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 Waste water 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 waste water treatment facility. It is not my intention to advocate for any particular waste water 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 waste water needs.
Given the high cost of waste water 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 waste water 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 waste water 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” waste water 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 waste water 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 milliliters (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 waste water 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 waste water 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 waste water 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)
Like
It is unfortunate you think there is bias in the reporting. FYI, I also submitted a Letter to the Editor which, to my knowledge, has not been published.
In the section in this article on effluent, Ms. Harwood makes an attempt to correct the errors in the original story, but only further confuses the issue.
All your readers need to know is that for the Dawson City project, the fecal coliform level must be less than 200 /100 mililtres per the specifications (far below the current 20,000 regulatory limit expressed in this story which is not relevant). For this measure Virden MB is at 9,300. That is correct 9,300 versus a requirement to get to 200. For total coliforms the Canadian guidelines are 1,000 and Virden is at 110,000.
TSS must be less than 25 mg/L. Homer Alaska while “easily meeting standards”, actually works hard to get it to 30. Virden is another story as it has not had a monthly average below 74 in the last year and a half and is often well over 100. That is among the reasons this system is in the process of being replaced.
I have no doubt technology has improved over the years, but would still be interested in where this technology is actually in use in situations similar to Dawson City. There are apparently “many” but they are not being promoted by Noram for some reason, nor mentioned by the committee. I also believe there is an inconsistent message being communicated. Ms. Harwood says one of the reasons this system was selected was because it has been tested in other sites. Meanwhile, her boss Ms. Leslie Anderson says “references don’t count for points”. Which is it??
It is unfortunate and regrettable but it appears to be true that the unsuccessful proponent has much more traction in the Yukon News than the Project Team.
In the spirit of honest debate all sides deserve the opportunity to bring forward their view. Of course this is an editorial decision made by the Yukon News and is therefore anyone’s guess as to what motivates their journalistic ambitions.
Thank you for your observations regarding Virden and Homer. Town Council will be meeting with Corix soon to hear what they have to say. I will certainly bring forward your concerns.
Thank you
Of course our real issue was the decision to reject our bid – more so than the decision to select Corix.
If indeed a detailed technical analysis was completed before the decision to reject our bid was made, it is certainly not clear to us. The only feedback we received was very general in nature, contained many factual errors and only served to indicate our proposal was not reviewed thoroughly or not understood in the haste to select another bid. We were never asked about anything in our proposal and never given the opportunity to address any assumptions made or concerns raised, so have been forced to go public with our concerns.
Given there were only two bids, I am sure the residents of Dawson, not to mention the governments funding this, would have hoped the committee would do everything possible to make it a competitive process, rather than simply finding a way to eliminate one bid so there is only one option.
We will of course continue with our appeal and hope that since we can prove there were many inaccuracies in the statements made about our proposal, someone besides the Yukon News will be concerned about the process.
I have no doubt that continuing with an appeal is justified – from your point of view.
Given what I know regarding the integrity of the individuals on the project team I have to take exception to your allegation that they simply found a way to exclude your proposal in order to go with the ‘favoured’ proponent.
Do we know how to say ‘sour grapes’?
I do not know them, but would like to hear your thoughts after you read the 15 pages of analysis of inaccurate comments made.
When a commitee concludes something was not addressed when there are pages and pages of it, among many similar comments, it is hard to believe it was seriously reviewed. Or when decisions are made based solely on judgment about something they think may happen – without attempting to verify it, that also is an issue.
By the way, did you know this same system was approved by the same technical expert once before in the Yukon? So I wonder what is different here?
Bitter yes – sour grapes, no.