The local municipality's wastewater treatment system requires upgrades to achieve long-term compliance with the Province of Manitoba's Nutrient Management Strategy.
The municipality presented its preferred option to the local industrial dischargers, including Geosyntec's client. Technical and cost details, including a preliminary framework for cost-sharing between the participating industrial dischargers, were shared and Geosyntec was retained to aid in the evaluation of the municipality's preferred option, and develop on-site upgrade options specifically focused on the removal of nitrogen and phosphorus from the existing anaerobic digestion system effluent for comparison.
Geosyntec's Scope of Services
Geosyntec's scope of work included an evaluation of the technical and cost details provided by the municipality for the preferred option; a direct discharge feasibility evaluation for comparison (with and without water reuse); conceptual level cost estimation; and the preparation of a final report for the client. The costs for the municipal upgrades would be shared across the public and private industry, and the project would be conducted under the Public-Private-Partnership (P3) Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Maintain (DBFOM) delivery model. Geosyntec evaluated the technical, financial, administrative, and practical implications of our client's participation in the municipal upgrades. On-site treatment options were developed as an alternative to participation in the municipal upgrades and included both direct discharge of treated effluent and advanced wastewater treatment and water recycling. Potable water quality was required in the production facility; therefore, the treatment options evaluated for water recycling were designed to achieve potable water quality.
Conceptual capital and operating costs were developed for each of the options evaluated, including an assessment of operator training and licensing requirements. Technical support during the client's decision-making process was also provided, along with support during initial regulatory discussions.
Through the work completed on this project, the client gained valuable information on the feasible treatment options and their associated capital and operating costs. While the on-site options required our client to commit to spending short-term capital, changing the project's perspective to focus on a longer timeline indicated that the cost to participate in the municipal upgrades and the cost to build and operate an on-site treatment system were very similar. Therefore, non-economic factors such as retention of control, public image, and flexibility were evaluated to aid our client in their decision.