From: Roy Merkley, 10341 Maplewood Ave. Southcott Pines
Grand Bend, Ontario N0M 1T0
I am a semi-retired special machine tool design consultant with a lifetime experience in automation and special equipment primarily for the auto industry. My knowledge includes many applications of hydraulic and control systems.
The following summarizes my personal opinion on the current status of the above project which has been pursued by the Lambton Shores Municipal Council for the past several years.
1- Are existing septic tank systems in Zone 3 a significant environmental problem?
Since our ground water is not extracted or used for any personal use, the only possible impact that it can have environmentally is leaching into the lake or the old river bed.
To my knowledge there has never been any evidence or proof that this has been an issue with septic systems in Zone 3. During this past summer which has been one of the hottest in many years our beaches have been safe so far with heavy usage and peak occupancy in Zone 3.
In the past the only visible environmental pollution that I have ever witnessed is run off from surrounding fields through the drains and rivers after heavy rains. Also at certain times of the year large flocks of Canada geese leave great amounts of 'goose poop' on our shores.
The dilution factor with such a large body of water in Lake Huron seems to be able to handle this for the most part. Thus any small traces that could ever leach into the lake through the sand base from our septic systems must be insignificant.
The test results from the groundwater study listed in the environmental assessment when properly analyzed , do not indicate any overall environmental problems due to the existing septic systems in zone 3.
I firmly believe that there is not now or ever was or ever will be a reason to condemn septic tank systems in the sandy soil of Zone 3. If properly maintained and upgraded when necessary to the latest technology, they provide the most cost effective and least troublesome form of treating residential waste effluent in this area. In addition new legislation will ensure that septic systems will be even safer for the environment than before. They require no external energy to operate and require no support or liability by the municipality and are 'fail safe'.
In my mind the groundwater test results and Dillon's total lack of including tertiary septic systems as an alternative in zone 3 can not overshadow the above historical observations and basic facts.
2- Is the 'Low Pressure Grinder Pump' collection system proposed by Dillon Consulting a feasible alternative?
Sewer design and construction is not rocket science and has been around since the Roman Empire, thus I cannot understand why Dillon Consulting would ever consider recommending such a high risk collection system using grinder pumps for this project. To make it the first choice is even more astounding for the following reasons.
- no good evidence of any other similar installation of grinder pumps operating successfully in an area as large as Zone 3
- overall installation consists of over a thousand pumps, motors, controllers and valves as well as a multitude of piping, lift stations, inspection stations and warning systems – most of which are potentially troublesome with a possibility of leakage
- system is dependent on hydro and requires hook up to every residence -- outages are a problem
- requires monitoring and maintenance capability
- higher risk for breakdowns due to freezing winter conditions when many homes are unoccupied and not using their system
- unsightly installation if warning systems and access covers are visible
- requires municipal liability for operation and maintenance
This should be a 'no brainer'. Grinder pump systems are not 'user friendly' and have a much higher risk for problems and eventual failure. Since the fall of 2008 it has been apparent that the majority of residents in Zone 3 do not want this solution. Why would a municipality consider forcing a high risk untried system on an electorate that does not want it? This should not even be considered if the costs were nothing. For Dillon to propose this would make one question their credibility and suggest poor judgment.
1- How is Lambton Shores Council presently proceeding with this project?
This council has contracted Dillon Consulting to prepare an Environmental Assessment and Notice of Completion which it has done and sent to the Ministry.
This document considers only two alternatives with a 'low pressure grinder type' collection system in Zone 3 as its first choice with gravity sewers being the only other. Any form of septic bed systems were ruled out early in the study back in 2006 and are not offered as any alternative. It seems that very little if any resources were allocated to investigating up to date 'eco friendly' septic systems.
It is my understanding that if the Ministry approves the request it is then in the hands of the municipality to implement it with the blessing of the province.
2- General Personal Conclusion
From my past experience with projects involving municipal and provincial bureaucracies, it would seem to me that Lambton Shores is well down the road to obtaining formal approval to proceed with what they wanted from the beginning being 'sewers everywhere in our area and a brand new treatment plant'.
It is troubling to me that this vision by whomever were driving this in the beginning of the project seemed to overshadow actual needs of individual areas within the study. The results indicate to me that the 'Environmental Assessment' by Dillon is more tailored to satisfying this vision than to address the real needs for disposal of waste effluent in our area. Remember the classic definition of a consultant's role in a project is 'tell us what you want us to say and we will give it to you'.
To completely ignore any form of septic system as an alternative when our old existing systems have been here for in some cases the better part of 50 years and our beaches are as good as ever with never a health risk in the zone 3 area, is inexcusable. I believe that our septic systems can be improved and with ever improving systems being available there would never be a need to change horses and install sewers in zone 3. The big advantage in this approach is that we take government out of play except to administer environmental standards. This has to be the most cost effective way in the long run and in my opinion has not a chance of happening without scrapping the 'Notice of Completion'.
A major concern that I have is with the municipality being so solidly in bed with Dillon Consulting. There apparently was no consideration at the start of this project to go out to tender for civil engineering services for this study and apparently no fixed price agreed to. The actual cost breakdown to Dillon and Golder Associates for professional services should be disclosed as well as the financial terms of their contracts. Unsubstantiated figures that I have read indicate Dillon's original cost estimate started at $18,000.00 and now exceed $220,000.00. This is like giving them a blank cheque and hoping for the best.
It is my understanding that Dillon was the company that looked after the Pinery Park grinder pump project. It would be interesting to know if they competed for that job and if they received a percentage of the overall cost or had to work to a fixed price.
If Lambton Shores chooses to implement a 'low pressure grinder pump' collection system in Zone 3 it will haunt this council for years. The residents will be left with a poor, costly, inferior system and Dillon Consulting will walk away with our money.
Good fiscal management should include competitive quotes with fixed price terms and negotiation only for changes instituted by the customer.
Finally you should never let fancy studies and reports from experts trump common sense. History will give you more than enough instances of this happening.
Will ye no think kindly on those who would be your friends! May the sun shine with your thoughts, today, and happiness grow in your heart! May you allow yourself some peace of mind.
