Princeton Wastewater Servicing Study
Public Information Centre No. 2
April 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






Slide 2
Finalized Problem/Opportunity Statement
Alternatives
Evaluation of Alternatives and Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation Results
Public and Agency Consultation
Study Schedule and Next Steps
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
Phase 1
Problem or Opportunity
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
Phase 4
Environmental Study Report
(ESR)
Phase 5
Implementation
Slide 6
Existing Data Collection Review and
Analysis
Development and Evaluation of Alternative
Design Concepts for Implementation of the
Preferred Alternative
Completion of an Environmental Study Report
(ESR) and placement on public record for 30-day
review period
Design and Construction of the Preferred
Solution
Existing Conditions
 Wastewater treatment is currently provided by onsite 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
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
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
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
Slide 10
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 nonresidential population of 204 persons
 Future population (residential and equivalent nonresidential) is estimated to be 1,518 persons
Slide 12
Future Growth in Princeton
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2011
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Year
Residential and Non-Residential Population
Slide 13
Future
Projected Flow (m 3/d)
Total Population and Flow Projections for Community
of Princeton
Projected Population
 Projected
future
wastewater
flow for the
Community of
Princeton is
455 m3/d
Flow Projection
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 Solutions
Alternative Solution
Slide 15
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
Alternative Solutions
Alternative Solution
Slide 16
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
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
Social Environment
Impacts on water resources
Impacts on residents during operation
Impacts on terrestrial resources
Impacts on residents during construction
Impacts on groundwater resources
Impacts on future development
Technical Environment
Economic Environment
System complexity
Estimated capital cost
Increased operating requirements
Estimated Annual O&M cost
Need for additional studies
20 Year Life Cycle Cost
Approval requirements
Potential to stage implementation
Risk
Need for property acquisition
Slide 18
Evaluation of Alternatives
Alternative
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
•
•
•
•
•
Slide 19
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.
Evaluation of Alternatives
Alternative
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
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
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 2
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
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:
Slide 25
$12,000
Annual O&M Cost
$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
$14,000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Wastewater Generation Rate (L/person/d)
1 Person Occupancy
2 Person Occupancy
3 Person Occupancy
4 Person Occupancy
350
400
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:
1. STEP/ STEG – septic tank effluent pumping system/ septic tank effluent gravity system
2. 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 Costs
Costs
Alternative 2 Upgrade Existing Private On-Site
Wastewater Treatment Systems
Alternative 3 – New Communal
Wastewater Collection System and
Treatment System to Service Princeton
$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
$100/yr - $13,000/yr depending on
technology, water use and occupancy
$544/existing lot/yr
$4.7M
($22,800/existing lot)
$8.7M
($24,700/existing lot)
Estimated Capital Cost
Estimate of Annual O&M Cost/Lot
Estimated 20 Year Cost to Residents
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