It appears as if the Yukon News is allowing only one opinion to be published regarding the conflict between the unsuccessful bidder for Dawson’s waste water treatment and the YTG/Dawson procurement team.
The following was submitted to the Yukon News by our project team leader and thus far has not been printed in the letters to the editor section. It is a rebuttal to the opinions expressed regarding the procurement process.
In the spirit of healthy debate all views should be considered.
Dawson Wastewater Treatment
Principle Questions arising from Yukon News Story – April 24th, 2009
I’d like to take the opportunity to address some of the errors in the April 24th article concerning a proposed technology for Dawson City’s wastewater treatment facility. It is not my intention to advocate for any particular wastewater treatment process or technology, but it is my responsibility to ensure your readers are not left with the mistaken impression that the citizens of Dawson will be presented with an unsuitable or inappropriate solution to their wastewater needs.
Given the high cost of wastewater treatment, a detailed technical analysis of each bid package received for this project was undertaken by a team of experts in engineering, financial analysis and wastewater treatment. Team members individually and collectively evaluated the merits of each submission based on the materials provided. As a result of this evaluation process, only one bidder qualified for the next step of the review process where the bid price was revealed.
Correctly noted in the article is the wastewater treatment technology included as part of the winning bid package is provided by Noram. Unfortunately, the article then inaccurately reported on technology and financial issues. I hope to clarify and communicate these inaccuracies.
Contrary to comments provided by the Yukon News, several “deep shaft” wastewater treatment systems are in operation in Canada and other countries. One of the reasons the winning bid was selected was because the technology they provided has been tested in cold regions and also in municipalities with larger and smaller populations than Dawson City.
The Yukon News article suggests that Manitoba has “…sworn off deep-shaft sewage treatment plants, similar to the one Dawson City plans to build.” It would come to no surprise to sewage experts that the Virden system, built in the late 1970s, would be quite different from a system built 30 years later since technology in the field has vastly improved.
The article quotes Virden’s manager of works and utilities on some technical measures of wastewater purity such as fecal chloroform and suspended solids. One quote reads: “the total fecal chloroform (sic) count should be around 30…Virden’s is at 9,000…”. It is our assumption that the reference is to fecal coliform and in this area, the public should be informed that the current regulatory limits are 20,000 MPN/100 millilitres (MPN refers to “most probable number”).
In addition, the numbers quoted suggesting the Manitoba facility is operating below Canadian wastewater treatment standards appear to be in error, or are at least using some unknown unit of measure. The quote “total suspended solids is even worse…the average is 40 to 60, we’re at 110,000” is difficult to interpret. Dawson City’s current effluent, which receives only primary screening treatment, averages about 20 mg/L of total suspended solids (TSS), and peaks at about 36 mg/L in the summer. It is difficult to conceive of a system that would increase TSS. Any facility constructed in Dawson will meet the new TSS requirements established by the Canadian Council of the Ministers of the Environment, which is 25 mg/L.
The article quotes Homer, Alaska officials who state: “It works very well” and “It meets our fecal and total suspended solids (standards) easily.” The deep shaft wastewater treatment system in Homer was quoted as costing the municipality $524 thousand last year. As the municipality of Homer does not separate its drinking water treatment system from its wastewater system, I am uncertain as to how this number was arrived at. Secondly, the Homer system operates with seven lift stations while the proposed Dawson City facility will operate with four. Various other differences, including a smaller population base and wastewater flow suggest that costs are not as comparable as may be inferred from the article.
The project team includes staff from Dawson City and the Yukon Government and has kept an open mind in assessing potential mechanical and lagoon solutions for Dawson. Our objective is to ensure a sustainable and appropriate solution for Dawson is put in place as quickly as possible and we’re confident both Yukon and Dawson taxpayers will be satisfied with the outcome.
The team has not yet entered into negotiations with any proponent for the construction of a treatment facility and will provide further information concerning project progress at additional public meetings in Dawson in mid-May.
Updated information can always be found on the project website: http://www.dawsonwastewater.ca and http://www.cityofdawson.ca
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify these issues.
Catherine Harwood, P.Eng. (Project Manager)