Incorrect statements
made in the press, by
Councillor Janet Stavinga and Brian Gray, P.Eng.,
may mislead some Munster residents, and
contribute to delays.
 
 

 

 

 
 

Ottawa Citizen
March 2, 2002

Munster waste plans stall

Community grows impatient for sewage solution

By David Reevely

The public debate over what to do with Munster Hamlet’s wastewater has gotten dirty.
Sewage lagoons, 30 years old and deteriorating, hold the part of the Goulbourn community’s waste that isn’t handled by private septic tanks.
One overflowed in 1994, resulting in a $30,000 fine for the regional government. Ordinarily, the contents of the lagoons are sprayed over nearby fields so the soil will filter out the contaminants.
Replacement plans --- which have included an on-site waste treatment facility and a pipeline to deliver the sewage to the city’s big treatment plant in Gloucester --- have been bogged down in studies and hearings for almost a decade.
Most recently, the Ontario Municipal Board ordered the city to review the options again and “perfect” its case for a pipeline. This came after a previous study recommended simply enlarging the lagoons and the spray fields.
“The critical thing is that we reach a solution and move forward,” says Goulbourn Ward  Councillor Janet Stavinga.
She says that while she respects the legal process that’s led to the series of reviews, “the time that it’s taken has been very long, and I’m looking forward to a resolution.”
The sooner the better, Ms. Stavinga

 

says. “Each year, it’s costing about $500,000 to haul the sewage” in trucks to the Gloucester treatment centre.
Gordon Sample, who has been involved in the debate for years, says the city wants a pipeline and means to get it.
“If we were to talk about it in gangster terms,” Mr. Sample says, “I’d say it was a lead-pipe cinch.”
Mr. Sample runs a Web site accusing the city of  “bungling” and dysfunction” in its handling of the Munster lagoons and making the case for an on-site treatment plant. He accuses Ms. Stavinga of collaborating with Mayor Bob Chiarelli and city staff to fix the results of the current study in favour of the pipeline, which he says is too expensive and limited.
Mr. Sample says the pipeline won’t allow Munster Hamlet to grow.
“I’m not among those who wish Munster to grow. It might not be for 20 years. But it would be foolish not to allow for that growth eventually,” Mr. Sample says.
And he argues that treating the waste on site would be cheaper and better for the local watershed because the treated effluent would be released into the Jock River.
Brian Gray, an engineer who has lived in Munster since 1977, served with Mr. Sample on a public liaison committee for one of the earlier studies.
 

   On-site treatment might be less expensive to set up, but a length of pipe is cheaper to maintain, he says. As for Mr. Sample’s watershed argument, Ms. Stavinga says, the earlier studies found that on-site treatment wouldn’t leave effluent clean enough to put in the Jock.
Mr. Gray says he had faith in the consultation process that led to the pipeline recommendation --- the one the new consultant, R.V. Anderson Associates, is reviewing on the instructions of the OMB.
“There were a couple of people on the committee who didn’t agree with what they say,” Mr. Gray adds. “They’ve since taken an antagonistic approach that’s been very unfortunate, but the majority of the community don’t feel that way.”
The problem, Mr. Gray says, is that the pipeline solution will limit the amount of waste that can be disposed of. That’s a problem, he says, for committee members “who have land they’re looking to develop.”
Mr. Sample calls that “a slur that has been heaped upon me before.”
He says his family has lived on the land they now occupy since 1851 or 1852, and he would never want to sever his property and sell it to non-farmers.
“That’s not why you live in the country,” he says.
 
 

Call for accuracy:

Letter to the Editor

Ottawa Citizen
March 12, 2002

Munster plant would improve Jock River's health

Re: Munster waste plans stall, March 2.

Councillor Janet Stavinga said she wants to "reach a solution" to the sewage treatment problems in Munster Hamlet. She is on record as strongly supporting a pipeline to move the sewage to the treatment plant at the other end of the city (an eventual 60 kilometres of pipe), and she has fought against cheaper, more environmentally responsible, on-site high-tech treatments.
She argues against other solutions by saying that "the earlier studies found that on-site treatment wouldn't leave effluent clean enough to put in the Jock River." This is incorrect.
The Friends of the Jock River are very concerned about the river. Its health is our primary focus. The Jock is a "policy 2" river, which means that discharges into it must be within strict guidelines. The proposed tertiary, high-tech, on-site treatment facility meets these criteria. Consequently, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, the sole agency responsible for approving any discharges of water into provincial waterways, would allow the facility. It has already awarded a certificate of approval for a Manotick facility that is based on the identical technology.
Also, the city's consultants, Connestoga Rovers and Associates, evaluated the different sewage options for Munster Hamlet for their ability to consistently meet effluent quality objectives. They gave the best possible rating to the tertiary, high-tech, on-site treatment facility. This would not have been given to a facility that "wouldn't leave effluent clean enough to put in the Jock."
A tertiary, high-tech treatment plant installed in Munster Hamlet would discharge treated water that is cleaner than the water now in the Jock River.

 

      PHOTO BY WAYNE HIEBERT, THE OTTAWA CITIZEN    

Water treated in a high-tech plant would benefit
the Jock River watershed, says Brian Finch.


This treated water would benefit the Jock watershed.
In drought years, when the Munster section of Jock
River dries up completely, this treated water would be
the only flow in the river and would contribute to
saving many fish and aquatic systems.

Brian Finch, Nepean

 

Capital vs. Operation and Maintenance (O & M)
Costs Compared:

Estimated Annual savings favour the Mechanical (on-site) Treatment Plant, over the Sewer Pipe.

Capital Costs, for the Pipeline, as per Totten Simms Hubicki (TSH)
(Ontario Municipal Board - OMB Exhibit # 65):                                   Estimate:  $16.34 million

Capital Costs for the Mechanical Treatment Plant
(as GUARANTEED by CMS in response to the RFP):                             Actual:   $3.1 million
                                                                                                               ____________________
CAPITAL SAVINGS...
    of Mechanical Plant, over Pipeline/Lagoon Option                      =  Difference:  $13.24 million   

 SAVINGS IN CARRYING COSTS...
    of $13.24 million @ 6% per Annum                                           =  (per Annum):  $794,400.00

Note: The Estimates provided by Conestoga-Rovers & Associates (CRA) did not convince the OMB and, therefore, are not
           used here.
Note:  TSH did not include odour handling equipment in their Estimate. Odour processing is included in the Mechanical Plant.

O & M Costs (Annually)
* For Pipeline and Pumping (as Estimated by TSH on February 13, 1998
   See OMB Exhibit # 81 - (Table 1):                                                     Estimate:  $205,000.

O & M Costs (Annually)
* For Mechanical Treatment Plant
   (as GUARANTEED by CMS in response to the RFP)                              Actual:  $169,620.
                                                                                                            ______________________
O & M SAVINGS  (ANNUAL)
   of Mechanical Treatment Plant, over Pipeline/Lagoon Option                           =    $35,380. 

TOTAL COSTS OF EACH ALTERNATIVE:

Mechanical Treatment Plant:
     O & M Costs: $169,620 / Annum (or $14,135 / month)

Pipeline /Lagoon Option:
     O & M Costs:   $205,000 / Annum 
     Carrying costs:  $794,400 / Annum ($13.24 million @ 6%)
      Total:            = $999,400 / Annum (or $83,283 / month)

 

TOTAL SAVINGS...
OF MECHANICAL TREATMENT PLANT, OVER PIPELINE/LAGOON OPTION
   from  O&M Dollar-Savings of $35,380/A., PLUS Savings of Carrying Costs of $794,400/A.
= $829,780 / Annum
=    $69,148 / Month

 

Note: For the Pipeline Estimate, there is no mention of chemicals for odour control, analytical services, snow removal, lawn
          maintenance, etc., as required from CMS.

Further Capital Cost and Operating & Maintenance COST COMPARISON:

Report to Congress
by the Comptroller General of the United States

HOME  |  CLOSE WINDOW