HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 136 tender sedimentation
e
e
e
e
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF KINC INE
KBf
BY-LAW
NO. 2004 . 136
BEING A BY·LAW TO ACCEPT A QUOTE FOR THE PURCH SE OF HIGH
RATE SEDIMENTATION UNITS FOR THE
KINCARDINE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
(John Muenier Inc.)
WHEREAS the Province of Ontario has enacted the Safe Dri king Water Act,
2002, O.Reg. 170103, to protect human health through the cont I and regulation
of drinking-water systems and drinking-water testing;
AND WHEREAS the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 Section 11 (2)
authorizes municipalities to pass by-laws respecting matters wit in the sphere of
jurisdiction of water distribution;
AND WHEREAS the said Municipal Act, Sections 8 and 9 (1) provides
municipalities with powers of a natural person to enable them to govern their
affairs as they consider appropriate and to enhance their abili to respond to
municipal issues;
AND WHEREAS the Ministry of the Environment requires th Municipality of
Kincardine to resolve high turbidity rates identified at the K ncardine Water
Treatment Plant;
AND WHEREAS Council for the Corporation of the Municipality Kincardine has
deemed it necessary to accept a quotation received from John Muenier Inc. for
high rate sedimentation units to correct the high turbidity rate as detailed in
Municipality of Kincardine Report No. PWM 2004 - 23;
NOW THEREFORE the Council for The Corporation of the Municipality of
Kincardine ENACTS as follows:
1. That the quotation of John Muenier Inc. for the purchase f Actitlo units in
the amount of $458,575.00, excluding taxes, be hereby ac epted.
2. That the Mayor and CAD be hereby authorized to sign, n behalf of the
Council for The Corporation of the Municipality of Kincardi e any contracts
and other documents required to purchase the required A iflo units.
3.
That the awarding of the quote for the Actiflo units be ex mpted from the
Municipality of Kincardine tendering policy GG.2.4.
This by-law shall come into full force and effect upon its fin~1 passage.
I
I
I
I
4.
. ../2
-
e
e
e
Page 2
By-law No. 2004 -136
High Rate Sedimentation Units By-law
5.
I
I
This by-law may be cited as the "High Rate Sedimentation Units Quote
Acceptance (Muenier) By-law".
READ a FIRST, SECOND, and THIRD time and FINALLY PAS$ED this 11th day
of August, 2004. .
ju. ~¡(. ~
Mayo(
.
.
.
MUNICIPALITY OF KINCARDINE
PWM 2004 - 23
REPORT TO COUNCIL
DATE:
July 28, 2004
SUBJECT: Kincardine Water Treatment Plant
High Rate Sedimentation Units
ANALYSIS OF SUBJECT
The Kincardine Water Treatment Plant has had a chronic problem with sporadic
high turbidity rates for many years.
The problem was highlighted in the Engineer's Report mandated by Regulation
459. The Municipality acknowledged the problem to the MOE and said that it
would retain the services of a professional Engineer and develop an acceptable
solution to the problem. The MOE accepted that idea but in addition, required
the Municipality to adopt a contingency plan to manage turbidity events until a
permanent solution could be in service. This was done and B.M. Ross and
Associates and XCG Consulting Limited were hired to design a permanent
solution for the turbidity problem.
Two technologies were evaluated rather quickfy that proved to be unsuccessful:
1. The addition of coagulants prior to filtering, and
2. The use of cartridge filters.
Subsequently, the use of high rate sedimentation units were evaluated. Two
suppliers are available. Actiflo and Ultrapulsator. Quotations were obtained from
each of these suppliers. The Engineer's Report is attached with all the details.
In order for the Engineer to complete the design stage for the project, the
"Sedimentation Units" must be purchased. That is why the Municipality is
purchasing the units directly at this time.
Construction will not commence until next spring.
AVAlLABL,E OPTIONS
1. That Council authorize the purchase of the Sedimentation Unit from Actitlo
at their quoted price of $458,575 (excluding taxes)
2. That Council authorize the purchase of the Sedimentation Unit from
Ultra pulsator at their quoted price of $309,800 (excluding taxes)
It
.
.
3. That Council not award the contract at this time.
PREFERRED OPTION
Option #1 is the Engineer's recommendation and the preferred option. The total
capital cost is actually less expensive than the Ultrapulsator (see Engineer's
Report = $22,000).
The operating costs are however, higher with the Ultrapulsator ($6,000 annually).
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The Capital Budget for this project is 1.2 million dollars.
The final estimate of costs at this stage is the following:
Capital Cost (Actiflo)
Filter to Waste Component
Electrical
Engineering - Contingency
$764,375 (confirmed)
$100,000
$150,000
~200.000
$1.214 million
OST AR grants are expected to be 33% for Engineering and 66% for the balance
of the work.
CAO's COMMENTS
SUBMITTED BY
Jim O'Rourke,
Public Works Manager
IIjd
Ii JUN .,8-04
-
It
.
.
li:D8 FROM-B.M. Ross & ASBociatBB Limited
519 524 440, HiD
P.DDI/DC5 F-68i
-:J~ JC~/
4" - -~.=" '-._"...,."",,,,,,,=~=.~
~ I? I'
, rt·c61-r v c "
:! c..-J i.) f..¡C ~ !
I ,;')'
¡ .....,
,
BMROSS
engineering betteT communities
B. M. ROSS AND ASSOCIATES LIMITED
COI'I$ul!Ìn9 Engineers
62 Nor1h s:ree~ Gcderich, ON NiA 2T4
p. (519)524-264' . f. (519)524-UO:!
www.bmross.net
¡ . ~!
; , \
\ . !I
I ~_.,_. _. --. _~..~__
"'~~""--"'ff~ ~.~~
June 28, 2004
Jint O'Rourke, Public Works Manager
Municipality of Kincardine
1475 Concession 5, R. R. 5
Kincardine, Om.
N2Z 2X6
Dear 5ú::
RE: Kincardine Water Treatment Plant
High Rate Sedimentation Units
Proposals for high rare sedimentation units ar 1he Kincardine Water Treatment Plant were
received from two companies; John Muecier Inc. for Actiflo units and Aqua Technical Sales for
Ulrrapulsator \Ulits. The proposals were reviewed bo1h by ourselves and by XCG Consultants
Limited. The purpose of this leaer is to report on our evaluarion and comparison ofthese units
for use at the Kincardine Warer Treattnem Plant.
Because of fundamental differences between the technologies used in the two units, it is
not possible to compare them simply on the basis of the quoted purchase prices. Several other
factors must be considered to ensure that the Municipality of Kincardine selects the unit which
will provide the most effective and economical solution to the needs at the n-..atment plant.
The Actiflo and UltIapulsator units were evaluated in two basic areas:
. Operational considerations;
. Cost considerations.
OpcrationaI Considerations
In our opinion, this is the most important consideration. smce it is necessary to ensure
that the selected units ",ill be effective in controlling the high turbidity raw water situations
encountered at the ,,:a.ter treatment plant, and mtegraie into the existing process at the plant. IÎ
these criteria are not met, the cost is irrelevant. In terms of effectiveness in controlling turbidity
in the raw water being sent to the filters, we believe that the two units are equal. Both units
appear to have the ability to produce senJed water with turbidity of less than 1 NTU at raw ",-¡¡ter
JUN-;,S-D4 1i:DS
FRO~B.M. ROBB & ABBOciatBB LimitBd
519 524 440,
T-5iO P.DD2/DD5 F-6BT
-2-
turbidities normally encountered during lUgh turbidity $ituations at the Kincardine plant. Both
suppliers are prepared to warrant this level ofperfonnance fi"om their equipment at raw water
turbidities of250 NTU, wlUch is typical of the lUghest turbidities occa¡;ionally encountered in the
raw water entering the plant.
Operational differences which we see between the two units include:
· The Actlflo unit has a better response to rapid changes in raw water turbidity, ,,"¡th an
expected adjustment period of approximately 20 minutes. The adjustment period for the
Œtrapulsator unit is in the order of two hours. Neither of these perlod$ is considered to
be excessively long, and we are not S1JIe if these represent any practical difference with
respect to operation at the Kincardine plant.
· The Ultrapulsator process is $omewhat more complicated, and may require greater
operator involvement and understanding during periods of $ignificant changes in raw
water quality in order to maintain the effluent quality from the units.
· Chemical makeup (alwn and polymer) and feed requirements are ba¡;ically the same for
the two units, although the Actiflo unit may require slightly higher chemical dosages.
The Œtrapulsator unit will not tolerate ràpid changes in flow through the units if they are
to operate at maximum effectiveness. The supplier states that flow variations through the
clarifier must be limited to 25% of the maximum flow per hour for the perfonnance
warranty to be valid. Additional discussion with the supplier indicates that intermittent
operation is possible, but start-up must be gradual, with flow initially started at 50%
through the unit and then ramped up to full flow through a period of approximately one
hour. In comparison, the Actiflo unit can be started and stopped in conjunction with flow
through the plant (low lift pump operation) and the proce$S will stabilize within a few
minutes of start-up.
·
We consider the restrictions on intennittent flows to be the biggest drawback to
incorporation of the Œtrapulsator process at the Kincardine water treatment plant. The plant
currently operates at one of three levels of flow through the plant; discharge from a small low lift
pump, discharge fi"om a large low lift pwnp, or discharge from a small and large low lift pwnp
operating together. The pumps cycIe on and offïn response to levels in the plant's clear well.
To meet the requirements for gradual changes in flow through the Œtrapubator units, it would
be necessary to equip the low lift pumps with variable ftequency drives, and control the pumps
so that the output would be continuously variable. \Vhile I have included an allowance fur the
modifications to the low lift pumps in the capital cost comparison for. the units, we have not
investigated what operational difficulties this may present. The ability of the Actiflo unit to
cycle on and off with the low lift pumps would allow this aspect of the plant operation to
continue ba¡;ically a¡; it is at present.
.(
-'
.
.
.
,. Jl.tI - .8-04 H:D! FROM-B.M. Ross & ABBociateB Limited 519 524 440, T-m P.DD'/DD5 HBi
,
-Á -3-
Cost Considerations
It As previously mentioned, because of fundamental differences between the Actiflo and
Ultrapulsator uniœ, it is not possible to compare them strictly on the basis of the quoted purchase
prices. As much as possible, capital costs associated with procurement and installation of the
units have been identified in order to come up with a total cost for the installed uniœ, and allow a
comparison on that basis. In addition, expected operational costs have been identified to allow a
comparison of the anticipated annual costs of operating each of the units. The r<:5ults of our
comparisons under the twO categories are as follows:
'" .
Capital Cost Comparison
Item Actino Ultrapulsator
Quoted price from supplier I $458,575 $309,800
Concrete tankal!e 863,800 8126,800
Building $156,000 S226,000
Mjscellaneous metals and mechanical $41,000 I $47,000
Electrical and control - $6,000
VFD control for low lift pumps - 860,000
. Upgrades to Cormaught Park SPS $45,000 $11,000
Total Capital Cost $764,375 $786,600
Annual Operating Cost Comparison
Item Actißo Ultrapulsator
Electrical; clarifiers $6,061 $3,426
Electrical; waste stream pumping $1,708 $432
Sand replacement 81,200 -
Total Annual Operatin2 Costs $8,969 53,858
Capitalized 20 Year OPerating Costs
G 8% $88,000 $38,000
G 5% S112,000 548,000
As can be seen Ïrom the first table, the expected capital cost for supply and installation of
. the two units is virtually identical. While all parameters related to the installation of the units
have not been identified in the table, it is considered that the costs shown are those in which the
units have significant differences, and that other costs associated with the installation would be
similar for either unit. The higher costs associated with installation of the UItrapulsator unit
related primarily to its larger size, as reflected in higher costs for concrete tankage and building
requirements, and in the need for modifications to the low lift pumps, as was previously
discussed.
.
Jlth~8-D4 11:09
FROM-8.M. ROBi & AisociateB Limited
519 524 440,
T-5iD P.DD4/DD5 F-68i
,
-4-
I
"
The item for upgrades to the Connaught Parle sewage pumping station relate to the need to
handle the waste sludge stream from the two units. While there are other possibilities for dealing
with this waste stream, it is felt that the most expedient way to accomplish this is by discharging
the waste to the sanitary sewer. It would be necessary for the waste flows to be pumped by both
the Cannaught Park sewage pumping station and tbe Huron Terrace pumping station.
.
Based on information from the suppliers, peak waste flow from the Actiflo unit would be
expected to be 5.4 LIs, while peak waste flow from the Ultrapulsator is estimated at 1.3 LIs.
Peak flows, bowever, would only be expected to occur a small portion of the time the units are
operating. Average annual flows from the unit are estimated at 1.1 Us for the Actiflo and
0.3 LIs for the Ultrnpulsator. While these flows represent only a small portion of the capacity of
the two pumping stations, it is reported that the Connaught Park pumping station capacity is
periodically exceeded by the inflows during wet weather and the addition of waste flows from
the water treatment plant would only serve to make a bad situation worse.
\
Given that it may be necessary to upgrade the capacity of the Connaught Park pumping
station with or without the additional flows from the water 1reatment plant, it is felt to be
reasonable to apportion a certain amount of the upgrade capacity and cost to the treatment plant
project. Previous studies undertaken by BMROSS have identified the costs involved with
increasing the capacity of the Connaught Parle sewage pumping station. The capitaI costs
identified in the previous table are derived from these cost estimates, pro-rated in relation to the
peak flows expected from each of the clarifier units. Likewise, the costs identified for waste
pumping under the operational cost comparison table are derived from the anticipated electrical
costs at the two sewage pumping stations for pumping the average waste flows from each of the
clarifier units.
.
Operational costs related to eIectricity for the clarifier units are based on the installed
horsepower of mixers and pumps for each of the units. For the Actifo unit, it is assumed that two
clarifiers cycle on and off on a 50% duty cycle for six months of the year and one clarifier unit
cycles on and off on a 50% duty cycle for the other six months of the year. It is assumed that
both hydro cones operate 10% of the time an Actiflo clarifier unit is operating, and that only one
hydrocyclone is used for the other 90% of the time the clarifier is operating. For the
Ultrapulsator units, it is assumed that it is not practical to cycle the units on and offwith low lift
pump operation, and that two units will therefore operate continuously for six months of the year
and that one clarifier unit will operate continuously for the other six months of the year. Waste
stream volumes are calculated on the same basis, however it is assumed that no waste will be
produced by the lntrapulsator units for 50% of the time since there will be little or no raw water
flow through the units during those periods.
The cost for sand replacement is unique to the Actiflo process, and includes 1/2 hour per
week of operator time as well as the cost of the sand.
.
~ JU~- 8-04 H:D9
'-
It
.
.
FROM-B.M. ROBB & ABBociateB Limited
519 524 440,
T-5iO P.DD5/DD5 F-68i
-5-
Service
It is difficult to predict how the two units may compare in terms of service requirements
and the manufacturers or suppliers response to any service requirements which the Municipality
may have. Both companies are based in Quebec, with local supplier representation. Based upon
information provided by the suppliers. it would appear that the Actiflo process has more Ontario
installations. Throughout the selection and quotation process, it has been om observation that
John Muenier Inc., the supplier of the Actiflo units, bas been more accessible and responsive to
requests for information than has Aqua Technical Sales. We would anticipate, however, that
service would be more likely to come directly ftom the manufacturers than through the local
suppliers.
Another intangible factor in the comparison of the two units is the reduced space
requirement for the Actiflo units. Although this has been quantified in the capital cost
comparison table, the reduced space requirements for the Actiflo mean that more space is
available for office and laboratory facilities at the plant, which will allow greater flexibility in the
design of these facilities.
In the final analysis, it is om opinion that the Actiflo process is better suited to the
operational requirements of the Kincardine water treatment plant, but that the Municipality can
expect greater operational costs for energy and consumables than would be the case with the
Ultrapulsator units. This greater cost may be somewhat offset by the possibility of easier and
more intuitive operation of the Actiflo units by the operators. As stated at the outset, we feel that
operational considerations should outweigh financial considerations in the selection of the
process to be used at the Kincardinè plant. On this basis, we recommend selection of the Actiflo
process.
I would be pleased to meet with you to discuss the results of the evaluation and
comparison process, and the next steps in implementing the required upgrades at the Kincardine
Water Treatment Plant.
Yours very truly
B. M. ROSS AND ASSOCIATES LOOTED
Per
~
Richard R .-\nderson, P. Eng.
RRA:bf
j
.
.
4