chloride with generated sulphide will form a relatively dense floc (ferrous sulphide) which will settle in the forcemain, particularly in  Summer conditions when both sulphide generation and anaerobic activity within the pipeline are at an annual maximum, and flows at an annual minimum - 300 m³/Day (Pellerin).

CRA does not agree with Mr. Pellerin’s Statement.  The floc formed by ferrous chloride addition is not dense.  Sufficient scour velocity has been designed in the pipeline alternative to prevent the build-up of chemical sediment from the odour control strategy.  Operating strategies to benefit sediment build-up through use of high-flow pumping and pigging has been included.  These strategies have been used successfully throughout North America, and in particular by the RMOC at the Richmond forcemain which has a higher HRT than Munster and at the RMOC Carp 10.5 km forcemain.  CRA notes that the H₂S control method on the pipeline has been agreed upon by the engineers.

Mr. Pellerin notes that the concern expressed is not H₂S control, but rather sedimentation of an 11.5 km small diameter forcemain, and the potential operational problems and O&M costs.

 

4.1.16  Forcemain Operation and Maintenance - in these conditions it may be necessary to operate the forcemain at an increased velocity (and pump rate) to sufficiently scour the line.  In addition, an operational allowance for annual pigging of the forcemain should be considered in conjunction with the annual O&M costs (Pellerin).

An annual allowance for pigging the forcemain will be has been added to the pipeline O&M costs.  Typically, this cost is minimal (i.e., 2 man crew for 10 hours).  This could be completed during the Spring wet weather periods where water for pigging from the holding cell may be used (CRA).

 

4.1.17  Pipeline Route Through Richmond - a further public consultation process is required to evaluate and select the pipeline route through the Village of Richmond.  The time frame and cost of this undertaking should be considered in the pipeline evaluation (Pellerin).

CRA does not agree with Mr. Pellerin’s statement.  The public and government consultation process for the pipeline route evaluation through Richmond was not included in the pipeline capital cost.  CRA believes it should not be included as it is a follow up effort of the EA effort and the project EA costs were not assigned to any of the wastewater alternatives.  Furthermore, it is reasonable to expect that other alternatives may require additional EA costs as well.

Mr. Pellerin disagrees noting that he has carried a cost for an Addendum to ESR (EA approval) in re-evaluating the cost of the mechanical plant alternative.

 

4.1.18  Impacts to Richmond Village - the construction of the pipeline through the Village of Richmond incurs natural environment, social environment, and economic impacts to the Richmond Residents that are not incurred with the on-site treatment alternatives.  These impacts, such as potential loss of business activity from construction, disruption effects (i.e. reduced road traffic), and impacts on the Jock River should be reflected in the evaluation (Pellerin).

CRA does not agree with Richard Pellerin that loss of business activity from construction of the pipeline through Richmond should be included in the evaluation.  It is not determined that any business loss would occur and that common construction practices would be maintained to not disrupt business activity.

It is Mr. Pellerin’s experience that assessment of social or economic impacts on the community and/or downstream community(s) for any given alternative is common in an EA evaluation, and entirely appropriate in this instance.

 

4.1.19  Richmond Pump Station - the capital costs of the interim and ultimate upgrading of the Richmond Pump Station, which is clearly influenced by the addition of Munster’s sewage flows, should be reflected, on a proportionate basis, in the evaluation of the pipeline alternative (Pellerin).

CRA does not agree with Mr. Pellerin’s position that the capital costs for the interim and ultimate upgrades for the Richmond Pump Station be included, on a proportionate basis.  The philosophy of the pipeline alternative was to take advantage of capacity that is available under typical dry weather flow conditions.  The whole concept was to be able to use the Richmond Station’s capacity that was sized for peak events and that was not used the majority of the time.  Adrien Comeau’s memo of August 12, 1998 firmly confirms this concept and it further confirmed by detailed instantaneous 1999 flow data.  A further objective was not to jeopardize infrastructure capacity assigned for future growth.  This is also addressed in Mr. Comeau’s memo whereby in 20 years and under full build out in Richmond, transfer of Munster’s sewage flows to Richmond will not affect Richmond’s infrastructure capacity.

Mr. Pellerin advises that the 1999/2000 data from RMOC confirms that the capacity of the Richmond Pump Station was exceeded in consecutive years, contrary to the previous findings of Mr. Comeau.  In addition, the unsustained (up to 3 hours) instantaneous flow of 45 L/s as agreed upon by the engineers is greater than the capacity of the Munster Pump Station as currently proposed by CRA (30 L/s).  These conditions together with annual pump station and forcemain maintenance will require more frequent by-pass of raw sewage to the Munster lagoon than previously indicated.

CRA does not agree with Mr. Pellerin’s statement.  Pumping capacity to the holding cell addresses the 45 L/s.  Furthermore, detailed design may elect to implement a 45 L/s transfer system to Richmond.  CRA’s cost estimate has included pumps and piping to transfer 45 L/s to Richmond.  It is reasonable , that under competition, pipelines of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE), Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) and Cement Lined Ductile Iron (CLDI) could be similar in overall system capital costs.  CRA stresses again that the 1998 TPL proposal to the RMOC was for a CLDI pipe utilizing open trench technology.

Again, CRA stresses this was a very attractive price, based on a design-build approach under competition.

CRA does not concur with Mr. Pellerin’s statement that “1999-2000 data from RMOC confirms that the capacity of the Richmond Pump Station was exceeded in consecutive years”.  CRA’s review of the data shows the Richmond pump station capacity was exceeded for the period of 3 days in 1999 (April 8, 9 1999) and not at all in the Spring of 2000.

(CRA) Note that in the data received from the Region for the Richmond Pumping Station spring 2000 flows, which is the max reading per 10 minute interval, there was one extraneous data point on April 8, 2000.  The raw data is listed below: