4/26/2011 SEWER COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

central treatment. Additionally, pumping costs have been reduced because liquids only would be pumped and the pumps have a long life and use energy efficiently. Mr. Cotton noted that the cost of treatment for traditional treatment systems tend to be more energy intensive compared to the Advantex, which is more passive_ Chairman'Fudala inquired about the scale�of the facilities and Mr. Cotton responded that up to 100,000 gallons per day would be treated in an Advantex cluster. Mr. Cotton highlighted the life cycle cost for the system over a 60 year period, noting that Advantex would cost $150 million, a gravity system with centralized treatment mould cost $250 million and a grinder system would cost $220 n Ilion. The STEP system estimate included the casts for pumping the septic. Mr. Cotton noted that the capital costs for the STEP and the grinder were similar and that the gravity was more. Collection system O&M costs and onsite &M costs, which include electricity, tank pumping and ongoing replacement of parts, would be less than the grinder pump system. Likewise, the impact of treatment cost would also be reduced compared to the grinder and gravity systems doe to the primary treatment that occurs prior to arrival at the central treatment plant_ The Chair inquired about the solids from the septic and Mr. Cotton responded that it could be treated at the plant or transported elsewhere, and that it was covered in the pumping costs of solids. Referencing Ma tepee, Mr. Cotton highlighted the benefits of the STS system such as use of i existing right of ways and directional boring, adding that costs, such as traffic control and restoration issues, would be less 6f an issue. The technology can also work with a high water table and existing trees and can work with small clusters of home using a 2 inch Be. Mr. Cotton referenced shallow pipe installation,just below the frost line, directional.boring and underwater crossings and the benefits of the STEP system. Mr. Cotton also noted the reduced strength of the wastewater due to retreatment, su estin that it would be a o of 120.. Additionally, the l gg g y STEP system offers emergency storage of I to 4 days in the septic tank(designed for 225 gallons within a 1,000 gallon tank). The grinder system provides only 50 gallons of storage. Cotton referenced the Keeter Zone.and noted that the STEL' collection system can target areas such as the island. Mr. Cotton stag that the line could be installed and the area addressed First. Politically, Mr. Cotton noted that residents may have costly'new septic systems and could be resistant to systems that would replace their recently installed systems. Mr. Cotton stated that main line could be installed and the connections occur over a period of time. Mr. Cotton noted that many of the Title v septic tanks installed si ce 1996.could be us6d with the system_ Chairman Fudala stated that he has mapped out the age of the structures in town to identify locations with Title V septic systems. Mr. Cotton stated that the binder offered detailed cost estates for each of the areas, including the amount of lime to be used. The cost for 5,557 properties has been estimated at$51,1935365. Mr. Cotton discussed use of primarily 2 inch line, but noted that 4 inch, 6 inch and 8 inch line could also be utilized to allow for future expansion. 1r. Cotton noted that isolation valves were located wherever limes crossed to shut off line if needed. 1r. Cotton also discussed end of line cleanouts and short single services. Mr. Cotton noted that the cost estimated for onsite STEP installation assumed that every tank would need to be replaced, adding that he preferred to provide the most conservative cost estimates. The per property capital cost has been estimated at 5