1. Princeton Wastewater Servicing Study
Public Information Centre No. 2
April 11, 2012
Slide 1

2. 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).

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. Class Environmental Assessment Process
Phase 1
Problem or Opportunity
Existing Data Collection Review and Analysis
Princeton Wastewater Servicing Study involves completion of Phases 1 to 4 of the Municipal Class EA process
Phase 2
Alternative Solutions
Development and Evaluation of Alternative Solutions
We Are Here
Phase 3
Alternative Design Concepts for Preferred Solution
Development and Evaluation of Alternative Design Concepts for Implementation of the Preferred Alternative
Phase 4
Environmental Study Report (ESR)
Completion of an Environmental Study Report (ESR) and placement on public record for 30-day review period
Phase 5
Implementation
Design and Construction of the Preferred Solution
Slide 6

8. 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

9. Existing Septic Systems
Existing System Age
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%)
Life span of a typical septic system is 20 to 25 years
Some systems can function effectively for 35 years
Slide 8

10. 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

11. Current Ontario Building Code Requirements
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
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%)
Slide 10

12. 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

13. 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

14. Future Growth in Princeton
Projected future wastewater flow for the Community of Princeton is 455 m3/d
Slide 13

15. 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

16. Alternative Solutions
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

17. Alternative Solutions
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

18. 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

19. Technical Environment
Evaluation Criteria
Natural Environment
Impacts on water resources
Impacts on terrestrial resources
Impacts on groundwater resources
Social Environment
Impacts on residents during operation
Impacts on residents during construction
Impacts on future development
Technical Environment
System complexity
Increased operating requirements
Need for additional studies
Approval requirements
Risk
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

20. Evaluation of Alternatives
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
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

21. Evaluation of Alternatives
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
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
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

22. 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

23. Summary of Evaluation Results
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

24. 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

25. Alternative 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

26. 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:
$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

27. Alternative 3
Alternative 3 – New Communal Wastewater Collection and Treatment System to Service Princeton
Alternative 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:
STEP/ STEG – septic tank effluent pumping system/ septic tank effluent gravity system
Estimated capital cost does not include costs of any works on private property (connection and interceptor tank)
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

28. Short Listed Alternatives – Estimated Costs
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:
Community Servicing Assistance Plan (CSAP) funding will apply a 25% grant for the public sector costs for existing developed properties.
Alternative 2 costs will be borne directly by individual property owners.
Alternative 3 costs do not include any costs which will be incurred by property owners for private property portion of wastewater system connections.
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%.
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%.
Conceptual level cost estimates. Expected accuracy of -30% to +50%.
All costs are in 2012 dollars. CSAP funding will be indexed to construction costs in future.
Slide 27

29. 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

30. 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

31. Questions and Discussion
Slide 30