Alternative Options Assessment Report › media › 794436 › 13-alternative...Te Puke Wastewater...

$: Alternative Options Assessment Report › media › 794436 › 13-alternative...Te Puke Wastewater Treatment Plant \\nztrg1fp001.au.aecomnet.com\trg-jobs\42075468\5 Works\Bob\Dispsoal$
AECOM Te Puke WWTP Consent RenewalTe Puke Wastewater Treatment Plant Resource Consent Renewal

Revision Final – 20-May-2016Prepared for – Western Bay of Plenty District Council – ABN: N/A

iAppendix I

Alternative OptionsAssessment Report

\\nztrg1fp001.au.aecomnet.com\trg-jobs\42075468\5 Works\Bob\Dispsoal Options Assessment\Report\Te Puke WWTP Disposal Options Assessment (Report)v5 Final for Client Review .docx Revision 1 – 30-Nov-2015 Prepared for – Western Bay of Plenty District Council – Co No.: 125014

Te Puke Wastewater Treatment Plant

Western Bay of Plenty District Council

30-Nov-2015

D R A F T

Alternative Disposal Options Assessment


AECOM



D R A F T




Client: Western Bay of Plenty District Council

Co No.: 125014

Prepared by

AECOM Consulting Services (NZ) Ltd

115 Cameron Road, Tauranga 3001, PO Box 13161, Tauranga 3110, New Zealand

T +64 7 927 3080 F +64 7 927 3082 www.aecom.com

30-Nov-2015

Job No.: 60435436

AECOM in Australia and New Zealand is certified to the latest version of ISO9001, ISO14001, AS/NZS4801 and OHSAS18001.

© AECOM Consulting Services (NZ) Limited. All rights reserved.

No use of the contents, concepts, designs, drawings, specifications, plans etc. included in this report is permitted unless and until they are the

subject of a written contract between AECOM Consulting Services (NZ) Limited (AECOM) and the addressee of this report. AECOM accepts no

liability of any kind for any unauthorised use of the contents of this report and AECOM reserves the right to seek compensation for any such

unauthorised use.

Document Delivery

AECOM Consulting Services (NZ) Limited (AECOM) provides this document in either printed format, electronic format or both. AECOM considers

the printed version to be binding. The electronic format is provided for the client’s convenience and AECOM requests that the client ensures the

integrity of this electronic information is maintained. Storage of this electronic information should at a minimum comply with the requirements of the

Electronic Transactions Act 2002.

AECOM



D R A F T


Quality Information

Document Alternative Disposal Options Assessment

Ref 60435436

Date 30-Nov-2015

Prepared by Bob Shaw

Reviewed by Zhuo Chen

Revision History

Revision Revision

Date Details

Authorised

Name/Position Signature

1 30-Nov-2015 Draft for client review Richard Harkness

Associate Director -

Planning

AECOM



D R A F T


Table of Contents

Executive Summary i 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Disposal Options Strategy 1

2.1 Background 1 2.2 Options Assessment and Selection Staging 1

3.0 Alternative Disposal Options 3 3.1 Waiari Stream - Base Option (BO) 3 3.2 Te Puke WWTP and discharge to Forestry Land (LF) 4 3.3 Te Puke WWTP and discharge to Horticulture Land (LH) 4 3.4 Te Puke WWTP and discharge to Recreational Reserve Land (LRR) 4 3.5 Te Puke WWTP and discharge to Wildlife Reserve Land (LWR) 4 3.6 Te Puke WWTP and discharge to Pasture Land (LP) 4 3.7 Te Puke WWTP and discharge to Ocean Outfall (OO) 4 3.8 Te Puke WWTP and discharge to TCC Te Maunga WWTP (TCC) 4

4.0 Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) 5 4.1 MCA process 5 4.2 Analysis Criteria 5 4.3 Criteria Importance Level Weighting 6 4.4 Criteria Options Analysis 7

5.0 Report Limitations 9

AECOM



D R A F T


i

Executive Summary

The Western Bay of Plenty District Council (WBOPDC) currently has consent, which is set to expire in November

2016, to operate the Te Puke Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) and discharge wastewater into the Waiari

stream.

WBOPDC wishes to renew the existing resource consent and seeks to obtain new Bay of Plenty Regional Council

(BOPRC) resource consents for a 35‐year term, to meet the future needs for the Western Bay of Plenty district

and in particular, the current expected 30% population increase by 2045.

WBOPDC have not previously considered any alternative disposal options for the Te Puke WWTP. Any change to

the current WWTP disposal option will have a significant impact on WBOPDC’s wastewater strategy, planning and

budgeting processes. In addition there is uncertainty relating to the timing and discharge of wastewater from the

Rangiuru development. As such WBOPDC has adopted a more longterm strategic approach when undertaking

the Alternative Disposal Options Assessment for the Te Puke WWTP consent renewal.

In order to facilitate the decision making, consultation and longterm planning associated with any change to the

current disposal of wastewater from the WWTP, WBOPDC have adopted the following three staged, ten year

approach in considering Alternative Disposal Options for the Te Puke WWTP:

Stage 1: Alternative Disposal Options Selection using a Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA). This Stage forms

the basis of this assessment report.

Stage 2: Alternative Disposal Site Selection GIS based constraints analysis. This will occur over the

period 2016 to 2020 and inform the 2021 – 2031 LTP process.

Stage 3: Alternative Disposal Option Scheme Selection confirmation. This will occur over the period

2020 to 2026 and inform the 2027 - 2037 LTP.

This three staged, ten year process will ensure that the assessment undertaken by WBOPDC will be thorough

and robust; allow opportunity for wide engagement and consultation with Tangata whenua, the community and

stakeholders during the journey; provide key hold points to include feedback, update information and review the

process; and provide input into WBOPDC’s LTP processes.

Stage One of the Alternative Disposal Options Assessment involved a Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) of eight

alternative disposal options, as follows:

1. Base Option Te Puke WWTP and discharge to Waiari Stream (BO)

2. Te Puke WWTP and discharge to Forestry Land (LF)

3. Te Puke WWTP and discharge to Horticulture Land (LH)

4. Te Puke WWTP and discharge to Recreational Reserve Land (LRR)

5. Te Puke WWTP and discharge to Wildlife Reserve Land (LWR)

6. Te Puke WWTP and discharge to Pasture Land (LP)

7. Te Puke WWTP and discharge to Ocean Outfall (OO)

8. Te Puke WWTP and discharge to TCC Te Maunga WWTP (TCC)

A group representing a cross section of the community assessed the eight options against the seven qualitative

non-cost based criteria below:

1. Sustainability

2. Social/Public Health

3. Cultural

4. Planning and Regulatory

5. Technical/Functional

6. Operational

7. Environmental

A level of importance was determined by the group for each of the criteria, the criteria options were then scored

and the options ranked based on the final agreed scoring.

Eight alternative disposal options have been considered for the alternatives assessment as summarised below.

All of the disposal options may cater for either 100% of the consented discharge volume, only part of the volume

or seasonally adjusted volumes. Volumes to be discharged as part of any alternative disposal option will be

AECOM



D R A F T


ii

determined as part of the Stage 2 technical assessment, and would consider any increase in volumes arising from

either the Rangiuru development and/or revised population projections and therefore increased wastewater

volume.

The top four ranked options, recommended to be carried forward to the Stage 2 Alternative Disposal Site

Selection phase, are:

1. Te Puke WWTP and discharge to Forestry Land – LF

2. Te Puke WWTP and discharge to Pasture Land – LP

3. Te Puke WWTP and discharge to Wildlife Reserve Land – LWR

4. Te Puke WWTP and discharge to Recreational Reserve Land – LRR

AECOM



D R A F T


1

1.0 Introduction

The Western Bay of Plenty District Council (WBOPDC) currently has consent (Resource Consent Numbers 02

4891 and 02 4889) to operate the Te Puke Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) and discharge wastewater into

the Waiari stream.

WBOPDC wishes to renew the existing resource consent which is set to expire in November 2016. In addition,

WBOPDC seeks to obtain new Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BOPRC) resource consents for a 35‐year term, to

meet the future needs for the Western Bay of Plenty district and in particular, the current expected 30% population

increase by 2045.

This report summarises Council’s approach to the Alternative Disposal Options Assessment for the Te Puke

WWTP, the disposal options strategy and the methodology adopted.

2.0 Disposal Options Strategy

2.1 Background

Currently the wastewater reaching the Te Puke WWTP undergoes a series of treatment processes including

screening, secondary reactor/clarifier, tertiary brush filtration, and UV disinfection. Effluent from UV disinfection is

allowed to flow through a constructed up-flow wetland before being discharged into the Waiari Stream via a

constructed riparian wetland. For more information relating to the treatment process refer to AECOM Process

Performance Review Report dated 16 October 20151.

WBOPDC are seeking a 35 year consent to discharge 9,000m3 per day of treated wastewater into the Waiari

Stream. WBOPDC acknowledge that longterm discharge of treated wastewater to the Waiari Stream will need to

reviewed during the term of the consent and alternative disposal options considered.

To date, with the exception of the Te Puke WWTP being included in a high level investigation undertaken in 2012

as part of a wider SmartGrowth initiative2, WBOPDC have not previously considered any alternative disposal

options for the Te Puke WWTP. Provision for alternative disposal options, specific site selection or scheme

designs are not currently included in any WBOPDC strategies, financial or planning forecasts. Alternatives to the

current disposal option, 100% discharge to the Waiari Stream, has the potential to significantly impact WBOPDC’s

longterm planning process and capital works programme (LTP). As such any disposal alternatives will need to be

widely canvased with Tangata whenua, key stakeholders and the wider community prior to confirmation of a

preferred alternative disposal option.

In addition the issue of treatment and disposal of wastewater from the planned Rangiuru development has the

potential to significantly impact the Te Puke WWTP and therefore needs to be considered during the alternative

disposal options assessment process. Rangiuru wastewater will be required to be of a similar or better quality to

that of the Te Puke WWTP consent conditions, this may require on site pre-treatment prior to being received at

the WWTP (ie no biological impact on the WWTP treatment process). WBOPDC, as part of the consent renewal,

is seeking to ring fence the consented discharge volume of 9,000m3 per day for the current Te Puke WWTP

community catchment including the expected 30% population increase forecast by 2045. As such any increase in

volume arising from the Rangiuru development will need to be discharged to an alternative site.

Any alternative disposal option could cater for all, part or seasonally adjusted increased volumes as well as any

wastewater arising from the Rangiuru development.

2.2 Options Assessment and Selection Staging

In order to facilitate decision making, consultation and longterm planning associated with any change to the

current disposal of treated wastewater from the Te Puke WWTP, WBOPDC have adopted a three stage approach

in considering Alternative Disposal Options for the Te Puke WWTP to ensure a robust assessment process.

1 Process Performance Review Te Puke Wastewater Treatment Plant, AECOM Report 16 October 2015

2 SmartGrowth Subregional Infrastructure Research Wastewater Review, URS Report 22 March 2012

AECOM



D R A F T


2

Stage 1: Alternative Disposal Options Selection Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA). This Stage, which forms

the basis of this assessment report, involves:

o Identifying alternative disposal options:

o Undertaking an MCA to score and rank the disposal options:

Involves qualitative, non-cost based, criteria.

Assign weightings to the criteria based on their importance levels.

Score the criteria for each of the options.

Calculate an overall average weighted score and therefore ranking for each of the

options.

o Deliverables will be an Alternative Disposal Options Assessment Report to support the

Assessment of Environmental Effects for renewal of the Te Puke WWTP resource consent, this

report.

Stage 2: Alternative Disposal Site Selection GIS based constraints analysis. This will occur over the

period 2016 to 2020 and would involve:

o Three phase process to identify a shortlist of preferred sites for the four highest ranked

Alternative Disposal Options identified in Stage 1.

o Phase 1 - longlist of potential sites;

High level desktop GIS based constraints analysis using a limited number of GIS

constraints to identify a longlist of potential sites. Potential GIS constraints are listed

below. The final GIS constraints will be confirmed at the time of the Stage 2

assessment:

Land Area.

Land Slope.

Land Elevation.

Distance of potential site from Te Puke WWTP.

o Phase 2 - medium list of potential sites;

Consultation with the longlisted site property owners to identify which owners would be

favourable to the possibility of entering into an agreement with WBOPDC for the land

to be used for disposal of treated wastewater.

Investigation and assessment of sites that receive a favourable response from the

property owners to identify any on site constraints.

Confirm a medium list of those sites that receive a favourable response from the

property owners and do not have any “fatal flaw” site constraints.

o Phase 3 - shortlist of preferred sites;

Detailed GIS based constraints analysis to refine the medium listed sites. GIS

constraints sourced from available datasets such as WBOPDC, BOPRC, LINZ, Utility

providers, HNZPT, GNS and other natural hazard GIS sources.

Refine medium listed sites based on GIS and non-GIS constraints, for example:

Natural Hazards; land stability, land drainage, seismic/erosion risk.

Cultural/Historical; proximity to marae, recorded cultural and archaeological

sites.

Planning; land ownership, land use designations/restrictions, regional and

district planning restrictions and ease of consenting.

Technical; soil type, seasonal groundwater table, distance to key

infrastructure, distance to sensitive receiving environment.

Non GIS; property owner feedback, site assessments, end market regulations

such as Fonterra or Kiwifruit.

Undertake consultation with Tangata whenua, key stakeholders and the wider

community on the refined medium list of potential sites.

Refine the medium list of potential sites to a preferred shortlist following the wider

consultation.

Complete concept design and high level cost estimates for the preferred shortlisted

sites.

o Deliverables would be an Alternative Disposal Options Site Selection and Concept Design

Report to inform the 2021 – 2031 LTP process. Consultation on the preferred shortlisted sites

would occur as part of the LTP consultation process.

AECOM



D R A F T


3

Stage 3: Alternative Disposal Option Scheme Selection Confirmation. This will occur over the period

2020 to 2026 and would involve:

o An MCA of the preferred shortlisted sites identified in Phase 3 of Stage 2.

Follow the same MCA process as outlined in Stage 1 to score and rank the preferred

shortlisted sites.

In addition to the non-cost based qualitative criteria used in Stage 1, the Stage 3 MCA

would also include 3 cost based criteria;

Capital Cost

Operating Cost

NPV/Whole of Life Cost

Percentage weightings would be applied to the non-cost and cost based criteria and a

sensitivity analysis undertaken using different weightings namely 70/30 and 50/50 to

determine the impact of the cost based criteria on scores and rankings.

Based on the outcome of the Stage 3 MCA a preferred Alternative Disposal Option

Scheme would be identified.

o Complete concept design, feasibility study and cost estimate for the preferred Alternative

Disposal Option Scheme.

o Deliverables would be an Alternative Disposal Options MCA and Scheme Feasibility Design

Report to inform the 2027 - 2037 LTP. Consultation on the confirmed scheme would occur as

part of the LTP consultation process.

The final stage for delivery of an Alternative Disposal Scheme for Te Puke WWTP, once confirmed through the

LTP process, would involve preparation of detailed designs, engineers estimate and the physical works tender

procurement process, also appropriate resource consents would be required as well as any other approvals.

3.0 Alternative Disposal Options

The WBOPDC 2015 to 2025 LTP provides a programme of upgrades and improvement projects to ensure the Te

Puke WWTP treatment process and capacity are adequate to meet the forecast demand. In addition the Process

Performance Review Report 3 contains a number of suggested consent conditions relating to improvement in the

quality of the treated wastewater discharge. The MCA alternative disposals options assessment has been

undertaken on the basis that the projects identified in the LTP will be progressed, there are no changes to the

current treatment process technology other than the scheduled upgrades and improvements included in the LTP

and wastewater will be treated at the Te Puke WWTP to the same standard required by the consent for all the

alternative disposal options being considered.

The MCA process is a high level analysis of alternative disposal options and as such does not include a detailed

technical assessment of the options nor is it site specific at this stage. Only disposal options with proven

technology and a history of use in New Zealand or Australia have been considered. It has been assumed that if

the MCA process ranks an option highly then it is generally acceptable to WBOPDC and the wider community. A

technical assessment will be undertaken on the shortlisted options as part of the Stage 2 concept design phase.

Eight alternative disposal options have been considered for the alternatives assessment as summarised below.

All of the disposal options may cater for either 100% of the consented discharge volume, only part of the volume

or seasonally adjusted volumes. Volumes to be discharged as part of any alternative disposal option will be

determined as part of the Stage 2 technical assessment, and would consider any increase in volumes arising from

either the Rangiuru development and/or revised population projections and therefore increased wastewater

volume.

3.1 Waiari Stream - Base Option (BO)

This is the existing status quo option with wastewater being treated at the Te Puke WWTP and discharged to the

Waiari Stream. Discharge of treated wastewater to water bodies is widely used for disposal of municipal

wastewater in New Zealand, and with the appropriate consent conditions is a recognised disposal option.

Examples in New Zealand, in addition to the Waiari Stream include WBOPDC Waihi Beach WWTP into Three

Mile Creek, Pukekohe WWTP into the Park Lane Stream, Helensville WWTP into the Kaipara River, Waiwera

3 Process Performance Review Te Puke Wastewater Treatment Plant, AECOM Report 16 October 2015

AECOM



D R A F T


4

WWTP into the Waiwera River, Warkworth WWTP into the Mahurangi River and Wellsford WWTP into the Hoteo

River.

3.2 Te Puke WWTP and discharge to Forestry Land (LF)

This option assumes full treatment at the Te Puke WWTP and discharge of the treated wastewater to forestry

land. The forestry land could either be a commercial forestry plantation, non-commercial forestry plantation or

native forest block, with the land either privately or publicly owned. Examples of this disposal option in use in New

Zealand include the Rotorua DC spray irrigation to the Whakarewarewa Forest, Omaha WWTP into a eucalyptus

plantation and Kawakawa Bay WWTP into the Glen Forest blocks.

3.3 Te Puke WWTP and discharge to Horticulture Land (LH)

This option assumes full treatment at the Te Puke WWTP and discharge of the treated wastewater to horticulture

land. For the purposes of the options assessment it has been assumed the land is likely to be privately owned and

horticulture land is defined as land being used for the production of consumable produce such as Kiwifruit,

Avocados, fruit, vegetables and cereal crops. This is not a widely used disposal option, there is a very small

commercial WWTP on Waiheke Island that disposes their treated wastewater onto a small vineyard and it is used

in Australia in the sugar cane industry for disposal of commercial wastewater.

3.4 Te Puke WWTP and discharge to Recreational Reserve Land (LRR)

This option assumes full treatment at the Te Puke WWTP and discharge of the treated wastewater to recreational

reserve land. For the purposes of the options assessment it has been assumed the land could be either private or

publicly owned such as golf courses, sports fields, public gardens, parks and reserves amenity areas. Examples

of this disposal option in use in New Zealand include Pauanui WWTP onto parks, the airfield and other green

spaces around Pauanui and the Omaha WWTP onto a golf course.

3.5 Te Puke WWTP and discharge to Wildlife Reserve Land (LWR)

This option assumes full treatment at the Te Puke WWTP and discharge of the treated wastewater to wild life

reserve land. For the purposes of the options assessment it has been assumed the land could be either private or

publicly owned such as a wildlife sanctuary, Department of Conservation wetland, wildlife restoration habitat. An

example of this disposal option in use in New Zealand is the Kerikeri WWTP discharge into the Waitangi Forest

wetland complex.

3.6 Te Puke WWTP and discharge to Pasture Land (LP)

This option assumes full treatment at the Te Puke WWTP and discharge of the treated wastewater to pasture

land. For the purposes of the options assessment it has been assumed the land is likely to be privately owned and

pasture land is defined as land being used for dry stock grazing, non-dairy production, or cut and carry fodder

cropping. Examples of this disposal option in use in New Zealand include WBOPDC Maketu WWTP, Taupo DC

WWTP and Ashburton DC WWTP.

3.7 Te Puke WWTP and discharge to Ocean Outfall (OO)

This option assumes full treatment at the Te Puke WWTP and discharge of the treated wastewater to the marine

environment via a new ocean outfall pipeline. This is a widely used option for disposal of municipal wastewater in

New Zealand, local examples include Tauranga CC WWTP, WBOPDC Katikati WWTP and Whakatane DC

WWTP while Rosedale WWTP, Army Bay WWTP, Snells-Algies WWTP are examples in the Auckland region.

3.8 Te Puke WWTP and discharge to TCC Te Maunga WWTP (TCC)

This option assumes full treatment at the Te Puke WWTP and discharge of the treated wastewater to the existing

Tauranga CC (TCC) Te Maunga WWTP with ultimate disposal to the marine environment via the current TCC

ocean outfall. This option provides the flexibility, to be assessed further as part of the Stage 2 concept design

phase should it be shortlisted, to consider either:

Full treatment at Te Puke WWTP and discharge to the outlet side of the TCC Te Maunga WWTP

therefore placing no additional demand on the TCC WWTP process, or

AECOM



D R A F T


5

Partial treatment at Te Puke WWTP with discharge to the inlet side of the TCC Te Maunga WWTP and

final treatment occurring as part of the Te Maunga WWPT process. This would allow for a reduction in

the treatment process at Te Puke WWTP, and subsequent reduced upgrade programme, however it

would place additional demand on the Te Maunga WWPT process.

4.0 Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA)

4.1 MCA process

A workshop was facilitated by AECOM to undertake the MCA. In order to ensure a robust process and a broad

community representation at the workshop WBOPDC identified a number of groups and individuals with a

potential interest in the Te Puke WWTP consent renewal project. Following consultation by WBOPDC with

potential attendees and with the Tangata Whenua representatives at the Project Sterring Gropu meeting on 30

October 2015 the following attendees were confirmed and invited to the workshop held 9 November 2015:

Tangata whenua representatives: Hohepa Maxwell Tapuika Iwi Authority, Maria Horne Ngati Whakaue ki

Maketu.

WBOPDC non-elected officers: Kelvin Hill Utilities Manager, Coral-Lee Ertel Project and Design

Engineer Team Leader.

Te Puke community elected representative: Peter Miller Te Puke Community Board Chair

Te Puke community non-elected representative: Rob Fraser a member of the Te Ara Kahikatea Pathway

Society and the Te Puke Environment Forum.

Technical Support: Richard Harkness AECOM Associate Director Planning.

Prior to the workshop all attendees were provided background information on the Te Puke WWTP consent

renewal process and the MCA matrix tool. Unfortunately Peter Miller the Te Puke Community Board Chair was

unable to attend the workshop, however he was provided with a copy of MCA matrix output.

The MCA process involved analysing the eight alternative disposal options against non-cost based qualitative

criteria. A criteria importance level weighting was determined for each of the criteria, the criteria were then scored

for each of the options and an overall average weighted score and ranking calculated for each of the options.

4.2 Analysis Criteria

The seven criteria used for the analysis are all qualitative and non-cost based, having been determined by

AECOM based on previous wastewater treatment plant projects, ensuring that they represent environmental,

social, cultural and technical factors.

The criteria, criteria descriptions and assessment guidance notes are provided in in Table 1.

AECOM



D R A F T


6

Table 1 MCA Criteria

As previously noted cost based criteria will only be included as part of the alternative disposal options assessment

in the final Stage 3 scheme selection phase, currently programmed to occur in 2020 to 2026 to inform WBOPDC’s

2027 to 2037 LTP process.

4.3 Criteria Importance Level Weighting

The workshop attendees debated the importance of each of the seven criteria for the Te Puke WWTP and agreed

an importance level weighting. A weighting of 1 indicated the criteria was considered least important and a

weighting of 10 most important.

In order to test the impact of the importance weighting on the scoring and options rankings a sensitivity analysis

was undertaken by assigning weightings of either 1 or 10 to various criteria, however this did not alter the final

option rankings.

The final agreed criteria weightings are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 MCA Criteria Weighting

Ref Analysis Criteria Criteria Description Notes Classification Qualitative or Quantitative?

G1 Sustainability

Alignment with WBOPDC Sustainability Strategy, Energy

Use/Carbon Footprint, Sustainable Development, Future

Proofing, Beneficial Reuse

Scoring will be influenced by the amount of energy use,

beneficial reuse of the treated wastewater and ability to

respond to population growth/increase in demand Environmental Qualitative

G2 Social / Public Health

Public Health Risk, Safety, Visual Amenity, Proximity to

Neighbours and Effects on Them, Construction Effects,

Public Acceptance

Scoring will be influenced by the degree of public health

risk, removal of direct discharges to freshwater

environments, proximity to neighbours and overall

likelihood of public acceptance

Social Qualitative

G3 Cultural

Matauranga Maori, Discharge to Freshwater, Discharge

to Land, Discharge to Coastal Water, Transfer of

Wastewater from one rohe to another

Scoring will be influenced by preference to discharge to

land over freshwater and coastal water Cultural Qualitative

G4Planning and

Regulatory

Consentability, RMA, Freshwater NPS, NZCPS, Kaituna

River Management Plan, Complexity and viability of

obtaining future consents and designations

Scoring will be influenced by the need (or not) to obtain

new discharge consents and designations, or whether

existing consent conditions could be changed via a

potentially non-notified process and future resource

consent requirements, the avoidance of discharges to the

Kaituna River catchment and freshwater generally, and

the potential effects on the coastal environment and

ecology. Overall marking will be from a complexity

and viability of consenting/planning process

Environmental Qualitative

G5 Technical / Functional

Reliability, Flexibility, Constructability, Proven

Engineering, Engineering Rresilience, Use of Existing

Infrastructure

Scoring will be influenced by proven technology and

maximises the use of existing infrastructure. Complex

options to construct will score more poorly Other Qualitative

G6 Operational

Complexity, Safety, Complementary to Existing

Infrastructure, Reliability

Scoring will be influenced by the operability of the option

i.e. proven technology, can it be supported in NZ, are

there other examples in NZ.Other Qualitative

G7 Environmental

Natural Hazards, Climate Change, Adverse Effects on the

Natural EnvironmentScoring will be influenced by the resilience to natural

hazards, climate change and potential for adverse effects

on the environmentEnvironmental Qualitative

Goal based Analysis Criteria - Independent of Cost

Attribute

Refs:G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10 G11 G12

10

9 1 1 1

8 1

7 1

6 1 1

5

4

3

2

1

0 1 1 1 1 1

Cri

teri

a

Su

sta

ina

bilit

y

So

cia

l / P

ub

lic

He

alt

h

Cu

ltu

ral

Pla

nn

ing

an

d

Re

gu

lato

ry

Te

ch

nic

al /

Fu

nc

tio

na

l

Op

era

tio

na

l

En

vir

on

me

nta

l

0 0 0 0 0

Weight: 7 9 9 8 6 6 9 0 0 0 0 0

Goal Based Analysis Criteria - Independent of Costs

Most Important

Least Important

AECOM



D R A F T


7

4.4 Criteria Options Analysis

The workshop attendees scored each of the seven criteria for the eight options being analysed. A score of 1

indicated a poor criteria score for the option while a score of 5 indicated a good score for the option.

The three options discharging to water receiving environments; Ocean Outfall (ranked 8), TCC Te Maunga

WWTP (ranked 7) and the existing discharge to the Waiari Stream (ranked 6) generally scored poorly across all

the criteria in particular social/public health (score of 2) , cultural (score of 1) and to a slightly lessor extent

environmental (score of 3). This is considered a reflection of the growing resistance in the community against

discharging treated wastewater to water environments where contact with the public may occur.

Of the remaining five options, all land based disposal, those that discharged to land with a lesser likelihood of

contact with the public scored high across all criteria and therefore ranked highest: Forestry Land (ranked 1),

Pasture Land (ranked 2), Wildlife Land (ranked 3). The discharge to Pasture Land option scores remained high for

social/public health and cultural on the grounds that the pasture land was not for dairy production and had no

involvement with Fonterra or any other dairy milk related industry.

Discharge to Recreational Reserve Land (ranked 4) also scored highly across a number of criteria however lower

scores for social/public health (score of 3) and cultural (score of 3), both with a high criteria importance level

weighting of 9, reflects concerns of the increased public use of recreational reserve land and therefore the higher

potential for contact by the public.

Discharge to Horticulture Land (ranked 5) generally received average scores across all criteria, however it scored

poorly for social/public health (score of 2) and cultural (2) a reflection of concerns for the potential of treated

wastewater to enter the food supply chain.

The final agreed criteria scoring and options rankings are shown in Table 3.

AECOM



D R A F T


8

Table 3 MCA Criteria Scoring and Options Ranking

The overall rankings from the MCA workshop compare favourably to informal analysis completed by an

AECOM/WBOPDC group and an independent group of WBOPDC engineering staff, with the options generally

scoring similar rankings. This provides a level of confidence that the results of the MCA workshop represent a

consensus of the option rankings.

The top four ranked options, recommended to be carried forward to the Stage 2 Alternative Disposal Site

Selection phase, are:

1. Te Puke WWTP and discharge to Forestry Land – LF

2. Te Puke WWTP and discharge to Pasture Land – LP

3. Te Puke WWTP and discharge to Wildlife Reserve Land – LWR

4. Te Puke WWTP and discharge to Recreational Reserve Land – LRR

# Scenario

Su

stai

nab

ilit

y

So

cial

/ P

ub

lic

Hea

lth

Cu

ltu

ral

Pla

nn

ing

an

d R

egu

lato

ry

Tec

hn

ical

/ F

un

ctio

nal

Op

erat

ion

al

En

viro

nm

enta

l

Overall Score of

Analysis Criteria

Excluding Cost

Rank

Criteria Weighting 0.130 0.167 0.167 0.148 0.111 0.111 0.167

1

Te Puke WWTP and

discharge to Waiari Stream

(BO)

3 2 1 2 5 5 3 2.80 6.00

2

Te Puke WWTP and

discharge to Forestry Land

(LF)

5 5 5 4 4 3 4 4.35 1.00

3

Te Puke WWTP and

discharge to Horticultural

Land (LH)

4 2 2 3 4 3 4 3.07 5.00

4

Te Puke WWTP and

discharge to Recreational

Reserve Land (LRR)

5 3 3 4 4 3 4 3.69 4.00

5

Te Puke WWTP and

discharge to Wildlife

Reserve Land (LWR)

5 4 4 3 3 3 4 3.76 3.00

6

Te Puke WWTP and

discharge to Pasture Land

(LP)

4 5 5 3 4 3 4 4.07 2.00

7

Te Puke WWTP and

discharge to Ocean Outfall

(OO)

2 2 1 1 2 4 3 2.07 8.00

8

Te Puke WWTP and

discharge to TCC Te

Maunga WWTP (TCC)

2 2 1 2 5 4 3 2.56 7.00

Scores and Ranking

Assessment Criteria

Goal Based Analysis Criteria - Independent of Cost

AECOM



D R A F T


9

5.0 Report Limitations

AECOM Consulting Services (NZ) Limited (AECOM) has prepared this report in accordance with the usual care

and thoroughness of the consulting profession for the use of Western Bay of Plenty District Council and only

those third parties who have been authorised in writing by AECOM to rely on this Report.

It is based on generally accepted practices and standards at the time it was prepared. No other warranty,

expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this Report.

It is prepared in accordance with the scope of work and for the purpose outlined in the contract 14/1080 dated 28

April 2015

Where this Report indicates that information has been provided to AECOM by third parties, AECOM has made no

independent verification of this information except as expressly stated in the Report. AECOM assumes no liability

for any inaccuracies in or omissions to that information.

This Report was prepared in November 2015 and is based on the conditions encountered and information

reviewed at the time of preparation. AECOM disclaims responsibility for any changes that may have occurred

after this time.

This Report should be read in full. No responsibility is accepted for use of any part of this report in any other

context or for any other purpose or by third parties. This Report does not purport to give legal advice. Legal advice

can only be given by qualified legal practitioners.

Except as required by law, no third party may use or rely on this Report unless otherwise agreed by AECOM in

writing. Where such agreement is provided, AECOM will provide a letter of reliance to the agreed third party in the

form required by AECOM.

To the extent permitted by law, AECOM expressly disclaims and excludes liability for any loss, damage, cost or

expenses suffered by any third party relating to or resulting from the use of, or reliance on, any information

contained in this Report. AECOM does not admit that any action, liability or claim may exist or be available to any

third party.

Except as specifically stated in this section, AECOM does not authorise the use of this Report by any third party.

It is the responsibility of third parties to independently make inquiries or seek advice in relation to their particular

requirements and proposed use of the site.

Any estimates of potential costs which have been provided are presented as estimates only as at the date of the

Report. Any cost estimates that have been provided may therefore vary from actual costs at the time of

expenditure.

Alternative Options Assessment Report › media › 794436 › 13-alternative...Te Puke Wastewater...

Documents

Transcript of Alternative Options Assessment Report › media › 794436 › 13-alternative...Te Puke Wastewater...