Caring for Our Waterways

Greater Vancouver Regional District

Caring for Our Waterways

Liquid Waste Management Plan

Stage 2

Discussion Document

May 1999

Greater Vancouver Regional District4330 KingswayBurnaby, B.C.

V5H 4G8

Part 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-1

Part 2 The LWMP Process...................................................................................................................................................................... 2-1

Part 3 Jurisdictional Aspects of Liquid Waste Management ............................................................................................................ 3-1

Part 4 The Growing Region..................................................................................................................................................................... 4-1

Part 5 Receiving Environment ................................................................................................................................................................ 5-1

Part 6 Liquid Waste Management Strategy ......................................................................................................................................... 6-1

Part 7 Vancouver Sewerage Area........................................................................................................................................................... 7-1

Part 8 Fraser Sewerage Area................................................................................................................................................................... 8-1

Part 9 North Shore Sewerage Area ........................................................................................................................................................ 9-1

Part 10 Lulu Island West Sewerage Area ............................................................................................................................................. 10-1

Part 11 Source Control............................................................................................................................................................................. 11-1

Part 12 Residuals Management.............................................................................................................................................................. 12-1

Part 13 Stormwater.................................................................................................................................................................................... 13-1

Part 14 Non-Point Source Pollution Issues .......................................................................................................................................... 14-1

Part 15 Finance.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 15-1

Appendix Reference Documents

Table of Contents


1-1

This discussion document for Stage 2 of the LiquidWaste Management Plan (LWMP) provides informationabout the principal liquid waste issues facing GreaterVancouver and summarizes options for addressingthem. The document’s goal is to promote review bymunicipalities, regulatory agencies, and the public sothat the best policies, strategies, priorities, andimplementation plans can be developed for “Caring forour Waterways”.

The document consists of 15 parts that providebackground information and summarize the work ofseven committees that have directed and reviewed thetechnical work associated with the development of theplan.

BackgroundIn 1913, R. S. Lea formulated the first liquid wastemanagement plan for the Burrard Peninsulamunicipalities of Vancouver, South Vancouver, Burnaby,and Point Grey. His plan resulted in the creation of theVancouver and Districts Joint Sewerage and DrainageBoard in 1914. At the time, the estimated population ofGreater Vancouver was 182,000. Lea, who foresawtremendous potential for the region, predicted that itspopulation would reach 1.4 million by the 1950s. Hisprediction was not that far off.

During the 1950s, A. M. Rawn led a team to develop anew master plan to meet the growing region’s liquidwaste management needs. The Rawn Report resulted inthe dissolution of the Vancouver and Districts JointSewerage and Drainage Board and the formation of theGreater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District. Thereport’s master plan included recommendations forexpanding the regional sewer system and constructingthe region’s first large wastewater treatment facilities –the Iona plant to serve Vancouver and Burnaby, and theLions Gate plant to serve the North Shoremunicipalities. Today’s sewerage areas (service areaslocated as tributaries to a sewage treatment plant) havetheir origin in the Rawn Report.

The master plan was supposed to handle GreaterVancouver’s liquid waste management requirements tothe year 2000. But the area’s burgeoning population –particularly in the eastern municipalities – soondemanded a review of the report’s recommendations. By

1970, an updated version of the Rawn Report wascomplete. And by 1971, the Greater VancouverSewerage and Drainage District had become part of thenewly created Greater Vancouver Regional District.

In 1989, the District completed Stage 1 of the LWMP, inaccordance with the provincial Waste Management Act.An important outcome of Stage 1 LWMP activity wasthe decision to upgrade the Annacis Island and LuluIsland wastewater treatment plants on the Fraser Riverto secondary sewage treatment facilities.

Meeting the needs of Greater Vancouver’s population –currently approaching 2 million – while simultaneouslypreserving the region’s environmental heritage calls forthoughtful, balanced planning initiatives. That is why theGVRD developed the Livable Region Strategic Plan in1996. Here are the goals of this important growthmanagement strategy:

• protecting a green zone that includes forests,watersheds, and agricultural lands

• building complete communities• achieving a compact metropolitan region• increasing transportation choices

The Stage 2 LWMP effort is proceeding in the context ofthis historical evolution. Not just the GVRD and itsmember municipalities, but also the federal andprovincial governments, the private sector, andindependent groups and citizens are undertakinginitiatives to manage liquid wastes in the region. TheLWMP is addressing traditional sewerage and drainageconcerns that arise given the region’s growth. As well,new strategies that emphasize conservation, demandmanagement, and pollution prevention are beingconsidered given their potential to reduce costs andensure sustainability. Some important key issues thatcall for a new focus include:

• the deteriorating sewerage infrastructure in parts ofthe region

• the need to protect and manage the region’sremaining urban streams

• non-point source pollution

The development of a Liquid Waste Management Planfor the region will help ensure the region’s waterenvironment will not be subject to degradation given thepressures of continued growth.

Part 1Introduction


2-1

To address wastewater and stormwater managementissues in the Greater Vancouver region, the GreaterVancouver Regional District and its membermunicipalities are developing the Liquid WasteManagement Plan in keeping with the provincial WasteManagement Act. The LWMP process allowsmunicipalities and regional districts to tailor plans forhandling liquid waste to each area’s unique economic,social, and environmental conditions.

The LWMP process has three stages. In Stage 1(completed in 1989), the GVRD identified key liquidwaste issues and considered options for dealing withthem. During Stage 2, the GVRD and the municipalitiesare evaluating implementation options and strategies foreach issue. Most of the technical work associated withthe development of the LWMP will occur during thisstage, which is scheduled for completion by the end of1999.

The Stage 2 work is focusing on these issues:

• wastewater treatment plant upgrading• combined sewer overflow management• sanitary sewer overflow management• infiltration and inflow management• emergency spill management• source control• residuals management• stormwater management• non-point source pollution management

(specifically, pleasure craft sewage, agriculturalrunoff, and on-site disposal systems)

Table 2-1: LWMP Stage 1 Initiatives in the GVRD, 1988-99

Year(s)Completed

Project/Program Comments

1988 Iona outfall extension Project eliminated effluent discharges to SturgeonBanks.

1990-ongoing Source control program Goal is to control pollutants at the source. Majorindustries require permits for discharges to sewers.

1990-ongoing Residuals management program Goal is beneficial reuse of biosolids throughrecycling.

1993-99 Upgrade of Annacis Island and Lulu Islandwastewater treatment plants to secondarytreatment facilities

Reduced pollution loadings to the Fraser River fromwastewater treatment plants.

1991 Elimination of sludge discharges at LionsGate treatment plant

1994-95 Combined sewer overflow operationalimprovements in the Vancouver SewerageArea

Reduced combined sewer overflow discharge volumesby 30 per cent.

1986-ongoing Operation and maintenance improvementsand facility upgrades

Improved monitoring and control systems andinstallation of standby generators at pumpingstations.

1992-ongoing Investigation of infiltration and inflow

1986-ongoing Environmental monitoring and studies

Part 2The LWMP Process

2-2

Liquid Waste Management Plan Stage 2 Discussion Document

In Stage 3 of the LWMP, the GVRD and themunicipalities will develop implementation plans for thechosen liquid waste management options. Once theMinistry of Environment, Lands and Parks accepts theDistrict’s proposals, the GVRD will be issued theapproved LWMP.

Public consultation and review are vital at each stage ofthe LWMP process. To create and implement aworkable liquid waste management plan, the GVRDmust know what the public’s priorities are and howmuch it is willing to pay for environmental protection.

LWMP Stage 1 Report In 1989, the GVRD submitted its Stage 1 LWMP reportto the province for approval. This report identified keyenvironmental concerns that the District and its membermunicipalities planned to address. The priorities andrecommendations in the report have led to several keyliquid waste management initiatives over the pastdecade. Table 2-1 summarizes the most significantprograms.

The Stage 1 report also showed that the GVRD neededmuch more scientific and engineering information beforeit could make sound decisions about many aspects ofliquid waste management. To remedy this data gap andprovide a solid foundation for Stage 2 planning, theDistrict has substantially increased its hydraulicmodelling, flow monitoring, discharge characterization,and environmental assessment efforts over the past 10years. This work appears in numerous technical studiesby the GVRD and other groups; for a list of thesestudies, see the Appendix.

Committees and ReportingStructure

The GVRD and its member municipalities haveestablished several committees to develop Stage 2 ofthe LWMP. The GVRD Board must approve the Stage 2plan for submission to the Province. The Manager ofPolicy and Planning is delivering the plan to the GVRDBoard through the board’s Sewerage and DrainageCommittee.

Seven technical committees and three advisorycommittees are involved in the development of thetechnical work and its review. Figure 2-1 shows thecommittee reporting structure.

The GVRD Board and itsSewerage and Drainage Committee

The GVRD Board:

• establishes the policy and planning context for theLWMP

• sets priorities for various regional initiatives, such astransportation, air quality, and drinking water quality

• serves as the vehicle for the municipalities toprovide political input

• approves the LWMP for submission to the provincialgovernment

Public Advisory Committee (PAC)

The PAC consists of representatives from a variety ofpublic-sector interests, including environmental groups,the public, industry, academia, and First Nations. ThePAC’s roles in the LWMP process include:

• providing advice to the Sewerage and DrainageCommittee on essential aspects of the LWMP

• reviewing and providing input on public consultationand key steps in the planning process

Regional Engineers Advisory Committee(REAC) Liquid Waste Subcommittee

REAC is comprised of senior municipal engineers fromeach of the regional sewerage areas. The committeeprovides advice to the Manager of Policy and Planningfrom a municipal perspective on strategic issues andpolicies related to regional liquid waste planning andutility management. This group’s roles in the LWMPprocess include:

• monitoring Task Group and Committee operations,as well as overall progress in LWMP development

• providing input to capital budget requests for LWMPexpenditures

• providing input to specific aspects of the planningprocess


2-3

Agency Liaison Committee (ALC)

The ALC consists of senior government officials whoadvise the Manager of Policy and Planning on utilitymanagement issues. The ALC’s roles in the LWMPprocess include:

• monitoring progress on the LWMP and providinginput at critical stages

• providing a forum for discussing federal andprovincial issues that the plan needs to address

Environmental Assessment Task Group (EATG)

The EATG offers advice on all aspects of theenvironmental assessment work required for LWMPdevelopment. The group’s roles include:

• collecting environmental information as an aid inevaluating options for liquid waste management

• identifying environmental issues for the LWMP toaddress

• recommending ongoing requirements forenvironmental monitoring and assessment

Stormwater Management Task Group (SMTG)

The SMTG manages a work program that contributes tothe LWMP. The group’s roles include:

• characterizing current and future stormwaterconditions in the GVRD

• identifying stormwater management options thatmeet LWMP objectives

Brunette Basin Task Group (BBTG)

The BBTG is a pilot program that is working to developan urban watershed management plan for the BrunetteRiver Basin. The group has representatives from theGVRD, municipalities, federal and provincial agencies,educational institutes, and independent members.

Sewerage Area Committees

Each sewerage area – Lulu Island, Vancouver, NorthShore, and Fraser – has a committee that periodicallyreviews progress for its respective area and providesdirection on the technical work associated with the plan.

2-4


Figure 2-1: Committee Reporting Structure for LWMP Stage 2 Development

LWMP - STAGE 2

Formal Committee/Task Group Reporting Structure

Sewerage & DrainageCommittee

GVS&DD Board

Public AdvisoryCommittee

REAC Liquid WasteSubcommittee

(Provides municipal strategicinput and guidance)

Sewerage AreaCommittees

Ø Lulu Island Sewerage AreaØ Fraser Sewerage AreaØ Vancouver Sewerage AreaØ North Shore Sewerage Area

Manager,Policy and Planning

Public Input

Ø SurveysØ WorkshopsØ Information/Internet

Agency LiaisonCommittee

(Provides senior gov’tstrategic input and guidance)

Liquid Waste Management PlanTask Groups

Ø Environmental AssessmentØ Stormwater ManagementØ Brunette Basin

The PAC formally reports to theS&D Committee, but providesinput to the Plan through the Manager

The Board approves the stage 2LWMP submission to theprovince

Periodically reviews progresson the Plan and providesdirection on the Planapproval process

Sewerage Area Committees &Task Groups report to the REACSubcommittee & provide advice tothe Manager

LWMPProject

Manager

Member Municipalities


3-1

Federal, provincial and local governments shareresponsibility for water quality in the GVRD. The LiquidWaste Management Plan process revolves aroundagreement by responsible government agencies on theplan’s principal strategic directions. That means theLWMP must operate within an extremely complicatedjurisdictional framework, and must meet requirementsbeyond those stipulated in the provincial WasteManagement Act.

Legislative FoundationsThe roots of government responsibility for water quality –and thus liquid waste management – lie in key pieces oflegislation at all levels.

Federal Jurisdiction

Federal government legislation that affects water qualityand wastewater management in the GVRD includesthese acts:

• The Fisheries Act prohibits the discharge ofdeleterious substances into fish-bearing waters andprotects fish habitat. Over the years the courtshave determined that discharges that are acutelytoxic to fish, based on the 96 hour fish bioassaytest, are deemed to be deleterious.

• The Canadian Environmental Protection Actregulates the handling and discharge of substancesdetrimental to air, land, and sea. CEPA takes acradle to grave approach to the management andcontrol of toxic substances. This involves thecomprehensive assessment for toxicity ofsubstances identified by an expert advisory panel tothe federal Ministers of Environment and Health,followed by the development of control options forthose substances found to be toxic. Controloptions are developed using a multi-stakeholderapproach and can range from voluntary measuresthrough to regulatory instruments, depending on thesubstance.

Provincial Jurisdiction

Relevant BC government legislation includes thefollowing acts:

• The Waste Management Act gives the BCMinistry of Environment, Lands and Parks (MELP)authority to issue discharge permits or orders forliquid wastes. An approved liquid wastemanagement plan, developed in keeping with theWaste Management Act, can also authorize liquidwaste discharges.

A proposed new sewage regulation has beendeveloped under the Act, but as of early 1999has not yet been implemented. The regulationestablishes new provincial standards thatinclude, among others, requirements forsecondary treatment, the long-term eliminationof combined sewer overflows, and themanagement of infiltration and inflow.

An approved liquid waste management plan willtake precedence over the new regulation. Localenvironmental conditions may allow lessstringent, or may require more stringent,standards than proposed in the new regulation.

• The Health Act gives the Ministry of Healthauthority to issue permits to dispose of liquid wasteinto the ground (e.g., septic systems).

• The Water Act gives the MELP authority toregulate all short-term use, storage, and diversion ofwater, as well as alterations to and work in andaround streams.

In addition, directives of the Fish Protection Act thatare currently under development allow the provincialgovernment to designate sensitive streams and to enactregulations for protecting riparian (streamside) areasthat contribute to fish habitat.

The BC Ministry of Agriculture and Foods is responsiblefor managing farmlands and farming practices, includingthe Agricultural Land Reserve. Ministry activities thataffect stormwater management include formulatingagricultural best management practices, such as topsoil

Part 3Jurisdictional Aspects of Liquid Waste Management

3-2


conservation, and developing agricultural runoff controlstrategies.

The BC Ministry of Municipal Affairs is responsible forcoordinating and developing new legislation that affectsmunicipalities. Notable examples include the FishProtection Act and recent changes to the BC MunicipalAct (see “Local Jurisdiction”).

Local Jurisdiction

Local government responsibility for water quality in theGVRD stems from these acts:

• The Municipal Act, a piece of provincial legislation,allows local governments to regulate selectedaspects of liquid waste management, includingsewer use, stormwater discharge and dumpingrestrictions.

• The Greater Vancouver Sewerage andDrainage Act gives the Greater VancouverSewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD)authority to construct and operate sewerage anddrainage facilities for its members.

• The Waste Management Act, a piece of provinciallegislation, gives the GVS&DD authority to regulatedischarges into the air and into sewers in thedistrict.

Environmental PartnershipPrograms

Along with the legislative mandate for clean water,several environmental partnerships exert considerableinfluence on the LWMP in Greater Vancouver.

Fraser River Estuary Management Program(FREMP). Established in 1985, this intergovernmentalprogram has six partners: the GVRD, the MELP, theNorth Fraser Harbour Commission, the Fraser RiverHarbour Commission, the federal Department ofFisheries and Oceans (DFO), and Environment Canada.FREMP guides the activities of its partners towardsustainable development of the Fraser River estuary.Figure 3-1 shows FREMP’s areas of responsibility.

FREMP coordinates estuary use and developmentthrough:

• water and land use planning• a coordinated project review process

• communication and education• coordinated management

FREMP’s Estuary Management Plan provides aframework for how the LWMP relates to the FraserRiver. Adopted in 1994, this plan identifies thepartnership’s goals for the estuary’s environmentalhealth, the need for a coordinated approach to makingdecisions about environmental quality, and the need forcoordinated monitoring programs.

In 1996, FREMP signed a Memorandum ofUnderstanding to coordinate its efforts with those of theBurrard Inlet Environmental Action Program (discussedlater in this section). An addendum to the Memorandumfor Understanding recognizes the connection betweenthe estuary and its surrounding uplands, and describesfuture directions for enhanced coordination betweenupland and estuary management. The addendum detailsspecific linkages between the Livable Region StrategicPlan, the LWMP, and the Estuary Management Plan.Two points in the addendum are particularly relevant forthe LWMP development process:

• Existing liquid waste management efforts –secondary treatment programs, source controlinitiatives, and communication and educationactivities – have contributed greatly to publicunderstanding of liquid waste issues.

• Integration of upland land use planning with estuaryplanning in strategies for managing stormwater andother wet-weather discharges represents an areawith potential for increased coordination.

Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Program(BIEAP). Established in 1991, this intergovernmentalprogram has five partners: the GVRD, the MELP, thePort of Vancouver, the DFO, and Environment Canada.Burrard Inlet is a thriving port and urban community.BIEAP’s partners are working to effect a balancebetween environmental quality and economic/urbanactivities in the inlet. Figure 3-1 shows the areascovered by BIEAP.

BIEAP oversees activities to improve Burrard Inlet’senvironmental quality through:

• water and land use planning• a coordinated project review process• communication and education• coordinated management

3-4


Many complex issues affect the water quality of BurrardInlet. Several environmental studies have beencoordinated through BIEAP. BIEAP expects to makesubstantial progress toward a consolidated InletEnvironmental Management Plan in 1999. This plan willpresent opportunities for interaction and coordinationwith the LWMP.

Fraser Basin Council (FBC). This non-profitorganization guides its government and non-governmentpartners toward sustainable development of the FraserRiver basin. Government partners include the GVRD,which represents its member municipalities on theFBC’s Board of Directors; other local governments inthe basin (officially represented by their regionaldistricts); the provincial government; and the federalgovernment. Non-government partners include business, labour, and community groups. First Nationsgroups from the basin also have representatives on thecouncil.

The FBC’s Charter for Sustainability sets overall goalsand provides a framework for the council’s activities. Theorganization also has a five-year action plan, whichdetails the initiatives of its partners that are contributingto sustainable development throughout the FraserBasin. Increasingly, the focus of the FBC appears to beon helping resolve issues with shared ownership orresponsibility that have not been settled through regularchannels.

Georgia Basin Ecosystem Initiative (GBEI). TheGeorgia Basin includes the Greater Vancouver region,as well as parts of Vancouver Island, Howe Sound, theSunshine Coast, and the Puget Sound region of theUnited States. The GBEI is a partnership between thefederal and provincial environment ministries to supportsustainable development throughout this area. Atpresent, the GBEI coordinates with U.S. initiativesthrough informal channels.

A key focus of the GBEI will be to develop informationfor governments and citizens of the Georgia Basin toassist them in making better decisions forsustainability. The federal government has committed$20 million in new funding over next five years towardjointly funded GBEI projects.

The GBEI’s four program initiatives are Clear Air, CleanWater, Habitat and Species, and SustainableCommunities. Several strategic priorities of the group’sClean Water program have implications for the LWMP:

• restricting pleasure-craft sewage discharges• reducing pollution from vessels and marine facilities• establishing best management practices to reduce

agricultural non-point source pollution• improving sewage treatment operations and

management of biosolids• managing urban stormwater runoff to reduce the

deposition of contaminants• developing pollution prevention programs for

municipalities and small business sectors• reducing impacts from on-site sewage systems


4-1

The Greater Vancouver Regional District encompasses20 municipalities and two electoral areas (Figure 4-1).Seventeen of the GVRD municipalities and one electoralarea are also in the Greater Vancouver Sewerage &Drainage District (GVS&DD). The GVS&DD and themunicipalities share liquid waste managementresponsibilities: The GVS&DD handles the largetreatment plants and a system of regional trunk sewers,while the municipalities manage and maintain localsewerage systems.

The GVS&DD consists of four sewerage areas (Figure4-1). The legal area boundaries of these sewerage areasdo not necessarily include all the land in themunicipalities. One major GVS&DD treatment plantserves each sewerage area. The Fraser Sewerage Areaalso has a second small plant that serves a local areain the Township of Langley. Properties within thesewerage areas are connected to municipal seweragesystems. On-site disposal systems or small treatmentplants serve properties outside the sewerage areaboundaries.

Managing Growth in the GVRDOver the last 10 years, Greater Vancouver’s populationhas grown by nearly 500,000. The GVRD will have 2million residents by the end of 1999. Provincialforecasts suggest continuing strong population growth.It is likely that close to 2.75 million people will live in theGVRD in 2021.

Accommodating Greater Vancouver’s growth in a waythat enhances livability and protects environmentalquality is the challenge addressed by the Livable RegionStrategic Plan (LRSP), which is the official regionalgrowth strategy for the GVRD. The LRSP contains fourstrategic choices for sound management of regionalgrowth:

• Protect a green zone that includes watersheds,forests, and agricultural lands.

• Build complete communities.

• Achieve a compact metropolitan region by settinggrowth management targets.

• Increase transportation choices.

Providing an important framework for the LWMP, theLRSP shows where tomorrow’s liquid waste challengesmay lie. The LRSP establishes the areas of the GVRDwhere demand for urban services is unlikely to occur,and the areas that can accommodate most of theprojected population growth.

The scenario outlined in Table 4-1 offers one possibleway of achieving the LRSP’s growth managementtargets. The municipal-level data in the scenario comefrom the regional context statements included in OfficialCommunity Plans for municipalities; such statementsrepresent the main link between municipal plans andthe LRSP. This scenario provides the basis forupgrading treatment plants and sewers, assumingcurrent patterns of demand.

Wastewater Flows and LoadsThe sewage flow arriving at treatment plants in theGVRD consists of wastewater from the residential,commercial/institutional, and industrial sectors, as wellas groundwater infiltration, rainfall-derived inflow andinfiltration, and, at the Annacis Island and Iona plants,stormwater from combined sewer areas. Figure 4-2shows the current wastewater volume and proportionsfor the five regional treatment plants and Figure 4-3shows how the volume is proportioned for the twolargest plants, Iona and Annacis.

System Upgrades vs. DemandManagement

Rising populations drive the need for sewer andtreatment plant expansion. Figure 4-7 shows the sewersystem projects that the GVRD will require. Table 4-2projects treatment plant upgrades to keep pace withgrowth.

Part 4The Growing Region


4-3

Figures 4-4, 4-5, and 4-6 illustrate the projected trendsin flows and loads, based on the estimated populationgrowth. The data assume current flow proportions andaverage annual loads.

Accommodating growth in the GVRD does notautomatically mean facility upgrades, however. It ispossible to control flows and loads through demandmanagement.

Important strategies that can defer or eliminate the needfor expensive sewer and treatment plant expansionsinclude:

• reducing flows by controlling infiltration and inflowthrough better sewer infrastructure management

• reducing loads through source control programs

Table 4-1: Growth Management Scenario for GVRDMunicipalities, 1996-2021

MUNICIPALITY 1996 2021

Anmore 863 3,600

Belcarra 642 750

Burnaby 178,922 280,000

Coquitlam 103,995 206,000

Delta 97,936 105,300

Langley City 23,485 32,100

Langley Township 83,173 162,700

Lions Bay 1,417 1,500

Maple Ridge 58,342 99,700

New Westminster 48,759 84,000

North Vancouver City 41,918 46,100

North Vancouver District 83,302 102,600

Pitt Meadows 14,445 15,500

Port Coquitlam 47,780 80,000

Port Moody 21,200 46,000

Richmond 148,311 212,000

Surrey 300,581 561,100

Vancouver 535,699 637,000

West Vancouver 42,252 50,300

White Rock 18,044 19,900

Electoral Area A 7,038 22,000

Electoral Area C 3,158 3,650

Total 1,861,262 2,771,800

4-4


Figure 4-2: Wastewater Volume Treated at GVRD Plants

Figure 4-3: Wastewater Compostion at Annacis and Iona Treatment Plants

Treated Average Daily Flows by Wastewater Treatment Plant

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

NorthwestLangley

LuluIsland

LionsGate

AnnacisIsland

IonaIsland

Mill

ion

litr

es

pe

r d

ay

Annacis Island WWTP

Sanitary53%

Groundwater Infiltration

30%

Rainfall Derived Inflow &

Infiltration10% Stormwater

7%

Iona Island WWTP

Stormwater12%

Sanitary33%

Groundwater Infiltration

26%

Rainfall Derived Inflow &

Infiltration29%


4-5

Figure 4-4: Projected Flow to GVRD Wastewater Treatment Plants

Figure 4-5: Projected Loading of Biological Oxygen Demand at GVRD Wastewater Treatment Plants

Projected Average Annual Flow at WWTPs

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021

Year

Flo

w (

ML

/d)

Annacis Island

Lulu Island

NW Langley

Iona Island

Lions Gate

Projected BOD Load at WWTPs

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021

Year

BO

D (

kg/d

)

Annacis Island

Lulu Island

NW Langley

Iona Island

Lions Gate

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) is a measure of the organic material in wastewater that uses up oxygen during natural composition.

4-6


Figure 4-6: Projected Loading of Total Suspended Solids at GVRD Wastewater Treatment Plants

Table 4-2: Projected GVRD Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade Schedule and Capital Costs (1998 Dollars)

Projected TSS Load at WWTPs

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021

Year

TS

S (

kg/d

)

Annacis Island

Lulu Island

NW Langley

Iona Island

Lions Gate

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) is a measure of the amount of material in suspension in the wastewater.

Annacis Island WWTP 2004 2006 2010 2015 2020 2039 2056

Capital Cost (Million$) 5.72 12.49 17.01 99.14 98.13 121.89 113.38

Northwest Langley WWTP 1999 beyond 2010

Capital Cost (Million$) 13.50 33.00

Lulu Island WWTP 2001 2004 2013 2020

Capital Cost (Million$) 13.38 12.66 3.96 2.25

Iona Island WWTP* 2001 2014 2028

Capital Cost (Million$) 16.20 25.00 21.80

Lions Gate WWTP* 2001 2008 2020

Capital Cost (Million$) 8.00 15.00 16.80

*Costs required to meet Base Plan upgrades.

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

City of Surrey

Township of Langley

District of Delta

District of Maple Ridge

City of Richmond

City of Coquitlam

City of Vancouver

District of North Vancouver

City of Burnaby

District of Pitt Meadows

Anmore

District of West Vancouver

City of Port Moody

City of Port CoquitlamElectoral Area A

City of New Westminster

City of North

Vancouver

City of Langley

Village of elcarra

Provincial Land

City of White Rock

N

Boundary Bay

English Bay

JW c:\ ...\ regional\990316mp\adequacy.apr March, 1999

GVS&DD System Capacity Status, 1999

Map Features

Pump Station

Sanitary Sewer

Treatment Plant

Colour Coding of Map Features

Less than 5 years capacity remaining

5 to 15 years capacity remaining

More than 15 years capacity remaining

Combined Sewer

%

#S#S#S

Sewerage Areas

Serviced Area

Legal Sewerage Area3 0 3 6 Kilometers

Upgrades Within Next Fifteen Years

Facility Upgrade Year

SewersSouth Surrey Interceptor - Scott Rd. Section 1999

Lake City Interceptor 2000

Maillardville Trunk 2000

Sapperton Forcemain 2000

Albert St. Trunk 2001

South Surrey Interceptor - Panorama Section 2001

North Rd. Trunk 2005

Maple Ridge FM - Keatsie Section 2010

Burnaby Lake North Int. - Philips to Sperling Section 2011

Sperling Ave. Trunk 2011

North ShoreHollyburn Int. - MH46-36 1999

North Vancouver Int. - City Section MH33-25 2000

Hollyburn Int. - MH16-4 2001

Hollyburn Int. - MH4-Capilano Siphon 2001

North Vancouver Int. - Lynn Branch Section 2001

North Vancouver Int. - Lynn Branch Section Siphon 2002





Treatment PlantsIona Island WWTP 1999

Lions Gate WWTP 1999

Northwest Langley WWTP 1999

Lulu Island WWTP (Stages IVa,b) 2001, 2004

Annacis Island WWTP (Stages Va,b) 2004, 2006

Pump StationsLangley P.S. 2000

Sapperton P.S. 2000

Marshend P.S. 2002

Sperling P.S. 2002

Port Moody P.S. 2003

Katzie P.S. 2008

Figure 4-7: Future Required System Upgrades


5-1

Wastewater and stormwater runoff are discharged fromseveral locations to the waters of the Fraser Riverestuary, Burrard Inlet, Boundary Bay, Strait of Georgia,and their associated tributaries. These interconnectedwaterbodies supports a diverse array of aquatic flora andfauna. This area has achieved international prominencebecause of its importance as critical habitat formigratory birds along the Pacific flyway and for thesalmon runs supported by the Fraser River, which areconsidered among the largest in the world.

The Fraser River has the second largest mean flow(4,000 m3/s) of any river in Canada, and is the largest byfar in British Columbia. Peak freshet flows, which occurbetween May and July, can exceed 10,000 m3/s in anexceptional year. The tremendous volume of fresh waterfrom this river substantially influences ocean circulationpatterns in the Strait of Georgia and Burrard Inlet. Tidesalso affect the Fraser River. During flood tides, forexample, a saltwater wedge penetrates the river atdepth. This saltwater intrusion is evident as farupstream as New Westminster (where the Main Stem ofthe river splits into the Main Arm and North Arms)during specific river flow-rate and tidal conditions.

Three wastewater treatment plants, several combinedsewer overflows (CSOs), and one sanitary seweroverflow (SSO) discharge municipal wastewater directlyto the Fraser River estuary. Stormwater runoff isdischarged directly to the estuary from many locations.

Although Burrard Inlet is a marine environment,freshwater sources such as the Fraser River, theCapilano River, and the Seymour River have a profoundinfluence on it. Migrating salmon pass through the inletevery year as they return to spawning beds in IndianRiver and other, smaller tributaries. An excellent naturalharbour, Burrard Inlet has become the largest exportcentre on the North American Pacific coast.

Municipal wastewater discharged to the inlet includeseffluent from a wastewater treatment plant, severalCSOs, and two SSOs. Stormwater runoff also entersthe inlet from many locations.

Small rivers and streams throughout the Lower Mainlandprovide habitat for a diverse range of plant and animallife. Most of the existing small waterways are important

spawning areas for salmonid fish species, such as cohoand chum salmon and cutthroat trout.

There are no direct discharges of treated or untreatedmunicipal sanitary wastes to small rivers or streams inthe region. Many streams, however, receive stormwaterrunoff from urban and agricultural sources.

Environmental Trends in the RegionOver the past century, development has proceededrapidly in Greater Vancouver. The area’s population rosefrom a few thousand in the latter part of the 19th centuryto close to 2 million people in 1996. This growth hasresulted in increased generation of liquid wastes byindustry and the municipalities. Methods for dealing withsuch wastes have also evolved over time, often inresponse to observed environmental trends andproblems.

Municipal wastewater management in GreaterVancouver has undergone major changes since theconstruction of the region’s first sewers more than 100years ago. Interceptor networks have been constructedand treatment plants built to protect public andenvironmental health. Following completion of thetreatment plants in the early 1970s, a few problemspersisted and required management action. Oneexample is the construction of the Iona Island deep-seaoutfall. The Iona Island treatment plant initiallydischarged wastewater directly to an intertidal area ofSturgeon Bank foreshore, creating conditions that wereinhospitable to aquatic life. To mitigate this problem, theDistrict extended the outfall into the Strait of Georgia in1988. The new outfall discharges from an average depthof 90 metres and receives substantial immediatedilution. Since the outfall extension, the Sturgeon Bankforeshore has been recovering. Invertebrate life isbecoming more abundant and diverse, and contaminantlevels are decreasing in surface sediments and residentintertidal clams. The reduction in organic contaminationhas also resulted in higher oxygen concentrations in theoverlying waters.

Although treatment plant construction halted theintentional continuous discharge of untreated municipalwastewater, some dry-weather, untreated discharges

Part 5Receiving Environment

5-2


from sanitary sewers continued because of improperconnections and other factors. Through specificinvestigations and property redevelopment, much of thisuntreated dry-weather discharge has been identified andeliminated. False Creek water-quality trends over thepast 15 years exemplify the results of such programs.As shown in Figure 5-1, the extremely high summerfecal coliform counts routinely noted during the 1980s inthe east section of False Creek (between the CambieStreet Bridge and Science World) are no longeroccurring. This can reasonably be attributed to (1) theactivities of the city to identify and fix crossconnections, and (2) the separation of sanitary andstorm sewers in downtown Vancouver, which hasreduced CSO discharges from the north side of FalseCreek.

Many discharged contaminants are associated withsolid particles which eventually settle in sediments. Asa result, the history of contaminant discharges canoften be established by examining vertical sedimentextracts, or “cores” taken from sea or lake beds. In arecent study conducted in 1994 by the Burrard InletEnvironmental Action Program, sediment cores wereextracted from several areas within the Burrard andanalysed for heavy metal contamination.

Burrard Inlet is an excellent area for examiningcontaminant history in seabed sediments: Sedimentsreadily accumulate in this waterbody, and thesurrounding area has seen considerable development.The inlet itself is now the busiest commercial port onthe North American Pacific coast. The activities withinthe harbour include bulk loading facilities for sulphur,coal and mineral ores, petroleum handling and storage,log and lumber processing, and container shipping andstorage. Municipal discharges to Burrard Inlet include orhave included stormwater, CSOs, sanitary discharges(prior to the construction of the interceptor network), andtreated WWTP effluent. Industrial activities surroundingthe inlet have included petroleum refining, lumber mills,and thermal power generation facilities.

Trends of contaminant concentrations from onesediment core collected from the Outer Harbour isshown in Figure 5-2. The top 10 cm is estimated to berepresentative of the average contaminant depositionover the past decade. Below that, the sedimentationrate was found to be approximately 0.6 to 0.8 cm peryear.

The plot of lead concentration vs. depth in Figure 5-2shows that lead levels in the sediments have recentlydeclined. This phenomenon has been observedelsewhere and is widely attributed to the removal of leadadditive from gasoline during the 1970s and 1980s. Thesame trend has been observed for mercury in PortMoody and Indian Arm. The decreasing mercury levelsare most likely due to improved industrial practices andpollution control technology over the past decades. It isimportant to note that environmental changes areobserved slowly in the sediment record.

The trend plot of copper indicates a period of rapidlyincreasing contaminant discharges beginningapproximately 40 to 60 years ago. Relatively constantcopper concentrations in the upper portion of the coreindicates that the input of this contaminant has notbeen increasing in recent decades.

The Health of the Region’sWaterbodies

Over the last few decades, there has been a major effortto learn more about the health of waterbodies in theGreater Vancouver region. The provincial Ministry ofEnvironment, Lands, and Parks (MELP) has collectedmuch of the routine ambient water-quality informationand has developed a water-quality rating system for over120 waterbodies where development has occurred.Complementing the ambient monitoring program,focused research programs have provided very usefulinformation to help evaluate waterbody health.

Water Quality Objectives

Water quality objectives have been developed by theprovincial Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks(MELP) over the past 15 years for each of the majorreceiving waters in the region. These objectives arebased on water-quality guidelines which are numericalconcentrations or narrative statements that recommendchemical, physical, or biological parameters necessaryto protect the most sensitive water uses in a particularwaterbody. The objectives provide both a water-qualitygoal and the means to measure progress against thegoal. When defined appropriately they have the potentialto become an important tool for managing liquid wastes.Used in conjunction with other municipal and regionalobjectives, water quality objectives can help to set liquidwaste management priorities.


5-3

Figure 5-1: Range of Fecal Coliform Counts in East False Creek, 1983-98

(Source: GVRD unpublished data)

Figure 5-2: Profiles of Contamination in Sediment Cores in Burrard Inlet, Outer Harbour

(Source: Burrard Inlet Sediment Core Contaminant Profiles, BIEAP, 1997)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

'83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98

Year

30-D

ay G

eo-M

ean

Fec

al C

olifo

rm C

ount

(M

PN

/100

mL)

Maximum

Minimum

0

10

20

30

40

0 50 100 150 200

De

pth

(cm

)

C o p p e r

(ppm)1980 - 1994

1944 - 1956

1927 - 1944

Approximate

dates of depostion

1960 - 1969

0

10

20

30

40

0 10 20 30 40 50

De

pth

(cm

)

Lead

(ppm)

5-4


Specific water quality objectives are dependent on themost sensitive designated water uses of the particularwaterbody. Designated uses of water can include thefollowing:

• drinking water (raw untreated and treated), industrialwater supplies

• aquatic life, and wildlife• agriculture (livestock watering and irrigation)• recreation (primary and secondary contact) and

aesthetics

The process of designating water uses is largely asubjective exercise which requires detailed localinformation. Physical, chemical, and biologicalinformation is needed to determine what uses couldpotentially be supported within a waterbody. Where apotential use does exist it then must be determined ifthis use is being exploited or has a reasonable chance

of being exploited in the near future. Designating a wateruse requires an understanding of how the localpopulation values a particular waterbody. Water usescan change over time for a variety of reasons includingchanges to population growth, land use anddevelopment, and public values.

Table 5-1 outlines the designated water uses for each ofthe major waterbodies in the Greater Vancouver region.These water uses have been defined by the provinceover a number of years and objectives set according tothe most sensitive uses. Periodically, waterbodyobjectives are revised based on changes either in wateruses or in the criteria used to protect a water use. Themost recent objectives to be revised are those specifiedfor the Fraser River. These revised objectives nowinclude significantly more stringent bacteriologicalobjectives. According to MELP, more

Table 5-1: Designated Water Uses in the GVRD

Waterbody DrinkingWater

Aquatic Life/Wildlife

Primary-Contact

LivestockWatering

Irrigation

Source Recreation Vegetableseaten raw

Other

Fraser River – Main Stem* ü ü üFraser River – Main Arm* ü ü üFraser River – North Arm* ü ü üSturgeon and Roberts Bank ü üBoundary Bay ü üBurrard Inlet – Outer Harbour ü üBurrard Inlet – False Creek üBurrard Inlet – Inner Harbour ü üBurrard Inlet – Central Harbour ü üBurrard Inlet – Port Moody Arm ü üBurrard Inlet – Indian Arm ü üLynn Creek ü üCapilano River ü üCoquitlam River ü ü ü üStill Creek üBurnaby Lake üDeer Lake üBrunette River üPitt River ü ü ü üKanaka Creek ü ü ü ü üLittle Campbell River† ü ü ü üMahood,Hyland,Latimer Creeks† ü ü üSerpentine River† ü ü üNicomekl River† ü ü üAnderson and Murray Creeks† ü ü ü* - Recently updated objectives erroneously included primary contract recreation as a water use (L. Swain, MELP, personal communication).

† - “Long-term” objectives intended to support more sensitive irrigation uses (crops eaten raw) have been proposed for these waterbodies.


5-5

stringent bacteriological criteria are now used to protectthe most sensitive irrigation uses (crops eaten raw).

Some of the water uses shown in Table 5-1 varythroughout a particular waterbody. Primary-contactrecreation in the Inner Harbour is one example. TheInner Harbour is a very busy port area and as suchoffers limited opportunity for public swimming. The onedesignated swimming area in the entire Inner Harbour islocated in Stanley Park to the west of Brockton Point.

Occasionally, “short-term” and “long-term” objectives arespecified where existing water quality does not suit alldesired water uses, and it is feasible to improve waterquality over time. The short-term objectives protectwater uses to a certain degree until long-term objectivescan be achieved. These types of objectives have beenset for many of the Boundary Bay tributary rivers andstreams to support sensitive irrigation uses (crops eatenraw) in the long-term.

Given the importance of water-quality objectives forassisting resource and waste management decisionmaking, it is very important that local and regionalgovernments assume a larger future role in designatingwater uses.

Ratings

Once water-quality objectives have been defined,environmental monitoring is necessary to determinewhether the objectives are being met. To meet thisrequirement, the MELP embarked on a major water-quality monitoring program between 1987 and 1995.Using a water-quality index, the ministry reduced thelarge quantity of technical information derived from thismonitoring program to five simple categories thatdescribe water quality: Excellent, Good, Fair,Borderline, and Poor. The index averages changes overshort periods, as well as differences between specificlocales in a waterbody.

The resulting water-quality rating is an indicator, not anexhaustive analysis of waterbody health. Figure 5-3shows the 1996 water-quality ratings for regionalwaterbodies.

This initial rating has a few inherent limitations: Therating outcomes depend considerably on samplinglocation and frequency. Many of the selected samplinglocations are close to waste discharges. Such choicestend to over-represent areas of contamination andunder-represent ambient conditions, producing a poorerrating than might be justified for the entire waterbody.Also, it has been shown that changing the frequency of

sample collection can affect the ratings. Moreover, theratings do not provide any information about how long itmight take for a waterbody’s status to change. In theInner Harbour of Burrard Inlet, for example, sedimentcontamination contributes substantially to thewaterbody’s Fair rating. Even with significant reductionsin contaminant discharges to the harbour, it will take atleast a decade, through natural sedimentationprocesses, before a reduction in sedimentcontamination in surface bottom sediments will beseen.

Despite their limitations, the water-quality ratingsprovide a useful report card for current waterbody status.Future changes in the location of ambient samplingstations and in sampling frequency will improve theaccuracy and utility of the measure. In addition, thedetailed ecological assessment studies that haverecently been completed (see next section) will provideinformation that should help define the scope andrelative urgency of specific water-quality concerns.

Detailed Assessments of Waterbody Health inthe GVRD

Several agencies and research institutions have recentlycompleted detailed monitoring and assessment studiesto determine the ecological health of waterbodies in theregion. The combined research and monitoring resultsprovide the context for evaluating the effects ofwastewater discharges.

Fraser River Estuary

The most comprehensive research effort everundertaken in the Fraser River Basin was recentlycompleted in 1998 under the umbrella of the FraserRiver Action Plan (FRAP). Initiated in 1991, this federalprogram gave scientists throughout the researchcommunity the opportunity to examine contaminantsand their effects on the Fraser River aquatic ecosystem.

The FRAP research determined that the aquaticenvironment of the entire basin, including the estuary,has fairly low levels of contamination, compared withexisting guidelines/criteria, and conditions in other riverbasins. Despite the relatively low contaminant levels inwater and sediments in the river, PCBs, polycyclicaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and other toxicsubstances have been detected in the tissues of fish inthe estuary. Although the contaminant concentrations infish tissues are generally low, they are high enough tocause the fish to produce detoxifying enzymes in theirlivers.

5-6


Figure 5-3: Water-quality Ratings for GVRD Waterbodies

(Source: British Columbia Water Quality Status Report, BC MELP, 1996)

Studies conducted under the FRAP program found thatagricultural activities have had a substantial impact onthe water quality of some tributaries to the Fraser River.Elevated levels of nutrients and fecal coliforms, as wellas low oxygen levels, were observed in tributaries inagricultural areas. Researchers determined that themain cause of these effects was excess application ofmanure and commercial nutrients to the land fromintensive agricultural operations.

The FRAP studies have also observed majorenvironmental improvements. Fish tissue concentrationsof several contaminants of historical concern have beendeclining, including organochlorines (PCBschlorophenols, pesticides, dioxins, and furans) and twometals (lead and arsenic). These reductions areattributable to new regulatory controls or specificmanagement initiatives.

Routine monitoring conducted both by the GVRD andthe province have shown that bacteriological indicatorlevels (i.e., fecal coliform counts) in the Main Arm andNorth Arm of the Fraser River often exceed provincialobjectives. Fecal coliform objectives in the Main Arm ofthe river are generally only exceeded during Octoberand April, when wastewater treatment plant effluentdoes not undergo disinfection.

Strait of Georgia

In 1993, Canadian and U.S. marine scientists formed ajoint panel to evaluate the waters of Puget Sound, theStrait of Juan de Fuca, and the Strait of Georgia. Thispanel organized a scientific symposium in 1994 thatreviewed the current environmental conditions andmanagement issues in these waters.

The summary of the proceedings indicated that theStrait of Georgia has enough flushing power to negatemost of the harm caused by contaminants dischargedthrough human activity. Discharge of nutrients fromurban and rural sources were not found to causeexcessive algal growths as there appears to be anabundance of natural nutrient supplies. Likewise,because of the strait’s abundant natural dissolvedoxygen levels and flushing capacity, human dischargesof substances that generate biochemical oxygendemand do not deplete oxygen levels to a degree thatimpairs water quality.

The panel did caution that relatively little is known aboutthe effects of human bacteria and viruses dischargedfrom sewage outfalls and non-point pollution sources. Itwas suggested that untreated human fecal materialentering marine waters near swimming and shellfish

Still Cr eek

Br un ette River

En glish Bay

Indi an

Arm

P itt

Ri ver

Pi tt L

ake

Alouett

e Lake

Fraser River

Boun dar y Bay

Ro ber t's Bank

Stu rge on Ban k

BC Environment Water Quality Index: 1987 - 1993

EXCE LLEN TGOODFAIRBORD ERL INE

BC Water Quality Index

(none) POOR

U nr ated


5-7

harvesting beaches merits additional research andmonitoring to identify potential pathogens and treatmentoptions to render these pathogens harmless.

Burrard Inlet

Environment Canada initiated a detailed assessment ofsediment and biota throughout Burrard Inlet in 1985.This survey, completed in 1987, revealed that the inletsupports a diverse benthic fish and invertebratecommunity. Commercial and recreational species foundin the inlet include shrimp, Dungeness crab, and severalspecies of flounder and sole. Based on the presence ofthe smallest size classes of fish, researchersdetermined that Burrard Inlet serves as a nursery orrearing area. This relatively diverse biological communityexists despite contamination of sediments by tracemetals and organic contaminants associated with urbanand industrial activities. An abnormally high incidence ofpre-cancerous lesions on the livers of English soleappears to be related to elevated sediment levels ofPAHs (by-products of petroleum combustion). Theymay not be causing acute impacts to fish populationsbut other sublethal effects may be occurring.

In response to environmental concerns, the Burrard InletEnvironmental Action Program (BIEAP) formed in 1991to provide a co-ordinated system of intergovernmentalmanagement for the inlet. BIEAP’s sponsoringorganizations include Environment Canada, the federalDepartment of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), theMOELP, the GVRD, and the Vancouver PortCorporation. Along with establishing a project reviewprocess, the organization has a mandate to reducecurrent contaminant discharges, control futuredischarges, stem habitat degradation, and whereappropriate, recommend remedial measures for existingenvironmental problems.

A recent BIEAP study completed in 1998 used a“weight-of-evidence approach” to assess sedimentquality throughout the inlet. The analysis determinedthat no adverse effects were apparent at 9 of the 15locations sampled. Potential adverse effects wereindicated at 4 locations in Port Moody Arm, 1 locationin the Inner Harbour (along north shore), and 1 locationin False Creek. The study determined that potentialsublethal effects, due to sediment contamination (asmeasured by inhibition of sea urchin reproduction) maybe occurring. The inlet’s sediments consistently exceedsediment chemistry benchmarks denoting “probable-effect levels” for copper and occasionally for PAHs.

Urban Streams

Streams serve as very important habitat for a complexand diverse community of organisms. In fact, streams inthe Lower Fraser Valley area below Hope provide mostof the spawning habitat for the entire Fraser River runsof certain salmonid species (chum and coho salmon,cutthroat trout). Development pressures are threateningthe existence and viability of many of these productivestreams. A recent DFO study examined specific threatsto all of the streams from the Strait of Georgia to Hope.Of the 312 streams examined in the GVRD area, 105have been “lost” because of burial in undergroundculverts. Of the remaining open streams, 197 wereclassified as “endangered,” 10 as “threatened,” andnone as “wild.”

Stormwater runoff from urban areas is one of the majorstressors that is threatening and endangering streamsin the GVRD area (see “Part 13 – Stormwater”). Urbandevelopment replaces vegetative cover with impervioussurfaces, such as streets, parking lots, and buildings.These changes in the ground cover substantiallyincrease surface runoff and stream flow during periods ofrainfall. During dry periods, reduced groundwater inputto streams can lower stream flows. Stormwater runoffcan also contribute substantial amounts ofcontaminants to urban streams. These contaminantscome from a variety of sources, including traffic (fuelcombustion by-products, vehicle wear), atmosphericdeposition, animal feces, lawn care, construction sites,spills, and other unauthorized discharges.

Recent research in various regions (including the U.S.Pacific Northwest) indicates that relatively low levels ofdevelopment have an adverse effect on small streams.The research shows that diversity of fish species and ofthe invertebrates on which fish feed decreases whenimpervious surfaces cover even a small fraction(approximately 10%) of a stream’s watershed. Alteredstream hydrology due to urban stormwater runoff is thepredominant cause of reduced biotic diversity at lowlevels of development. Studies initiated by the FRAPresearch program indicate that contaminants instormwater can reduce the abundance and diversity ofstream organisms at higher levels of urban development.

Other Regional Environmental Issues

The BC government recently released a report entitled“Environmental Trends in British Columbia” thatdescribed the key environmental issues in the province.The report used 12 indicators to assess specific issues,such as water quality, wildlife, solid waste, and toxiccontaminants. The report emphasized that little effort

5-8


has been made to achieve goals and targets for 3 of the12 indicators: groundwater protection, conservation/lossof wildlife habitat, and greenhouse gas emissions.

In the GVRD, air quality is a particular concern. TheLower Mainland is one of three regions in Canada thatregularly exceed national air quality guidelines for smog.Air quality is rated as “fair” – or worse – 100 days of theyear. By far, vehicles represent the largest source ofthis pollution. Although individual vehicle emissions havedecreased over the last few decades, the total numberof vehicles is increasing faster than the population of theregion. Transportation-related pollution sources are notonly an air quality concern. Vehicle wear and fuelcombustion are very significant sources of contaminantssuch as copper, zinc, and PAHs in stormwater runoff.

The region is fortunate to possess a reliable, safe, andeconomical drinking water supply. Water for the regionis obtained from three protected watersheds (Capilano,Seymour, and Coquitlam) located north of the city. Toensure the continuing safety of this resource a drinkingwater treatment program has been established. Work todate has resulted in the upgrading of primarydisinfection facilities at the Seymour Reservoir and theinstallation of new secondary disinfection stations.Planned work, conditional upon GVRD Board approval,includes filtration plants (Capilano and Seymour), andnew ozone primary disinfection and pH adjustmentfacilities for corrosion control (Capilano and Coquitlam).The pH adjustment facilities, when implemented, willreduce copper leaching in Greater Vancouver plumbingby up to 60% from current levels. In addition to reducedplumbing maintenance, this corrosion control programwill reduce copper levels in WWTP biosolids and finaleffluent.

How Do Wastewater andStormwater Discharges Influence

Waterbody Health?The Stage 1 LWMP process identified the need tobetter understand the environmental effects ofwastewater discharges in the Greater Vancouver region.An improved understanding of discharge effects led tothe realization that utility plans could focus on the areasof greatest need. Over the last five years, the GVRD hasconducted an environmental assessment program underthe guidance of the LWMP Environmental AssessmentsTask Group – a technical advisory group composed ofrepresentatives from municipalities, senior governmentagencies, the University of British Columbia, the public,and the District. This environmental assessment

program has been instrumental in defining areas ofconcern related to water quality.

The location of environmental assessment studiescompleted for wastewater and stormwater dischargesare illustrated in Figures 5-4 and 5-5, respectively. Thefirst environmental assessment studies werecommissioned to characterize the nature of differenttypes of discharges. These studies included detailedanalyses of chemical contaminants in dischargedeffluents, as well as assessment of potential toxicityusing a standard suite of laboratory tests. Thelaboratory toxicity test results, illustrated in Figure 5-6,indicate relative potential toxicity of the different types ofdischarges. Higher toxicity unit scores represent greaterpotential toxicity.

More recent studies have assessed whether the local(near-field) area surrounding major discharges has beenadversely affected.

Near-Field Effects of Wastewater Discharges

The impact of specific wastewater discharges is oftenmeasurable only in the near-field area surrounding thedischarge. The GVRD has conducted detailedassessments of such effects at major discharge sites ineach liquid waste category (shown in Figures 5-4 and 5-5). The near-field studies included some, or all, of thefollowing components:

• discharge fate assessment (effluent dilution anddispersion)

• water column and sediment chemical analysis• sediment toxicological analysis• assessment of biological resources

Determining whether a particular discharge has adverseeffects requires a weight-of- evidence approach forevaluating study results. Weighted most highly are datathat suggest measurable impairment of biologicalresources. The biological resource examined in many ofthe studies is the community of organisms living in thesediments (benthic macroinvertebrates) surrounding thedischarge. These relatively immobile

#Y#Y #Y#Y #Y

#Y #Y #Y #Y#Y #Y

#Y

#Y#Y

#Y#Y

#Y

#Y#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

PITT

RI V

ER

INDIA

N ARM

(N ORTH ARM)

(PORT M OODY ARM)

BURRA RD I NLET( INNER HARBOUR )

FRASER RI VE R

FRASE

R RIVER

FR

Figure 5 - 5: Environmental Assesment Study Locations - Stormwater Discharges

LEGEND

Date PlottedApril 29, 1999

1000 0 1000 2000 Meters

Scale 1:175000

#Y#Y#Y

Streams

Municipal Boundaries

Stormwater Characterization Sites

Receiving Environment - Fraser River Study

Receiving Environment - Small Streams Study

p:\projects\lwmp\stormwater_gis\samplingpts_apr29_ronmacdonald.apr Compiled April 29, 1999 TW (436-6932)

N

EW

S


5-11

organisms can experience long-term exposure to thedischarged contaminants. If it is apparent that theabundance or diversity of such organisms issignificantly lower compared with a reference (or far-field) area, the discharge is considered to have aconfirmed near-field impact.

Comparing water and sediment chemistry data withprovincial water-quality objectives provides an indicationof potential adverse effects. Given the number of factorsthat can modify the actual toxicity of a contaminant,exceeding any objective only implies the possibility ofwater body impairment. If there is an expectation thatwater or sediment quality objectives have beenexceeded, the discharge is considered to have apossible near-field impact.

Results of Near-Field Studies

The only discharge for which measured near-field effectshave been confirmed is that from the Clark Drive CSO,the largest in the GVRD. The environmentalassessment study of this discharge indicated thatbenthic macroinvertebrate communities weresignificantly less diverse and less abundant at samplingstations near the CSO discharge than at outlyingstations. A zone of adverse sediment effects related tothis discharge occupies an area of approximately 200metres by 250 metres surrounding the outfall. Strongevidence from recent research and monitoring efforts invarious urban areas suggests that urban stormwaterdischarges to small streams also lead to confirmednear-field effects, primarily because of altered streamhydrology. A local study assessing the effects ofstormwater in nine streams throughout the region will becompleted in 1999.

Discharges that intermittently exceed water-qualityobjectives at many sites indicate possible near-fieldeffects. Before the upgrade of the two major Fraser Riverwastewater treatment plants (Annacis Is. And Lulu Is.)effluent from these plants exceeded the water-qualityobjective for copper for brief periods during slack tideconditions. It is expected that current discharges fromthese recently upgraded treatment plants will rarelyexceed water-quality objectives. Effluent dischargedfrom the Lions Gate WWTP frequently exceeds thelong-term water quality objective for copper. Duringrainstorms, many of the CSO, SSO, and stormwaterdischarges exceed objectives for copper andoccasionally for total suspended solids.

Laboratory toxicity tests have also been performed onliquid waste discharges to determine possible near-fieldeffects. Testing of the Lions Gate WWTP effluent

indicated the potential for sub-lethal effects at relativelylow effluent concentrations. Further monitoring isneeded to better define the concentration at which theeffluent begins to produce toxic responses and todetermine the source of toxicity.

Assessing Near-Field Effects in the Future

Continued monitoring is required to determine whetherfuture discharges will have near-field effects, especiallyin areas where discharge volumes and contaminantloads might increase because of population growth. TheIona Island wastewater treatment plant, which iscurrently the largest municipal point-source discharge inthe Greater Vancouver region, conducts acomprehensive monitoring program that is reviewedevery five years. The monitoring program examineseffluent quality, effluent dilution, water and sedimentquality, and aquatic life including fish and benthiccommunity structure analysis.

In the 11 years since the Iona Island outfall wasextended into the Strait of Georgia, there has been noevidence to show that this discharge has haddeleterious biological effects. However, sediment levelsof silver are enriched near the outfall compared tobackground conditions. Although sediment objectiveshave not been established for the Strait of Georgia, themeasured silver levels (0.6 to 0.7 ppb) are below theprovincial working guideline of 1.0 ppb. This workingguideline is a threshold level, below which effects arenot expected. Future monitoring will compare silverlevels to the threshold guideline and, more importantly,will continue to determine whether deleterious effectsare occurring.

Continued monitoring of the Annacis Island and LuluIsland wastewater treatment plant discharges is also apriority. Upgrading these plants to secondary treatmentfacilities will reduce or eliminate discharges that exceedprovincial water-quality objectives. Along with provincialregulations and guidelines, waste discharges mustmeet section 36(3) of the federal Fisheries Act, whichprohibits the discharge of a “deleterious substance” towaters frequented by fish. With respect to effluentdischarges, proof of a “deleterious substance” is oftenindicated when undiluted effluent causes significantmortality to rainbow trout in a standard 96-hourlaboratory toxicity test. Rainbow trout are particularlysensitive to ammonia, a nutrient that secondarytreatment processes usually do not remove. However,the ammonia in effluent rising from the wastewatertreatment plant outfall diffuser ports is diluted to a levelbelow acute-test criteria in seconds. Continuedmonitoring of the Annacis Island and Lulu Island

5-12


effluents will be required to determine whether they passor fail the 96-hour toxicity test. If these effluentsregularly fail the test, further monitoring will be initiated

to determine whether the discharge is adverselyaffecting the Fraser River receiving environment.

Figure 5-6: Relative potential toxicity of wastewater and stormwater discharges

(Source: Discharge Rating Measures, GVRD draft report, 1999)

An increased understanding of the aquatic environmentoften leads to the identification of new contaminants ofconcern. For example, endocrine-disrupters haverecently been found to have the potential to damage thereproductive functions of some aquatic life. While it isknown that contaminants such as PCBs and DDT candisrupt reproductive functions, other, more commoncompounds might also play a role. Surfactants such asnonylphenol and related compounds found in manyhousehold and industrial products, is one such group ofcompounds which may act as endocrine-disrupterswhen present in the environment at sufficientconcentrations. Future monitoring will focus on gaininga better understanding of potential endocrine-disruptersin GVRD wastewater treatment plant discharges. TheDistrict is also co-operating with several governmentstudies, including the Georgia Basin EcosystemInitiative, that are attempting to increase understandingof the effect of endocrine disrupters in the environment.

Far-Field Effects of Wastewater Discharges

Often, it is not possible to determine whether aparticular discharge is responsible for detrimentaleffects that occur at a considerable distance from thepoint of discharge (the far-field area). The physical

processes governing the transport and mixing of wastedischarges are not always well understood. Thus,several waste discharges to the same waterbody mightbe contributing to the observed degradation.

The GVRD has analyzed far-field effects by examiningthe provincial objectives monitoring database anddetermining which waterbodies consistently exceedambient water-quality objectives. For contaminants thatexceed the objectives, an estimate is made of the totalmass discharged to a particular waterbody. If adischarge or group of discharges (e.g., CSOs)represents a substantial fraction of this mass, thatdischarge is considered to have a potential effect onambient water quality.

The uncertainties involved in estimating contributionsmade by unmonitored discharges, spills, andatmospheric deposition limit assessments of far-fieldeffects to screening analyses such as those performedby the District. Also, it must be recognized that somewater-quality objectives (e.g., fecal coliform objectives)have been defined for very narrow regions in a waterbodywhere smaller, local sources can play key roles.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Sto

rmw

ater

(n=

3)

CS

O (

n=11

)

SS

O (

n=3)

Iona

WW

TP

(n=

3)

Lion

's G

ate

WW

TP

(n=

3)

Lulu

WW

TP

-P

rimar

y(n

=3)

Ann

acis

WW

TP

-P

rimar

y(n

=3)W

eigh

ted

Ave

rage

Tox

icity

Uni

t S

core

(PE

EP

Sco

re)


5-13

A few CSOs in New Westminster discharge to theFraser River near the boundary of two river reaches, theMain Stem and the North Arm. A recent studydetermined that discharges from the north shore area ofthe Main Stem would be quickly dispersed in the NorthArm. This screening analysis assumes that CSOdischarges to the Main Stem from New Westminstercontribute to the quality of water in both the Main Stemand the North Arm.

Results of Far-Field Studies

Table 5-2 summarizes the results of the GVRD’s far-field screening analysis. For each major waterbody,discharges are grouped according to type (e.g., CSOs).A checkmark placed next to a discharge type indicatesthat the discharge potentially contributes to observedexceedances of water-quality objectives. The tablecovers three types of objectives: fecal coliform countobjectives, which protect recreational and irrigationwater uses, and PAH and trace-metal objectives, whichprotect aquatic life.

High fecal coliform counts indicate increased risk ofgastrointestinal disease for people who come intocontact with bacteria-contaminated waters. Table 5-2indicates that wastewater and/or stormwater dischargesare potentially responsible for high fecal coliform countsin Burrard Inlet’s Inner Harbour and Indian Arm (DeepCove), Boundary Bay, and the North and Main Arms ofthe Fraser River. Within the Inner Harbour, fecal coliformmeasurements are taken in a location west of BrocktonPoint in Stanley Park, at the only designated swimmingarea in the waterbody. Given the localized nature of thisparticular water use in the Inner Harbour, a localcontaminant source (e.g., nearby CSO, stormwater,waterfowl, or unauthorized pleasure-craft discharges)may be responsible for the elevated fecal coliform levels.Preliminary analysis indicates that high fecal coliformcounts often occur during dry periods when rainfall-related sources (stormwater, CSOs, etc) are lesssignificant. Further analysis is required to determinewhich of the potential sources makes the biggestcontribution to the area’s occasional high fecal coliformcounts.

Stormwater discharges are the largest known sourcesof fecal coliforms in Indian Arm and Boundary Bay,areas where fecal coliform counts have often exceededwater-quality objectives. In Indian Arm, fecal coliformcriteria are applied only to one swimming area in DeepCove. Agricultural runoff may be contributing to the highfecal coliform levels at beaches in Boundary Bay;however, estimates of fecal coliform loading inagricultural runoff are not available.

Fecal coliform monitoring sites are distributedthroughout the Fraser River to protect irrigation andlivestock watering uses. Typically, levels that exceedwater-quality objectives occur in the Main Arm onlywhen the treatment plants are not disinfecting effluent(April and October). CSOs, including nearby dischargesto the Main Stem, contribute the bulk of the fecalcoliforms in the North Arm.

CSOs and stormwater discharges are major sources ofPAH compounds in several areas of Burrard Inlet wheresediments exceed objectives. Discharges from CSOs,stormwater, and the Lions Gate wastewater treatmentplant have contributed a substantial amount of tracemetals to areas of Burrard Inlet where metal objectiveshave been exceeded. Similarly, the Annacis Islandwastewater treatment plant has discharged a largequantity of copper to an area of the river where thecopper water-quality objective has been exceeded.

Assessing Far-Field Effects in the Future

The screening analysis of far-field water quality detailedin the previous section is based on water-qualityobjective attainment monitoring data collected mainly bythe MOELP between 1987 and 1995. Very littleattainment monitoring has been conducted since 1995.Some form of attainment monitoring needs to be re-established to assess far-field effects in the future.

Key Discussion Points for theLWMP Process

Clark Drive CSO. Adverse effects on a community oforganisms living in sediments near this discharge havebeen observed. However, the zone of effectsunambiguously linked to this discharge is confined to anarea surrounding the discharge that measures 200 by250 metres.

Urban stormwater discharges to small streams.Stormwater runoff from even moderately developedurban areas dramatically reduces the diversity andabundance of organisms living in urban streams. Themost severe effects usually result from changes instream flow rates, associated habitat destruction, andspills.

Bacteriological quality of the Fraser River estuary.The disinfection period at the Fraser River wastewater

5-14


Table 5-2: Discharges Potentially Affecting Far-Field Water Quality

Objective Type

Waterbody Discharge Fecal Coliforms PAHs Trace Metals

Burrard Inlet: False CreekWWTPTotal CSO ü üUrban Stormwater

Burrard Inlet: Outer HarbourLions Gate WWTP üTotal CSOUrban Stormwater ü

Burrard Inlet: Inner HarbourWWTPTotal CSO ü ü üUrban Stormwater ü ü

Burrard Inlet: Central HarbourWWTPTotal CSOUrban Stormwater ü

Burrard Inlet: Port Moody ArmWWTPCSOUrban Stormwater ü ü

Burrard Inlet: Indian ArmWWTPCSOUrban Stormwater ü

Strait of GeorgiaIona Island WWTPCSOUrban Stormwater

Boundary BayWWTPCSOUrban Stormwater ü

Fraser Main StemWWTPTotal CSOUrban Stormwater

Fraser North ArmWWTPTotal CSO üUrban Stormwater

Fraser Main ArmTotal WWTP (primary treatment) ü üCSOUrban Stormwater

CSO = combined sewer overflow; WWTP = wastewater treatment plant.


5-15

treatment plants may need to be lengthened to meetwater-quality objectives in the river’s Main Arm.Bacteriological criteria designed to protect livestock andirrigation water uses have been occasionally exceededin the North Arm. More stringent irrigation-relatedcriteria (recently revised by the province) may beexceeded more frequently in the North Arm. Meeting thenew bacteriological criteria may require long-termreductions in discharges of fecal coliforms to the NorthArm.

PAH levels in sediments and fish tissue. Levels ofPAH compounds in Burrard Inlet sediments have beenlinked to lesions on the livers of English sole. Despiteevidence of sub-lethal impacts, the inlet appears tosupport a relatively diverse biological community.Currently stormwater and CSO discharges represent themost important known sources of PAHs in Burrard Inlet(industrial data are not available). Although PAH levelsin Fraser River sediments are considerably lower thanthose in Burrard Inlet, indications of fish exposure havebeen detected. Long-term reductions in the generationof these compounds are linked to reduced fossil-fueluse.

Copper levels in Burrard Inlet. Copper levels insediments throughout Burrard Inlet often exceed bothlong-term provincial objectives and probable-effectslevels. Also, some liquid waste discharges, includingthose from the Lions Gate wastewater treatment plant,intermittently exceed long-term water-quality objectivesfor copper. The most important sources of copper inBurrard Inlet include stormwater, CSOs, the Lions Gatewastewater treatment plant, and industrial discharges.Major sources of copper in municipal discharges includecorroded plumbing, vehicle use (e.g., brake-pad wear),and industrial activities. High copper levels in water andsediments have not been shown to cause adversebiological effects at either the community or theindividual level.

Designation of Water Uses. The designated wateruses for a waterbody dictate applicable water qualityobjectives. These objectives, in turn, guide resource andwaste management decision-making in the particularwaterbody. Given the importance of water qualityobjectives in local decision-making, it is very importantthat local and regional governments assume a largerfuture role in designating water uses.

Future monitoring efforts. Future monitoring ofdischarges is imperative, particularly for thosedischarges whose volume and/or contaminant loadmight increase in the future. Although the AnnacisIsland and Lulu Island wastewater treatment plants havebeen upgraded to provide secondary treatment,monitoring might still be necessary to assess thesignificance of potential effluent toxicity from theseplants. Also, the provincial ambient monitoring programshould be re-established in some form to assess thepotential far-field effects of discharges in the future.


6-1

An Evolutionary ProcessUntil the middle of this century, the primary objective ofliquid waste management was to provide an alternativeto on-site sewage disposal in denser areas by carryingaway wastewater to receiving waters whose capacity toabsorb and clean this waste was considered to bevirtually limitless. Sewage disposal to largewaterbodies was seen as a way of avoiding pollution ofland and groundwater and a benefit to property valuesby permitting higher intensity of use. For this reason,the costs of sewage disposal were recovered fromproperty taxes. Stormwater was considered to be arelatively benign nuisance.

In the 1950s and 1960s, evidence began to mount thatsewage disposal and other direct discharges werehaving a negative aggregate impact on receiving waters.Federal and provincial governments responded byestablishing regulatory and cost-sharing measures toencourage treatment of sewage before disposal. Thesemeasures were based upon the concern of seniorgovernments for water resources and the various formsof life they support.

In the 1980s these and other concerns coalesced into abroad concern for overall environmental managementthat is based on an understanding of the total ecology,the interplay of water, land and air pollution issues, andthe potential for preventive measures rather thanattempting to build and pay for industrial-scaletreatment facilities to meet unrestrained demand.

The pivotal development of the 1980s was the conceptof sustainability set out by the Brundtland Commissionin 1984, which said that each generation should onlyconsume resources to the extent that it would notinterfere with the ability of future generations to meettheir needs. Underlying this concept were the threepillars of sustainability - environmental, economic andsocial - which must be kept in balance at all times.

In Greater Vancouver, these concepts resonated wellwith the residents’ commitment to protect this region’soutstanding livability and environmental quality, but theywere made more urgent by the region’s growth, whichwas rapid in rate and unsustainable in form.

Overall ObjectivesThe response of the GVRD and its members to thischallenge was Creating Our Future, an agenda forregional and local action that was adopted by the GVRDBoard in 1990 and updated and readopted in 1993 and1996. Its vision is:

Greater Vancouver can become the first urbanregion in the world to combine in one place thethings to which humanity aspires on a global basis:a place where human activities enhance rather thandegrade the natural environment, where the qualityof the built environment approaches that of thenatural setting, where the diversity of origins andreligions is a source of strength rather than strife,where people control the destiny of theircommunity, and where the basics of food, clothing,shelter, security and useful activity are accessible toall.

Creating Our Future also contains the following basicprinciple that is the foundation for the Liquid WasteManagement Plan:

The region will manage waste in a manner thatenhances environmental quality.

The policy statement also committed the GVRD toimproving the environmental quality of the region’sreceiving waters by, among other initiatives, expeditingand fast-tracking the implementation of the LiquidWaste Management Plan.

The Province of British Columbia provided significantsupport for the efforts of local government to respond towaste management and sustainable developmentplanning issues. The key initiatives were:

• Enabling legislation (the Growth Strategies Act) topermit the completion and implementation of theLivable Region Strategic Plan.

• Legislative support for development ofcomprehensive waste management plans andrecognition of such plans as replacing moredirective regulation of local government wastemanagement activities; and

Part 6Liquid Waste Management Strategy

6-2


• Enabling legislation for demand side managementmeasures such as sewer source control.

Working together, federal and provincial governmentshave contributed to improved liquid waste managementthrough their support for the massive capitalexpenditures to upgrade the Annacis and LuluWastewater Treatment Plants, their implementation ofregulatory changes such as the prohibition ofdischarges from vessels in certain areas and theirparticipation in joint environmental planning andimprovement processes such as the Fraser RiverEstuary Management Program, Burrard InletEnvironmental Action Program, Fraser Basin Council,Georgia Basin Initiative and the Fraser River ActionPlan.

The three village municipalities and one electoral areaoutside the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and DrainageDistrict are also interested in the management of liquidwaste both within their boundaries and in adjacent waterareas.

The Liquid Waste Management Plan will be the focalpoint for all of these interests. As an overall policydocument, it will be comprehensive in area, covering allof the Greater Vancouver Regional District, andcomprehensive in scope, covering all forms of liquidwaste generated within the region. The relationship ofits policies to various areas and various types of wastewill reflect the current jurisdictional arrangements.

For the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and DrainageDistrict and its 18 member municipalities, the Plan willbe a formal commitment concerning the way in whichtheir facilities and programs are to be managed anddeveloped. For the village municipalities and electoralareas outside the Greater Vancouver Sewerage andDrainage District, the Plan will provide policy guidanceand a framework for cooperation in development ofmanagement strategies. Similarly, for wastes that areoutside the formal jurisdiction of the Greater VancouverSewerage and Drainage District, the Plan will providepolicy guidance to the responsible authorities such ashealth regions (for septic systems), the Ministry ofAgriculture, Fisheries and Food (for agricultural liquidwaste) and federal authorities (for discharges fromvessels).

Key StrategiesWithin the broader context outlined above, the LiquidWaste Management Plan must reflect the region’sdecision to maintain and, where possible, restore the

ability of the region’s waters to sustain and supporthuman and aquatic life. The strategic framework forachieving this objective is outlined below.

1. Conserve Resources

The critical resources in the management of the region’senvironment are water, land, air, energy and financialcapacity. For liquid waste management, the mostimportant of these are water and financial capacity.

Conservation of water resources involves threecomponents:

• Pollution prevention - It is preferable to avoid theintroduction of pollutants into water rather than totreat them after they are there. For example, theGVRD’s source control program identifiessubstances that may cause environmental orsystem damage and encourages the use ofalternative substances or alternative means ofdisposal.

• Drinking water conservation.

• Stormwater as a resource - Stormwater flows areessential to the health of the smaller fish-bearingstreams remaining in the region, to the restorationof “lost” streams and to the recharge ofgroundwater. These flows should be managed sothat stormwater is available with adequate quality,quantity and other attributes to serve thesepurposes where appropriate and feasible.

The conservation of financial capacity requires carefulplanning of capital and operating expenditure strategiesto provide the maximum benefit within the overallframework of the region’s ability to pay.

Resource conservation also implies that by-products berecycled or reused. A primary by-product of liquidwaste treatment is biosolids, which are now beneficiallyrecycled through application in land maintenance andrestoration rather than disposed at sea or throughincineration as in the past.

2. Maintain infrastructure and stretch capacity

The present sewerage infrastructure within the regionhas a replacement value in the order of $12 billion. It isa critical asset that must be maintained so that it canprovide adequate service, minimize risk of spills andavoid expensive future expenditures resulting fromdeferred repairs.


6-3

The system currently experiences a fairly high level ofwet-weather inflow and infiltration resulting from systemdeterioration, and resulting in the take-up of thecapacity of existing trunk sewers and treatment plantswell in advance of what the need would be if their usewere confined to sanitary sewage. Consistent andprudent investment in maintenance and rehabilitationcan stretch system capacity and reduce the frequencyof emergency spills and overflows.

Capacity can also be stretched by demandmanagement programs that encourage households,businesses and industries to reduce wastewater flowsand loads, postponing the need for costly capitalinvestments Examples include industrial pre-treatment,best management practices, codes of practice andpublic education programs.

3. Focus effort to maximize environmentalbenefit per dollar spent

Priority should be given to initiatives and projects thatwill provide the maximum cost-benefit for the human andnatural environment. These must be considered withinthe affordability framework in relation to alternativeinvestments in transportation, drinking water, solidwaste and other fields that will produce environmentaland human health benefits. Only after these aspectshave been fully considered should attention shift towhich entity of local government has the jurisdictionalresponsibility for implementing and paying for projectsand programs.

There is a continuing role for programs and projects thatreduce pollution through the better management of pointor non-point sources or reduced loadings on thereceiving environment through improved treatmenttechnology. These can include relatively small projectswith an obvious and immediate environmental or publichealth cost-benefit as well as major capital upgrades

such as those recently implemented at Annacis andLulu.

Such programs, particularly the larger ones, must becarefully assessed to establish that they will produce asignificant improvement in the receiving environment.The objective of maximizing environmental benefit perdollar spent should be a key consideration, even thoughthis might result in a relatively dispersed set ofexpenditures rather than a large and visible capitalupgrade.

The management and financing of the facilities of theGreater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District andits members is organized into four sewerage areas. Ingeneral, these areas have used a three-stage approachin developing their systems, as illustrated in Figure 6-1.

Core asset management addresses the need to keepthe infrastructure in good repair while meeting thedemands of growth. It can produce environmentalbenefit through programs such as pipe repair andreplacement to reduce unwanted infiltration and inflow,which can overload the sewer system and result inspills.

Advanced asset management projects provide additionalenvironmental benefits or resolve specific public healthissues and confirmed environmental impacts.Examples include the containment facility proposed forthe Clark Drive combined sewer outfall and the storagefacility proposed to reduce the frequency of sanitarysewer overflows in Cloverdale.

A full assessment of core asset management andadvanced asset management would precedeconsideration of other options or solutions that are notwell linked to defined problems or have unclear benefits.The sewerage areas have based the need for optionsassessment and projects on the weight-of-evidenceprovided by the environmental assessment reports.

Figure 6-1: Three Stage Approach for System Development

SERVICE ANDSERVICE ANDENVIRONMENTALENVIRONMENTALREQUIREMENTSREQUIREMENTS

CORE ASSETCORE ASSETMANAGEMENTMANAGEMENT BENEFITSBENEFITSBENEFITSBENEFITS ADVANCED ASSETADVANCED ASSET

MANAGEMENTMANAGEMENT OTHER OPTIONSOTHER OPTIONS

6-4

Liquid Waste Management Stage 2 Discussion Paper

Management and ImplementationStrategy

The Liquid Waste Management Plan will provide theframework for an ongoing process of research,assessment, tactical and operational planning andimplementation that must continue to involve all levels ofgovernment. The Burrard Inlet Environmental ActionPlan (BIEAP) and the Fraser River EstuaryManagement Program (FREMP) have been theclearinghouse for much of the policy and scientific workupon the Liquid Waste Management Plan is beingdeveloped and they will be an important focal point forthe management and implementation of the Plan.

Research, monitoring and planning activities that will berequired on an ongoing basis to support Liquid WasteManagement Plan implementation include the following:

• Continuous monitoring and assessment of receivingenvironment to measure the Plan’s performance;

• Intergovernmental agreement on the uses of specificwaterbodies and establishment of appropriatephysical, chemical and biological water qualityobjectives;

• Establishment of effluent discharge criteria tomeasure attainment of water quality objectives atthe edge of an initial dilution zone and to ensureimpacts within the zone do not present publichealth or significant environmental problems;Fateand effect studies to measure the impact of aparticular discharge on the ecosystem in relation towater quality objectives;

• Assessment of the pace of Plan implementation inrelation to established objectives and the overallaffordability context; and

• Focused, ongoing dialogue with the public andstakeholders on the attainment of the Plan’sobjectives and the issues related thereto.

Taken together these actions will ensure that liquidwaste management is a continuous process capable ofmeasuring progress towards clear goals by developingand using the best available information on theenvironmental, financial and political context in whichthe Plan must operate.


7-1

The Vancouver Sewerage Area includes the City ofVancouver, the University Endowment Lands, a portionof the City of Burnaby, a small portion of the City ofRichmond (Twigg Island), and the VancouverInternational Airport. Figure 7-1 shows the boundaries ofthe Vancouver Sewerage Area, along with the majorpiping systems that convey liquid waste to the IonaIsland wastewater treatment plant.

The Vancouver Sewerage Area’s first sewers wereconstructed in the City of Vancouver in 1890, more than100 years ago. Beginning in 1911, major trunks andoutfalls were built. These trunk sewer systems werecombined sewers – systems in which the same pipecarries both sanitary sewage and stormwater runoff –designed to discharge wastewater to the nearestreceiving waterbody. Building combined sewer systemswas a common practice in the early 1900s, mainlybecause it was less expensive to install one pipe in theground rather than two.

In the early 1950s, the need to eliminate the directdischarge of sanitary sewage became apparent.Consequently, a system of major interceptors was builtto convey sanitary sewage to a central location fortreatment (Iona Island). The size of the interceptorsenabled conveyance of all sanitary sewage to thecentral treatment plant in dry weather. During wet-weather periods, however, the interceptors could conveyonly a portion of the stormwater. Again, economicconsiderations drove the interceptor design. The portionof the combined flow that the interceptors could notconvey was removed from the system at designatedoverflow points called combined sewer overflows (CSOs;see Figure 7-1 for the location of CSOs in theVancouver Sewerage Area).

Starting in the early 1970’s, the City of Vancouverbegan a sewer reconstruction program to maintain theiraging system. As part of this program, combined pipeswere replaced with a separate sanitary and stormwaterpiping system. Today, nearly 40% of the City has aseparate system. In 1996, stemming from the GVRD’sStage 1 LWMP, an operational plan for the VSA wasimplemented. This plan optimized the conveyance ofwet weather flow and substantially reduced overflows toBurrard Inlet.

The Iona Island wastewater treatment plant, located atthe mouth of the North Arm of the Fraser River, beganoperating in 1963. It is a primary treatment plant withinfluent screening, grit removal, pre-aeration, andprimary sedimentation capabilities. After treatingwastewater, the plant pumps the resulting effluent 8 kmoffshore into the Strait of Georgia. At this point, thewastewater disperses into the receiving water at a depthof about 90 metres at mean sea level.

The primary sludge from the treatment process at IonaIsland plant is gravity thickened, anaerobically digested,and stored in lagoons. Beginning in 1999, the GreaterVancouver Regional District will recycle organic solidsfrom the plant as part of the region’s biosolids recyclingprogram (see “Part 12 – Residuals Management”).

Figure 7-2 shows population projections for theVancouver Sewerage Area from 1996 to 2050, based onthe GVRD’s Livable Region Strategic Plan and 1996census data. The projected growth rate over this periodis about 1% per year, with a total population increasefrom about 550,000 in 1995 to about 850,000 in 2050.

Average dry-weather flow projections based on thesepopulation data have been developed for the VancouverSewerage Area (see Figure 7-2). An importantobservation from the projection lines is the divergence ofthe population growth and flow after the year 2000. Untilthen, population and flow increase at about the samerate; after 2000, flow levels off while populationcontinues to grow. This divergence stems from theVancouver Sewerage Area’s sewer reconstructionprogram, which is converting combined sewers intoseparate sanitary and stormwater pipe systems. Theseparation of combined sewer pipes eliminatesgroundwater infiltration from private property. Althoughpopulation growth is causing increased flow, futurereductions in groundwater infiltration offset the increase.

While the Figure shows an abrupt change after the year2000, this is an estimate. Actual flows could take moretime to eventually level off. However, the long-term trendline should see VSA flows remain below the 500millions of litres per day mark.

Part 7Vancouver Sewerage Area

<< <

< <

< <

<

<<

<<Arbutus

<<

<

<<

<<

Slocan

<<<

Creek

Straitof

Georgia

Terminal

Spanish Banks Interceptor

Hig

hbu

ry In

terc

epto

r

English Bay Interceptor

<AlmaDiscovery

SpanishBanksP/S

<English Bay

Creek

False

Coal HarbourEnglish Bay

GranvilleIsland Laurel

HeatherCrowe

<<

Brockton

Park Lane

Balaclava

<

<

<Chilco P/S

Jervis P/S

Cla

rk D

rive

Inte

rcep

tor

Harbour West

Interceptor

Harbo

ur E

ast

Inte

rcept

or

HarbourP/S

ColumbiaP/S

WillingdonP/S

WillingdonCassiarClark Drive 1 & 2 &Vernon

< <<<<

ColumbiaVictoria

Slocan Gilmore

8th Avenue Interceptor

YukonGate

Vancouver Harbour

North Arm

Interceptor

%

Iona Island Waste WaterTreatment Plant

Iona Island OutfallMacdonald

Angus

South West Marine

Drive Interceptor

<

<

Dunbar

Hudson

(North Arm)HudsonP/S Kent

Ave. P/S

Kent Ave. Sanitary

Trunk Sewer

South Hill

< Borden

<

Fraser

<

Manitoba

Shaughnessy River

North Arm Interceptor

U.E.L.

City ofVancouver

City ofBurnaby

<

Carleton

<<< Denman

<<Burrard

Vancouver Sewerage Area - Tributary Catchments to Water Bodies & CSO Outfalls

N

EW

S

2 0 2 4 Kilometers

Municipal BoundaryMunicipal SewerGVS&DD SewerGVS&DD Pump Station

< <<

GVS&DD Combined Sewer OverflowMunicipal Combined Sewer Overflow

Date: April 26, 1999 file: p:\projects\lwmp\lwmp_discussion\vsa_storage_maps.apr prepared by DT


7-3

Figure 7-2: Population and Flow Projections for the Vancouver Sewerage Area

500,000

550,000

600,000

650,000

700,000

750,000

800,000

850,000

900,000

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Year

Po

pu

lati

on

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

AD

WF

(M

L/d

)

PopulationADWF at Iona

Problems and IssuesCollection System

The collection system in the Vancouver Sewerage Areais one of the oldest in the region. Because of its age,the system has many ongoing problems with conditionand capacity. Proactively managing these problems isone of the basic service requirements that municipalitiesand the GVRD must meet. That means applying soundasset management policies and performance criteria.Two fundamental and long-standing criteria aresafeguarding public health and protecting privateproperty.

The replacement value of the municipal piping system(including connections) is estimated at $3 billion. Thereplacement value of the GVRD interceptors and trunksystems is about $360 million. For the Iona Islandwastewater treatment plant, the replacement value isabout $160 million (including the deep-sea outfall). Themulti-billion dollar value of the Vancouver SewerageArea’s sewerage assets highlights the need for a soundand proactive management approach. The underlying

principle is that because the sewer infrastructure wasbuilt over many decades, the system’s repair andreplacement should also take place over manydecades. This strategy leads to fiscally reasonable(affordable) programs and does not place the burden ofa potential infrastructure crisis on any particulargeneration of the area’s inhabitants.

The Vancouver Sewerage Area has 35 outfalls thatdischarge overflow from the combined sewers.Seventeen discharge to Vancouver Harbour, 5 to FalseCreek, 5 to English Bay, and 8 to the North Arm of theFraser River.

Combined sewers in the Vancouver Sewerage Areaannually send about 24 billion litres of mixed sanitarysewage and stormwater to receiving waterbodies. Thisfigure is based on the physical configuration of thecollection system in 1998 and on an average rainfallyear. The total combined overflow consists of about 17billion litres of stormwater and 7 billion litres of sanitarysewage. The 7 billion litres of sanitary sewage spilledrepresents about 4% of the total sanitary sewagevolume conveyed to the Iona Island plant for treatment.

7-4


Of the total overflow volume, 75% is discharged toVancouver Harbour, 3% to False Creek, 3% to EnglishBay, and 19% to the North Arm of Fraser River. About86% of the total overflow occurs during the winter; theremaining 14%, during the summer.

Part 5 – “Receiving Environment,” lists several keyenvironmental concerns related to discharges from thecollection system into receiving waterbodies:

• Clark Drive CSO discharge to Vancouver Harbour• bacteriological quality of the North Arm of the

Fraser River• polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) levels in

Burrard Inlet• copper levels in Burrard Inlet

“Part 13 – Stormwater” details management alternativesrelated to stormwater into small streams. As thedrainage system in the Vancouver Sewerage Area isgradually re-established through sewer separation,alternatives such as the best management practices setout in Part 13 will be important considerations.

Wastewater Treatment

Since the summer of 1995, the Iona Island plant hashad numerous violations of its permit limit forbiochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and totalsuspended solids (TSS). It has appeared on theprovince’s list of polluters three times.

Many of the permit violations occur in the summermonths during periods of dry weather, whengroundwater infiltration flow is lower and the wastewaterbecomes more concentrated. During these periods,residential-strength sewage does not pose a problem.However, several industries in the Vancouver SewerageArea produce a very large quantity of high-strength BODthat is dissolved rather than in a particulate state. TheIona Island plant’s primary clarifiers, which are designedto remove BOD consisting mainly of particular matter,cannot treat this dissolved BOD.

A key issue in the Vancouver Sewerage Area is whetherto upgrade the plant to treat dissolved BOD or to requireindustries producing dissolved BOD to treat at source.For the former, an Industrial Pricing Strategy waspassed by the GVRD Board in May of 1997 to bephased in over a four year period. The strategy relies onthe user/benefit pay principle. Fees based on volume ofdischarge and loadings for TSS and BOD areestablished for each sewerage area. In the VancouverSewerage Area, the pricing strategy has beenimplemented in the Cities of Burnaby and Richmond.

Implementation is expected in the City of Vancouveronce their sewer utility is established. Even though notyet implemented, the proposed pricing strategy hasalready been successful in providing industry in theVancouver Sewerage Area with incentive to reduce BODand TSS loading.

The Iona Island plant’s other permit violations haveresulted from very large BOD load increases over ashort time, usually one to two days. In some cases,source control investigations have linked these events tospecific discharges. In other cases, however, it has notbeen possible to identify the sources of BOD loading.

The Iona Island wastewater treatment plant alsoreceives all non-domestic trucked liquid waste (TLW) inthe Greater Vancouver region. Until late 1998, thedischarge authorizations for these high-strength wastesdid not impose restrictions on their particle size or onthe amount of oil and grease they could contain.Consequently, treating TLW caused serious operatingproblems at the plant. New facilities are now in place,however, and there are particle-size restrictions on thewastes deposited at these facilities. Also, the District isimplementing pricing strategies that better reflect thecost of service. Because of these changes, TLWloading at the Iona Island plant has declined. Someindustries are now recycling more product; others arelooking to the private sector for treatment options.

Environmental monitoring of the primary effluent, watercolumn, sediment, and biota in the study area near IonaIsland began in 1986, before the completion of the IonaIsland deep-sea outfall in 1988. A comparison of themonitoring results before and after the construction ofthe outfall indicates that it has improved thebacteriological quality of waters at Iona Island Beachand the dissolved oxygen quality at Sturgeon Bank.

Continued comprehensive monitoring since 1988 (post-discharge) has not found any evidence that dischargesfrom the Iona Island plant are contributing to theenvironmental degradation of the sediments or the watercolumn. No detrimental effects on marine organismshave been measured, and the infaunal and the benthiccommunity structures both appear to be normal.

Analysis of silver concentrations in sediment samplestaken near the outfall has shown a “footprint” from thedeposition of particulates. The silver concentration levelsare currently below any known adverse-effectsthreshold. If silver loading continues to increase,however, measured levels in the sediments might beginto approach a threshold value over time. The mainsource of silver in the collection system is probably the


7-5

photography production sector. New photographproduction techniques and the use of digital cameraswill likely reduce the amount of silver discharged. This isa good example of where specific environmental datacan be used to target source reduction programswithout the need for expensive central treatment facilityupgrading.

Potential OptionsCollection System

Figure 7-3 shows the options under consideration formanaging the Vancouver Sewerage Area collectionsystem.

The existing collection system is primarily a combinedsewer system. Established infrastructure replacementprograms are converting this combined system intoseparate stormwater and sanitary systems. During thetransition period, there will actually be three systems:the new stormwater system, the remaining combinedsewer system, and the new sanitary system.

Separating the combined system into two systems isthe first step in re-establishing the natural physicalcharacteristics of the drainage system in the VancouverSewerage Area. Although the natural drainage systemcan never return to a pre-development state, sewer-system separation is creating more opportunities thanwas the case with mixed sanitary sewage andstormwater in a single piping system. For example, theopportunity now exists to re-establish old streamcorridors in the Vancouver Sewerage Area. Options ofthis type are called advanced infrastructuremanagement options (see Figure 7-3). For all existingand new stormwater systems, the municipalities in theVancouver Sewerage Area are working with the regionalstormwater committee to define best managementpractices and a process for watershed managementplanning (see “Part 13 – Stormwater”).

A degree of connectivity between the combined and newsanitary sewer systems will continue until the combinedsystem is completely phased out. Advancedinfrastructure management options for dealing withthese systems will focus on:

• increasing the opportunities for conveying sanitarysewage to the wastewater treatment plant duringwet-weather periods (conveyance realignmentoptions)

• making the best use of existing pipe capacities (in-system storage options)

• addressing known near-field or local effects ofdischarges (Clark Drive CSO containment)

• treating specific CSO discharges and improving thedilution and dispersion characteristics at specificCSO outfalls.

More extensive and higher-cost options for managingthe interim combined system have also been evaluated,including construction of underground (near-surface)storage tanks and/or deep conveyance/storage tunnels,and treatment of CSO discharges at all outfalls.

The storage concept involves retaining CSO dischargesduring wet weather and pumping them back into thesewerage system during dry-weather periods. However,storage tanks and tunnels could never be large enoughto retain all of the CSO volume, and are only cost-effective to a volume-reduction level of about 70% to80%.

The CSO treatment concept involves locating atreatment facility, similar to a central treatment facility,at the CSO outfall to the receiving environment.Because CSOs have very high flow rates, thesefacilities typically treat only a portion of the flow.


A matrix of options for upgrading the Iona Islandwastewater treatment plant has been developed. Thismatrix combines three variables: BOD/TSS dischargelimit, percentage of compliance with the limit, andloading. Within each of these variables, a range ofoptions is available. In all, the matrix includes 36different upgrading options for the Iona Island plant.

Here are the options for BOD/TSS discharge limits:

• 130 mg/L for BOD, 100 mg/L for TSS (existingpermit criteria)

• 90 mg/L for BOD, 90 mg/L for TSS• 45 mg/L for BOD, 45 mg/L for TSS (criteria

proposed in the draft provincial regulations)

Here are the options for percentage of compliance withdischarge limits:

• 50%• 90%• 97%• 100% (existing permit criterion)

7-6


Figure 7-3: Collection System Management Options

STORMWATERSYSTEM

COMBINEDSEWER SYSTEM

CURRENT VSACOMBINED

SYSTEM

SANITARY SEWERSYSTEM

SEWERRECONSTRUCTION/

SEPARATION&

GROWTH PROJECTS IN-SYSTEM CSOSTORAGEOPTIONS

CLARK DR. CSOCONTAINMENT

OUTFALLIMPROVEMENTS& TREATMENT

CONVEYANCEREALIGNMENTOPTIONS

DEEP TUNNELCONVEYANCE/STORAGE OPTIONS

RE-ESTABLISHINGOLD STREAMCORRIDORS

NEAR SURFACESTORAGE OPTIONS

CSO TREATMENTOPTIONS FOR ALLOUTFALLS

BEST MANAGEMENTPRACTICES

Core Infrastructure Programs

Advanced InfrastructurePrograms

Higher Levelsof Service

Here are the loading options:

• all wastewater sources at residential strength• residential loading with and without garburator use• current 1996-1998 trend for BOD reductions

associated with meeting the TSS bylaw (600 mg/L)and enforcement of bylaw limits for BOD discharges(500 mg/L) between 1999 and 2002

• no change in 1996 recorded loading by industry• 3% growth per year in the 1996 recorded loading

from industrial sources

Other load management options for improving the IonaIsland wastewater treatment plant dischargesconsidered in this report include pricing strategies (payfor service), codes of practice for the commercial andinstitutional sector, and public education.

Managing the Core InfrastructureCollection System

Core Infrastructure Management

Figure 7-4 shows the Vancouver Sewerage Area and itscatchments. The grey catchments represent areaswhere a separate stormwater system and a separate

sanitary sewer system are already in place.Catchments ranging from yellow to orange represent thetimeline for separating combined systems through theVancouver Sewerage Area’s gradual replacement (coreinfrastructure management) program. The yellowcatchments represent areas where combined systemswill be separated by the year 2010. The darker shadesof yellow to orange represent areas where separationwill occur in 10-year increments to the year 2070.

As shown in Figure 7-4, about 40% of the VancouverSewerage Area already has separate storm andsanitary sewer systems. By the year 2030, nearly 80%of the area will have separate systems. The coreinfrastructure management program will cost about $940million in capital. Over the next 60-year implementationperiod, the net present value of the program will be $240million. The premium for separating the combined pipesas part of this program is about $40 million. It isimportant to note that more than 90% of this cost is forthe City of Vancouver’s program.

¡City of

Vancouver

U.E.L

<< <<

Cambie St.Combined Trunk Sewer

Wes

t End

Inte

rcept

or

Sew

er

Trunk


Hig

hbu

ry

I

nte

rcep

tor

Balaclava C

ombined


<AlmaDiscovery

SpanishBanksP/S

<English Bay

Creek

False

Coal Harbour

English Bay

Granville Island Laurel

<µHeather

Crowe

<<Terminal

Arbutus

<µ

Brockton

Park Lane

Balaclava

<

<

<ChilcoP/S

Cla

rk D

rive

Inte

rce

ptor

Copley Sanitary Trunk Sewer

Collingwood Sanitary

Trunk Sewer

China Creek Combined TrunkSewer

Harbour West

Interceptor

Harbo

ur E

ast

Inte

rcept

or

Hastings SanitaryTrunk Sewer

HarbourP/S

WillingdonP/S

WillingdonCassiar

Clark Drive 1 & 2 &Vernon < <<<<

Victoria

SlocanGilmore

<< <

8th Avenue InterceptorYukonGate

Vancouver Harbour

Cityof

Burnaby


<µ<µ<µ<µ

Columbia <<<<<

ColumbiaP/S

<< <<

Hudson

(North Arm)HudsonP/S

KentAve. P/S

Borden St.CombinedTrunk Sewer

Kent Ave. Trunk Sewer

Man

itob

a S

t. C

om

bine

dT

runk

Sew

er

Sou

th H

ill

Com

bine

d T

runk

Sew

er

South Hill

<

Borden

<

Fraser

<

Manitoba

Shaughnessy River


U.E.L.

Angus Dr.CombinedTrunk Sewer

North Arm

Interceptor%



Angus

South West Marine

Drive Interceptor

<

<

Dunbar

<<

JervisP/S

<

<< Denman <Carleton

<<Burrard

Date: April 27, 1999 file: p:\projects\lwmp\lwmp_discussion\vsa_core.apr prepared by DT

1 0 1 2 Kilometers

N

EW

S

VSA -- Core Infrastructure Management

Separated Areas

Catchment Separation (completion year)20002010202020302040205020602070

Municipal BoundaryMunicipal SewerGVS&DD SewerGVS&DD Pump station

7-8


Figure 7-5: Annual CSO Volume Reductions

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070

Year

Ann

ual C

SO V

olum

e (m

illio

ns o

f Lit

res) Core Infrastructure Management Program

Provincial Regulation (1% Reduction per Year)

Figure 7-5 shows CSO volumetric reductions in 10-yearincrements beginning in 1990 and ending in 2070. In1990, CSOs discharged about 30 billion litres of mixedsanitary sewage and stormwater. By the year 2000, thisvolume will be reduced by about 40% to19 billion litres.The 40% reduction is primarily the result ofimplementing an operational plan in 1996. This plan wasdeveloped from a collaborative effort between the GVRDand member municipalities in the Vancouver SewerageArea to implement low-cost/high-benefit improvementsto the system.

Beyond the year 2000, CSO volume will be reduced byabout 5 billion litres per 10-year increment. By the year2050, virtually all discharges of sanitary sewage instormwater will be eliminated. To compare thesereductions with the draft provincial regulations, Figure 7-5 plots the 1% per year reduction requirement of thedraft regulations.

Advanced Infrastructure Management

Figure 7-6 shows the Vancouver Sewerage Area’sadvanced infrastructure management projects.

The advanced infrastructure management projects fallinto two categories: stormwater-specific projects andcombined and sanitary sewer projects. Stormwater

project opportunities include the Hastings Park,Grandview Cut, Tatlow Park, and Manitoba Creekprojects, all of which involve opening up old streamcorridors as an amenity to City of Vancouver residents.City of Vancouver staff are dealing with the logistics ofimplementing the stormwater projects, includingnegotiating with federal and provincial agencies.

Table 7-1 summarizes the combined and sanitary sewerprojects for the area. These projects are part of theGVRD’s 10-year capital plan, and will require individualbusiness case development and approval beforeimplementation proceeds. The total capital cost of theadvanced infrastructure projects is about $28 million.

Figure 7-7 compares CSO volume-reduction figures forthe advanced infrastructure management program withthose for the core infrastructure management program.On average, the advanced infrastructure managementprogram can achieve about 10% greater reduction ofCSO volume than the core program can.

By the year 2070, the cumulative volume reduction fromthe advanced infrastructure management projects will beabout 42 billion litres. This figure is about 1.4 times theannual CSO volume discharged in the VancouverSewerage Area in 1990.

}}

}}

²¡

¡

¡

¡

²North ArmOperational

Plan

Straitof

Georgia Raising Overflowand Priming Levels of Angus Siphon Weir

Lowering Wet WellLevel of IONA ¡ N

orth Arm

Interceptor

%



Angus

South West Marine

Drive Interceptor

<

<

Dunbar

<<

<< <<

Hudson

(North Arm)HudsonP/S

KentAve. P/S

Borden St.CombinedTrunk Sewer

Kent Ave. Trunk Sewer

Man

itob

a S

t. C

om

bine

dT

runk

Sew

er

Sou

th H

ill

Com

bine

d T

runk

Sew

er

South Hill

< Borden

<

Fraser

<

Manitoba

Shaughnessy River


¡¡¡

¡

¡

Vernon ReliefDrain CSOStorage

Thornton/Terminal PS ForcemainRealignment

Columbia PSForcemainRealignment

1st & Boundary PS(COV & COB) Redirectingto Copley System

Grandview CutStormwater Realignment

Clark Dr. OutfallsCSO Containment

Harbour Pump Station Upgrades and SSO Storage

<<

<

<

Copley SanitaryTrunkSewer

City ofBurnabyCity of

Vancouver

Brockton<

Yukon Gate

<µ<µ<µ<µ

GilmoreSlocan

VictoriaColumbia <<<

<<Clark Drive 1 & 2 & VernonDrive

Cassiar Willingdon

WillingdonP/SColumbia P/S

HarbourP/S

Harbo

ur E

ast

Inte

rcept

or

Cla

rk D

rive

Inte

rcep

tor

Hastings ParkProject

¡Balaclava OutfallTatlow Park Project

¡

}

- Chilco PS Stormwater Bypass and weir Construction- Disabling Interlock with Jervis PS

Disabling Interlockwith English BayInterceptor

Closure ofParklaneOutfall

Jervis PS ForcemainExtension to 8AI

English Bay/Alma DiscoveryOutfall CSO Storage

U.E.L

<< <<

Wes

t End

Inte

rcept

or


Hig

hbu

ryIn

terc

epto

r


<AlmaDiscovery

SpanishBanksP/S

<English Bay

Creek

False

Coal Harbour

English Bay

GranvilleIsland Laurel

<µHeather

Cro

we

<<Terminal

Arbutus<µ

Park Lane

Balaclava<

< Chilco P/S

JervisP/S

Collingwood Sanitary

Trunk Sewer

China Creek CombinedTrunkSewer

Harbour West

Interceptor

Hastings SanitaryTrunk Sewer

<<<<


Balaclava OutfallRepair/Extension

¡

<

ManitobaCreekProject

City ofRichmond

<< Denman <Carleton

<<Burrard

Date: April 27, 1999 file: p:\projects\lwmp\lwmp_discussion\vsa_aam.apr prepared by DT 2000 0 2000 4000 Meters

N

EW

S

VSA -- Advanced Management Programs

Serviced AreaMunicipal BoundaryMunicipal SewerGVS&DD Sewer

GVS&DD Pump Station

< <<

GVS&DD Combined Sewer OverflowMunicipal Compined Sewer OverflowStormwater SpecificCombined Sanitary Sewer Specific

ManitobaCreek Project

CSO Containment

7-10


Table 7-1: Advanced Infrastructure Management Projects: Description and Cost Summary

Project Description Cost

($ millions)

• Redirect Columbia Pump Station flows to just downsteam of Yukon gate. 2.5

• Redirect Thornton/Terminal to just downsteam of Yukon gate (completed).

• Vernon Relief Drain CSO Storage. 2.0

• Harbour Pump Station SSO Storage.

• Clark Dr. Containment Facility 2.0

• English Bay Outfall Storage. 9.0

• Alma-Discovery Outfall Storage.

• Storm inflow to Alma Discovery Outfall disconnected.

• Jervis P.S. forcemain extension from English Bay Interceptor to 8th Ave Interceptor.

6.0

• Closure of Parklane outfall.

• Chilco Pump Station stormwater by-pass/weir construction (completed).

• Chilco and Jervis Pump Station interlock disabling.

• Redirect Cambie Trunk overflows to Heather Outfall by disconnecting separator at Cambie St. & 6 Ave.

0.5

• Cambie Pump Station forcemain extension to 8th Ave. Interceptor

• 1st and Boundary Pump Station Realignment 3.0

• Fraser R. North Arm Operational Plan 3.0

• North Arm Interceptor Twin Box weir operational improvements.

Some of the advanced infrastructure managementprojects – for example, the re-alignment of theColumbia, Thornton, and Terminal pump stations – offermajor operational benefits. Other projects, such as theClark Drive containment facility, do not offer volume-reduction benefits but they do substantially reducecontamination. It is also possible to design stormwaterprojects (e.g., Grandview Cut) to reduce contaminantswithin the newly constructed creek system.


To deal with the permit compliance concerns at the IonaIsland wastewater treatment plant, several initiativeswent into effect starting in 1996:

• conducting comprehensive process audit andprocess optimization programs

• running full-scale pilot tests of enhanced primarytreatment

• performing key manhole monitoring in the collectionsystem to identify BOD sources and theircontributions

• conducting wastewater inventory studies• collecting cost data from selected industrial permit-

holders for on-site treatment of their discharges• holding workshops with major BOD-producing

industries to evaluate ways to continue BODreduction strategies

• increasing the frequency of industry self-monitoringas well as audit monitoring by Source ControlProgram staff


7-11

Figure 7-7: Annual CSO Volumes for Core and Advanced Infrastructure Programs

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070

Year

Ann

ual C

SO V

olum

e (m

illio

ns o

f Li

tres

)Core Infrastructure Management Program

Advanced Infrastructure Management Program

Provincial Regulation (1% Reduction per Year)

• obtaining GVRD Board approval to add chemicalsduring high BOD loading events (starting in thesummer of 1999).

Note: Adding chemicals is an interim measure. The goalis to reduce BOD during some of the peak loadingevents. The LWMP Stage 2 discussion document,negotiations with industry, and the approval of theLWMP will lead to more comprehensive programs formanaging the Iona Island wastewater treatment plant.

Compliance With Permitted Effluent Limit

The current permit for the Iona Island wastewatertreatment plant has a maximum permitted effluentconcentration for both BOD and TSS, which essentiallymeans 100% compliance. However, the cost ofachieving 100% compliance as opposed to a lesserpercent compliance, say 97% or 90%, are significantwhile the reduction in total effluent loading is not. To gofrom 90 to 97% compliance, the increase in cost isabout $19 million, while the total annual loading wouldonly be decreased by less than 1%. To go from 97 to100% compliance, an additional $23 million would haveto be spent, and the total annual effluent load wouldonly be reduced another 1%.

Reducing the compliance level from 100% to 97%results in an average of about 5 BOD and 8 TSSconcentration violations per year, but environmentalmonitoring data has indicated that the effluentconcentrations could be at least double before waterquality objectives would be exceeded. Thus, as thereare not significant load reductions or environmentalbenefits in terms of peak concentration reductions, it isrecommended that the compliance level specified belower than 100%.

Load Management

The permit-compliance problems experienced at theIona Island wastewater treatment plant have mainlyinvolved BOD loading. This section focuses on the mostlikely BOD loading scenarios over the next 20 years.Other loading scenarios were developed and used toevaluate marginal costs, upgrading plans, and sourcereduction opportunities, but only the most realisticscenario is discussed in this document.

In 1996, the average daily BOD load was about 74tonnes. Table 7-2 gives the estimated source-loadingcontributions to the average daily BOD load.

7-12


Table 7-2: Contributions of Sources to BODLoading in the Vancouver Sewerage Area, 1996

BOD Source Amount(tonnes)

Percentageof Total

Residential 36 49%

Commercial/Institutional 10 13%

Industrial 26 35%

Domestic TLW <1 …

Non-domestic TLW 2 3%

TLW = trucked liquid waste.

To manage treatment plant upgrading, loading increasescan be reduced through reduction of the average overallloading, reduction of the peak loads, and reduction ofdischarges that are hard to treat (e.g. soluble BOD).Opportunities to manage loading by sector aresummarized as follows:

ResidentialResidential wastes include cooking and cleaningwastes, human excrement, and garburator usage(assumed to be about 10% of the total residential BODloading in the VSA based on 40% of homes havinggarburators). The most effective load managementoption for this sector would be to limit garburator use asthe other two loads cannot be reduced. The additionalloading due to garburator use was not accounted for inthe original design of the Iona Island wastewatertreatment plant. This loading has increased over the lastten to twenty years, and if left unrestricted, will furtherincrease the average loading to the plant. By 2028, it isestimated that without controls garburators will increaseBOD by about 10%.

Minor additional reductions may be possible throughpublic education programs aimed at changing cookingpractices (e.g. disposing grease as a solid rather thanliquid waste). However, the opportunity to reduceresidential loading other than through garburatorrestrictions is minimal. Even with garburator userestrictions, it is not expected that significant loadreductions would occur for at least five to ten years,once garburator usage begins to decrease.Furthermore, load reductions from the residential sectorwould only reduce the average loading, as wastes fromthe residential sector do not cause large peaks at thetreatment plant. Potential BOD loading reductions inthis sector would be about 5% based on the currentloading distribution.

Commercial/InstitutionalAlthough commercial and institutional wastes aregenerally not large on an individual basis, on acumulative basis they can be significant. Additionally,due to the large number of commercial establishments,it is difficult to permit or regulate their discharges. Thecurrent average commercial/institutional loading in theVSA is estimated to be about 13% of the total VSAloading. Opportunities to reduce wastes would bethrough public education programs as well as throughCode of Practices. Commercial loading likely increasesin the summer months due to increased tourism, butthese peaks may be somewhat balanced throughresidents and employees in the City of Vancouverleaving on holidays. Additionally, restaurant wastes aretypically a substitute for the wastes which would beproduced by the residents, and does not likely result ina large net gain of load in the sewerage area.

A reduction in effluent loading from this sector of, say,10% through public education and Code of Practiceswould only result in about a 1% overall reduction in totalplant loading. Thus, the opportunities to reducecommercial and institutional loading are not significantor practical other than through Code of Practices andPublic Education.

Trucked Liquid WasteBoth domestic and non-domestic Trucked LiquidWastes (TLW) are currently accepted at the Iona Islandwastewater treatment plant. Domestic TLW comprisessewage from unserviced areas, as well as from portabletoilets used for special events, construction sites, etc.There is little opportunity to reduce the loading from theportable toilets, other than through shifting all or part ofthe loading to other wastewater treatment plants in theregion. The loading due to unserviced areas is expectedto decrease with time as these areas become serviced.Overall, these loadings are not overly significant,although some peaking of load may be seen duringspecial events where large volumes of the portable toiletwastes would be generated and disposed of in arelatively small timeframe.

Non-domestic TLW has been a significant issue at theIona Island wastewater treatment plant. This is relatedto operational problems in handling this high strengthwaste, as well as because it has a large soluble BODfraction which can not be treated at a primary treatmentplant like Iona. A facility has been constructed toreduce some of the operational impact of the non-domestic TLW loading, but the plant is still unable totreat the soluble BOD. Options to manage this loadinclude transferring the load to one of the other regionalwastewater treatment plants or setting a pricing


7-13

strategy which allows for private enterprise to develop acompetitive alternative to disposal at Iona. The firstphase of a pricing strategy and a newly enforcedparticle size restriction have already resulted in otherprivate disposal options and the loading from this sectorhas already decreased significantly. For the purposes ofthis analysis, this loading is assumed to be eliminatedfrom the future waste stream at Iona.

IndustrialOn an average basis, industrial wastes comprise about35% of the treatment plant BOD loading, which is veryhigh for a wastewater treatment plant such as IonaIsland, which has a large tributary population. Industrialwastes provide the most opportunity for loadingreduction as they are typically a large load coming froma single source. Additionally, it is the industrial sourcesthat typically cause the peak loads at the treatmentplant. These peak loads cause non-compliance andresult in the need for treatment upgrades. Dischargesfrom industry are generally well above typical municipalwastewater strengths. Some industrial discharges alsomay contain high concentrations of soluble BOD whichhas a significant impact on the plant. This also providesthe greatest opportunity for reducing peak loads.

With the exception of industrial discharges, there islittle opportunity to significantly reduce the influentloading at the Iona Island wastewater treatment plantand the discharges from other sectors are typical ofmunicipal waste discharges; it is primarily the industrialloading which is anomalous. Regardless, garburatorrestrictions (either through a ban or public education),codes of practice for commercial and institutionalsectors, and public education programs should all beinitiated to manage loading and defer capital upgradingrequirements. However, significant reductions in loadingare not achievable in the short-term without restrictingindustrial effluent.

Load Management Opportunities forIndustrial Discharges

Since 1996, the average daily BOD load has droppedfrom 74 tonnes to about 63 tonnes, mainly becauseindustry in the Vancouver Sewerage Area has moved tocomply with the bylaw limit for TSS discharges (i.e.,600 mg/L). Although this reduction represents a positivestep in the short term, there are still long-termcompliance concerns. Figure 7-8 shows projections forBOD effluent concentrations from 1996 to 2021. Basedon 100% compliance with the permit, these figuresassume application of a peaking factor of 1.6 to the

average daily BOD load. (This figure is based onhistorical peak factors and has not changed with thereductions in average daily loading.) The projections foreffluent concentrations in the figure are for twoupgrading scenarios: 30% enhanced primary treatmentand 60% enhanced primary treatment. The 30% and60% values refer to the portion of the flow volume thatreceives chemicals to remove BOD.

The growth data mentioned previously are the basis forthe projected residential and commercial/institutionalBOD increases in Figure 7-8. The assumption is thatresidential garburator use will increase only marginallyover the 20-year period, and that non-domestic TLWdischarges will cease after 1999. The figure illustratestwo industrial BOD-loading scenarios. For the firstscenario, the figure shows the actual trend for BODloading from 1996 to 1998; after 1998, the assumptionis that industry will not make further reductions tocomply with the bylaw limit. The second scenarioassumes that industry will continue to reduce BOD tomeet the bylaw limit by 2002.

At 30% enhanced primary treatment and with no furtherBOD-loading reductions by industry, the effluent wouldnot comply with the 130 mg/L limit. If industry moved tomeet the bylaw limit or made equivalent load reductions,the Iona Island plant would comply with the permit until2007. At 60% enhanced primary treatment and with nofurther BOD-loading reductions by industry, the plantwould be out of compliance by the year 2002. If industrymoved to meet the bylaw limits or made equivalent loadreductions, the plant would comply with the permit until2014.

Figure 7-9 shows the same information for a 97%compliance level, with a peaking factor of 1.4 applied tothe average daily BOD load. On an annual basis, theIona Island treatment plant would exceed this load (andthus the permit limit) five to seven times. There are nowritten rules for what constitutes an acceptable orallowable number of times to exceed permit limits.However, the five to seven instances for 97%compliance might be reasonable, especially for a largeplant such as Iona Island with a heavily urbanizedtributary area such as the Vancouver Sewerage Area.

At 30% enhanced primary treatment and with no furtherBOD-loading reductions by industry, the effluent wouldexceed the 130 mg/L limit by the year 2004. If industrymoved to meet the bylaw limit or made equivalent loadreductions, the plant would comply with the permit until2018. At 60% enhanced primary treatment and with nofurther BOD-loading reductions

7-14


Figure 7-8: Projections of Effluent BOD Concentrations at Iona Island Wastewater Treatment —Plant with 100% Permit Compliance

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

20019

96

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Year

Eff

luen

t BO

D (m

g/L

)

30% Enhanced Primary (BOD by-law non-compliance after 1998)

30% Enhanced Primary (BOD by-law compliance by 2002)



..

130 mg/L Effluent Limit

by industry, the plant would be out of compliance by theyear 2011. If industry moved to meet the bylaw limits ormade equivalent load reductions, the plant wouldcomply with the permit until well past the year 2021.

Base Upgrading Plan for Iona Island

This section sets out an upgrading plan the for IonaIsland wastewater treatment plant, building on thediscussions in the previous section. This base plan willserve as the benchmark point for evaluating source andcentral treatment, as well as higher treatment levels.

The base upgrading plan assumes that the plant willcomply with permit levels – 130 mg/L for BOD and 100mg/L for TSS – 97% of the time. The plan also assumesthat major BOD-producing industries in the VancouverSewerage Area will meet the discharge limit of 500mg/L or achieve load reductions that equal the limit.

Figure 7-10 graphically illustrates the Iona Islandupgrading plan. The graph’s vertical axis representsTSS in tonnes per year. As the figure shows, 30% ofthe flow would receive enhanced primary treatmentbetween 1999 and 2018; after 2018, 60% of the flowwould receive enhanced treatment. The base plan wouldrequire implementing enhanced primary treatment onlyto reduce peak effluent concentrations for 97%

compliance with the 130 mg/L BOD limit. No additionalchemical treatment would be undertaken to reduceeffluent load. The net present value of this option over 30years would be about $55 million.

Source vs. Central Treatment

The business case for source vs. central treatment isbased on the information given in the previous twosections, and also on data received from two of the topBOD-producing industries in the Vancouver SewerageArea. These industries have reported that meeting thedischarge bylaw limit for BOD (500 mg/L) would costabout $4 million for capital and $0.7 million for annualoperating expenses; the net present value to the year2028 would be $18 million. The data from the twoindustries were used to estimate source-reduction costsfor eight additional BOD-generating industries in theVancouver Sewerage Area: $8 million for capital costs,$1.5 million for operating costs, and $37 million for netpresent value to 2028. Together, these ten industriescontribute more than 80% of the total industrial BODload.

The premium for central treatment of the industrial BODload with no further reductions beyond the year


7-15

Figure 7-9: Projections of Effluent BOD Concentrations at Iona Island Wastewater Treatment Plant (97% PermitCompliance)

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

22019

96

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Year

Effl

uent

BO

D (m

g/L)





130 mg/L Effluent Limit

1998 comes from Figure 7-8. At 30% enhanced primarytreatment and with no further BOD load reduction byindustry, the Iona Island plant would need to implementa 60% enhanced primary treatment level by the year2004 rather than by 2018. At 60% enhanced primarytreatment, the plant would need to implement 100%enhanced primary treatment by the year 2011. The netpresent value of this upgrading scheme would be about$95 million. This is a $40 million premium over the IonaIsland base upgrading plan.

The net present value for industrial source reductions ofBOD is $3 million less than that for the centraltreatment upgrades. However, this difference is lessthan 10% of the total net present value of either sourceor central treatment. Also, there could be different load-reduction and enhanced primary treatment scenariosthan those described here. Further evaluation might benecessary before a definitive decision is made.

It is important to note that for 100% permit complianceand with no further load reduction by industry, the IonaIsland plant would have to implement 100% enhancedprimary treatment within the next three years. In terms

of net present value over 30 years, this option wouldcost about $112 million. The premium over the baseupgrading plan is about $57 million. Under thesecircumstances, it would make cost sense for industry tobegin implementing source treatment to meet the bylawlimit of 500 mg/L.

Managing Defined andPotential Problems

Collection System

Clark Drive CSO Discharge

Researchers have observed near-field effects in a 200metre-by-250 metre zone surrounding the CSOdischarge to Vancouver Harbour at the foot of ClarkDrive. Sediment transport analysis in the inner harbourhas confirmed that the area surrounding Clark Drive is asediment deposition zone. This means that solids in theCSO discharge capable of settling to the bottom willmostly stay in a confined area.

7-16


Figure 7-10: Iona Island Wastewater Treatment Plan Upgrade Plan and Projected TSS Loading

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,00019

99

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

2027

Year

TSS

Loa

d (T

onne

s/ye

ar)

INFLUENT

EFFLUENT

30% EP 60% EP

Capital Costs to 2028 = $51MO&M Costs to 2028 = $51MNPV = $55M

Measured levels of contaminants in the 200 metre-by-250 metre zone have confirmed this finding. The onlymechanism for re-suspending such contaminants isthrough propeller wash from berthing activity at thedocks on either side of the discharge. Otherwise, it isestimated that deposited contaminants could reside inthis zone for a minimum of 5 years and possibly for aslong as 25 years.

A management concept for further containing andcapturing solids capable of settling to the bottom hasbeen applied successfully in eastern Canada, theeastern United States, and Europe. This conceptmakes use of the buoyancy differences between thefresh water in CSO discharges and the salt (ocean)water in the Inner Harbour of Burrard Inlet. A series offloating pontoons suspends a fabric curtain to a depth ofabout 5 metres. The bottom of the curtain rests about 3metres above the seabed so that salt water can flowunderneath it, and the curtain is anchored to theseabed. The configuration of the pontoons and curtainsensures that they surround the discharge. When a CSOevent occurs, the fresh water rises to the surface withinthe pontoons, displacing the salt water beneath thecurtain. Once the salt water has been displaced, theCSO discharge flows through the containment facility,which acts much like a primary settling tank or clarifier.The facility would contain smaller CSO events; largerevents would flow through it, receiving the equivalent of

primary treatment. The solids captured within thepontoons would probably be dredged at least every 5years; however, actual operating experience woulddetermine and refine the need for dredging.

Figure 7-11 shows an aerial view of the plannedcontainment facility. The configuration would notimpinge on port activity at the adjacent docks. Thevolume within the pontoons is about 30 million litres,providing an average retention time for CSO dischargesof 2 hours for winter events and 3.5 hours for summerevents. This retention time is the key to allowing thesolids in the CSO discharges to settle.

The facility would reduce total solids by 50%. (Note thattotal solids reduction is an indicator of contaminantreduction.) In terms of aesthetic benefits, the facilitywould remove virtually all floatable material, including oiland grease scum. The capital cost of the facility wouldbe about $1.5 million, and the annual operating costwould be about $160,000.

Bacteriological Quality of the Fraser’s North Arm

As noted in Part 5 – “Receiving Environment,”reductions in fecal coliforms in the North Arm of theFraser River might be necessary to meet recentlyrevised bacteriological objectives for water quality. (It isimportant to note that these are long-term objectives.)


7-17

Figure 7-11: Site Layout of Proposed Clark Drive CSO Containment Facility

VernonDriveRelief

VancouverHarbour

Clark Drive

#1 #2

ContainmentArea

HarbourPumpStation

Harbour East Interceptor

Harbour East Interceptor

<

< <

} ¡ ¡ }ContainmentArea}

50 0 50 100 15 0 Meters

While CSOs contribute significant amounts of the fecalcoliforms to the North Arm there are also largecontributions from upstream sources. Therefore,reductions in fecal coliforms from the VancouverSewerage Area may not be sufficient to meet provincialwater quality objectives unless upstream sources arealso addressed.

Figure 7-12 illustrates the benefits provided by the coreinfrastructure program in the tributary area of the NorthArm. This figure also shows how constructing facilitiesto disinfect the sanitary component of the combinedsewer system will reduce fecal coliform counts.

The gradual separation of the combined sewer systemwill virtually eliminate fecal coliforms by the year 2050,at a rate of about 2% per year. After 2050, theremaining fecal coliforms shown in the figure will comefrom stormwater runoff.

Disinfection provides about 90% of the benefits of thesewer separation program in the first ten years. Thecosts of achieving these results are based on chlorinedisinfection of CSO discharges. The capital and annualoperating costs for chlorinating the eight CSO outfalllocations to the North Arm would run about $33 millionand $0.62 million, respectively. The net present value ofthe capital and operating costs over 30 years would beabout $30 million.

Because the water-quality objectives are long term,outlays for the high capital and operating costsassociated with the CSO disinfection program are notrecommended. Also, before a commitment to CSOdisinfection is made, the health and environmental risksof handling chlorine at these facilities and adding manykilograms of chlorinated organic compounds to theenvironment should be thoroughly evaluated.

7-18


Figure 7-12: Reduction in Coliforms with Implementation of Outfall Treatment

0.00E+00

5.00E+15

1.00E+16

1.50E+16

2.00E+16

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070

Fec

al C

olif

orm

Lo

adin

g (

MP

N)

Disinfection

Core Infrastructure Management

PAH Levels in Burrard Inlet

PAH compounds in Burrard Inlet have the potential ofproducing adverse effects. The sources of PAHcompounds in Burrard Inlet include municipal sources(such as stormwater, sanitary sewer overflows,combined sewer overflows), as well as oil refineries,other industry, and port activity.

As shown in Figure 7-13, operational improvements andcore infrastructure management for CSOs in theVancouver area should reduce total PAH levels in theInner Harbour by about 40% in the year 2000 and bymore than 50% over the next few decades.Implementing advanced infrastructure managementprojects would reduce PAH levels by nearly 50% in theyear 2000.

These reductions are substantial. To assess the overallbenefit, however, the District will have to rationalizethem along with other programs (stormwatermanagement, industrial point-source pollution control,etc.) in the Burrard Inlet watershed.

Many of the long-term benefits of reducing PAH levels inthe harbour are the result of the Grandview Cut project,which involves re-establishing the old China Creekcorridor (see Figure 7-6). The China Creek system wasonce a major source of fresh water to the head end ofFalse Creek. With development and the construction ofcombined sewers, it became impossible to dischargelarge CSO volumes from the China Creek catchment toFalse Creek without causing severe degradation. So,the CSO discharge was diverted to the harbour via theClark Drive outfalls. Consequently, tidal exchange wasthe only circulation and flushing mechanism in theeastern end of False Creek.

Although properly quantifying the benefits will take morework, it is likely that re-introducing freshwater flow fromthe old China Creek system will improve the circulationand flushing action in False Creek. This should beparticularly important during the summer months, whenthe base groundwater flow from the China Creek systemwill probably be quite substantial.


7-19

Figure 7-13: PAH Loading in Vancouver Harbour with Core andAdvanced Infrastructure Management Programs

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070

Year

PA

H L

oadi

ng (

kg)

Core Infrastructure Management Program

Advanced Infrastructure Management Program

Copper Levels in Burrard Inlet

Copper levels in Burrard Inlet sediments exceed bothprovincial objectives and probable-effects levels.Nonetheless, a relatively healthy biological communityexists in the inlet.

The major sources of copper include corrosion of copperwater pipes, industrial discharges to the sewer system,and stormwater runoff. Characterization data show thatcopper levels in sanitary sewage are nearly 10 timesgreater than those in stormwater.

Figure 7-14 shows the copper-reduction benefitsprovided by the core infrastructure and advancedinfrastructure programs. The core infrastructuremanagement program reduces copper loading from theVancouver Sewerage Area by about 60% over the next40 years. The advanced infrastructure managementprojects achieve about the same level of copperreduction within the next 10 years. Again, since theVancouver Sewerage Area contributes a fraction of thecopper loading to Burrard Inlet, these reductions mustbe evaluated along with other programs in the BurrardInlet area.

Also, the GVRD’s Drinking Water Treatment Program isexpected to reduce the leaching of copper in thedistribution network by adjusting the pH of the water.This could provide faster reductions in copper loading toBurrard Inlet until the sanitary component of CSO iseliminated from the discharges.


The discharge permit for the Iona Island wastewatertreatment plant is based on concentration. The permitgives maximum daily loading limits for BOD and TSS;however, permit fee calculations determine these limits.Environmental monitoring of the plant’s outfall hasindicated that effluent concentrations are not a majorissue at Iona. In fact, monitoring data indicate thataverage effluent concentrations could double withoutexceeding provincial water-quality objectives.

Also, as stated in the “Problems and Issues” sectionearlier, environmental monitoring since 1988 has foundno evidence of adverse impacts in the nearbysediments, water column, or infaunal and benthiccommunities surrounding the outfall.

7-20


Figure 7-14: Reduction of Copper Loading in Vancouver Harbour with Core andAdvanced Infrastructure Programs

0

2 0 0

4 0 0

6 0 0

8 0 0

1 ,000

1 ,200

1 ,400

1 ,600

1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 2 0 4 0 2 0 5 0 2 0 6 0 2 0 7 0

Year

Cu

Loa

ding

(kg)

Core Infrastructure Management Program

Advanced Inf rastructure Management Program

Figure 7-15: Projected CSO Volumes with the Core Infrastructure Program and Storage Options

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070

Year

CS

O V

olu

me

(x1,

000

m3)

Core Asset Management Program

Other Options (Storage)


7-21

Higher Level OptionsCollection System

As mentioned previously (see “Potential Options”),higher level options for managing the interim combinedsystem involve near-surface and deep-tunnel storage ofCSO discharges as well as treatment at all outfalls.

Figure 7-15 shows the volumetric reduction in CSOdischarges provided by the core infrastructuremanagement program and by storage options. (It is notpossible to show treatment benefits on a volumetricbasis.) The storage options involve eight strategicallyplaced near-surface tanks, two tunnels – one runningdown 7th Avenue from Blenheim Street to Keith Street,the other down Hastings Street from Vernon Drive toRupert Street – and a conveyance tunnel parallel to theHighbury interceptor.The storage options would achievereductions in CSO volumes in a shorter time than thecore infrastructure management program. By the year2010, storage would reduce CSO volumes by 80%,compared with the 40% reduction afforded by the coreprogram.

The capital cost of the storage option is about $343million, with a net present value of $240 million. This issubstantially greater than the net present value premiumof $40 million for sewer separation. The high capitalinvestment in storage would be a “sunk” cost; thegradual elimination of the combined sewer systemwould eventually eliminate the need for the storagefacility as well. Moreover, the core program largelyaddresses the key environmental concerns. Thus, high-cost storage options are not recommended.

Treatment at all CSO outfalls would cost about $65million in capital; the net present value, includingoperating costs, is about $59 million. As explainedearlier (see “Bacteriological Quality of the Fraser’s NorthArm”), the core infrastructure program can meet long-term bacteriological objectives, so chlorine disinfection– with its attendant health and environmental risks –does not make sense.

Treatment technologies other than disinfection withchlorine have not proved effective, mainly because thesediments with which most contaminants areassociated consist of very fine particles. Thesetechnologies involve high-rate treatment. Moreconventional and proven technologies require a largeland area and are somewhat impractical in an urbansetting. Considering these factors and the high costsassociated with treatment options, they are notrecommended.


Along with managing core infrastructure, several otherupgrading options are available for the Iona Islandwastewater treatment plant.

The following are the higher-level treatment options forthe Iona Island plant:

• Option 2 – Meet 130/100 limit with moderate loadreductions over the base plan.

• Option 3 – Meet 130/100 limit until 2009, meet90/90 until 2019, and meet 45/45 from 2020 onward.

• Option 4 – Meet 45/45 limit beginning in 1999 andcontinuing through 2028.

Option 1 is the base plan described previously (see“Base Upgrading Plan for Iona Island”). Option 2 involvesa higher level of chemical addition over the base plan.Option 3 includes 30% enhanced primary treatmentfrom 1999 to 2009. The plant would be upgraded to 60%conventional activated sludge (CAS) in 2010 and then to100% CAS in 2020. Option 4 involves an immediateupgrade to 100% CAS in 1999.

Figure 7-16 compares the annual TSS effluent load over30 years for Options 1, 2, 3, and 4 with the 1997 effluentTSS load from the Iona Island plant. Option 1 producesa 20% increase in TSS loading over 1997 quantities by2028, while Option 2 keeps the TSS loading below 1997quantities by 2028. Options 3 and 4 keep annualloading well below 1997 loading values. On a cumulativebasis, Options 2, 3, and 4 reduce loading by 11%, 47%,and 80% more than Option 1 (the base upgrading plan)over 30 years. The net present value for Options 2, 3,and 4 is $75 million, $166 million, and $361 million,respectively.

Conclusions & RecommendationsCollection System

Conclusions

• The core infrastructure management program in theVancouver Sewerage Area will cost $240 million innet present value dollars. This program isnecessary to maintain the collection system ingood condition.

• The premium for separating the VancouverSewerage Area collection system as part of the

7-22


Figure 7-16: Projected TSS Loading and Costs for Higher-Level Treatment Options at the Iona IslandWastewater Treatment Plan

Option - 1 NPV = $55M




0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

1999 2004 2009 2014 2019 2024 2029

Year

To

tal A

nn

ual

Eff

luen

t T

SS

Lo

ad (

ton

nes

/yea

r)

Option - 1 (Maintain Core Infrastructure) Option - 2 (Moderate Load Reduction)Option - 3 (Phased 130/100 to 45/45) Option - 4 (Meet 45/45 in 1999)

1997 Effluent Loading

core infrastructure pipe replacement program is $40million in net present value dollars.

• According to current estimates, the coreinfrastructure management program will virtuallyeliminate CSOs by the year 2050.

• The replacement/separation program will establishmany of the lost drainage corridors and createopportunities to develop open creek systems withpublic amenity.

• Advanced infrastructure management projects costabout $28 million in capital and provide an averageof 10% more reduction in CSO volume per year overthe core infrastructure management program.

• Advanced infrastructure management projects alsohave operational and public value benefits.

• Core and advanced infrastructure programs addressall of the key environmental concerns listed in “Part5 – Receiving Environment.”

• Higher level options for reducing CSO dischargesinclude storage options which would provide an 80%reduction in CSO volumes by the year 2010.However, storage would cost $343 million in capitaland $240 million in net present value.

• With the exception of disinfection, CSO treatmentoptions do not have proven applications and wouldbe difficult to integrate into a heavily urbanized areasuch as the Vancouver Sewerage Area.

• Disinfection using chlorine is a feasible treatmentoption. However, the capital costs are very high,and the public health and environmental risks raisequestions about chlorine use.


7-23

Recommendations

• The Vancouver Sewerage Area should continue withcore infrastructure management programs thatmaintain the sewerage asset and opportunisticallyseparate the combined pipe system when olderpipes need to be replaced.

• The Vancouver Sewerage Area should developbusiness cases for the advanced infrastructuremanagement projects.

• The Vancouver Sewerage Area should not devotefurther consideration to storage and other higherlevel options. The core and advanced infrastructureprograms address the key environmental concerns.


Conclusions

• Without further reductions in BOD loading, or theaddition of chemicals (enhanced primary treatment),the Iona Island wastewater treatment plant will notbe able to meet its permit limits.

• If the Iona Island plant maintains a 97% compliancelevel with the permit limits of 130 mg/L for BOD and100 mg/L for TSS, it will have five to seven permitviolations per year. Environmental monitoring of theplant’s outfall has shown that effluentconcentrations are not a major concern and couldat least double before exceeding provincial water-quality objectives. The difference in annual loadingof TSS between the 100% and 97% compliancelevels is less than 1%.

• Maintaining the current limits at the 97%compliance level would increase TSS loading in thenext 30 years by about 20% over the 1997 value.The estimated cost for the base upgrading plan isabout $41 million in capital and $1.3 million inannual operation costs to 2014 and $2.5 millionafterwards. This equals $55 million in net presentvalue dollars over the next 30 years.

• The net present value cost premium for the IonaIsland plant to provide treatment for large BOD-producing industries is about $40 million. The costof providing source treatment at the top ten BOD-producing industries is about $37 million. The netpresent value difference is too close to justifychoosing one option over another at this time.

• The net present value premium for maintaining theTSS loading at 1997 levels for the next 30 years isabout $20 million.

• The net present value premium for implementingbiological secondary treatment instead of the baseupgrading plan ranges from $111 million to $310million, depending on how the program is phased tomeet the draft provincial regulations.

Recommendations

• Complete the following specific tasks: By the year2001, evaluate the effectiveness of the 1999 projectto reduce high BOD loading peaks using chemicals;evaluate the key manhole monitoring program dataand pinpoint other sources of high BOD loading;evaluate opportunities for further loading reductionsin all source areas.

• On the basis of the proceeding evaluations, adecision should be made about implementingcentral or source treatment for large BOD producingsources and industries.

• The Iona Island plant should continue to meet apermit limit of 130 mg/L for BOD and 100 mg/L forTSS at a 97% compliance level. The baseupgrading plan for this (assuming source control ofindustry) costs about $51 million in capital and anadditional $1.3 million in operating cost to 2014.

• Sediment monitoring should continue at the IonaIsland deep-sea outfall to expand the knowledgebase for potential contaminants of concern in thesediments.

• Through sediment monitoring and identification ofcontaminants of concern, source control measuresversus central treatment alternatives for thesecontaminants should be fully evaluated.

• The upgrading plans for Iona Island wastewatertreatment plant should be re-evaluated in ten yearsto assess the costs and benefits of implementingbiological secondary treatment in the context ofbetter environmental data and source controlmeasures.


8-1

The first sewers in the Fraser Sewerage Area were builtas combined sewers in the City of New Westminster,beginning in the early 1900s. The system collected bothsanitary wastes from connected properties andstormwater, and promptly discharged them to thereceiving environment without treatment. Population anddevelopment increased the demand for sewer services,so combined sewers were continually built until the mid-1950s. Combined sewers still serve about1,000 hectares in New Westminster and 300 hectaresin Burnaby (Figure 8-1).

The 1960s to the mid-1970s saw the construction ofmajor interceptors in the Fraser Sewerage Area thatconveyed sanitary wastes for direct discharge to theFraser River. In 1975, the Greater Vancouver Sewerageand Drainage District (GVS&DD) commissioned theAnnacis Island wastewater treatment plant to provideprimary treatment of sanitary wastes. To achieveenvironmental requirements set by the provincialgovernment, the GVS&DD recently upgraded theAnnacis Island plant to provide secondary treatment.

The current Fraser Sewerage Area system spans some34,500 hectares and encompasses the sewerinfrastructure of 14 member municipalities: Surrey,Burnaby, Coquitlam, Delta, Maple Ridge, PortCoquitlam, Langley Township, New Westminster, PortMoody, Langley City, White Rock, Pitt Meadows, andsmall portions of Richmond, and Vancouver.

Problems and IssuesPotential risks to public health, property, and theenvironment in the Fraser Sewerage Area pertain tosanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), combined seweroverflows (CSOs), and wastewater treatment plantdischarges. With a higher chance of primary humancontact, the most immediate items of concern areSSOs, which manifest themselves as sewage backups,flooded basements, and discharges to streets and thereceiving environment. Because of the configuration ofthe Fraser Sewerage Area’s collection and treatmentsystem, this discussion integrates treatment plantbypasses and CSOs with SSO issues.

SSOs, Bypasses, and CSOs

The acute problems of the Fraser Sewerage Areasystem reveal themselves during periods of rainfall whendemands on the system are greatest. During high-intensity rainfall events, leaking sewers can allowsubstantial infiltration and inflow into the collectionsystem, causing peak flow demands well in excess ofconveyance and treatment capacity. These peakdemands can cause the system to discharge theexcess flow as an SSO.

The existing Fraser Sewerage Area system hasdifficulty accommodating peak flow demands during aone-year return-period storm. Figure 8-2 shows thereported location of the area’s SSOs. Although 65% ofSSOs are attributed to infiltration and inflow, otherfactors – population growth and development orstructural, mechanical, or electrical failure – can play arole in their occurrence. Overflows pose risks to publichealth, to property, and to the environment.

The Fraser Sewerage Area system’s uniqueconfiguration with combined sewers in portions of NewWestminster and Burnaby, and separate sanitarysewers in the much larger remaining areas integratesseveral problems and issues. As a result, the AnnacisIsland wastewater treatment plant must deal with asubstantial wet-weather flow component during stormevents. Dry-weather conditions require about half of theAnnacis Island plant’s hydraulic capacity: another onequarter of its capacity to accommodate combined flows,the other one-quarter of its capacity for infiltration andinflow. Peak influent flow rates greater than the plant’streatment capacity are discharged through bypassgates to the Main Arm of the Fraser River.

Combined sewers carry both stormwater and sanitarysewer wastes in a single pipe. Because of thedisadvantages of this design, construction of combinedsewers to serve new developments has not beenallowed since the 1950s. Fortunately, combined sewersnow serve less than 5% of the total Fraser SewerageArea. However, CSOs from these areas continue todischarge to the Fraser River from 13 outfalls and toBurrard Inlet from a single outfall, as shown in Figure 8-2.

Part 8Fraser Sewerage Area

Surrey

Maple Ridge

Pitt Meadows

Coquitlam

Port Coqu itlam

Port Moody

Burnaby

Delta

White Rock

Township of LangleyCity of Langley

NewWestminster

Legal FSA BoundarySewered AreaCombined AreaMunicipal BoundaryGVRD Pipe

Figure 8-1: The Fraser Sewerage Area

%U

%UCity of Surrey

Township of Langley

District of Delta


City of Richmond

City of Vancouver

City of Burnaby


City of Port Moody

City of Port Coquitlam

City of Langley

Provincial Land


City of White Rock

N

B o u n d a r y B a y

B u r r a r d I n l e t

F r a s e r R.

P i t t R

.

2 0 2 4 Kilometers

Location and Frequency of Overflows

Treatment PlantMunicipal BoundaryGVRD PipeLegal Sewerage Area

Katzie P.S.10 SSOs

Maillardville Tk.9 SSOs

Burnaby LakeNorth Int.8 SSOs

River Rd. Diversion28 SSOs

South Surrey Int.13 SSOs

Annacis WWTP11 Bypasses

Langley P.S.6 SSOs

Cloverdale P.S.22 SSOs

SSO frequency for the period June 1993 to February 1999

1-23-5>

5

Basements

StreetAgricultural Land

Drainage SystemsFish-Bearing Waterbodies

Number of Events

CSO Locations

Westridge Outfall>100 CSOsper average year

New Westminster>100 CSOs per average year

SSOs can result from storms with <1-year return periods.

Braid St. Gate16 SSOs

North Surrey Int.6 SSOs

Sperling Ave. Tk.6 SSOs

Short St. P.S.6 SSOs

Figure 8-2: Location and Frequency of Sanitary Sewer Overflows and Combined Sewer Overflows

Figure 8-4: Estimated Average Age of Sewers Tributary to Annacis Island WWTP

City of Surrey

Township of Langley

District of Delta


City of Richmond

City of Vancouver

City of Burnaby


City of Port Moody


City of Langley

Provincial Land

City of White Rock


Estimated Age of Pipe

Catchment Pipe Age:0 - 9 yrs10 - 19 yrs20 - 29 yrs30 - 39 yrs40 - 49 yrs50 - 75 yrs

Municipal PipeGVRD PipeMunicipal Boundary

2 0 2 4 Kilometers

Scale 1 : 135,000

JW c:\projects\fraser\990105jv\pipe_age.apr January, 1999

N



F r a s e r R.

Figure 8-5: Estimated 24-hr Average Rainfall-Derived Infiltration and Inflow Rates for Catchments Tributary to the Annacis WWTP

City of Surrey

Township of Langley

District of Delta


City of Richmond

City of Vancouver

City of Burnaby


City of Port Moody


City of Langley

Provincial Land

City of White Rock


Catchments Coloured by Simulated RDI/I Rates (24hr data)

Catchment< 11,200 L/ha/d11,200 - 22,400 L/ha/d22,401 - 33,600 L/ha/d> 33,601 L/ha/dCombined, or Unclassified


2 0 2 4 Kilometers

Scale 1 : 135,000

JW c:\projects\fraser\981030jv\drainpts.apr October, 1998

N



F r a s e r R.

%U

%UCity of Surrey

Township of Langley

District of Delta


City of Richmond

City of Vancouver

City of Burnaby


City of Port Moody


City of Langley

Provincial Land


City of White Rock

N



F r a s e r R.

P i t t R

.

2 0 2 4 Kilometers

Probable Effect of Advanced Infrastructure Projects


Maillardville TrunkTwin upstream section$500,000+ (depending)

Cloverdale P.S.Storage Basin/Tank$3 million+

SSOs from 10-year return periodstorms mostly eliminated.

Probable overflow location for 25-year storms

Westridge Outfall15-20% reductionof CSOs

New Westminster10-15% reductionof CSOs

New Westminster Int. Operational Improvements$4 million

Westridge Operational Improvements$300,000

Figure 8-7: Expected SSO and CSO Reductions soon after Implementation of Advanced Infrastructure Projects

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

City of Surrey

Township of Langley

District of Delta


City of Richmond

City of Vancouver


City of Burnaby



City of Port Moody

City of Port CoquitlamElectoral Area A

City of Langley

Village of Belcarra

Provincial Land


City of White Rock

N


E n g l i s h B a y

St r a i t

o f

G e o r g i a

2 0 2 4 Kilometers


Location of Emergency Spill Sites (Existing and Proposed)

Emergency OverflowSite

Existing

Proposed

Proposed Modifications

Figure 8-8: Existing and Proposed Emergency Spill Sites

%U

%UCity of Surrey

Township of Langley

District of Delta


City of Richmond

City of Vancouver

City of Burnaby


City of Port Moody


City of Langley

Provincial Land


City of White Rock

N



F r a s e r R.

P i t t R

.

2 0 2 4 Kilometers

Long-Term Effect of Core Infrastructure Management Programs


Long-Term = 100 years

Sewer Separation program complete.No combined sewer overflows.

Infrastructure Management StrategiesTargeted rehabilitation and/or replacement of aging facilities has reduced infiltration and inflow levels and deferred conveyanceupgrade requirements.

Figure 8-9: Recommended Plan Should Eliminate all CSOs and SSOs Over the Long Term

8-4


Environmental Assessment Information

Recent environmental assessment studies at theGlenbrook CSO outfall indicate that near-field effects ofdischarges to the Fraser River are unlikely.

In the far-field, research conducted for the federalgovernment’s Fraser River Action Plan indicates that theFraser River estuary has fairly low levels ofcontamination compared to other river basins. In theFraser’s Main Arm, however, higher fecal coliformcounts are observed from October to April when effluentfrom the Annacis Island wastewater treatment plantdoes not undergo disinfection. Also, fecal coliformcounts in the river’s North Arm have exceeded provincialwater-quality objectives at times. Current informationshows that CSOs and stormwater discharges are likelythe largest sources of fecal coliforms in the North Arm,and have the greatest impact on far-field water quality.

System Performance

Factors that have reduced system performance overtime include:

• population growth and development. Populationin the Fraser Sewerage Area is growing between2% and 4% annually. There is observedcorresponding increases in base sanitary flows forcollection and treatment.

• aging infrastructure. In some areas, theinfrastructure allows excessive rainfall-derived flowsinto the sanitary sewer – a likely sign of adeteriorating system. Such excess flows can leadto discharges of untreated sanitary sewage flowsduring heavy rainfall events.

Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges

Commissioned in 1975, the Annacis Island WWTPinitially provided primary treatment of sewage flows fromSurrey, Burnaby, Coquitlam, New Westminster, Delta,Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, White Rock, Langley City,and parts of Vancouver and Richmond. With theaddition of Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows, and LangleyTownship to the GVS&DD in subsequent years, theplant undertook expansions in 1979 and 1984. Over itslife, the Annacis plant has seen significant growth, froma 1975 serviced population of 366,000 to a 1996 censuspopulation of 817,000. This represents a 3.9% annualgrowth rate.

The ministerial order to implement secondary treatmentat the Annacis Plant in 1990 led to the Annacis IslandSecondary Treatment project which was completed in1998. This has resulted in significantly improvedeffluent quality with both BOD and TSS levelsconsistently well below established new limits foreffluent concentrations of 45 mg/L. Preliminarycharacterization of contaminants in effluents from thetreatment plant indicates that all provincial water qualityobjective outside the initial dilution zone will beachieved.

Although wastewater treatment plant effluent toxicityhas decreased as a result of the secondary treatmentupgrades, researchers continue to perform tests usingrainbow trout to investigate the role of ammonia in theeffluent.

Population Growth

Projections indicate that the population of somecommunities in the Fraser Sewerage Area could nearlydouble over the next 25 years. The resulting increase inflows and loads will influence service levels forwastewater management. Demand-side managementinitiatives can attempt to offset requirements for moreinfrastructure. Over the long term, however, upgrades forconveyance and treatment to accommodate growth areinevitable.

Sanitary Flows

The existing sewer system connected to the AnnacisIsland wastewater treatment plant can accommodate acertain amount of urban runoff, inflow, and groundwaterinfiltration. During the planning and design phase for theAnnacis Island plant and its major interceptors (1968through 1970), the District made allowances forgroundwater infiltration, inflow and sanitary discharges.Interim interception of combined flows from existingareas with combined sewers was permitted, but with thelong-term assumption that combined sewers wouldeventually undergo sewer separation. This wouldsubstantially reduce the conveyance and treatment ofwet-weather flows.

For the large sanitary sewer network, the designallowance for infiltration and inflow was typically on theorder of 11,200 litres per hectare per day. Thirty yearssince that planning and design work, measurementsshow that the combined sewer areas contribute up to25% of the flow to the Annacis Island plant during stormevents and that infiltration and inflow are substantiallyhigher than the design allowance during storm events.


8-5

Benefits of Reducing Wet-Weather Flows

A reduction in wet-weather flow makes it possible todefer several liquid-stream process units at the AnnacisIsland wastewater treatment plant. Figure 8-3 illustratesthe upgrade stages required to meet the anticipatedpeak and average annual flows. The current peak wet-weather flow (PWWF) design criteria for Annacis Islandupgrades are based on multiples of 2 to 2.25 times theaverage annual flow.

The figure also shows an alternate peak wet-weatherflow design criterion based on the standard infiltrationand inflow allowance of 11,200 litres per hectare per dayfor separate sanitary sewers. This alternate criterioninitially reduces the wet-weather flow to 1.7 times theaverage annual flow, and to 1.5 times the averageannual flow over the long term. The potential to defersome of the $276 million in liquid-stream upgrades forthe Annacis Island plant will result in a net present valuecost savings between $20 and $45 million dollars.

Figure 8-3: Upgrade Schedule for the Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment PlantAAF=Average Annual Flow; PWWF=Peak Wet Weather Flow

1996

2004

2006 2010

2015

2020

2039

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090

Infl

uen

t F

low

(L

/s)

2058

2077

Stage VIII

Stage VII

Stage VI

Stage Vd

Stage Vc

Stage Vb

Stage Va

2xAAF

(current PWWF design)

AAF

Alternate PWWF design based on

an I/I allowance of 11,200 L/ha/d

The alternate PWWF design criteriacan provide potential defermentof hydraulic capacity upgrades.

Stage IV

Stage VI

Stage VII

The Aging Sewer Infrastructure

Civil infrastructure management deals with theenvironmental, social, political, and economic impact oflarge, aging, and distributed civil systems. Since theearly 1900s, municipalities in the GVRD have beendesigning and constructing sewer facilities to meet theneeds of the population. Figure 8-4 shows average pipeage estimates in sewer catchments located astributaries to the Annacis Island wastewater treatmentplant. The replacement value of sewer infrastructure inthe Fraser Sewerage Area is almost $8 billion. This vastinfrastructure investment would be wasted if operatingutilities could not secure funds to keep the system ingood working condition.

Excessive inflow and infiltration from leaky joints andpipe cracks can cause SSOs, which might force areaction to increase the conveyance capacity of thesewer system’s trunks, interceptors, pump stations,and treatment plants. When financial resources arelimited, spending money on conveyance upgrades oftenmeans limited dollars for proper repair of collection-system pipes. This scenario, with its spiraling infiltrationand inflow levels and continual conveyance upgrades, isconsidered unsustainable.


8-7

Table 8-1: Programs for Dealing with Sewerage Area Growth

Programs Cost (in millions)

Municipal growth programs Varies by municipality

Annacis Island wastewater treatment plant Stage V(a) and V(b) upgrades to deal withthe 3% to 4% per year increase in historical and forecasted flows

$35.2

Sapperton pump station and forcemain $22.0

South Surrey interceptor – Scott Road and Panorama sections $26.0

Lake City interceptor $7.2

Marshend and Sperling Avenue pump station upgrades $3.7

Managing Core InfrastructureBuilding for Growth

Building new infrastructure to accommodate populationgrowth and development is a key utility service principle.Failing to add capacity in the face of high growth oftenleads to a higher incidence of sewage spills. Municipalmembers of the GVRD and the GVS&DD arecontinually assessing the needs of the District’sgrowing communities and are updating their plansaccordingly. Table 8-1 lists growth programs extendingfrom 1999 through 2008, taken mostly from these plans.

The $95 million in GVS&DD growth programs addsubstantial conveyance capacity to the system, notonly to deal with projected growth but also toaccommodate basic levels of wet- weather flow.Implementing these growth programs over the nextdecade will mostly eliminate SSOs occurring during five-year return-period storms. As growth continues overtime, sanitary flow increases will use up any excesssystem capacity, resulting in the return of frequentSSOs. Nonetheless, the programs provide substantialbenefits by addressing growth issues and by helping toreduce SSOs in the short term.

Renewing the System to ReduceInfiltration and Inflow

Symptoms of an aging sanitary sewer infrastructureinclude structural failures, higher rates of corrosion,increasingly frequent blockages, and excessivequantities of infiltration and inflow. One managementapproach is to wait until a problem occurs, then reactand address the system’s deterioration. However, thisstrategy can lead to large unexpected expenditures forpipe repairs, and it increases the need for additionalconveyance and treatment capacity. A proactive

infrastructure management approach evaluates thecondition of the system and makes repairs orreplacements as required.

Figure 8-5 shows catchment areas that are tributary tothe Annacis Island wastewater treatment plant,categorized by the rainfall-derived infiltration and inflow(RDII) rate averaged over 24 hours. Catchmentscoloured green have estimated RDII rates of less than11,200 litres per hectare per day. Yellow indicates up totwo times this amount; orange, up to three times; andred, more than three times. In catchments colouredgrey, measurements include combined flows, makingclassification difficult. However, all combined areas canhave interception rates much higher than those for redareas.

Case Study of InfrastructureManagement Scenarios

The replacement value of the entire Fraser SewerageArea system (private lateral, municipal, and regionalsystems) is estimated at $8 billion. Assuming half thisamount is privately owned, this leaves at least $4 billionin public infrastructure. A proactive managementprogram can help maximize use of existinginfrastructure for a total cost of some $2.7 billion over 75years. Although the amount appears high, the estimatefor a reactive management program is $4.5 billion.Emergency repairs and increased conveyance capacityupgrades to accommodate the expected higher flowsaccount for the higher cost associated with the reactiveprogram.

As a case study, the Fraser Sewerage Area Committeeexamined costs and benefits of three scenarios forinfrastructure management (Table 8-2) and threevariations on these key scenarios. For each of the

8-8


Convey & Treat, Target RDII, and 1% Replacementprogram scenarios, Table 8-2 provides costs

Table 8-2: Key Infrastructure Management Scenarios

Cost over 75 Years1

Sewer Infrastructure Management Scenario GVS&DD Municipalities PrivateLaterals

Total

Convey & Treat: Increases conveyance and treatmentto accommodate an assumed increase in wet-weatherflows.

$1,140 $1,670 $1,740 $4,550

Target RDII: Achieves 100% CSO reduction andcomplete infrastructure renewal over 100 years.Requires strategic installation of sanitary and stormpipes.

$811 $976 $870 $2,660

1% Replacement: Replaces sanitary sewer at a rate of1% of the total system per year. Includes sewerseparation in areas served by combined sewers.

$811 $1,350 $1,230 $3,390

1In millions of dollars. The sum of cash flow over a 75-year period, assuming current average age of pipes is 25 years and thatthe pipes have a 100-year lifespan. GVS&DD costs include pipe and wastewater treatment plant upgrades plus treatment plantoperating costs. Municipal and private lateral costs do not include operating costs.

attributable to the GVS&DD, the municipalities, andprivate owners. The cost in millions representscumulative dollars over 75 years.

Here are brief descriptions of the three key scenariosexamined by the Committee:

Convey & Treat – Assumes pipe replacement afterpipes reach the age of 100 years. For a good many ofthe sewers in the Fraser Sewerage Area, this meanswaiting until the year 2040 before a substantial pipereplacement program begins. Peak pipe replacementoccurs between the years 2050 and 2060. This scenarioessentially takes a “do nothing” approach for the nextfour decades that will produce higher unit-area infiltrationand inflow rates over time because of the aginginfrastructure and gradual pipe deterioration. Costsinclude upgrades to the interceptor and wastewatertreatment plant systems to accommodate increases inpeak flow to a maximum of nearly three times theaverage dry-weather flow, plus the need to replacesewers in any case. The scenario assumesreplacement of combined sewers with separatesystems in areas that still have combined systems.

Target RDII – A performance-based improvementprogram that prioritizes replacement or repair programsbased on sewers with the highest measured RDII. Theanalysis implies a variable lifespan for pipes between 0and 100 years old, as replacement depends on

performance. This scheme can identify relatively newpipes that might already be in fair to poor condition forvariety of reasons, including corrosion, poorconstruction, or substandard quality of materials. Costsassume 80% pipe replacement and 20% grouting.Together with a combined sewer separation program,this scenario will likely result in a reduction of thedesign criteria for subsequent upgrades at the AnnacisIsland wastewater treatment plant.

1% Replacement – Assumes a constant level of effortby all municipalities in pipe replacement. While thisscenario does not provide the flexibility required bymunicipalities with new pipes in good condition, it doeshighlight potential funding requirements for pipereplacement based on a percentage of existinginfrastructure. This could represent the maximumsustainable effort by municipalities to replace olderpipes in need of attention. Cost assumptions are similarto those for the Target RDII scenario.

The case study shows that the Convey & Treat option isthe most costly, and that it does not address theinfiltration and inflow problem at source. Moreover, thescenario effectively requires Fraser Sewerage Areamembers to pay now to upgrade conveyance andtreatment capacity and then pay later to renew aginginfrastructure. The need to essentially “pay twice”makes the Convey & Treat scenario unattractive which


8-9

leaves only the proactive infrastructure renewalprograms for further consideration.

The most effective scenario involves spending effort onaddressing issues upstream in the collection system atsource rather than downstream in the interceptors andtreatment plant. Municipal sewer replacement programsprovide more overall benefit than the increasedconveyance and treatment option. However, a rigidinfrastructure management scenario does not offer thebest alternative for any given municipality because ofthe wide variation in pipe ages and in the measuredinfiltration and inflow performance of systems in theFraser Sewerage Area.

Early reduction in wet-weather flow to interceptors andthe wastewater treatment plant is key to realizing thebenefit of upstream pipe management programs.Collective effort in seeking and controlling infiltration andinflow in sanitary sewers and in reducing interception ofstormwater in combined sewers should bring aboutsubstantial savings by deferring or reducing the size ofhydraulic upgrades of interceptors and process units atthe treatment plant.

Municipal Budget Considerations

Table 8-3 shows estimates of municipal budgets forsewer replacement and renewal. The recent (1998) totalannual budget for sewer system evaluation surveys(SSES), sewer repair, and replacement is in the order of$4.4 million for the municipalities identified. Thiscompares to $5.5 million for the Target RDII scenarioand $13.5 million for the 1% replacement scenario.

For most municipalities, the targeted RDII program ismore economical than a standardized replacementprogram. Typically, municipalities with a highpercentage of relatively new sewers have lowerrequirements for pipe renewal.

Table 8-3: Proposed Municipal Budgets for SewerRepair and Replacement.

MunicipalityTarget RDII

Program ($/yr)1% Program ($/yr)

Burnaby 2,022,000 2,024,000

Coquitlam 607,000 1,495,000

Delta 134,000 1,515,000

Langley City 31,000 338,000

Langley Township 64,000 317,000

Maple Ridge 69,000 796,000

New Westminster 848,000 714,000

Pitt Meadows 20,000 159,000

Port Coquitlam 59,000 690,000

Port Moody 39,000 397,000

Surrey 1,519,000 4,819,000

White Rock 30,000 208,000

Total 5,500,000 13,500,000

Costs for the Target RDII scenario vary over the long term.

On the other hand, older sewers are more prone tohaving structural and infiltration issues, thus mayrequire more attention. This highlights the need for eachmunicipality to set infrastructure management plans tobest suit its needs. A prescriptive program such as the1% replacement program may cut-short the life span ofsewers in good condition by forcing their replacementsooner than required.

After examining the three key scenarios, the FraserSewerage Area Committee reached consensus onproactively renewing infrastructure when necessary andon establishing downward trends for infiltration andinflow. However, each member municipality wanted theflexibility to develop its own infrastructure managementplan to reduce infiltration and inflow. Over the nextseveral years, all municipal members will participate instrategies to reduce infiltration and inflow.

Issues pertaining to infiltration and inflow reduction areintertwined with the need for sewer renewal, and requirean overall infrastructure management approach. Hereare the key activities:

• collecting comprehensive information on existingsewers, including private laterals, by (1) conductingsewer system evaluation surveys, (2) monitoringinfiltration and inflow, and (3) building a sounddatabase on infrastructure condition.

8-10


• setting an infrastructure management plan based onestimates of how sewers degrade over time by (1)performing life-cycle analyses to evaluate riskmanagement, (2) projecting future performance, and(3) determining long-term costs and benefits ofminor repair, major rehabilitation, and replacementoptions. Considering the wide variation in pipecondition, the plans will need to be customized foreach subcatchment area.

• implementing the plan, assuming that themunicipality knows what to do (determined by theevaluation and monitoring work) and when to do it(determined by the life-cycle cost-benefit analysis).

Infiltration and Inflow Reduction Strategies

In support of the results of this analysis, the committeeagreed on several management strategies for piperenewal and for infiltration and inflow reduction.

The proactive inflow and infiltration managementstrategy shown in Figure 8-6 incorporates the followingactivities:

• new construction practices that require (1) testingsewers for leaks, (2) conducting sewer system

evaluation surveys, and (3) monitoring infiltrationand inflow

• replacing or repairing pipes according to municipalplans

• reporting annually on infrastructure management

The strategy promotes the reduction of excessiveinfiltration and inflow through two avenues ofimprovement:

• For new construction, reducing infiltration andinflow is most cost-effective through preventivemeasures. This approach applies to newsubdivisions as well as existing pipes scheduled forreplacement.

• For existing systems, reducing infiltration andinflow requires substantially more effort. However, itcan still be cost-effective and addresses the sourceof the problem.

Other Stage 2 LWMP technical documents providedetailed information about the infiltration and inflowmanagement strategy.

Figure 8-6: Strategy to Reduce Infiltration and Inflow Through Proactive Infrastructure Management

Test to Identify Catchments,Subcatchments, Trunks and

Laterals with High I/I

Prioritize Sewer SystemEvaluation Surveys to LocateSystems with the Highest I/I

Undertake Prioritized I/IReduction on Private, Municipal,

or Regional Systems

Infiltration and InflowManagement Strategy

I/I Prevention

For New Construction For Existing Systems


8-11

Renewing the System to EliminateBypasses and SSOs

As part of ongoing renewal activities, opportunities existto progressively reduce and ultimately eliminate sanitarysewage discharges to the receiving environment. Thecurrent system configuration consistently intercepts andtreats combined flows from the Fraser River waterfrontarea, even when there are flow bypasses at the AnnacisIsland wastewater treatment plant or SSOs at the BraidStreet Gate outfall. When conveyance and treatmentcapacities of facilities around the Annacis Islandwastewater treatment plant are reached, flow collectedfrom Port Moody, Port Coquitlam, Coquitlam, and alarge portion of Burnaby is discharged from the BraidStreet outfall. Reducing the interception and treatmentof wet-weather flows from the combined areas couldnearly eliminate plant bypasses and Braid Street SSOs.

In support of reducing interception of wet weather flows,technical staff from the cities of New Westminster andBurnaby are reviewing initiatives of sewer separationprograms as part of current renewal efforts. The processof sewer separation requires significant time and effortto replace the aging one-pipe network with a two-pipesystem. Along with being beneficial for the operation ofthe wastewater treatment plant and the Braid StreetGate outfall, sewer separation will reduce flowconveyance requirements and, over the long term,eliminate combined sewer discharges.

Furthermore, sewer separation creates opportunities to:

• divert runoff to a stormwater treatment facility ifnecessary.

• control interception of heavily contaminated runoff tothe sanitary system through first-flush regulators.

• use stormwater as a resource in providing afreshwater source to urban streams.

Given the costs and benefits of sewer separation, theFraser Sewerage Area Committee recommends thisoption as a core infrastructure management program.

Managing Defined and PotentialProblems

Completing all core program upgrades should eliminatemost five-year SSOs in the short term and all CSOs inthe long term. However, SSOs and CSOs will continueto present problems for a short time after theimplementation of the core programs.

Overflows of concern in the Fraser Sewerage Areainclude:

• SSOs to Brunette Avenue and the receivingenvironment from the Maillardville sanitary trunk

• SSOs to active agricultural lands and the receivingenvironment from the Cloverdale trunk and theJohnston Road section of the South Surreyinterceptor.

• CSOs to the Fraser River from combined areas inNew Westminster and Burnaby

• CSOs to Burrard Inlet from the Westridge area

Preparation for emergency discharges also remains akey issue.

Maillardville Sanitary Trunk SSOs

SSOs discharge from a manhole of the Maillardvillesanitary trunk to Brunette Avenue, west of SchoolhouseStreet in Coquitlam. Incidents have occurred duringwinter rainfall events with intensities equal to or greaterthan a five-year return-period storm. The Simon FraserHealth Region has expressed concern about thepotential for transmission of disease to the public –homes, a school, and a theatre/shopping mall complexare located near the spill site. As overflows occur duringsubstantial rainfall events, the base option is to reduceinfiltration and inflow at source. However, theinfrastructure renewal process takes time, and theproblem requires a more immediate solution.

A 300-metre portion of the Maillardville sanitary trunk isscheduled for upgrading as part of requirements toaccommodate growth. This upgrade will provide somerelief, but additional measures might still be needed.Options include storing peak flows, upgrading additionallengths, or upsizing capacity beyond basic servicelevels.

As shown in Table 8-4, increased conveyance is themost economical solution for dealing with immediateSSO problems. Decisions must be made about whetherthe design should accommodate 10-year or 25-yearreturn-period flows.

8-12


Table 8-4: Maillardville Sanitary Trunk SSO Options

Option Cost1 Present Value withRespect to Baseline2

Baseline $0 $0

1. Storage: Uses 6,300 m3 tank to contain overflows from a 10-year return-period storm.

$5.0 $4.1

2. Increased conveyance: Accelerates upgrades to downstreamsewer to convey flows resulting from a 10-year return-periodstorm.

$0 $0.7


$8.6 $7.4

4. Increased conveyance: Accelerates upgrades to downstreamsewer to convey flows resulting from a 25-year return-periodstorm.

$0.5 $1.1

1All costs in millions. Each cost figure represents additional capital costs over Baseline incurred by selecting that option.2Present value with respect to Baseline using a 5% real discount rate.

Cloverdale/South Surrey Interceptor SSOs

The operation of the Cloverdale pump station connectsSSO discharges from the Cloverdale trunk and from theJohnston Road section of the South Surrey interceptor.The planned $26 million twinning of the South Surreyinterceptor (downstream sections) in 1999 and 2001 willhelp reduce overflows from this system. However, SSOsfrom Cloverdale and the Johnston Road section arelikely to continue.

Table 8-5 shows the results of an analysis thatexamined options for dealing with the SSOs inCloverdale.

The preferred option is storage. Decisions need to bemade about whether the design will require fullenclosure and whether it should accommodate 5-, 10-,or 25-year return-period flows.

Fraser River CSOs

Complete separation of combined sewers will eliminateCSOs over the long term. Any immediate concernsregarding CSOs must be dealt with by other means.

The Fraser Sewerage Area Committee reviewed severaloptions: storage, increased conveyance, outfalltreatment, and operational improvements. The analysisshowed overwhelmingly that operational improvements

provide the most cost-effective means of managingFraser River CSOs. While the other options consideredby the committee involved hundreds of millions of dollarsfor capital works, operational improvements cost about$4 to $5 million for initial annual CSO reductions on theorder of 15%.

The operational improvements involve constructing an in-line gate to intercept more or less flow from areas inNew Westminster and Burnaby served by combinedsewers near the Fraser River. The gate control will givetreatment priority at the Annacis Island plant to sanitaryflows from the much larger areas served by sanitarysewers. This should nearly eliminate SSOs from theBraid Street outfall, as well as sewage bypasses at thetreatment plant. Once these operational improvementsare implemented, the project will also reduce CSOs tothe Fraser River. However, this benefit will erode asmore of the system’s conveyance and treatmentcapacity becomes necessary to serve the area’sgrowing communities.

Together with the longer-term sewer separationprogram, controlling wet-weather flows to the AnnacisIsland wastewater treatment plant will providesubstantial benefits. The operational changes describedin this section will make it possible to defer or reducethe scope of subsequent treatment and conveyanceupgrades.


8-13

Table 8-5: Cloverdale/South Surrey Interceptor SSO Options

Option Cost1 Present Value withRespect to Baseline2

Baseline $0 $0

1. Storage: Uses 1,200 m3 tank to contain overflows from a 5-yearreturn-period storm.

$3.0 $1.7

2. Increased conveyance: Accelerates upgrades to downstreamsewer and pump station to convey flows resulting from a 5-year return-period storm.

$0 $1.9


$5.2 $4.1


$0 $5.3


$11.4 $9.0


$0 $9.9

7. Open Field Storage: Requires modification of field adjacent toCloverdale trunk to contain overflows for 5-, 10-, or 25-yearreturn-period storms.

$2.0 $1.6

1All costs in millions. Each cost figure represents additional capital costs over Baseline incurred by selecting that option.2Present value with respect to Baseline using a 5% real discount rate.

Westridge CSOs

The Westridge area is an isolated sewerage catchmentin North Burnaby. The total size of the catchment isapproximately 290 hectares, of which 105 hectares areserved by combined sewers. Because of the topographyof the area, any intercepted sanitary or storm flowsmust be pumped out of the catchment for conveyanceto the Annacis Island wastewater treatment plant. Twopumping stations (Westridge PS #1 and Westridge PS#2), located in series in the catchment, discharge to theLozells Sanitary Trunk, which leads to the AnnacisIsland plant. During wet-weather events, combinedsewage flow that exceeds the pumping capacity isdischarged to Burrard Inlet. Table 8-6 describes optionsunder consideration for the reducing CSOs in theWestridge combined area. These options areconceptually similar to those for Fraser River CSOs.

8-14


Table 8-6: Westridge CSO Improvement Options

Description Cost1 Present ValueWith Respect to

Status Quo2

0) Status quo: replace combined sewers with combined sewers toachieve renewal requirements. No net CSO reduction.

$0.0 $0.00

1) Sewer separation: achieves 100% CSO reduction and completeinfrastructure renewal over 100 years. Requires strategic installation ofsanitary and storm pipes.

$4.8 $1.00

2) Convey and treat: increase interception and pumping of combinedflows for reduced overflows to the environment. Requires upgrades tothe forcemain and gravity section for the Lozells trunk to accommodatehigher pumping rates; twinning these sections will reduce CSO volumeby an estimated 35%.

$2.2 $1.20

3) Peak flow storage : reduce CSOs by storing peak flows in excess ofinterception rates. Pump-out or drain-back from storage when systemlevels have subsided to accommodate the stored flows. Costs are for a2,300 m3 storage facility to achieve 70% CSO volume reduction. Costsincrease exponentially for higher reductions.

$20.6 $10.4

4) Treatment at outfall: build facilities to treat CSOs just beforedischarge. Given the high peak flow rates of most CSOs, substantialtreatment facilities are required to accommodate the high hydraulicloads. Costs in this option are for a disinfection and TSS treatmentfacility which treats 10-15% of the total CSO volume.

$25.1 $7.60

5) Operational improvements: increase efficiency of the system for flowconveyance through upgrades, thus reducing overflows. Improvementsinclude installation of a variable speed drive and modification of intakesfor Westridge PS #2.

$0.3 $0.200

6) Operational improvements and sewer separation: CSO reductionbenefits of operational improvements undertaken, with long-term CSOelimination over 100 years.

$5.1 $1.20

1All costs in millions. The cost represents capital and additional operating and maintenance (O&M) over Status Quo as a resultof selecting that option.2Present value (PV) with respect to the status quo or baseline using a 5% real discount rate.

8-16


Preparing for EmergencyDischarges

Despite best efforts, emergency SSO discharges canoccur because of system failures, extreme weatherconditions, or unusual causes. The two basic optioncategories for handling such discharges are:

• procedural options that list action steps to takewhen discharges occur (e.g., emergency responsestrategies, contingency plans)

• structural options that modify the existing systemto improve its ability to cope with unexpectedfailures (e.g., spill points that minimize the impactof SSOs on public health and the environment).

All options for dealing with emergency dischargesattempt to reduce their impact on public health,property, and the environment. Contingency plans forthe Cloverdale/South Surrey and Maillardville SSOs, theKatzie pump station, and the North Surrey interceptorare key procedural options that will set forth actions tohelp mitigate overflows.

Figure 8-8 shows recommended structural options foremergency discharges in three categories:

• Existing – Describes a site that already exists andcan be used in an emergency. No modifications tothese sites are anticipated.

• Proposed Modification – Describes a site thatalready exists and can be used in an emergency.Modifications could be made, however, to reducethe impact of operating that site or to improve itseffectiveness.

• Proposed – Describes a site that does not existbut could be constructed.

Impact Ranking System

Table 8-7 provides an inventory of emergency spilllocations and shows how implementing or modifying agiven site could reduce the impact of operating that site.

The table also lists six discharge impact categories indecreasing order of impact:

• Direct Public Health Risk – Sewage from this sitehas direct potential for contact with the public.Discharges to the street represent the mostcommon spills in this category.

• Indirect Public Health Risk – The risk of humancontact with discharges is lower at these sites.Examples include beach discharges anddischarges to land that are particularly close topopulation centres.

• Land Discharge – These sites discharge to fieldsand other land bases that are not close topopulation and thus have a relatively low risk ofdirect exposure to the public. Concern shifts to thepotential contamination of land, groundwater, orstreams, depending on the conditions surroundingthe site.

• Sensitive Waterbody – These sites dischargedirectly to sensitive waterbodies that do not have ahigh assimilative capacity, such as streams andsloughs.

• Less Sensitive Waterbody – These sitesdischarge directly to large waterbodies with highflushing rates, such as the Fraser River.

• Spill Recapture/Minimal Impact – Nearly all thesewage spilt from these sites can be recovered andreintroduced to the sewer system.


8-19

Higher Levels of ServiceExpected Benefits of the Recommendations

For the most part, programs and projects identified bythe Fraser Sewerage Area Committee under the coreand advanced infrastructure management categoriesaim to meet these goals:

1. Prioritize long-term renewal of existing sewerinfrastructure. Benefits include:

• progressively reducing infiltration and inflow atsource

• maintaining the structural integrity of the sewersystem

• helping to ensure maximum use of existing facilities

2. Address requirements associated with populationgrowth and development.

3. Eliminate SSOs for 5-year return-period stormswithin a 10-year timeframe.

4. Eliminate CSOs over the long term (upon completionof sewer separation in combined sewer areas).

5. Address all high-risk issues pertaining to publichealth, property damage, and confirmedenvironmental near-field effects.

Figure 8-9 shows the expected long-term picture afterthe recommendations of the Fraser Sewerage AreaCommittee have been implemented.

Other Options and Future Considerations

• Other options on the Committee’s shortlist ofimprovements attempt to set higher levels of servicethan those just described. These options appear inTable 8-8.

Table 8-8: Additional Wastewater Management Options for the Fraser Sewerage Area

Option Cost1

Elimination of 10-year SSOs: Requires additional storagefacilities and conveyance/treatment upgrades.2

$42

Elimination of 25-year SSOs: Requires additional storagefacilities and conveyance/treatment upgrades.

$123

Aggressive reduction of infiltration and inflow:Implements 1% or more replacement/rehabilitation peryear.

$11/yr

CSO treatment: CSO flows treated just before discharge.Treatment can target specific contaminants and concerns.Costs are for disinfection facilities in New Westminster.4

$25

CSO storage: Peak flows stored during the storm, thendraw-down performed after the storm for interception andtreatment at the wastewater treatment plant. Costs varywith rate of implementation and desired level of reduction.Will not completely eliminate CSOs.4

$156

WWTP Nitrification: Tertiary treatment to addresspotential effluent toxicity issues pertaining to ammonia.

$72

1All costs are in addition to current baseline costs, denominated in millions. Eachcost figure represents both capital and additional operating and maintenance costsincurred as a result of selecting that option.2Includes: storage near Annacis Island, Cloverdale, and Maillardville. Severalconveyance and treatment upgrades will need to be done ahead of schedule.3As in 2, but requires larger facilities plus storage in Central Burnaby.4All CSO options are subject to pending decisions.


9-1

The North Shore Sewerage Area consists of the Districtof West Vancouver, the District of North Vancouver, andthe City of North Vancouver. In 1996, the North ShoreSewerage Area had a population of about 160,000 and adeveloped land area of about 5,700 hectares. The landuse is primarily residential with some commercial areasin each municipality and industrial areas along thewaterfront of the City and District of North Vancouver.

A separate sanitary and stormwater system serves thesewerage area. For the sanitary system, eachmunicipality has sanitary pipes that collect wastewaterfrom properties and transport it to the GreaterVancouver Regional District’s major interceptor pipes.The interceptor pipes then transport the wastewater tothe Lions Gate wastewater treatment plant. The plant,which is located near the north end of the Lions GateBridge, uses primary treatment (screening, primaryclarifiers, and disinfection) and discharges the effluentthrough a marine outfall into the narrows betweenEnglish Bay and Burrard Inlet. Figure 9-1 shows thesewerage area, the GVRD’s interceptor pipes, and theLions Gate plant.

The Lions Gate wastewater treatment plant wasconstructed in 1961 to serve a smaller area called theCapilano Sewerage Area. The area east of Lynn Creekand the Gleneagles area were intended to be separatesewerage areas with their own piping and treatmentschemes. However, this plan was abandoned and theCapilano Sewerage Area and the Lions Gatewastewater treatment plant were expanded in 1964 toinclude all of the area shown in Figure 9-1.

The two prime interceptor systems in the North ShoreSewerage Area are the Hollyburn interceptor(constructed in 1961) and the North Vancouverinterceptor (constructed in 1963). The North Vancouverinterceptor, which conveys wastewater from as far eastas Deep Cove, serves about 76% of the residentialpopulation and about 66% of the land area. TheHollyburn interceptor, which conveys wastewater fromas far west as Horseshoe Bay, serves the remainingpopulation and area.

The total value of sewerage assets in the North ShoreSewerage Area is nearly $1 billion. The private and

municipal portions of connections make up about 30%of the asset; the in-street trunks, about 64%; and theGVRD interceptors and wastewater treatment plant,about 6%. These facilities are all integral parts of thewastewater collection and treatment service.

Key AssumptionsPopulation Growth and Wastewater Flows

In 1996, the population of the North Shore SewerageArea was 167,000 and the area is growing at about 1%per year.

The 1956 Rawn Report provided design criteria forcalculating wastewater flow in the North ShoreSewerage Area. These criteria apply factors to theresidential population and to commercial, industrial, andinstitutional areas to derive a base sanitary flow. Theaverage dry-weather flow is calculated by adding a dry-weather infiltration component. The Rawn criterion forthis component is 5,600 litres per hectare per day(L/ha/d).

To derive a peak wet-weather flow, a peaking factormust be applied to the sanitary flow before it is added tothe infiltration allowance. Likewise, an allowance mustbe made for rainfall-derived infiltration and inflow (RDII).The RDII allowance in the Rawn Report is 5,600 L/ha/d.

When the Hollyburn and North Vancouver interceptorswere designed, the dry-weather infiltration criterion waslowered to 3,700 L/ha/d. This was based onmeasurements of dry-weather flow that showedinfiltration in the North Shore Sewerage Area to be lowerthan the Rawn criterion.

Figure 9-2 shows the projected peak dry-weather flow tothe Lions Gate wastewater treatment plant. From aninitial 1,900 litres per second (L/s) in 1996, the flowcould reach 2,400 L/s in 2051.

Part 9North Shore Sewerage Area

%U

No.3

No.4No.5

Hollyburn Interceptor

Lions GateWWTP

Taylor WayTrunk

Fell AvenueTrunk

MackayAvenueOverflow

<

Kennard AvenueOverflow

Lynn BranchExtension}

North Vancouver Interceptor

BURRARD INLET

ENGLISH BAY

Gleneagles Lift Station No.1 - 5

No.1

GleneaglesInterceptor

No.2

}

}

Districtof

North Vancouver

Districtof

West Vancouver

Cityof

NorthVancouver

Lynn Pump Station <

<

1:99804Scale1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers

North Shore Sewerage Area - GVS&DD Sewers and Pump Stations

N

EW

S

Sanitary CatchmentMunicipal BoundaryGVS&DD SewerGVS&DD Pump Station

Date: April 26, 1999 File: p:\projects\lwmp\lwmp_discussion\nssa_ii_april26.apr Prepared by JH revised by DT

9-2


For evaluation of RDII options, three levels of service forpeak wet-weather flow have been chosen: 2,800 L/s,3,400 L/s, and 4,000 L/s. The 2,800 L/s valuerepresents the existing capacity of the Lions Gatewastewater treatment plant headworks, the 4,000 L/svalue represents the process capacity of the plant, andthe 3,400 L/s value represents an arbitrarily chosenintermediate value. The RDII capacity for each of thesevalues is calculated by subtracting the peak dry-weatherflow from the peak wet-weather flow and dividing by thetotal area of the sewer system. Table 9-1 gives theresulting RDII values from 1996 to 2051.

For a flow rate of 2,800 L/s, the 1996 level of service forRDII is about 12,600 L/ha/d. By 2051, peak dry-weatherflow decreases this level to 4,500 L/ha/d which is about20 percent below the Rawn criterion.

For a flow rate of 3,400 L/s, the 1996 level of service forRDII is 20,500 L/ha/d. This level decreases to about11,000 L/ha/d in 2051 – twice the Rawn criterion.

For a flow rate of 4,000 L/s, the RDII in 1996 is about29,000 L/ha/d. This level decreases to 19,000 L/ha/d in2021 – three times the Rawn criterion.

Problems and IssuesCollection System

The collection system operates well under dry weatherconditions and is relatively trouble-free. During wetweather, however, large RDII volumes produce higherpeak flows than the design can accommodate. This flowplaces excessive demands on the collection system insome locations and causes large flow volumes at theLions Gate wastewater treatment plant. Under mostconditions, spare capacity in the interceptors and at thetreatment plant can handle the additional RDII. Undermore extreme wet-weather conditions, the RDII volumesincrease to a point where they exceed localized pipecapacities and the hydraulic capacity of the Lions Gateplant.

For extreme wet-weather conditions, the North Shoresystem provides designated relief points at MacKay andKennard Avenues (see Figure 9-1). The MacKay Avenue

overflow prevents excessive flow from reaching thewastewater treatment plant and thus protects the low-lying reaches of the Hollyburn interceptor. The KennardAvenue overflow protects the low-lying reaches of theNorth Vancouver interceptor through the City of NorthVancouver. Blow-downs located on siphon rivercrossings also help relieve pressure on the system. Insituations where no relief is available, wastewater spillsto the street or flows back into private-propertyconnections.

Because of the operational problems caused byexcessive RDII, a flow-monitoring study was initiated in1995. The objective of the study was to quantify RDIIand to identify areas contributing the worst RDII. Thework involved installing three gauges in the interceptorsand nine gauges on the tributary trunks to theinterceptors. Figure 9-3 shows the flow monitor’s 14tributary areas and the corresponding peak measuredRDII values. As illustrated in the figure, RDII ranges froma low of 12,000 litres per hectare per day to a high of238,000 litres per hectare per day. These values aresubstantially greater than the Rawn criterion of 5,600litres per hectare per day.

The monitoring data also indicated that rainfall-derivedinfiltration is more prevalent than inflow. In the mid-1950s, inflow into manholes and illicit stormconnections was thought to be the primary source ofrain water in sanitary sewer systems. However, it is nowcommonly accepted that rainfall-derived infiltrationthrough pipe joints is the most important component ofRDII. This understanding came largely through trial anderror when agencies throughout North America investedin inflow-reduction programs but gained only marginalbenefits.

Given the ratio of private-property pipes to municipalpipes, it is likely that a major portion of infiltration iscoming from private-property connections. This is animportant consideration. Reducing infiltration will bedifficult and expensive, because it will demandreplacement or rehabilitation of both private-property andin-street pipes.


9-3

Figure 9-1: Peak Dry-Weather Flow

1500

2000

2500

3000

1996

2001

2006

2011

2016

2021

2026

2031

2036

2041

2046

2051

Year

Flo

w (

L/s

)

Table 9-1: Rainfall-Derived Infiltration and Inflow Capacity

Peak Wet-WeatherFlow

RDII Capacity

Rates (L/s) 1996 2021 2031 2051

2,800 12,600 9,300 6,500 4,500

3,400 20,500 16,900 13,300 11,200

4,000 28,600 25,300 21,100 19,100

Wastewater TreatmentThe Lions Gate wastewater treatment plant receives anaverage dry-weather flow of about 80 million litres perday – about 20 million litres per day from WestVancouver and 60 million litres per day from NorthVancouver. Because of hydraulic constraints in theplant headworks (screen and raw sewage pump rooms),the plant can treat a maximum flow of about 245 millionlitres per day.

The plant’s barminutor screens, installed in 1961,impose these hydraulic constraints. The screensconsist of vertical metal bars that trap non-organicdebris. The barminutor, a rotating metal cutting head,travels up and down the bars, chopping the trappedmaterial into smaller pieces that can pass through theraw sewage pumps. During high wet-weather flows, thebarminutor cannot travel fast enough to keep the barscreens clean, so material builds up on the metal barsand restricts the flow.

Under wet-weather conditions exceeding 245 millionlitres per day, the North Vancouver interceptor gatemust be throttled to restrict the flow entering the plant.(The gate is located just outside of the screen room, afew feet upstream of the confluence between the NorthVancouver and Hollyburn interceptors.) This actioncauses backup in the North Vancouver interceptor thateventually leads to the MacKay Avenue outfall and spillssewage into Burrard Inlet.

In February 1998, a document entitled “Business Casefor Headworks Improvements” described the need toupgrade the Lions Gate barminutor screens. The GVRDBoard approved funding for this work in April 1998.

The permit for the Lions Gate wastewater treatmentplant set a flow value of two times the average 1979 dry-weather flow, or 102 million litres per day. This was setin 1979 and did not include a population growth factor toaccommodate future flows. Thus, the plant has beenoperating with a flow limit of 102 million litres

&V

&V

&V

&V

&V

&V

&V

&V

&V

&V

&V&V

&V

Cityof

NorthVancouver

Districtof

West VancouverDistrict

ofNorth Vancouver

%U

No.3

No.4No.5

Hollyburn Interceptor

Lions GateWWTP

Taylor WayTrunk Fell

AvenueTrunk

MackayAvenueOverflow

<

LynnPump

Station

North Vancouver Interceptor

BURRARD INLETENGLISH BAY

Gleneagles Lift Station No.1 - 5

No.1

GleneaglesInterceptor

No.2

}

}

HL1

LB20NV7 MK99

NV20

TW30

FA35

MK20

FA98

NV99LB99

TW20

TW99HL1B

HL1ALB99

FA35

NV7LB20

TW20

FA98

NV20

NV99MK20

TW30

MK99

TW99

3813

HL1

LB20NV7 MK99

NV20

TW30

FA35

MK20

FA98

NV99LB99

N

EW

S

1:99804Scale1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers

Exisitng Sewerage Area

Range of Monitored RDII Values (litres per hectare per day)12000 - 1599916000 - 2699927000 - 3699937000 - 4199942000 - 5599956000 - 238000

Municipal BoundaryGVS&DD SewerGVS&DD Pump Station

&V Flow Monitors

NSSA -- RDII Values for Monitored Catchments

Note: Results Based on 1996 Areas and Populations. Instantaneous Peak RDII values based on storm event surrounding January 29, 1997(1:5yr to 1:20yr - 6hr).

p:\projects\lwmp\lwmp_discussion\nssa_ii_april26.apr Prepared by DT


9-5

per day for the last 19 years. Despite the growth thathas occurred on the North Shore since 1979, the permitmakes virtually no allowance for RDII. Consequently, theplant has exceeded its permitted flow limits for almostall rainfall events and has ended up on the provincialnon-compliance list for the last 5 years.

The Lions Gate permit has now been revised to statethat the maximum dry-weather flow discharged from theplant cannot exceed 102 million litres per day. Dry-weather flow is defined as flow that occurs after anextended period of dry weather, which minimizes RDII tothe greatest extent practical. The permit revision willremove the Lions Gate wastewater treatment plant fromthe non-compliance list until the year 2000. By then, anapproved Liquid Waste Management Plan should be inplace to address the RDII management strategy andintegrate it into a new operating certificate for the LionsGate plant.

The permit for the Lions Gate plant also places limits oneffluent concentrations of biochemical oxygen demand(BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS). In general, theplant complies with the permit limits of 130 mg/L forboth BOD and TSS. However, influent loading has beenincreasing at a much higher annual rate than populationgrowth – and some peak influent loads are nearly twicethe average influent load. If these trends continue,permit violations will become more common and mightforce the need for central plant upgrades. Any upgradingplans for the plant are contingent on negotiation with theSquamish Nation, as the land is leased from them.

At present, the sources of the increased influent loadingand high peak loading remain unknown. A key manholemonitoring program was conducted in 1998 to try topinpoint sources, but the results were not conclusive.Another program planned for 1999 will further investigatekey areas with higher-than-expected loads. Possibleloading sources include increased garburator use anddischarges from commercial and industrialestablishments without permits, such as “u-brew”facilities.

Environmental AssessmentsLions Gate Wastewater Treatment Plant

Part 5 – “Receiving Environment” identified two keyenvironment concerns for discharges from the LionsGate plant:

• concentration levels of copper• chronic toxicity levels

The provincial water-quality objective for copperdischarged to Burrard Inlet – and for water outside theinitial dilution zone of an effluent pipe – is 3 µg/L. Theprovince has explicitly set this level as a long-termobjective, so there is some justification in developinglong-range plans to meet the objective without takingimmediate abatement action. Dilution data from fieldstudies indicate that effluent copper levels should notexceed 33 µg/L at average dry-weather flow and 21 µg/Lat peak wet-weather flow to meet the water-qualityobjective at all times. Effluent copper concentrations in1997 averaged 170 µg/L, about 53% of which wasdissolved.

In addition to concerns with copper levels in the water,copper levels in the sediment throughout Burrard Inletexceed provincial objectives and often probable-effectslevels as well. Despite the high levels, Burrard Inletsupports a relatively healthy biological community.

In terms of toxicity levels in the Lions Gate planteffluent, laboratory test results suggest the possibilitythat the effluent might be approaching or exceedingchronic threshold toxicity levels in the receivingenvironment. However, variability in test results makes itimpossible to estimate the actual threshold value.Further monitoring is needed to obtain a better estimateof threshold toxicity and to attempt to pinpoint itscauses.

Potential OptionsCollection System

Options and costs for managing RDII have beenproposed in the context of broader sewerage systeminfrastructure management. The underlying principle isthat regional, municipal, and private-property facilitiesare all integral to the wastewater collection andtreatment service. Therefore, determining where best tospend public funds to maintain and improve the servicemust be done for the entire system.

The prime infrastructure management programs are:

• interceptor conveyance and treatment• municipal system replacement• municipal system and private-property rehabilitation

These infrastructure management programs wereevaluated for a low, medium, and high level ofconveyance and treatment service. This was designedto determine the cost effectiveness between conveyingand treating RDII versus reducing it at source. Withineach level of service, there is a specific conveyance and

9-6


treatment plan, a municipal system replacement plan,and several possibilities for a municipal and privateproperty rehabilitation plan.

The lowest level of interceptor conveyance andtreatment upgrades is “Level I”. This involves upgradingthe interceptor system to convey a flow rate of 2,800L/s. For this service level more comprehensivemunicipal and private property rehabilitation programsare required. The conveyance upgrade plan for Level II is3,400 L/s and Level III is 4,000 L/s. Upgrading theinterceptor and treatment systems for these levelsbecomes progressively more expensive, but reduces thescope of municipal programs.

Municipal System Replacement

Municipal system replacement assumes a rate of0.67%, which remains constant for each of the threeservice levels. The municipal replacement programcovers in-street pipes, manholes, and the municipalportion of the private-property connection.

The 0.67% replacement rate represents a substantialincrease in the replacement rate that North ShoreSewerage Area municipalities are currently applying.The rate was derived by analyzing the age of themunicipal piping system and evaluating higher rates ofreplacement as well as variable replacement rates.

Municipal System Rehabilitation

The municipal rehabilitation program covers in-streetpipes, manholes, the municipal portion of theconnection, and in some cases the private-propertyportion of the connection. Two municipal systemrehabilitation approaches were evaluated. The first isbased on rehabilitation throughout the North ShoreSewerage Area and applies rehabilitation rates evenly toall catchments. The second is based on priority basinrehabilitation and calls for complete rehabilitation ofdesignated basins, beginning with those that have thehighest RDII.

Wastewater TreatmentA matrix of options for upgrading the Lions Gatewastewater treatment plant has also been developed.The matrix combines three parameters – BOD/TSSdischarge limit, percentage of compliance with the limit,and loading – to provide 18 options.

Here are the options available for each parameter:

Discharge Limit

• 130 mg/L for BOD, 130 mg/L for TSS (existingpermit criteria)

• 90 mg/L for BOD, 90 mg/L for TSS• 45 mg/L for BOD, 45 mg/L for TSS (criteria in the

draft provincial regulations)

Percentage of Compliance with a GivenDischarge Limit

• 92%• 98%• 100% (existing permit criteria)

Loading

• Low-loading scenario: Assumes control of the highaverage and peak loads and a per capitacontribution that remains unchanged at the 1998values of 78 grams per capita per day (g/cap/d) forBOD and 90 g/cap/d for TSS.

• High-loading scenario: Assumes that loading wouldcontinue to increase to a maximum of 100 g/cap/dfor BOD and 120 g/cap/d for TSS per capita,reflecting no control of high loading.

Managing Core InfrastructureCollection System

The conveyance and treatment capital costs combineconveyance upgrades with the premium costs requiredto treat higher flows. For Level I, the conveyance andtreatment costs are $11 million; for Level II, $25 million;and for Level III, $43 million.

Based on the 0.67% replacement-rate strategy,municipal replacement costs are set out in Table 9-2.The replacement cost of the City of North Vancouver’ssewerage infrastructure is $114 million. At a 0.67%replacement rate, an annual expenditure of $760,000would be required. Similarly, the replacement cost ofthe District of North Vancouver’s and District of WestVancouver’s sewerage infrastructure is $332 million and$299 million, respectively. At a 0.67% replacement rate,an annual expenditure of $2.2 and $2.0 million,respectively, would be required. The total annual


9-7

expenditure for all three municipalities would be close to $5 million.

Table 9-2: Municipal Replacement Costs

Municipality Infrastructure ReplacementCosts ($ millions)

Replacement Rate peryear (percent)

Replacement Cost peryear ($ millions)

City of North Vancouver 114 0.67 0.76

District of North Vancouver 322 0.67 2.16

District of West Vancouver 299 0.67 2.00

Total 735 4.92

Rehabilitation costs vary depending on which systemcomponent (pipes, manholes, or connections) is beingrehabilitated and at what rate. These costs range from alow of $19 million to a high of $224 million.

Using these costs, the options described earlier wereevaluated on the following criteria:

• total net present value• RDII reduction in 2021 at the Lions Gate wastewater

treatment plant• total overflow volume in 2021.

Winter precipitation data (September 1996 to April1997) provide the basis for calculating the total RDIIreduction at the Lions Gate plant, as well as the totaloverflow volume. The winter 1996-97 overflow volumewas about 135 million litres. Nearly all of this volumewas discharged through the MacKay Avenue outfall toBurrard Inlet.

A short list of options was developed using a weightingfactor applied to each of the evaluation criteria. Toexplore how emphasizing costs or benefits affectsdecision making, a sensitivity analysis was performedby varying the weighting factors. On the basis of thesefactors, the most effective system approach tomanaging RDII includes:

• Level I interceptor conveyance and treatmentupgrades (at $11 million over 20 years)

• a 0.67% municipal replacement program (at $4.9million per year)

• rehabilitation programs in priority basins.

For the rehabilitation programs, focusing on connectionsand inflow can be a very cost-effective means ofachieving RDII reductions. However, technologies forrehabilitating connections are still developing and shouldbe assessed before the scope and costs of therehabilitation program is set.

Figure 9-4 shows overflow reductions using the programset out above, along with the proposed regulatoryrequirement of 10% reduction per year for comparison.The substantial reductions in the first few years are aresult of the headworks upgrade project at the LionsGate wastewater treatment plant. In essence, thisproject resolves the overflow concern and allowsimplementation of a broader based RDII managementprogram without further short term conveyance andtreatment upgrading. The overall reductions beyond2001 are marginal.

Figure 9-5 shows how the RDII management strategycompares with the draft provincial criterion for reducingwet-weather flows to the Lions Gate wastewatertreatment to a multiple of two times the average dry-weather flow. As shown in the figure, meeting thisrequirement is a long-term proposition. Under extremewet weather conditions, flows are currently about 3.5times dry weather flow. This is reduced by 30% by theyear 2021 primarily as a result of the rehabilitationprograms. Beyond 2021 the rate of reduction slowsgiven the 0.67% municipal replacement program is theonly measure being applied to further reduce RDII. Bythe year 2060, RDII values will also be roughly equal tothe Rawn criterion of 5,600 litres per hectare per day.

Wastewater TreatmentBecause of the potential for increased permit violationsat the Lions Gate wastewater treatment plant, severalinitiatives were undertaken in1996:

• conducting comprehensive process audit andprocess optimization programs

• running full-scale pilot tests of enhanced primarytreatment

• performing key manhole monitoring in the collectionsystem to identify BOD sources and theircontributions

9-8


Figure 9-4: Overflow Volume Reductions

Overflow Volume Reduction

0

20,000,000

40,000,000

60,000,000

80,000,000

100,000,000

120,000,000

140,000,000

1997 2001 2021

Year

Ov

erf

low

Vo

lum

e (

L)

RDII Management Strategy 10%/year

Figure 9-5: Wet-Weather Flow Reductions as Multiples of Average Dry-Weather Flow

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085

Year

AD

WF

Fac

tor

RDII ManagementStrategy


9-9

• using the key manhole monitoring data to conductwastewater inventory studies

• developing a business case for flow improvements

• obtaining GVRD Board approval for headworksimprovements and influent channel flow-splitimprovements (both underway in 1999).

This work has served as the foundation for a baseupgrading plan for the Lions Gate wastewater treatmentplan. Elements considered in the base plan include flowimprovements, the plant’s level of compliance with theexisting permit, and source vs. central treatment.

Flow Improvements

As described earlier, the headworks improvementproject at the Lions Gate treatment plant willsubstantially reduce wet-weather spills at the MacKayCreek outfall to Burrard Inlet.

The headworks project will allow the raw sewage pumpsto operate at a rate up to 343 million litres per day. In1996, a process audit of the plant showed that theprimary clarifiers had the capacity to process thisamount. However, upgrading would still be necessary todeal with several areas of flow restriction in the plant:

• the influent flow distribution channel that conveysflow to the east bank of primary clarifiers

• the effluent weirs (suspended at the back end of theprimary clarifiers) that decant flow for disinfectionand discharge to Burrard Inlet

• the chlorine contact tanks.

A business case for upgrading the influent flowdistribution channel was completed in 1998, and theGVRD’s 1999 budget allocates funds for implementingthe upgrade. Business cases for the weirs and thechlorine contact tanks will be completed in 1999, andthe capital costs will appear in the GVRD’s 2000budget.

Permit Compliance Level

Table 9-3 shows the costs of low- and high-loadingscenarios at 100% and 98% permit compliance levels.(For descriptions of these scenarios, see thewastewater section under “Potential Options.”) For thelow-loading scenario, the premium for achieving 100%vs. 98% compliance is about $10 million in net presentvalue terms. For the high-loading scenario, the premiumfor achieving 100% vs. 98% compliance is $16 million innet present value terms.

For both the low and high loading scenarios, onlyprimary treatment upgrades are required to meet the98% compliance level. For the low and high loadingscenarios at 100% compliance, enhanced primarytreatment is required. This involves the addition ofchemicals to the influent that “enhance” particle settlingin the primary settling tanks.

At 98% vs.100% compliance, the plant would exceedits permit limits for TSS five times a year and for BODthree times a year. The additional effluent TSS loadingremoved is less than 1%. Therefore, the benefits of100% compliance are not significantly greater thanthose of 98% compliance, especially with the additionalcosts of 100% compliance. So, a permit compliancelevel less than 100% is recommended, regardless of theload scenario.

Source vs. Central Treatment

Although increased garburator use in the North ShoreSewerage Area might contribute to the high rate ofincrease in average loading, this issue requires furtherinvestigation. It might be cost-effective to ban garburatoruse in the North Shore Sewerage Area as an additionalsource control measure instead of treating the additionalload at the Lions Gate wastewater treatment plant.

Also, the sources of peak and high average loads at theplant are not currently known. More data is necessaryto make an informed decision about source vs. centraltreatment. Recommendations for obtainingthe required information include continuing the keymanhole monitoring program and reconciling thesources of the loading on an average and a peak basis.Once enough information is available, options to controlthis loading will need to be developed and evaluatedagainst central treatment facility upgrading.

Base Upgrading Plan

Because of the findings just described, the baseupgrading plan developed for the Lions Gate wastewatertreatment plant incorporates the low-loading scenarioand a 98% level of compliance with permit limits of 130mg/L for BOD and 130 mg/L for TSS. This plan involvesconstructing digester thickeners in the next three years,an additional digester in the year 2006, as well asexpanding the primary sedimentation tanks in the year2020. The total net present value of the upgrades is $29million.

9-10


Table 9-3: Costs for Different Compliance and Loading Scenarios

130/130 Permit Limit100% Compliance 98% Compliance

Net Present Net PresentCapital O&M Value Capital O&M Value

Low Loading 46 1.2 39 40 0.6 29Scenario

High Loading 60 1.4 52 57 0.9 36Scenario

All costs shown in the table are in millions.

Managing Defined and PotentialProblems

Wastewater Treatment Plants

As mentioned earlier, environmental concerns about theLions Gate wastewater treatment plant mainly involveeffluent copper concentrations and chronic toxicity. Twooptions for managing these concerns have beenconsidered: full enhanced primary treatment andbiological secondary treatment.

Figure 9-6 shows the existing effluent copperconcentrations compared with the calculatedconcentrations for effluent from enhanced primarytreatment and biological secondary treatment. Thefigure also shows the maximum effluent concentrationfor average dry-weather flow and peak wet-weather flowto meet the provincial water-quality objectives at theedge of the dilution zone. For perspective, Figure 9-6includes the water-quality objective value of 3 µg/L.

Pilot testing demonstrates that full enhanced primarytreatment can remove as much as 85% of the TSS fromthe wastewater – 50% more than primary treatment.However, estimates indicate that only 47% of the 170µg/L of copper in effluent is in particulate form. Thus,enhanced primary treatment can only reduce the totaleffluent copper to about 130 µg/L.

Removal efficiencies measured at the Annacis Islandwastewater treatment plant show that biologicalsecondary treatment can reduce copper levels by 70%.At this rate, the copper concentration in the Lions Gateplant effluent would decrease to about 65 µg/L. Whilethis would begin to approach the long-term goal ofmeeting water-quality objectives for Burrard Inlet, it is

still almost twice the maximum effluent concentrationrequired under average dry weather flow conditions. Thenet present value of capital and operating costs forbiological secondary treatment is estimated at $101million.

Another potential option for reducing copperconcentrations is the Drinking Water TreatmentProgram, which includes controlling the pH of drinkingwater. This program would help prevent copper fromleaching into the water distribution system. Evaluationof the benefits provided by the Drinking Water TreatmentProgram and other source control options is needed toput the costs and benefits of enhanced primarytreatment and biological secondary treatment incontext.

Modifying the Lions Gate outfall diffusers is beingexamined as a means of increasing effluent dilution andthus reducing toxicity. Preliminary modeling of dilutionpatterns under different scenarios is being conducted toexamine the effects of removing protective barrels fromthe area around the diffuser heads and of modifying thediffusers.

In terms of treatment plant process upgrades, morework is needed to pinpoint the causes of toxicity beforemanagement options can be evaluated. It is reasonableto assume that higher levels of treatment will reduceeffluent toxicity. The concern is whether centraltreatment expenditures are required to address thisproblem. More knowledge might show that toxicity isassociated with specific contaminants that sourcecontrol can handle more cost-effectively.


9-11

Figure 9-6: Effluent Copper Concentrations at Different Treatment Levels

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

currenteffluent

enhancedprimary

treatment

secondarytreatment

Effl

uent

cop

per c

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

L)

max. effluent concentration (ADWF)

max. effluent concentration (PWWF)

Burrard Inlet water quality objective

Higher Levels of ServiceWastewater Treatment

Higher service levels would reduce BOD below 130 mg/Land TSS below 130 mg/L (130/130 criteria). Figure 9-7shows the influent loading to the Lions Gate wastewatertreatment plant for the low-loading scenario. The figurealso shows the effluent loading for the base upgradingplan to meet the 130/130 permit limit through the year2028, as well as options to meet 90/90 and 45/45 limitsthrough 2028. Meeting the 90/90 criteria involvesimplementing full enhanced primary treatment. Meetingthe 45/45 criteria involves implementing full biologicalsecondary treatment.

The net present values appear on the side of Figure 9-7for each option. Meeting the 90/90 limit through 2028has a net present value cost of $61 million – anadditional $32 million over the base upgrading plan.Meeting the 45/45 limit through 2028 has a net presentvalue cost of $101 million – an additional $72 millionover the base upgrading plan.

The base upgrading plan would increase the annual TSSload by about 40% over the 1998 TSS loading value bythe year 2028. Meeting the 90/90 permit limit wouldinitially reduce loading by 10%; by 2028, the annualTSS load would equal the 1998 loading value. Meeting a45/45 permit limit would reduce annual TSS loading bymore than 50% throughout the 30-year period.

9-12


Figure 9-7: Effluent Loads at Different Levels of Service

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

1998 2003 2008 2013 2018 2023 2028

Year

To

tal A

nn

ual

Eff

luen

t T

SS

Lo

ad (

ton

nes

/yea

r)

Meet 130/130 1999-2028 Meet 90/90 1999-2028

Meet 45/45 1999-2028 Maintain Existing Effluent Loads

NPV = $29M

NPV = $61M

NPV = $102M

Influent TSS Low Loading Scenario

NPV = $85M

Figure 9-8 shows a phased approach to meeting thesame loading end-points in 2028 as the 90/90 and 45/45options illustrated in Figure 9-7. It also shows an optionfor matching the 1998 loading value throughout the 30-year timeline.

Upgrading to meet the 90/90 criteria in 2019 has a netpresent value of $44 million, which represents a savingsof about $17 million in net present value over the 90/90option shown in Figure 9-7. Upgrading to meet the 45/45criteria in 2019 has a net present value of $93 million,which represents a savings of about $9 million over the45/45 option shown in Figure 9-7. These savingshighlight the cost benefits of stage upgrades to theLions Gate plant.

The net present value cost of upgrading on demand tomaintain the 1998 annual TSS loading value through2028 is $85 million.

RecommendationsCollection System

Conclusions

• The total replacement value of sewerage assets inthe North Shore Sewerage Area is nearly $1 billion.Sound infrastructure programs are needed to ensurethat these assets remain in good condition.

• RDII management is a subset of a broader asset-management concern. Dovetailing RDIImanagement programs with infrastructuremanagement can offer a cost-effective means ofdealing with RDII problems.

A total of fourteen infrastructure management optionshave been evaluated. Using the total net present value,the total RDII reduction at the Lions Gate wastewatertreatment plant in 2021, and the total overflow volumereduction in 2021, a shortlist of options has beencreated.


9-13

Figure 9-8. Effluent Loads at Different Levels of Service with Phased Approach

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

1998 2003 2008 2013 2018 2023 2028

Year

To

tal A

nn

ual

Eff

luen

t T

SS

Lo

ad (

ton

nes

/yea

r)

Meet 130/130 1999-2018 and 90/90 2019-2028 Meet 90/90 1999-2018 and 45/45 2019-2028

Maintain Existing Effluent Loads

NPV = $93M

NPV = $44MNPV = $85M

Influent TSS Low Loading Scenario

RDII management through sound infrastructuremanagement programs rather than continualconveyance and treatment upgrading is a commontheme of the shortlisted options.

Recommendations

The North Shore Sewerage Area should consider thefollowing action plan:

• Upgrade the major conveyance and treatmentsystem over the next 5 to 10 years toaccommodate growth and minimal allowances forRDII.

• Establish a 0.67% municipal replacement programand phase it in over a five-year period beginning inthe year 2000.

• Undertake specific assessments of rehabilitationprograms for municipal and private-propertyconnections.

The design of the action plan should facilitate decisionmaking at key milestones for:

• moving to higher levels of conveyance treatment• performing more aggressive replacement• expanding rehabilitation programs from connections

to in-street pipes and manholes• incorporating advances in rehabilitation technologies


Conclusions

• A 98% compliance level with the permit limits of130 mg/L for BOD and 130 mg/L for TSS wouldresult in about three and five violations per year,respectively. The difference in annual loading of TSSbetween the 100% and 98% compliance levels isless than 1%.

• Maintaining the current limits at the 98%compliance level would increase TSS loading in the

9-14


next 30 years by about 40% over the 1998 annualTSS loading value.

• The base upgrading plan for Lions Gate plantincludes meeting the existing permit at a 98%compliance level and is estimated to cost $29million in net present value dollars over the next 30years. If 1998 TSS limits were maintained over thenext 30 years, the net present value premium wouldrange from about $30 million to $60 million.

• The net present value premium for implementingbiological secondary treatment rather than the baseupgrading plan is about $70 million, depending onhow the program is phased in.

• For comparison, to meet the draft provincialregulatory criterion of 45 mg/L for BOD and 45 mg/Lfor TSS, the net present value premium within a five-year timeframe is $101 million.

Recommendations

• Source control programs identify the specificcauses of the high rate of increase in average andpeak loading by the year 2000.

• The benefits resulting from the Drinking WaterTreatment Program should be assessed in thecontext of reducing effluent copper concentrations.

• An overall cost-benefit analysis should becompleted for copper reductions resulting fromLions Gate plant upgrades versus reductionsobtained through pH control of drinking water.

• Environmental assessments should be conductedto establish the causes of Lions Gate treatmenteffluent chronic toxicity.

• Over the next 10 years, the Lions Gate wastewatertreatment plant should continue to meet permitlimits of 130 mg/L for BOD and 130 mg/L for TSS ata 98% compliance level. During this period, theplant should be upgraded to at least the servicelevel proposed by the base plan.

• On the basis of effluent toxicity information, sourcecontrol measures for contaminants of concernshould be fully evaluated. A business case shouldbe developed to compare these measures withcentral treatment alternatives.

• The GVRD and the North Shore Sewerage Areashould re-evaluate the Lions Gate plant upgrade

plans in 10 years to determine the costs andbenefits of implementing biological secondarytreatment in the context of better environmentaldata. (This timeline is key to ensuring that noexpansion of the primary settling tanks takes placeif the plant needs to implement biological treatmentprocesses. Under this circumstance, the capitalinvestment in primary settling tanks would bewasted.)


10-1

From its earliest years through the 1960s, Richmondrelied on septic fields, septic tanks, and localizedsewage collection systems to dispose of its sanitarywastes. Faced with concerns of poorly performingseptic systems and the raw discharge of sewage to theFraser River, the Greater Vancouver Sewerage andDrainage District commissioned the RichmondSewerage Survey in 1966. The survey proposed acentralized wastewater treatment plant and pressuresewers fed by a large network of pump stations andforcemains to match the area’s flat geography.

The early 1970s saw the construction of major trunksewers in the Lulu Island West Sewerage Area thatconveyed sanitary wastes for direct discharge to theFraser River. In 1973, the GVS&DD commissioned theLulu Island wastewater treatment plant to provideprimary treatment of sanitary wastes. The GVS&DDrecently upgraded the Lulu Island plant to a secondarytreatment facility.

The current Lulu Island West Sewerage Area systemspans 4,500 hectares and contains about 140 pumpstations, which serve a population of about 150,000. Thesewer system achieves most of its objectives forsafeguarding public health, protecting property, andminimizing environmental impact.

Problems and IssuesPotential risks to public health, property, and theenvironment in the Lulu Island West Sewerage Areainvolve sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) and wastewatertreatment plant discharges. SSOs, which manifestthemselves as sewage backups and discharges to thestreet and the receiving environment, present the mostimmediate concern. SSOs from the Lulu Island Westsystem can occur during high-intensity storms withreturn periods from five to ten years.

SSOs

Figure 10-1 shows where SSOs have occurred in theLulu Island West Sewerage Area over the past fiveyears. Here is the ranking system for the severity ofeach discharge type:

1. Basement flooding or potential for direct humancontact

2. Potential potable groundwater supply contamin-ation

3. Flooding of agricultural or livestock grazing land

4. Direct discharges to fish-bearing waterbodies

5. Discharges to gutters, storm sewers, and ditches

6. Confined discharge with limited public-health risk,possibility of property damage, or environmentalimpact

SSOs with severity rankings 1 through 3 can endangerpublic health or damage property. These SSOs areconsidered first-priority problems that core or basicservice programs need to address. Although SSOs withseverity rankings 4 through 6 are not insignificant, theyare considered second-priority problems afterdischarges that directly affect public health and safety.

Research conducted for the Fraser River Action Planhas shown low levels of contamination in the FraserRiver estuary. The higher fecal coliform counts in theFraser River’s Main Arm typically occur during themonths between October and April when neither theLulu Island nor the Annacis Island wastewater treatmentplant effluent is disinfected. In the river’s North Arm,higher fecal coliform counts observed during rainfallevents may be attributed to CSOs from the VancouverSewerage Area and Fraser Sewerage Area systems, aswell as to stormwater discharges.

Part 10Lulu Island West Sewerage Area

%U

District of Delta

City of Richmond

City of Vancouver

City of Burnaby

N

F r a s e r

R i v e r

S t r a i t

o f

G e o r g i a

S o u

t h A

r m

1 0 1 Kilometers


Location and Frequency of Sanitary Sewer Overflows

1-23-5>

5

BasementsStreetAgricultural Land

Drainage Systems

Fish-Bearing Waterbodies

Number of Events

Lulu Island WWTP8 Bypasses

Blundell West Branch1 Overflow

Brighouse Branch North1 Overflow

Brighouse Branch South4 Overflows

Number & Location of SSO Events from June 1993 to February 1999

Main Arm Branch2 Overflows

SSOs can result from stormswith ~5-year return periods.

Figure 10-1: Location and Frequency of Sanitary Sewer Overflows

10-2


System Performance

Several factors have reduced system performance overtime and merit further examination, these include:

• Population growth and development. In thepast several years, population in the Lulu IslandWest Sewerage Area has grown between 3% and4% annually. This growth rate corresponds toincreases in base sanitary flows for collection andtreatment.

• Aging infrastructure. In some areas, theinfrastructure allows excessive rainfall-derived flowsinto the sanitary sewer – a likely sign of adeteriorating system. Such excess flows can leadto discharges of untreated sanitary sewage flowsduring heavy rainfall events.

Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges

The Lulu Island wastewater treatment plant hasexperienced substantial growth in demand. Thepopulation of the sewerage area rose from 75,000 in1976 to 137,000 in 1996 – a 3.1% annual growth rate. In1998, the Lulu Island plant underwent upgrades toservice level a population of 152,000.

The commissioning of secondary treatment facilities atthe Lulu Island plant has resulted in substantiallyimproved effluent quality. Levels of biochemical oxygendemand and total suspended solids are consistentlywell below the established new limits for effluentconcentrations of 45 mg/L. Preliminary characterizationof contaminants in effluents from the recently upgradedwastewater treatment plant indicates that all provincialwater-quality objectives outside the initial dilution zonewill be achieved.

Although the toxicity of the treatment plant effluent hasdecreased as a result of the secondary treatmentupgrades, researchers continue to perform rainbow trouttoxicity tests to investigate the role of ammonia inpotential end-of-pipe toxicity.

Benefits of Reducing Wet-Weather Flows

Reducing wet-weather flows will make it possible todefer several liquid-stream process units at the LuluIsland wastewater treatment plant. The current peakwet-weather flow design criteria for Lulu Island upgradesare based on multiples of 2 to 2.25 times the averageannual flow.

An alternate peak wet-weather flow design criterionbased on the standard infiltration and inflow allowance of11,200 litres per hectare per day for separate sanitarysewers would initially reduce the wet-weather flow to 2times the average annual flow, and to 1.8 times theaverage annual flow over the long term. The potential todefer some of the $55 million in liquid-stream upgradesfor the Lulu Island plant would result in a net presentvalue cost savings of between $4 and $8 million dollars.

Sources of Infiltration and Inflow

Most of the pipes in the Lulu Island West SewerageArea were built in the 1960s or later. Despite the relativeyoung age of the sewer-system infrastructure, wetweather still has a major influence on the collection andtreatment system. Reports show that some of the pipesare deteriorating much more quickly than expected.These areas of deterioration are also subject to highlevels of infiltration and inflow.

To compound wet weather problems, the drainagesystem cannot always handle all the surface runoffduring high-intensity rainfall events, increasing thepossibility of flood damage and resulting in high inflowrates to the sanitary sewer system. Throughpreemptive operation of drainage pump station thedrainage system can be drawn down to increase itscapacity to accommodate anticipated peak stormwaterrunoff. The City of Richmond has shown this to beeffective in preventing sewage overflows during recent10-year return period storms.

Managing Core InfrastructureBuilding for Growth

Based on current growth rates, the Lulu Islandwastewater treatment will require plant growth capacityupgrades within the next five years. Lulu Island StageIVa upgrades are scheduled for the year 2001, followedshortly by Stage IVb (each stage will cost $12 to $14million). The City of Richmond is committed toexpanding the sewer infrastructure where required formanaged growth.

Renewing the System to ReduceInfiltration and Inflow

Figure 10-2 shows catchment areas located astributaries to the Lulu Island wastewater treatment plant,categorized by the rainfall-derived infiltration and inflow(RDII) rate averaged over 24 hours. Catchments


10-3

coloured green have estimated RDII rates of less than11,200 litres per hectare per day. Yellow indicates up totwo times this amount; orange, up to three times; andred, more than three times. These results are based onlimited flow monitoring information from the collectionsystem.

The replacement value of the entire Lulu Island WestSewerage Area system (private lateral, municipal, andregional systems) is estimated to be about $650 million.About 40% of this amount is privately owned.

Case Study of InfrastructureManagement Scenarios

Table 10-1 shows the costs and benefits of threescenarios for infrastructure management (see “Part 8 –Fraser Sewerage Area” for descriptions of thesescenarios). For each program scenario, the tableprovides costs attributable to the GVS&DD, themunicipalities, and private owners. The cost in millionsrepresents cumulative dollars over 75 years.

A Target RDII program can help maximize use ofexisting infrastructure for a total cost of some $190

million over 75 years. In comparison, the estimate for aConvey & Treat management program is $644 million.Emergency repairs and increased conveyance capacityupgrades to accommodate the expected higher flowsaccount for the higher cost associated with the Convey& Treat program.

As in a similar case study by the Fraser SewerageArea, this analysis shows that the Convey & Treatoption is the most costly, and that it does not addressthe infiltration and inflow problem at source.

Moreover, the scenario effectively requires the City ofRichmond to pay now to upgrade conveyance andtreatment capacity and then pay later to renew aginginfrastructure. The need to essentially “pay twice”makes the Convey & Treat scenario unattractive.

The most effective scenario involves spending effort onaddressing issues upstream in the collection system atsource rather than downstream in the trunks andtreatment plant. Municipal sewer replacement programsprovide more overall benefit than the increasedconveyance and treatment option.

Table 10-1: Key Infrastructure Management Scenarios

Cost over 75 Years1

Sewer Infrastructure Management Scenario GVS&DD Municipality(Richmond)

PrivateLaterals

Total

Convey & Treat: Increases conveyance andtreatment to accommodate an assumed increasein wet-weather flows.

$137 $256 $251 $644

Target RDII: Achieves SSO reduction andcomplete infrastructure renewal over 100 years.

$102 $57 $31 $190

1% Replacement: Replaces sanitary sewer at arate of 1% of the total system per year.

$102 $177 $165 $444

1In millions of dollars. Each figure represents the sum of cash flow over a 75-year period, assuming current average age ofpipes is 25 years and that the pipes have a 100-year lifespan. GVS&DD costs include pipe and wastewater treatment plantupgrades plus treatment plant operating costs. Municipal and private lateral costs do not include operating costs.

District of Delta

City of Richmond

City of Vancouver

City of Burnaby

Catchment< 11,200 L/ha/d11,200 - 22,400 L/ha/d22,401 - 33,600 L/ha/d> 33,601 L/ha/d


900 0 900 1800 Meters

Scale 1:50,000

N

F r a s e

r R i v

e r

S t r a i t

o f

G e o r g i a

S o u

t h A

r m

Catchments Coloured bySimulated RDI/I Rates (24 hr data)

JW c:\projects\lulu\981116jv\drainpts.apr November, 1998

Figure 10-2: Estimated 24-hr Average Rainfall-Derived Infiltration and Inflow Rates for Catchments Tributary to Lulu Island WWTP

Municipal Considerations

The annualized municipal cost for the Target RDIIscenario varies, but is in the order of $760,000 per year.This compares well to Richmond’s current expendituresfor sewer system evaluation surveys and sewer repairand replacement. The 1% replacement program has anannualized cost of $2.4 million.

Examination of the scenarios leads to the sameconclusions as those reached by the Fraser SewerageArea Committee: to proactively renew infrastructurewhen necessary and to establish downward trends forinfiltration and inflow. Over the next few years, the Cityof Richmond will work towards:

• collecting comprehensive condition information onexisting sewers.

• developing an infrastructure management plan.• implementing the plan and report annually on its

progress.

The Lulu Island West Sewerage Area’s infiltration andinflow reduction strategies will be consistent with thoseof other sewerage areas. These strategies will form anintegral part of municipal infrastructure managementplans.

Preparing for EmergencyDischarges

Despite best efforts, emergency SSO discharges canoccur because of system failures, extreme weatherconditions, or unusual events. All options for dealingwith emergency discharges attempt to reduce theirimpact on public health, property, and the environment.Figure 10-3 shows current and proposed emergencyspill locations. Table 10-2 provides an inventory ofemergency spill locations and shows how implementingor modifying a given site could reduce the impact ofoperating that site. For details on the categories of spillsites, as well as the system used to rank the impact ofspills on the receiving environment, refer to “Part 8 -Fraser Sewerage Area, Preparing for EmergencyDischarges.”

%U

District of Delta

City of Richmond

City of Vancouver

City of Burnaby

N

F r a s e r

R i v e r

S t r a i t

o f

G e o r g i a

S o u

t h A

r m

1 0 1 Kilometers


Location of Emergency Spill Sites (Existing and Proposed)

Emergency Overflow Site

Existing

Proposed

Lulu Island WWTPOutfall

Drainage Culvert nearby

Brighouse Branch SouthVent Stack near MH10Drainage Culvert

nearby

Drainage Culvert nearby

Figure 10-3: Existing and Proposed Emergency Spill Sites

Table 10-2: Inventory of Current and Proposed Emergency Spill Locations

Site Description Discharges ToDirect Public Health Risk

Indirect Public Health Risk

Land Discharge

Sensitive Waterbody

Less Sensitive

Waterbody

Spill Recapture/

Minimal Impact

Existing Sites X=current, x=current depending on failure, O=goal

Lulu Island WWTP Overflow Weir to Fraser River Fraser River X

Brighouse Branch - South, "Sony Vent Stacks" Overflow Vent Stacks Alderbridge Way Drainage Canal x x

Proposed SitesBrighouse Branch - North, near MH8 Manual Slide Gate Storm Sewer to Fraser River x x x x O

Brighouse Branch - North, near MH22 Manual Slide Gate Storm Sewer to Fraser River x x x x O

Brighouse Branch - South, near MH10 Manual Slide Gate Storm Sewer to Fraser River x x x x O


11-1

The Source Control Program strives to preventcontaminants from entering the sanitary sewer systemby controlling waste discharges at their sources. Theprogram’s authority stems from Sewer Use Bylaw No.164, adopted by the Greater Vancouver Sewerage andDrainage District (GVS&DD) Administration Board in1990. District staff enforce this bylaw in all GVS&DDmunicipalities except Vancouver, where it is enforced bycity staff.

Under the Sewer Use Bylaw, the GVS&DD has thepower to impose requirements on direct and indirectdischarges of non-domestic waste into the sewersystem. Control measures include:

• prohibiting certain types of wastes• restricting contaminant concentrations• reducing contaminant loading• allocating discharge volumes

The Sewer Use Bylaw contains general requirements fordischarges into storm sewers, but these provisionsapply only to storm sewer systems owned by theGVRD.

Although the Sewer Use Bylaw covers the discharge ofstorm and non-domestic wastes, it does not coverwaste generated by residential sewer users. Educationis the District’s sole means of directly controlling thequantity and quality of wastes generated by itsresidents.

The Sewer Use Bylaw also stipulates that storm wateris not to be discharged into the sanitary system, unlessa specific authorization was received from the District.Historically, the District has allowed somecontaminated stormwater to be discharged by industryand various other operations such as landfills andconstruction sites. As the District’s sanitary sewersystem has not been designed for the conveyance ofstormwater, this practice is now being scrutinized and astrategy to reduce the stormwater from these sources isbeing developed.

When the Source Control Program began, it took anoperational approach toward controlling the quantity andquality of discharges into the District’s sewer system.The main reasons for imposing discharge restrictionswere: (1) to protect sewer workers, municipal anddistrict infrastructure, and wastewater treatment

processes and (2) to guarantee the quality of biosolids,recycled wastewater products that contain high levels ofnitrogen and other nutrients.

Over the past few years, the GVS&DD has embracedpolicies that recognize the need to manage demand forsewerage services. The Administration Board adoptedthe District’s first demand management policy in 1993:

Demand management activities are designed to reduceservice costs by encouraging residents to makeenvironmentally sensitive choices that lower total fiscaland environmental effects. The GVRD will consider thecost-effectiveness of demand management in programplanning for all departments.

Because of this move to demand-side management, themechanisms used by the Source Control Program tomanage waste discharges have expanded to includepricing strategies and more restrictive requirements forsewer system use.

Sources and DischargesThere are three types of sewer users: industrial,commercial/institutional, and residential. Eachgroup of users has different demands for sewer serviceand contributes different contaminants to the system –and the Source Control Program has adopted a differentapproach for each group.

Industrial Wastes

Currently, industrial users must have permits todischarge their wastes into the sewer system. The 300permitted industrial users in the GVS&DD place highdemands on sewer services. In some cases, peakdemand from a single industry can be as high as theservice demand from 200,000 residential users.According to the 1995 Wastewater Inventory, theindustrial sector contributes 6% of the flows, 25% of thebiological oxygen demand (BOD) load, and 12% of theload of total suspended solids (TSS) received annuallyat the District’s wastewater treatment plants.

Most industrial discharges contain either organic matterthat requires treatment, or toxic metals and organicsubstances that demand strict controls. Permits ensure

Part 11 – Source Control

11-2


that companies know and respect the conditions fordischarging such wastes to the sewer system. Theholder of a waste discharge permit is responsible formeeting the permit’s requirements. For example, manyindustries must pre-treat their wastewater beforedischarging it into the sewer system.

The Source Control Program’s approach to industrialdischarge enforcement is to obtain cooperation andcommitment from industry in addressing non-compliance issues. If industrial users fail to comply withthe Sewer Use Bylaw, the District asks them to correctthe problem immediately. If non-compliance persistsafter this initial request, users must commit to a formalcompliance program that includes a schedule forimplementing corrective measures. This strategy hasproved very successful in dealing with problem users.

If an industrial user refuses to address its non-compliance, or if infractions are severe, the SourceControl Program can escalate its enforcement actions.The program’s strongest weapon against seriousviolations is an order to cease discharge.

Another key enforcement mechanism is the SourceControl Non-Compliance List. Published twice a year,this list contains the names of industrial users who lagin compliance or have had infractions with potentiallyserious consequences for sewer workers, the systeminfrastructure, or the environment. The list has proved tobe an effective deterrent to non-compliance, resulting inimproved quality of industrial discharges to the sewersystem.

Commercial/Institutional Wastes

Commercial and institutional users in the GVS&DDinclude automotive service facilities, carpet cleaners,dental offices, hair salons, dry cleaners, hospitals,laundries, laboratories, hotels and motels, photofinishers, printers and graphic shops, restaurants,recreation facilities, schools, and wine-making and u-brew operations. An individual commercial/institutionaluser makes less of an impact than an individualindustrial user. As a group, however, the District’s10,000 commercial/institutional users placeconsiderable demands on the sewer system. Accordingto the 1995 Wastewater Inventory, thecommercial/institutional sector contributes 6% of theflows, 10% of the BOD load, and 6% of the TSS loadreceived annually at the district’s wastewater treatmentplants.

Some commercial activities lead to known water-qualityproblems – oil and grease from restaurants, silver from

photo-finishing operations, mercury from dental offices –and thus require source control. The District is currentlyformulating a comprehensive plan to limit dischargesfrom commercial/institutional sources.

Mechanisms for controlling discharges bycommercial/institutional users run the gamut fromregulation to education. They include:

• Codes of practice. A code of practice combinesmandatory requirements with waste managementguidelines for discharges into the sewer system.The Sewer Use Bylaw authorizes adoption of themandatory requirements, which are enforceable.

• Best management practices. Best managementpractices include waste management guidelines.They are not enforceable.

• Educational programs. Education and awarenessprograms can complement the other approaches orserve as primary control mechanisms.

• Pollution prevention. Pollution prevention centerson (1) preventing the generation of wastes and (2)containing or using wastes before they requiretreatment. The provincial and federal governmentshave fully embraced and promoted this approach.Codes of practices, best management practices,and educational programs can all reflect andincorporate pollution prevention guidelines. Or, a setof pollution prevention guidelines can serve as theprimary control mechanism.

The approach that the GVS&DD adopts for a particularcommercial/institutional user group depends on the typeand level of waste generated by the group and oncost/benefit analysis. For example, the District isconsidering a code of practice for the restaurant/foodservice industry, and is working cooperatively with theCapital Regional District to develop a code of practicefor dental offices. The District is also working withfederal and environmental agencies to develop amultimedia pollution prevention package for the graphicsand printing sector.

Residential Wastes

Although the nearly 2 million residential users in theGVRD have the smallest individual impact on demandfor sewer services, they exert the most significantdemand as a group. In fact, residential users usuallydetermine how sewerage service is provided. The 1995Wastewater Inventory showed that the residential sectorcontributes 42 % of the flows, 51% of the BOD load,


11-3

and 66% of the TSS load received annually at theDistrict’s wastewater treatment plants.

The only means available to the GVS&DD for controllingresidential discharges is education. The District strivesto educate residents about the impact of their productand equipment choices and to inform them aboutenvironmentally friendly waste management practices.For example, the District has been involved in educatingresidents about household hazardous waste (HHW) formany years, mainly because of its solid wastemanagement activities. A recent HHW educationcampaign used hard-hitting language (“you’re wastingmy future – deal with it”) and powerful images todemonstrate (1) the link between consumer behaviourand action toward HHW disposal and subsequenteffects on the environment, (2) the cyclicalenvironmental effects of dumping HHW down the drain,and (3) the effects of improper HHW disposal on qualityof life and on future generations.

Residential education programs for 1999 feature tips onreducing the use of food grinders. Technical literature ondomestic waste indicates that residential use of foodgrinders increases the per capita load of BOD and TSSin wastewater by 25%. A 1997 study commissioned bythe District showed that phasing out residential foodgrinders would save $71 million. Nearly 90% – $62million – represents the cost of installing andmaintaining food grinders in homes. The remaining $9million represents the capital cost of treating the BODand TSS loads generated by their use. The aim of thefood grinding education campaign is to encourageresidents to compost their food waste instead ofdisposing of it in the sewer system.

Trucked Liquid WasteAlong with restricting wastes that directly enter theregion’s sewers, the Source Control Program monitorsliquid wastes that are trucked to GVS&DD facilities fordisposal and treatment. Trucked liquid waste (TLW)comes from residences not connected to the sanitarysewer system (i.e., houses with septic or holding tanksthat require periodic cleaning) and from somecommercial and industrial operations. These wasteshave high BOD and TSS loads, and are best handled bydirect discharge at wastewater treatment plants.

Currently two of the District’s treatment plants acceptTLW. The Iona plant accepts both domestic and non-domestic TLW, while the West Langley plant acceptsonly domestic TLW. As part of the regional plan fordealing with TLW, the District is looking at ways to

improve current waste-handling facilities and isevaluating several different locations for TLW service.

In 1995, the District implemented a new pricing strategyfor the TLW facilities that completely recovers the costsof handling and treating these wastes. This pricingstrategy is being phased in over several years, with twoprice increases so far. Rates for TLW disposal haverisen dramatically: the non-domestic TLW disposal ratein 1999 is 20 times higher than it was in 1995, and thedomestic disposal rate in 1999 is more than twice the1995 rate.

By 2001, the TLW pricing strategy will be fullycompatible and consistent with the BOD/TSS industrialpricing strategy. Based on the user-pay principle, bothstrategies will send an effective price signal to the usersof the District’s facilities. The assumption is that thenew pricing structure will influence demand for sewerservices. Waste generators will begin to look at ways toreduce the amount of waste for disposal, and privateenterprise will come up with other disposal options.

Priority Contaminants for SourceControl

The regional Sewer Use Bylaw deals with contaminantsby (1) prohibiting disposal of certain types of waste inthe sewer system and (2) restricting contaminant levelsin some waste types to maximum allowedconcentrations.

Prohibited wastes include:

• flammable or explosive wastes• corrosive wastes• wastes that give off considerable heat• wastes causing obstruction or interference• odorous wastes• pathogenic wastes• other wastes, as defined by the provincial Special

Waste Regulation

Restricted wastes include:

• metals• acids and bases• suspended solids• food• radioactive material• oil and grease• phenols and chlorophenols• boron• cyanide

11-4


• sulfates and sulfides

The Sewer Use Bylaw gives guidelines for the maximumallowable concentrations of restricted wastes. Theseconcentrations are based on both the individual andcumulative effects of discharges on the collection,worker safety, treatment processes, quality of biosolids,and quality criteria for receiving water. Depending on thecircumstances, the GVRD can relax restrictions orimpose more stringent requirements. The District canalso extend restrictions to contaminants that the bylawdoes not cover; these additional restrictions appear inthe permit issued to the user who is discharging thewaste. For example, permits issued for groundwaterremediation sites stipulate limits for benzene, toluene,ethylene benzene, and xylenes. Limits have also beendeveloped for styrene, formaldehyde, vinyl chloride,polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and polychlorinatedbiphenyls.

The 1995 Wastewater Inventory provides information onall sources of contaminants discharged into theDistrict’s sewer system. More recent wastewatercharacterization programs (Key-Manhole monitoring)refined the qualitative footprint for the residentialdischarges and led to a better understanding of theloading contributions to the District’s sewer system.Table 11-1 shows wastewater contaminants of particularconcern to the Source Control Program and theamounts contributed by each group of sewer systemusers.

Metals

Nutrient-rich biosolids can provide environmentalbenefits in forestry, soil conditioning, land reclamation,agriculture, and other applications – but only if theirquality is extremely high. Most metals accumulate inbiosolids, so controlling sources of metal contaminationin wastewater is critical to biosolid quality.

The District has set extremely stringent target levels formetals in biosolids. The resulting high-quality productwill secure long-term acceptance and marketability forbiosolid products. Lower trace metal levels in biosolidswill also make it possible to apply large quantities to asite before reaching cumulative limits for metals.

Biosolids from wastewater treatment plants(trademarked as Nutrifor) meet or exceed the provincialcriteria for recycling selected organic matter. However,the current levels of copper, mercury, molybdenum,selenium, and zinc in biosolids may limit Nutrifor's usein soil products for the landscaping industry, and reducethe potential for regional recycling of biosolids. To help

ensure the unrestricted use of biosolids, the loadings ofthese metals to the wastewater treatment plants mustbe reduced.

BOD and TSS

Municipal treatment plants remove BOD and TSS beforereleasing wastewater into the receiving environment.However, the GVS&DD’s wastewater treatment plantsare reaching capacity, and provincial and federalregulatory agencies have set higher treatment levels forBOD and TSS. To control costs, the District mustcontrol these contaminants at the source.

Comprehensive BOD/TSS management requires theevaluation of (1) options that reduce demand, and (2)options that augment service. Taken together, thesealternatives provide the basis for efficient capacitymanagement. Issues that require policy directioninclude:

• centralized versus on-site treatment• use of additional pricing strategies as a means of

controlling demand• allocation of treatment capacity between the sewer

users• forecasting demand for sewer service

Understanding and managing industrial use of the sewersystem is critical to capacity management. Surveys ofindustrial discharges have shown that users’ peak dailydemands can be many times higher than the averagedaily demand. For large industrial users, coincidentaldaily peaks can impose unexpectedly large demandson wastewater treatment plants. Over the short term,these enormous demands can degrade treatment plantperformance. Over the long term, they could meancostly capacity upgrades.

Table 11-1: Contaminant Loads in Wastewater by Sector – Parameter (zeroes denote insignificant quantities, blanks denote no data)

Parameter Flow(m3/d)

BOD(kg/d)

TSS(kg/d)

COD(kg/d)

O&G(kg/d)

Ammonia(kg/d)

TP(kg/d)

Phenols(kg/d)

Cyanide(kg/d)

WWTPtotal(1) 1,118,000 178,844 160,427 358,586 41,342 15,562 4,356 42 26

Residential 467,090 91,550 106,497 199,915 24,756 10,276 3,503 7.9 4.2

Industrial 67,070 45,501 19,622 72,419 2,912 1,707 29 7.5 1.6

Commercial 68,059 16,292 9,184 32,843 2,369 1,146 197 4.0 1.0

% Residential 42 51 66 56 60 66 80 19 16

% Industrial 6 25 12 20 7 11 1 18 6

%Commercial 6 9 6 9 6 7 5 10 4

%Unaccounted(2) 46 14 16 15 27 16 14 54 74

C&I Detail # of users

Airport 13 1,262 244 235 505 62 0.14

Analytical Lab 170 2,377 625 228 1,875 5 14 11 0.08 0.04

Automotive 1937 582 61 44 183 19 8 2 0.03 0.02

Bakery 341 328 230 88 341 21

Carpet Cleaner 170

Car wash 58 800 81 150 243 36 17 8 0.02 0.04

Dental Office 1463 3

Funeral Home 61 4 10 16

Hospital 31 3,535 1,078 399 3,128 240 201 17 0.85 0.49

Hotel 293 15,465 2,397 2,010 4,810 448 189 70 0.77

Laundry 101 3,972 274 155 782 83 3 3 0.60 0.03

Medical Lab 117 123 9 11 15 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

Photo finishing 366 33 8 2 23 1 3 2 0.25

Printing 991 7 1 1 2 0 0 0.00 0.01

Restaurant 3486 18,815 7,451 3,688 14,939 960 192 0.56

School 750 19,741 2,981 1,974 4,679 494 513 79 0.99 0.12

U-Brew 27 607 577 152 923 7 7

U-Wine 10 405 266 49 377

Vet Hospital 395

1) WWTP loadings which are highlighted contain less than detection limit concentrations, which were assumed to equal detection limit.

2) Unaccounted for flow is primarily storm water from combined sewers and inflow & infiltration.

3) Where Unaccounted is large for other parameters, the cause in most cases is due to the detection limit assumption in (1) above or/and the contributions from the stormwater.

Table 11-1: Contaminant Loads in Wastewater by Sector – Metals (zeroes denote insignificant quantities, blanks denote no data)

Metals Al(kg/d)

As(kg/d)

B(kg/d)

Cd(kg/d)

Cr(kg/d)

Cu(kg/d)

Fe(kg/d)

Hg(kg/d)

Mn(kg/d)

N(kg/d)

Pb(kg/d)

Zn(kg/d)

WWTPtotal(1) 871 4.0 143 1.2 13.3 188 2082 0.7 87 10.5 15.0 135

Residential 346 0.1 0.20 2.3 159 649 0.2 28 4.2 2.8 70.0

Industrial 32 1.4 7 0.32 4.0 2.6 200 20 1.5 0.9 13.3

Commercial 23 0.0 12 0.04 0.4 10.0 37 0.5 2 0.4 1.0 3.9

% Residential 40 1 17 17 85 31 25 32 40 19 52

% Industrial 4 35 5 27 30 1 10 23 14 6 10

%Commercial 3 0 8 3 3 5 2 75 2 4 6 3

%Unaccounted(2) 54 63 87 53 50 9 57 0 43 42 69 35

C&I DetailAirport 0.0151 0.10 0.16 1.64 0.00 0.08 0.28 0.18 0.06

Analytical Lab 0.5 0.001 0.21 0.01 0.24 0.48 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.07

Automotive 0.3 0.002 0.06 0.01 0.08 1.05 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.06

Bakery

Carpet Cleaner

Car wash 0.8 0.002 0.12 0.0072 0.03 0.16 12.80 0.000 0.05 0.03 0.24 0.26

Dental Office 0.0000 0.00 0.06 0.450 0.00 0.00 0.03

Funeral Home

Hospital 9.8 9.40 0.0035 0.02 0.95 2.47 0.000 0.14 0.04 0.15 0.32

Hotel 4.5 0.006 0.77 0.0031 0.11 5.44 9.28 0.015 0.54 0.15 1.08

Laundry 0.001 0.28 0.0040 0.04 0.20 0.79 0.001 0.11 0.04 0.03 0.28

Medical Lab 0.0 0.000 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.000 0.01 0.00 0.01

Photo finishing 0.0 0.000 0.01 0.0000 0.01 0.00 0.34 0.000 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.01

Printing 0.0 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Restaurant 0.002

School 6.9 0.004 0.79 0.0059 0.08 2.68 7.90 0.049 0.77 0.16 1.78

U-Brew

U-Wine

Vet Hospital

1) WWTP loadings which are highlighted contain less than detection limit concentrations, which were assumed to equal detection limit.

2) Unaccounted for flow is primarily storm water from combined sewers and inflow & infiltration.

3) Where Unaccounted is large for other parameters, the cause in most cases is due to the detection limit assumption in (1) above or/and contributions from thestormwater.


11-7

Priority Trace Organics

Although existing legislation governing effluent andbiosolids quality does not set limits for trace organiccompounds, the GVS&DD tries to keep discharge levelsof these compounds as low as possible. The District’sapproach is consistent with that of the federalgovernment – working to halt the release of traceorganic compounds into the environment. Prioritycompounds include dioxins and furans, polychlorinatedbiphenyls, chlorinated organic compounds, volatileorganic compounds, polynuclear aromatichydrocarbons, and phthalate esters.

Demand ManagementThe Source Control Program recently became part ofthe Demand-Side Management Division of theGVS&DD’s Policy and Planning Department, which isresponsible for exploring options to manage current andfuture needs for sewerage facilities and services.

The Source Control Program will now focus primarily ondemand-side management strategies. Demand-management initiatives that are already in effect include:

• TLW pricing strategy• BOD/TSS industrial pricing strategy• groundwater policy (to be revised during 1999)

Efforts currently under development include:

• commercial/institutional pricing strategy• garburator-use strategy

Major initiatives to reduce flows in the collection andtreatment system are also underway. These initiativesare important in the effort of reducing SSOs and CSOs.They include: water conservation programs implementedby industry and commercial/institutional operations, andthe development of a strategy to eliminate stormwaterdischarges into the sanitary system. Under thisstrategy, each permitted industrial operation will berequired to develop and implement a plan for removal ofthe stormwater component from their sanitary sewerdischarge.

The users of the District’s sewer system are beingencouraged to explore alternative technologies toreduce flow, TSS, BOD, and toxic contaminants. This isconsistent with the approach taken by the solid wasteand the drinking water programs that fall under thedirection of the new demand side management group.

LWMP Consultation Issues

Service Principles

Source Control initiatives are developed andimplemented in accordance with established serviceprinciples.

Current service principlesThe current service principles are an importantconsultation issue. To facilitate discussion, alternateoptions are also presented. Feedback will beconsidered in the liquid waste management planningprocess and incorporated in the related reportingdocuments. The service principles adopted by theDistrict in 1996 state that:

1. The District’s function is to provide cost-effectivesewerage services to its municipal members, whorepresent the public, industry and commerce.

2. The allocation of sewerage and drainage services toall sewer users should be done in a fair andequitable manner.

In applying these two principles, the District is usingwell defined capacity design and allocation policies.These have been developed over many years startingwith the Rawn report, which deals with sizing of thecollection system and continuing with the design of theAnnacis and Lulu WWTP upgrades and thedevelopment of the BOD/TSS pricing strategy. Insummary, the current capacity design and allocationpolicies indicate that the District is:

• Designing the collection system based on the Rawnreport design criteria that specify flow rates basedon land use and a set of allowances forinfiltration/inflow and instantaneous peak flows.

• Designing treatment capacity based on historicaluse of the treatment plants. This method assigns aper capita loading based on historical populationnumbers and loadings to the plant. Need for futurecapacity is based on the extrapolation of historicalper capita loadings to population forecasts.

• Providing collection system and wastewatertreatment capacity on a least cost basis thatreflects optimum unit rates and scales of economy.

• Providing service to any user sector withoutimpacting on the ability to provide service to theother sectors, as per projected growth. A businesscase is carried out for any new user that wants

11-8


more than 3% of system capacity. A 3% capacityis equivalent with about one year of normal growthin system flows and loads.

3. The allocation of sewerage and drainage servicecosts should be based on the user pay-principle.

This principle was adopted by the Board in the early90’s and has guided all District’s cost allocationssince. In the area of Source Control, the TLW pricingstrategy, BOD/TSS industrial strategy, and thegroundwater policy have all been developed andimplemented as a result of this principle.Accordingly, users of the sewer system have beenrequired to pay proportionally to the service theyreceive. This principle has been adopted with widesupport from the public and is being followed bymost service agencies across Canada andelsewhere.

4. The level of sewerage and drainage service providedto any user of the District’s system should notresult in problems to the conveyance and treatmentsystem and should not put the District’s facilities innon-compliance with their provincial permits or otherregulatory requirements.

This principle ensures that the District’s system isreliable and efficient while meeting or exceeding

environmental responsibilities. This goes to the core ofthe District’s role as an environmental steward.

Alternative Service PrinciplesTo facilitate discussion of the current service principles,two additional sets of principles are presented. Thedifference between the sets is reflected by modificationsto principles 1 and 2. Principles 3 and 4 are keptunchanged in all sets.

As a result of the discussion of the service principles,individual issues may be singled out for more in-depthanalysis and consultation. Such issues are:

• Allocation of conveyance and treatment capacity tothe residential, commercial/institutional andindustrial users (TSS limit review)

• Centralized versus on-site treatment

• User-pay principle and use of fees as a demand-side management strategy

• Basis for forecasting demand for service

• Targets for demand reduction.


11-9

Table 11.2: Alternative Service Principles

Principles Current Option 1 Alternative Option 2 Alternative Option 3

Cost effectiveness Expansion of the systemand delivery of service toany system user is donecost-effectively, based onthe Livable RegionStrategic Plan.

Expansion of the system is doneon an ad-hoc basis and service isdelivered as demanded,regardless of the immediate andfuture cost implications.

Expansion of the system isslowed down by demand sidemanagement strategies:alternatives to usingsewerage services areevaluated for costeffectiveness; and pricingsignals are augmented tocontrol peak demands thatlead to costly expansionsand upgrades.

Capacity allocation User sectors (Residential,Commercial/Institutionaland Industrial) share theplant capacity based onhistorical usage. Allocationof capacity to new users isdone within each sector’sshare of capacity.

User sectors( Residential,Commercial/Institutional andIndustrial) share the plantcapacity on a first- come-first-served basis. When capacityruns out, more capacity is built.

User sectors (Residential,Commercial/Institutional andIndustrial) are all given targetsto reduce their share ofcapacity. The saved capacityis used to accommodatemore years of growth withoutcostly expansions.

Cost of ServiceAllocation

Service based on user-payprinciple. More you use,more you pay.

Service based on user-payprinciple. More you use, moreyou pay.

Service based on user-payprinciple. More you use, moreyou pay.

System Reliabilityand EnvironmentalPerformance

Level of service provided toany user does not impactnegatively on systemreliability or environmentalperformance.

Level of service provided to anyuser does not impact negativelyon system reliability orenvironmental performance.

Level of service provided toany user does not impactnegatively on systemreliability or environmentalperformance.


12-1

During the wastewater treatment process, the GreaterVancouver Regional District’s five treatment plantsremove three types of solid material: grit, screenings,and sludge (organic solids). The GVRD currentlydisposes of grit and screenings at solid waste facilitieswithin and outside of British Columbia. Specialprocessing turns sludge into biosolids, treated organicmatter that has many beneficial environmental uses.Most of the biosolids produced by the District serve assoil conditioners and fertilizers for a variety of projects inthe province.

The 1989 Stage 1 Liquid Waste Management Planfound that the GVRD’s management practices forsewage sludge were neither sustainable norenvironmentally sound. In March 1991, the GVRD Boardendorsed a “regional sludge management strategybased on the principle of recycling.” This strategy, thebasis for the current GVRD Residuals ManagementProgram, is in line with a BC government sustainabilitygoal – recycling 85% of the province’s biosolids. Otheractions that the GVRD has taken since the Stage 1LWMP report include:

• halting ocean discharges of sludge from the LionsGate wastewater treatment plant

• removing lagoons of organic solids and stockpiles ofland-stored biosolids from the Annacis Island plant

• ceasing incineration of sludge at the Lulu Islandplant

Grit and ScreeningsGrit consists of small, dense, coarse-textured particles,such as sand, coffee grounds, rice, and corn. Barscreenings are coarse materials – paper, plastic, rags,rocks, diapers, and wood – caught by 13-mm barscreens at the beginning of the wastewater treatmentprocess. Scum screenings consist of floating materialthat the bar screens do not remove, including cigarettefilters, feathers, plastics, and fat and grease. Sludgescreenings, which are removed from sludge by a screwpress, include hair and paper fibres.

At present, the GVRD deals with grit and screenings bydisposing of them at solid waste facilities within andoutside of British Columbia. The District’s Nuisance

Waste Allocation Plan is working to reduce the disposalcosts for these wastes: the goal is to dispose of themthrough the GVRD solid waste system at the regionaltipping cost of $65/tonne.

BiosolidsBackground

Biosolids (biologically processed wastewater solids)begin with sewage sludge. The GVRD’s secondarytreatment plants (Annacis Island, Lulu Island, andNorthwest Langley) produce two types of sludge:

• settled organic solids from primary treatment• biomass from secondary treatment

The GVRD’s primary treatment plants (Iona Island andLions Gate) produce only the first type of sludge.

To create biosolids, GVRD treatment plants combineone or both sludge types in heated, enclosed digestiontanks, where bacteria convert around 60% of the organicsolids to a mixture of two-thirds methane gas and one-third carbon dioxide. Then the treatment plants removewater from the remaining organic matter to obtain thefinished product. This processing reduces odours anddestroys or renders ineffective disease-causing micro-organisms.

The GVRD produces two types of biosolids. The maindifference between them is the level of pathogenreduction achieved through the wastewater treatmentprocess. The first type of biosolids, which arepasteurized, have fecal coliform counts of less than1,000 most probable number (MPN) per gram of totalsolids on a dry-weight basis, or Salmonella counts ofless than 3 MPN per 4 grams of total solids on a dry-weight basis.

The second type of biosolids (unpasteurized) must havefecal coliform counts of less than 2,000,000 MPN pergram of total solids on a dry-weight basis to berecyclable.

Part 12Residuals Management

12-2


The GVRD produces pasteurized biosolids at theAnnacis Island and Lions Gate treatment plants, and

Table 12-1: Projected Biosolids Production at GVRD Wastewater Treatment Plants

Year AnnacisIsland

Lulu Island Iona Island(primary)

Lions Gate(primary)

NorthwestLangley

Total

1999 45,000 8,000 22,000 2,900 1,000 78,900

2010 66,200 9,200 25,300 3,600 2,000 106,300

2020 75,000 9,900 29,200 4,300 2,100 121,000

unpasteurized biosolids at the Iona Island, Lulu Island,and Northwest Langley treatment plants.Table 12-1shows the estimated current and projected biosolidsproduction at these plants from now through 2020,based on projected TSS loadings.

The Residuals Management Program controls biosolidsquality through regular laboratory monitoring andthrough the Source Control Program of the GreaterVancouver Sewerage and Drainage District. For moreinformation, see “Part 11 – Source Control.”

Beneficial Uses of Biosolids

The Residuals Management Program currently focuseson recycling and marketing (under the trademarkNutrifor) the biosolids currently produced by GVRDtreatment plants each year. Since the program began in1989, it has cost-effectively recycled more than 550,000tonnes of Nutrifor in environmentally sound ways.Projects in the GVRD account for more than half of thisvolume, with the remainder going to projects in BC’ssouthwestern interior. Current uses include:

• agriculture (rangeland improvement)• mine reclamation• rehabilitation of landfills, gravel pits, and other

disturbed sites• silviculture enhancement

The Residuals Management Program is exploring theseand other markets. Nutrifor applications are carefullydesigned and consider land use, plant nutritionalrequirements, and any environmental concerns.

Compared with disposal options and North Americanrecycling programs for other types of waste, biosolidsrecycling programs are cost-effective. The regionaltipping fee for solid waste is $65 per tonne. In 1998, theaverage recycling cost for GVRD biosolids was $41 pertonne for trucking, spreading, and sampling. Because

the annual biosolids production is increasing, unitrecycling costs will continue to decrease.

Biosolids-Based Soil ProductsCurrently, the Residuals Management Program’semphasis is on increasing the use of biosolids in theGVRD through the development of soil products, suchas landscape and horticultural growth media, driedproducts, and compost. All products will meet orexceed the proposed criteria in the draft provincialregulations for recycling selected organic matter.

The GVRD has developed a biosolids-based growingmedium called Nutrifor Soil for use in landscaping andturf projects in the region. As with other top soils,Nutrifor Soil consists primarily of sand supplementedwith an organic amendment. Projects that use NutriforSoil will not require the permits, approvals, or volumerestrictions currently mandated by the WasteManagement Act if they adhere to the following criteriafor concentrations of metals:

Metal Concentration in BiosolidsGrowing Medium (mg/kg)

Arsenic 13

Cadmium 1.5

Chromium 210

Cobalt 34

Copper 150

Lead 150

Mercury 0.8

Molybdenum 5

Nickel 62

Selenium 2


12-3

Zinc 150

Sampling and analytical protocols for biosolids used toproduce growing media must meet these requirements:

• All required analyses must be carried out atsampling intervals of at least every 1,000 tonnes ofdry weight of biosolids used to produce the growingmedia.

• Sampling protocols and analyses will follow theprocedures described in British ColumbiaEnvironmental Laboratory Manual for the Analysisof Waters, Wastewaters, Sediments and BiologicalMaterials (1994 or most current edition) publishedby the BC Ministry of Environment, Lands andParks (MELP), or suitable alternate proceduresauthorized by the director.

These record-keeping requirements apply to productionof biosolids-based growing media:

• Temperatures and retention times for biosolids usedto develop growing media will be monitored andrecorded every working day. The GVRD will keepthese records for at least 36 months and will makethem available for inspection by an MELP officer onrequest.

• The GVRD will keep results of Nutrifor Soil qualityanalyses for at least 36 months after production andwill make these records available for inspection byan MELP officer on request.

Biosolids-based growing media must be blended onlywith pasteurized biosolids that have undergone therequired treatment of pathogenic organisms beforepublic distribution. They must also meet the followingstandards:

• total nitrogen (TKN) of less than 0.6% by weight• carbon/nitrogen ratio greater than 15:1• organic matter content <= 15% dry weight

Issues and OptionsRecycling vs. Disposal

The GVRD’s current policy is to recycle biosolids byapplying them to land. However, the District will evaluatecost-competitive disposal options on a case-by-casebasis.

In North America, disposal options for organic solids,including non-recycled biosolids, typically includelandfilling or use with daily cover at landfills, monofills(dedicated landfills for sludge and biosolids), oceandumping, and incineration. None of these options ispractical; some are not even permitted. A moreworkable option for disposing of solids, such as thestockpiled biosolids at the Iona Island wastewatertreatment plant, might be slurry fracture injection, ordeep-well disposal (see “Iona Island Treatment PlantStockpiles”).

Public Support for Local Use of Biosolids

The goal of the Residuals Management Program is tosteadily increase the use of Nutrifor in GreaterVancouver. Desirable outcomes include:

• maximizing the benefits of using biosolids in theGVRD

• keeping program expenditures within the region• increasing use of biosolids by a variety of people in

the GVRD

Achieving these goals will require public and municipalsupport. Some investment for additional processing willalso be necessary for the District to expand into thecommercial and public market sectors with, forexample, the landscaping soil and fertilizer productsthat the Residuals Management Program is developing.

To encourage local recycling of biosolids, the programis proposing development of a public education andinformation program. This program will include acommunications strategy, developed in consultationwith the GVRD Communications and EducationDepartment, to address the perceived risks associatedwith biosolids recycling.

Iona Island Treatment Plant Stockpiles

Since the Iona Island wastewater treatment plantopened, its biosolids have been stored on site. Fourlarge lagoons adjacent to the plant hold biosolids fromthe digesters for several years. Every summer, part of alagoon is cleaned out and the biosolids are dried onland.

Because the Iona Island plant is running out of space forthese activities, the GVRD is investigating the followingoptions for clearing the biosolids stockpiles:

• using the biosolids in landfill cover projects

12-4


• incorporating them into GVRD biosolids projectsthat require large volumes

• disposing of them in deep wells (slurry fractureinjection)

The Iona Island biosolids contain more debris thanthose from treatment plants with sludge-screeningfacilities. Thus, it might cost less to incorporate theminto GVRD projects where some debris is not aproblem, or to use emerging technologies such asdeep-well disposal to deal with them. The currentpractices of storing the biosolids in lagoons and dryingthem in stockpiles remain cost-effective, however, andwill continue.

Key Discussion Points for theLWMP Process

Endorsement of biosolids recycling. The ResidualsManagement Program is seeking support for continuingto recycle biosolids on land in British Columbia insteadof disposing of them at higher cost.

Local recycling of biosolids. The ResidualsManagement Program is seeking support for recyclingbiosolids within the boundaries of the GVRD. This willallow the region to realize the benefits of Nutrifor as anorganic fertilizer and soil amendment, and will keepprogram expenditures in the GVRD.

Grit and screenings disposal. The ResidualsManagement Program continues to dispose of grit andscreenings at solid waste facilities. However, some ofthese facilities lie outside the GVRD solid wastesystem, so the program is seeking support fordisposing of these materials at the Cache Creek landfill,the Vancouver landfill, and the Burnaby refuseincineration plant.

Land-stored biosolids at Iona Island. The ResidualsManagement Program is trying to determine whetherthe GVRD should consider deep-well disposal as amethod for dealing with the large volumes of biosolidsstockpiled at the Iona Island wastewater treatmentplant.


13-1

In a natural environment, rainfall is typically taken up byvegetation and soil, and a portion eventually flows intothe nearest stream, or waterbody. As areas develop,much of the land is covered by impervious surfacesincluding buildings and roads, therefore the rain is nolonger taken up by the vegetation or soil. To protect lifeand property and to prevent flooding, drainage ways,ditches, and storm sewers are built to carry thisrainwater, also called stormwater or urban runoff, to thenearest body of water.

Stormwater Management Problemsand Issues

Urban facilities (roads, parking lots, housing,stormwater drainage systems) and human activities(vehicle use, lawn care) change the characteristics –quantity and quality – of stormwater runoff. Thesechanges can impact the receiving environment bycausing such problems as flooding and erosion, habitatdamage, reductions in the diversity and abundance ofaquatic species, elevated contaminant concentrations,and degraded water or sediment quality.

As awareness of the environment effects of stormwaterincreases, the public and governments are focusingmore of their attention on how to better mangestormwater runoff. This is a challenging task asmunicipalities, the public, regulatory agencies,landowners, developers, and other stakeholdersfrequently disagree about stormwater issues, including:

• the nature and magnitude of the environmentalimpact of stormwater discharges

• regulatory requirements for protecting fish and otheraquatic species, fish habitat, and water quality

• the roles and responsibilities that municipalities andother parties should assume for stormwatermanagement and environmental protection

• the value of some environmental resources andhabitat areas

• realistic environmental objectives in a particularwatershed or area, given current and expectedfuture conditions

• how to integrate recreation and aesthetic valueswith habitat protection needs

• appropriate stormwater management controls andtheir effectiveness

Contributing to these disagreements are cutbacks inresources by all levels of government, as well aschanges and uncertainties in administrative processes.

Existing and Proposed RegulatoryRequirements on Stormwater Management

At present, senior government legislation does notexplicitly regulate stormwater discharges. However, thefederal Fisheries Act, and the provincial, Water Act,Waste Management Act and the new Fish ProtectionAct have a major influence on stormwater management,because most of the stormwater in the GreaterVancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD)area is eventually discharged to fish-bearing streams orwaterbodies.

Under the Fisheries Act, the Department of Fisheriesand Oceans (DFO) can review any project, work, orundertaking that could result in “harmful alteration,disruption or destruction” of fish habitat or “deposit of adeleterious substance” in fish-bearing waters. Inreviewing projects and providing advice, DFO is guidedby the policy objective of “net gain” and a workingprinciple of “no net loss” in the productive capacity offish habitats. Historically, regulatory agencies focusedon land development in newly developing areas and onprotecting vegetated riparian (streamside) leave strips.More recently, the regulatory agencies have been moreinvolved in higher level municipal planning processes toensure that adequate protection of environmentalresources is included at the onset of planning fordevelopment and/or redevelopment. For example, theagencies have refused approvals for new stormwateroutfalls until appropriate and effective stormwatermanagement plans are in place to mitigate any potentialenvironmental impact.

Regulations pursuant to the provincial Fish ProtectionAct that are currently under development could have asignificant influence on municipal stormwatermanagement. Under these regulations, the Province willhave the power to designate sensitive streams and tocall for the development and implementation of recovery

Part 13Stormwater

13-2

Liquid Waste Management Plan Stage 2 Discussion Paper

plans. The Province will also be able to enact manyadditional regulations including those that will requirethe development and implementation of watermanagement plans, and that protect in-channel fishhabitat, as well as riparian areas that contribute to fishhabitat. Moreover, the Province recently consideredregulations for stormwater discharges under the WasteManagement Act. These proposed regulations havecreated uncertainty about environmental standards andraised concerns about the potential transfer of increasedresponsibility to local governments.

Efforts to Improve StormwaterManagement

The LWMP: A Planning Approach to ImprovedStormwater Management

The municipalities and the GVRD have consistentlyasked that senior governments use the Liquid WasteManagement Plan (LWMP) process as the vehicle forbroader consultation and integration of stormwatermanagement, fish and environmental protection, andother government initiatives. The key reasons why thelocal governments chose the LWMP process to resolvethese issues are:

• Certainty. The regulatory agencies have agreedthat they will respect commitments approved in theLWMP when they implement any increases inregulatory standards or changes to seniorgovernment programs.

• Program flexibility. The LWMP process allowsmunicipalities to take a common approach tostormwater management while giving them theflexibility to tailor initiatives to local priorities.

In the range of available planning tools, the LWMP isuniquely suited to formalizing principles, processes,policies, practices, and management systems betweengovernments.

Contributions of the Stormwater ManagementTask Group

A Stormwater Management Task Group (SWTG),composed of municipal, GVS&DD, senior government,and independent members, has met monthly since May1997 to provide input into the development of thestormwater component of the Stage 2 LWMP. Inconducting its work, the SWTG has tried to contributeto the successful completion of the LWMP while

simultaneously generating products of immediate valueto municipalities.

Significant contributions of the SWTG include:

• hosting a workshop for about 50 LWMP participantsin June 1997 to define the expectations for aregional stormwater management plan. Thisworkshop helped determine regulatory andmunicipal expectations for the LWMP process. Italso introduced participants to the latest researchon stormwater effects and ways to reduce them.

• agreeing on a general approach to Stage 2stormwater planning through discussions in fall1997. The contents of the stormwater plan wereseen as region wide standards, guidelines, policies,and agreements with senior governments to worktogether on resolving joint issues.

• documenting stormwater management practicesand expenditures by municipalities in the GVS&DDarea.

• preparing a report called Options for MunicipalStormwater Management Governance – Bylaws,Permits and Other Regulations, which outlines thecosts and benefits of various regulatory tools thatmunicipalities can use to improve stormwatermanagement.

• developing a regional geographic informationsystem (GIS) program to help present informationon current and future stormwater conditions.

• contributing to the development of a proposedwatershed classification system for stormwatermanagement in the GVS&DD area.

• developing a set of guiding principles for stormwatermanagement, which senior LWMP committeesapproved in December 1998. Table 13-1 lists theguiding principles for developing a plan to manageurban stormwater runoff within the context of theStage 2 LWMP for the GVS&DD area.

The SWTG is in the process of developing a BestManagement Practice Guide for StormwaterManagement, which identifies a range of stormwatermanagement technologies and practices best suited tolocal conditions. An appendix to this guide is aseparately bound report entitled Construction SiteErosion and Sediment Control Guide for StormwaterManagement.


13-3

Table 13-1: Guiding Principles for Stormwater Management

1. We will strive to meet the regional objectives for liquid waste management.

2. We will be consistent with the objectives of the Livable Region Strategic Plan.

3. We will develop, evaluate, and prioritize management efforts in the context of existing conditions andmandates, scientific understanding, and future opportunities.

4. We will strive to plan on the watershed scale.

5. We need to recognize the limitations of current stormwater management technology.

6. The stormwater component of the Stage 2 LWMP should be strategic and flexible, as the science andregulations relating to stormwater are evolving quickly.

7. Governments must balance environmental protection with other community objectives.

Contributions to Urban Watershed Planning bythe Brunette Basin Task Group

The Brunette Basin Task Group, composed ofmunicipal, GVS&DD, senior government, andindependent members, has met monthly since May1997 as a pilot project in multi-stakeholder, consensus-based urban watershed management. The group hascontributed by undertaking projects that support theBrunette Watershed Plan and by establishing aframework for urban watershed planning.

Projects that support the planning process include:

• compiling readily available GIS data and completinga comprehensive inventory and global positioningsystem mapping project for the streams of theBrunette watershed.

• performing stream classification for GVRDoperations and maintenance works in Brunettewatershed streams.

• developing a preliminary habitat rating system forthe watershed’s major reaches and catchments (inprogress).

• contributing to the development of an integratedstormwater management strategy for the StoneyCreek subwatershed.

Projects that contribute to the planning frameworkinclude:

• defining the goals, issues, objectives, and processto be followed in developing the watershed plan.

• conducting four public workshops, preparing publicinformation materials, giving numerouspresentations at educational seminars and publicevents, and consulting with watershed stakeholders(in progress).

• identifying options for specific improvement projectsand for broader policy and bylaw options.

• preparing a list of consolidated and strategicoptions for the watershed and proposing an optionevaluation framework (in progress).

Future Brunette Basin Task Group initiatives includeproposing monitoring indicators for evaluating progresstoward objectives and developing an action plan toidentify implementation and monitoring responsibilitiesand roles.

Impact of Urban StormwaterRunoff

The principal effects of urban stormwater on aquaticresources include changes in stormwater runoff flowsand increases in contaminant loading. Such changescan impact both terrestrial and aquatic wildlife habitats ifstormwater is not properly managed. For example,changes to the natural drainage system, including fishbearing watercourses, are often required to handle theincreases in stormwater runoff volumes and sedimentloads that typically result from urban development.

Sources of Stormwater Effects

Changes in Stormwater Runoff Volumes and StreamFlows

Urban development results in the removal of vegetativecover and the creation of impervious surfaces, such aspaved areas, roofs, and compacted soil. Consequently,evapo-transpiration is reduced, shallow and deepinfiltration decreases, and the amount of surface runoffrises. These increases can be very substantial,

13-4


producing longer, more intense and more frequentflooding events.

Stormwater runoff volumes to major receiving bodies for1996 and preliminary forecast volumes for 2036 havebeen estimated. These estimates show a 26% increasein the projected total volume of urban stormwater runoffwithin the GVS&DD area between 1996 and 2036, ifmitigation measures are not improved.

Increased Contaminant Loading in StormwaterRunoff

As urban and agricultural areas develop, the loading ofcontaminants in stormwater runoff generally increases.Contaminant loads rise with increased levels of urbanland use (such as residential, industrial, commercial,roads), increased levels of imperviousness, andincreased vehicle use. Sources of stormwatercontamination include atmospheric deposition; spills,accidents, and illegal dumping of waste; and organicmaterial and animal wastes. A wide variety of humanactivities and land uses also contribute, includingapplication of fertilizers and pesticides to rights-of-way,golf courses, parks, and residential lawns; vehicle wearand tear, exhaust, and leakage during operation andparking; poor industrial and commercial operations; andpoor land clearing and construction.

Estimates of Current and Future StormwaterEffects

The impervious area in a catchment or watershedprovides an approximate and relative measure of thepotential impact of stormwater discharges on biologicalcommunities. Total impervious area is a measure of thetotal area where water does not infiltrate into the ground:roads, rooftops, sidewalks, patios, and highlycompacted soil.

Types of Waterbodies and Typical Effects

On the basis of sensitivity to the typical hydrologicimpacts of stormwater runoff, the waterbodies in theGVS&DD can be divided into two categories: largewaterbodies and small streams.

The large waterbodies include the Fraser and PittRivers, as well as marine waters such as BoundaryBay, Burrard Inlet, and Indian Arm. Because of the sizeof these waterbodies, their hydrologic patterns andcharacteristics remain relatively unaffected by any of thehydrologic changes that might occur as a result ofurbanization in the GVS&DD area. The potential impact

of stormwater discharges in large waterbodies is mainlyon water and sediment quality through the discharge ofsediments and pollutants.

In small streams, hydrologic changes related todevelopment and stormwater discharges can causeimmediate and severe negative effects during the earlystages of urbanization. Unless action is taken tominimize these effects, they can profoundly change in-stream flows, riparian–stream channel interactions, andin-stream habitat, leading to reduced ability of streamsto support healthy fish populations. Several studies havesuggested a threshold of 10% total imperviousness if nomitigating measures are implemented. The quality ofwater and sediment becomes an additional concern athigher levels of imperviousness, although localizedwater quality problems – for example, contamination bypesticides from residential areas, sediment fromdevelopment sites, or agricultural runoff – can occur atlow levels of overall watershed development.

Current and Future Levels of Imperviousness

Figure 13-1 shows levels of imperviousness during the1995-96 period for selected watersheds and catchmentsin the GVS&DD area. These percentage of totalimpervious area (%TIA) data indicate the relativepotential for stormwater to impact biologicalcommunities if mitigating actions are not taken. Basedon a population growth model, future populationdensities have been estimated and used to forecastincreases in total impervious area. Figure 13-2 showsthe forecasted levels of imperviousness for the year2036, assuming that historic (pre-1996) levels ofstormwater management and historic developmentpractices and standards continue. Improvements instormwater management or development practices andstandards would reduce the relative effects of futurestormwater discharges, but Figure 13-2 does notaccount for such improvements.

The potential effects of stormwater are site specific anddepend on the stormwater management programs ineach area. These effects also depend on a number ofnatural and anthropogenic factors, such as size andtype of receiving waterbody, local climatic conditions,topography, surficial materials and soils, vegetation,water diversion and storage, transportation, and landuse. The effects of stormwater discharges to largewaterbodies are relatively minor compared with theeffects of stormwater discharges to small-streamsystems. Information on these factors must be used toput the watershed and catchment scale imperviousnessinformation into perspective.


13-5

Current Status of Small Streams

A recent DFO study assessed streams according toimpact criteria, such as water quality, riparianvegetation removal, channelization/dyking, imperviousarea, water diversion, urbanization, and other factors.The report estimated that about 105 streams have beenlost (they no longer exist as surface waterways) in theurbanized GVS&DD area, mostly in Vancouver,Burnaby, Richmond, and New Westminster. Of theremaining 207 open streams in the area, none isclassified as wild, 5% are classified as threatened, and95% as endangered. Wild streams are only foundoutside the urbanized GVS&DD area, in parks orprotected areas. The category “wild” means the streammet no impact criteria, “threatened” means the streammet one impact criterion, and “endangered” means thestream met more than one impact criterion.

Current and Future Watershed Health

A proposed watershed classification system has beendeveloped to assist GVS&DD municipalities inassessing watersheds for the purpose of developingappropriate stormwater management approaches. Underthe proposed classification system, total imperviousarea and riparian forest integrity are the primaryindicators of watershed health. These indicators havebeen integrated graphically to create a classificationsystem with four classes: Excellent, Good, Fair, andPoor. The classes provide an approximate and relativeassessment of watershed health based on scientificinformation about the effects of stormwater dischargesto small-stream ecosystems.

Figure 13-3 provides a preliminary unconfirmed estimateof the watershed health assessment rating for selectedwatersheds in the GVS&DD area during the 1995-96period. The health of a watershed depends on the

stormwater management programs in the area, as wellas local climatic conditions, topography, surficialmaterials and soils, vegetation, water diversion andstorage, transportation, and land use. Information onthese other factors must be used to put the watershedhealth rating into perspective. In particular, the ratingsdo not reflect the social, economic, or communityvalues of the watershed. (Note: These classificationsare in the process of being revised, as actual values forriparian forest integrity have been calculated for onlyabout 20% of the GVS&DD area watersheds – the testwatersheds. For watersheds where riparian forestintegrity is still being measured, values were estimatedby correlation with 1996 %TIA data.)

Based on forecasted total imperviousness values, apreliminary forecast of watershed health for the year2036 appears in Figure 13-4. These forecasts assume ahistoric (pre-1996) approach to stormwatermanagement, historic development practices andstandards, and maintenance of watershed riparian forestintegrity at 1996 levels. Improvements in stormwatermanagement or development practices and standardswould enhance the relative health of watersheds, but theforecasts have not accounted for such improvements.Table 13-2 provides a preliminary estimate of thepercentage of the total area of watersheds in theGVS&DD in each watershed class for 1995-96 and2036.

Watersheds in the Excellent class are primarily water-supply or hydroelectric-supply watersheds, or arelocated in remote areas. Over the period from 1995 to2036, a substantial increase in the percentage of Poorwatersheds is expected, as is a decrease in thepercentage of Excellent and Good watersheds, unlesschanges to historic (pre-1996) approaches tostormwater management or development practices andstandards are made.

Table 13-2: Preliminary Estimate of Watershed Classes as a Percentage of Total Classified Watershed Area inthe GVS&DD

Watershed Class 1995-96 State Preliminary Forecast State in 2036

Excellent 44% 37%

Good 26% 19%

Fair 21% 20%

Poor 9% 24%

13-6


Stormwater Practices and ProgramAreas for Improvement

Survey of Existing Practices and Expenditures

A survey was conducted to quantify the level ofmunicipal stormwater management practices andexpenditures among the 18 municipalities in theGVS&DD as well as the GVRD. Some older areas ofVancouver, Burnaby, and New Westminster are servedby combined sewer systems, drainage systems thatcombine stormwater runoff with sanitary sewers. Onlythe areas of the GVS&DD served by separatedstormwater systems were considered in compiling thesurvey information.

Although many individuals and organizations conductstormwater programs, the survey focused on municipalprograms. Programs and expenditures by federal andprovincial governments, First Nations, industry,corporations, developers, farmers, and private individualswere not included.

The separated municipal stormwater system servesapproximately 1.3 million people or 72% of the totalGVS&DD area population. The stormwater drainagesystem includes about 5,700 km of constructeddrainage ways (pipes, ditches) and serves an area of165,000 ha.

In 1996, local government expenditures on stormwatermanagement totaled approximately $33 million – anaverage of $25 per capita, based on the stormwaterpopulation served by separated stormwater systems. Ofthis $25 per capita, about $5.50 per capita was directedtoward stormwater engineering and planning services,including master drainage planning, environmentalimpact studies, stormwater project management,interagency liaison, and bylaw and policy development.The $5.50 total also included education and training andenvironmental monitoring programs. The remaining$19.50 was directed toward drainage and flood controlinitiatives, such as drainage system operations andmaintenance, street and catch basin cleaning,identification of illicit connections, emergency spillresponse, and dyke repair programs..

The survey information has been used to provide anoverview of current stormwater programs and practicesin the GVS&DD area. Municipalities have also used thisinformation to assess the strengths and weaknesses oftheir programs compared to other municipalities in theregion.

Program Areas Not Considered in the Stage 2LWMP

The following program areas, which are sometimesdescribed as stormwater management, were notconsidered for inclusion in the Stage 2 LWMPsubmission:

• protection of riparian areas. Encroachment of landdevelopment into the streamside buffer zone is notan effect of stormwater runoff, but of urbanization.The provincial Fish Protection Act’s streamsidedirectives, which are currently under development,address this issue.

• major flood-protection programs. Works intended toprotect areas against extreme tides or naturalFraser River floods were not considered, asincreased urban stormwater flows do not drive theseprograms.

• drainage or stormwater management practicesconducted by farmers on agricultural lands. A jointindustry/senior government process is addressingthese practices.

Program Areas Considered for ImprovingStormwater Management

Dealing with the entire range of stormwater problemsand issues is beyond the scope of the Stage 2 LWMPreport. Therefore, this report focuses on aspects ofstormwater management over which the municipalities,or the GVS&DD, have jurisdiction or significantinfluence.

During the LWMP process, a number of ways toimprove stormwater management were examined. Forexample, best management practices (BMPs) forstormwater in the general categories of policy andplanning (non-structural) and operations andmaintenance (structural) were evaluated. The followingfactors were used to select the program areas to beconsidered in additional detail for potential inclusion inthe stormwater option packages:

• initiatives previously discussed and/or worked on bythe SWTG

• minimum measures included in municipalstormwater plans in the United States

• the guiding principles for stormwater management(see Table 13-1)

• information on the environmental effects ofstormwater discharges


13-7

• communications with regulatory agenciesrequesting programs in education, source andsediment control bylaws and enforcement, illicitdischarge elimination, and watershed planning

Policy and planning (non-structural) program areas thatwere examined in additional detail for potential inclusionin the stormwater option packages included:

• policy statements for the principles and planningprocess, new and redeveloped systems, municipalinfrastructure, etc.

• education and training• sediment control bylaws and enforcement• source control bylaws and enforcement• continuation of an interagency Stormwater

Management Liaison Group• urban watershed planning and management• environmental performance monitoring

Operations and maintenance (structural) areasexamined in additional detail included:

• identifying and eliminating illicit connections• street cleaning• catch-basin cleaning

Experience with Urban Watershed Planning andManagement in the Brunette Basin

Urban watershed management is believed to be themost effective approach for urban stormwater planningand management. In working to develop a watershedmanagement plan for the Brunette River system, theBrunette Basin Task Group has experienced thebenefits and challenges of taking a consensus-buildingapproach toward urban watershed planning.

There are differing expectations about what can beachieved in urbanized watersheds. For example, theimpervious area of the Still Creek subwatershed in theBrunette watershed is about 50%, its ecological healthis considered poor, and it has reduced capability tosustain healthy fish populations. However, the BrunetteBasin Task Group has recognized that there are validjustifications for protecting and enhancing urbanstreams beyond regulatory requirements and the aim ofsupporting healthy fish populations. These justificationsinclude aesthetic, educational, and recreational value,as well as value to other wildlife. Another justification forwatershed planning is the important goal of addressingflooding, erosion, and water-quality issues (propertydamage, safety, and community health objectives).

The watershed planning process does not presume thatsubstantial additional resources will be allocated toimproving the condition of streams in the watershed.Rather, it facilitates agreement on a common frameworkto address watershed issues.

Stormwater Management OptionPackages

Municipalities have many options for reducing theimpact of stormwater discharges, as well as the mostimmediate connection to both the local environment andthe local community. Municipalities are also in the bestposition to integrate land use and BMP options. Table13-3 presents two options for improved municipalstormwater management, in areas serviced by separatestormwater systems. Option B involves making acommitment to integrated stormwater planning andwould increase committed short term planning costs.Option B would achieve greater environmental benefits,stakeholder acceptance, and regulatory certainty andshould reduce overall stormwater management costscompared to Option A.

Each municipality in the GVS&DD area is being askedto review these two options and consider what would bean appropriate municipal contribution to betterenvironmental protection. Municipalities want a commonapproach to stormwater management. The idealoutcome of the Stage 2 LWMP process would be for allmunicipalities to agree on the same option.

13-8


Table 13.3: Description of Stormwater Management Option Packages and Estimated Costs

Option Title and Description CommittedAdditional Short-term* Per CapitaCost Relative to1996** Spending

A. Municipalities Continue Existing Regulatory Approach to Stormwater Management

Municipalities would continue with the existing regulatory approach to stormwater and watershedmanagement planning and implementation, but not make any formal LWMP commitments toimprove stormwater management. Development of the LWMP has improved information onstormwater problems and solutions which will lead to better stormwater management andenvironmental protection then done in the past (1996).

Cost estimates for this option assume that municipalities can continue to plan and implementstormwater programs using resource levels similar to those being used in 1996. However,municipalities may require additional resources beyond 1996 levels to satisfy increasing publicand regulatory expectations for greater environmental protection. It is not possible to estimate thelikely cost implications of evolving regulatory standards and public expectations at this time.

$0.00

(costs of meetingincreasing publicand regulatoryexpectations notassessed)

B. Municipalities Commit to an Integrated Planning Approach to StormwaterManagement

This option involves municipalities formally committing to a proactive integrated planningapproach to municipal stormwater management. This stormwater management planning processwould integrate watershed, catchment, and master drainage plans into the Official CommunityPlanning process, and addresses relevant community values such as recreation, greenways,safety, transportation, economics, and related issues. The community, senior governmentagencies and other stakeholders will be invited to participate in this planning process intended toproactively address issues on a long term basis. Stormwater management planning would bebased on the stormwater management guiding principles, and build on the improved informationon stormwater problems and solutions developed during the LWMP process.

To assist with the implementation of this option, an interagency liaison group, similar to theexisting stormwater task group, would continue to meet (up to 10 times per year). The provisionscontained within this option are expected to apply for five years after approval of the Stage 2LWMP, at which time they will be reviewed.

About $0.50

(including liaisongroup andwatershedmanagementplanning)

* Estimated annual per capita operating costs for areas serviced by separate stormwater systems (excludes areas serviced bycombined sewer systems) during a five year period following the approval of the LWMP. Costs of implementing the stormwaterinitiatives that are identified under Option A or B will require substantial resources and funding but have not been assessed.

** 1996 level stormwater environmental engineering and planning related spending averaged about $5.50 per capita (about20% of total annual spending) including education and environmental monitoring programs (costs of meeting increasing publicand regulatory expectations not assessed). Cost does not include operations and maintenance or capital and constructioncosts.


14-1

The BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks(MELP) has asked the Greater Vancouver RegionalDistrict to address non-point source pollution in theStage 2 Liquid Waste Management Plan process,specificly:

• pleasure craft sewage• on-site sewage disposal systems• agricultural runoff

Although it is recognized that these non-point sourcedischarges are a provincial and federal responsibilityand fall outside the jurisdiction of the GVRD and itsmunicipalities, it is important that all three levels ofgovernment (federal, provincial, and municipal) co-ordinate their efforts to deal with non-point sourcepollution.

Pleasure Craft SewageUnder the authority of the Canada Shipping Act, thefederal government has enacted the Pleasure CraftSewage Prevention Regulation, which prohibits thedischarge of sewage into designated waterbodies.Currently there are no such waterbodies in the GVRD.In 1998, however, the City of Vancouver identifiedEnglish Bay and False Creek as two waterbodies thatshould be designated as no-discharge zones under theregulation. The GVRD has also nominated Indian Armfor designation (Figure 14-1).

The MELP initially considers nominations forwaterbodies that should be designated as no-dischargezones. If the ministry determines that nominated watersare environmentally sensitive, it forwards the designationrequest to the federal government for furtherconsideration.

A recent survey of municipalities in the GreaterVancouver region identified the following waterbodies ascandidates for designation:

• Burrard Inlet east of Second Narrows• Deboville Slough (Pitt River)• Fraser River• Vancouver Harbour• Mud Bay and Semiahmoo Bay

• Horseshoe Bay, Fisherman’s Cove, Eagle Harbour,and Snug Cove

The LWMP process can confirm these choices andidentify other waterbodies that should be designated asno-discharge zones. Through the plan, it will also bepossible to co-ordinate the following activities:

• identifying specific locations where pleasure craftsewage discharges have been implicated in waterpollution.

• conducting an inventory of marina and boat sewagepump-out facilities in the region.

• determining the proximity of marinas or pump-outfacilities to municipal sewers and assessing theneed to truck liquid waste to treatment plants.

• reviewing municipal bylaws related to marinas andpump-out facilities.

On-site Sewage Disposal SystemsOn-site sewage systems exist mainly in the GVRD’smore rural areas, which usually lie outside the seweragearea boundaries. Connecting to a municipal sewagesystem from such areas is not cost-effective.

On-site sewage disposal typically involves septic tanksand soil absorption systems, but some locationsdemand more advanced package treatment systems.On-site systems also require regular maintenance, andproperty owners must regularly have their septic tankspumped out. The resulting liquid waste is trucked to theDistrict’s wastewater treatment plants for disposal.

The Health Act and its associated Sewage DisposalRegulations control the treatment of sewage onindividual lots. The Sewage Disposal Regulations detailthe design and construction of sewage treatment anddisposal systems in areas where no community sewersystem exists, with an emphasis on septic tanks andsoil absorption systems. The regulations provideguidelines for designing individual systems to safely andreliably dispose of wastewater under a variety of soilconditions. The goal is to prevent situations that could

Part 14Non-point Source Pollution Issues

14-2


lead to the spread of waterborne communicablediseases. The regulations also attempt to prevent nitratecontamination of lakes, streams, and groundwater.

The Ministry of Health is responsible for approving allon-site disposal systems through the local HealthRegions. Several municipalities discourage or do notallow development unless residences can connect tothe municipal sewer system. Often this requirementprecludes lot sizes smaller than 5 or 10 acres. TheHealth Region must approve an on-site sewage disposalsystem before the municipality will issue a buildingpermit for construction of a residence.

Property owners are responsible for the operation andmaintenance of on-site sewage disposal systems.Many on-site systems operate as designed, are wellmaintained, and do not present any pollution concerns.If improper on-site system maintenance does lead tohealth or environmental problems, enforcement can beequally problematic.

The LWMP process offers the opportunity to co-ordinatethe following activities:

• evaluating trends in the number of on-site disposalsystems in the region. On-site systems aredecreasing in many municipalities; nonetheless,density trends should be determined for all GVRDmunicipalities.

• identifying failing systems or areas where pollutionconcerns exist. The density of on-site systemsmight need to be restricted if pollution concerns areidentified, or more advanced treatment systemsmay be required.

• examining means of enforcing proper operation andmaintenance of on-site systems to minimizeproblems.

Agricultural RunoffPollution associated with stormwater runoff fromagricultural land usually involves nutrient, bacterial, andagrochemical loading in the receiving waters. Elevatednitrate levels in groundwater can also become a concernin some areas.

The provincial MELP and the Ministry of Agriculture,Fisheries, and Food have developed regulations andcodes of practice that are designed to reduce pollutionfrom agricultural lands. It is expected that theagricultural community will apply more bestmanagement practices. Also, Environment Canada’sFraser River Action Plan has recently examined issuessuch as nutrient balance in the Lower Mainland.

The Liquid Waste Management Plan should be used tobetter define the issues associated with non-pointsource pollution from agricultural lands.Recommendations are:

• Sufficient water-quality monitoring should beundertaken to establish current conditions andtrends.

• Water-quality problems should be clearly defined sothat all three levels of government can develop a co-ordinated effort.

• The impact on designated water uses and waterquality objectives should be established andconfirmed by specific site studies.

• Loading reduction targets should be established forwatersheds where environmental effects have beenconfirmed.

• Solutions should be sought to achieve reductiontargets, and their affordability should fullyconsidered.

English Bay

Port Moody Arm

Indi

an A

rm

Fraser

Fraser

Straight ofGeorgia

False Creek

Coal Harbour

River NorthArm

Main Arm

River

Frase

r

River Main Stem

BoundaryBay

Electoral Area C

City ofSurrey

Township of Langley

Districtof

Delta


City ofRichmond

City ofCoquitlam

City ofVancouver


City ofBurnaby

District ofPitt Meadows

Anmore


City ofPort Moody

City ofPort CoquitlamElectoral

Area A

City ofNew

Westminster

City of North

Vancouver

Cityof

Langley

Belcarra

City of White Rock

Village of Lion's Bay

5,430,000 N 480,

000

W

540,

000

W

500,

000

W

5,450,000 N

5,470,000 N

520,

000

WDate: Mar 11, 1999 file: p:\personal\dtancon\av3.0projects1999\gvrddisposal.apr prepared by DT

N

EW

S

Proposed Designated Water BodiesUnder

Pleasure Craft Sewage Pollution Prevention Regulations

UTM GridMunicipal BoundaryRequested Designated Area

5 0 5 10 15 Kilometers

Figure 1


15-1

Current Utility ExpendituresThe Greater Vancouver Regional District provides utilityservices to the region in the form of liquid wastemanagement, bulk water supply, and solid wastedisposal. The GVRD also provides other regionalservices such as regional parks, management ofelectoral areas, air quality monitoring, subsidizedhousing and labour relations. The GVRD’s 1999 budgettotals $354 million, of which almost three-quarters isaccounted for by the three utility functions. The 1999budgeted expenditures for the three utilities are in theorder of:

• liquid waste management $ 120 million• bulk water supply $ 74 million• solid waste disposal $ 63 million• Total for utilities $ 257 million

The GVRD does not collect taxes directly from propertyowners for its utility services. Rather the GVRDrecovers its costs directly or indirectly from the membermunicipalities to whom it provides the utility services.Each of the utility functions collects revenues to coverits annual expenditures in a different manner. For liquidwaste management each municipality is levied anannual amount through a cost allocation formula, whichin total provides the revenue to cover its annualexpenditures. Bulk water supply costs are collectedthrough a unit rate applied to the quantity of water eachmunicipality purchases from the District. Solid wastedisposal costs are recovered from a regional tipping feecharged at each of the District’s solid waste facilities.

The GVRD’s current annual budget for liquid wastemanagement is about $120 million. This budget hasdoubled in the past decade, due primarily to theimplementation of secondary treatment at the Annacisand Lulu Island wastewater treatment plants.Approximately one-half of this budget is for operatingand maintenance expenses and the other half is toservice the existing debt associated with capitalprograms.

In addition to the regional utility systems, eachmunicipality is responsible for the management of itslocal sewer, water supply and solid waste utilitysystems. In the case of liquid waste, each municipalityis responsible for the management of its local sewerage

collection system. The municipal costs together withthe GVRD levy determine the total annual costs toproperty owners. This revenue is collected annuallyfrom property owners through municipal taxes or by aseparate sewer utility billing, as the case may be.Costs vary across the region but when averaged thecurrent residential sewer utility charge is in the order of$200 per year.

Future NeedsThe current liquid waste management planning processwill identify new programs and initiatives that will add toeither the GVRD annual budget or to the annual budgetsof the member municipalities. This discussiondocument has identified new liquid waste managementprograms which are considered to be necessary tomaintain the integrity of the existing infrastructure.These programs, identified as core asset and advancedasset management programs, will ensure provision ofexisting levels of service and provide solutions toaddress known impacts. A listing of these proposednew programs are shown on Table 15.1, for programswhich are to be provided by the GVRD, and on Table15.2, for programs which are to be provided by themember municipalities. The impact of these newprograms on the GVRD’s annual liquid wastemanagement budget is illustrated in Figure 15.1.

In addition to providing for new liquid waste managementprograms, the District is faced with also providing fornew programs in its other utilities functions to provide forreplacement, growth and service improvements. Forinstance, a very significant investment is underway andplanned in the District’s drinking water qualityimprovement program for the treatment of the region’sdrinking water supply. This large expenditure by thewater utility will have a large impact in future years onthe water supply budget. Furthermore, in April 1999 thenew regional transportation authority, TransLink, cameinto being. There are large capital investmentsprojected by this new authority to improve thetransportation and transit systems in the region. All ofthese various utility and transportation programs of theGVRD and TransLink must be financed from the samelocal economy. With the inauguration of TransLink itbecame obvious that careful financial managementwould be necessary to finance the many proposed

Part 15Finance

15-2


regional programs, and that to do this properly wouldrequire a collective assessment of needs andaffordability by both the GVRD and TransLink.

Table 15-1: GVRD Programs 2001-2008(Including Capital Projects and Operations & Maintenance)

Current Long Range Plan (Grey Book) including Growth, Upgrade andRenewal Projects, and Operations & Maintenance

$ 591,000,000

Proposed Long Range Plan projects including Growth, Upgrade andRenewal Projects, and Operations & Maintenance

$ 58,000,000

LWMP Identified New Projects (base portfolio)

Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrading

• VSA - Base upgrading plan (130/100 permit; 97% compliance; source controlmeasures)

25,000,000

• NSSA - Base upgrading plan (growth only; 130/130 permit; 98% compliance;source control measures)

25,000,000

Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Management

• FSA - Operational Improvements (New Westminster and Burnaby areas) 5,000,000

• VSA - Operational Improvements 19,000,000

Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Management

• FSA - Maillardville Twinning 2,000,000

• FSA - Cloverdale Storage 5,000,000

Residuals Management

• VSA - Iona Recycling 10,000,000

• VSA - Iona Stored Material 7,000,000

Emergency Spill Management To bedetermined

Total LWMP Identified Projects $ 98,000,000

TOTAL $ 747,000,000

FSA = Fraser Sewerage AreaVSA = Vancouver Sewerage AreaNSSA = North Shore Sewerage Area


15-3

Table 15-2: New Municipal Programs 2001-2008(Including Capital Projects and Operations & Maintenance)

Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Management

• FSA - New Westminster and Burnaby (combined sewer replacement/separation) 2,000,000

• VSA - City of Vancouver CSO Projects 7,000,000

• VSA - City of Burnaby (combined sewer replacement/separation) 11,000,000

Infiltration and Inflow Management

• NSSA - Replacement/Rehabilitation (based on 0.67% system replacement peryear)

33,000,000

• FSA - Replacement/Rehabilitation (based on targeting worst catchments) 9,000,000

Stormwater Management

• Option B ($0.50/capita * Stormwater population) 6,000,000

• New stormwater capital and operating initiatives To bedetermined

TOTAL $ 68,000,000

FSA = Fraser Sewerage AreaVSA = Vancouver Sewerage AreaNSSA = North Shore Sewerage Area

Figure 15-1: Greater Vancouver Sewerage & Drainage District Expenditure Forecast

-

20.000

40.000

60.000

80.000

100.000

120.000

140.000

160.000

180.000

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Year

Mill

ion

s o

f Do

llars

15-4


Regional Financial AffordabilityIn order to assess the scope of future expenditurerequirements of both the GVRD and TransLink, and theimpact that this will have on the regional taxpayers, theGVRD and TransLink are jointly undertaking a financialaffordability review based on planned future expendituresfor both organizations. The purpose of the review is topresent the GVRD and TransLink expenditures andrevenues within the larger context of total localgovernment spending, to show the change inexpenditures over the past ten years relative to growthin the regional economy and population, to showestimated future spending and the primary cost drivers,and to begin a process of Board discussion on theaffordability of planned GVRD and TransLinkexpenditures over the next ten years. The process ofdiscussion will begin with a joint GVRD/TransLinkBoard(s) workshop which is planned for the secondquarter of 1999.

The financial affordability review includes all proposedprograms in current long-range plans for liquid wastemanagement, water supply, solid waste management,and transportation and transit. The projected newprograms for liquid waste management considered inthis review are those shown on Table 15.1. While thefinancial affordability review has not been completed,some initial findings can be presented because this willplace any proposed liquid waste management programsflowing from the current planning process into its properperspective with the other large expenditurerequirements of the region. Some key findings to dateare:

Annual GVRD and TransLink spending grew faster thanpopulation in the past 10 years.

Projected GVRD and TransLink expenditures in the next10 years will grow faster than population, primarily dueto proposed service improvements in water supply,liquid waste and transit.

There will be a revenue requirement of approximately$100 per capita by 2008 to pay for all projected localand regional government programs.

The latter finding clearly demonstrates that all futureexpenditures must be carefully assessed and prioritizedrelative to their costs/benefit to the region.

Total capital expenditures on sewer, water and solidwaste utilities and on transportation/transit aresignificant in the region, with the municipalities, GVRDand TransLink spending an estimated total of $1.1billion in 1999 alone. Furthermore, these capitalexpenditures are estimated to average a total $750million per year over the next ten years. For the GVRDand TransLink more than half of the projected capitalspending is due to service improvements in watersupply, liquid waste and transit services. Over the nextten years it is projected that the GVRD alone will spenda total of $1.3 billion on capital programs and thatTransLink will spend a further total of $2.0 billion. Theselarge capital expenditures must in large measure beborne by the local economy.

A very significant trend over the past ten years has beenthe dramatic drop in government transfers as a sourceof revenue for the region. This has resulted in acorresponding increase in the proportion of revenuesthat must be generated from property taxes and utilitycharges. For instance, in 1989 property taxes andutility charges provided approximately 48% of therevenue stream for local and regional governments. By1999 this proportion had grown to about 63%, largelybecause of the significant drop in senior governmenttransfers. Clearly the local taxpayers have had toshoulder a growing proportion of local and regionalgovernment expenditures over the past ten years. Thereview indicates that projected expenditures by GVRDand TransLink over the next ten years will exceedprojected growth in population. Assuming that revenuesincrease in proportion to projected population growth,there will be a revenue requirements of approximately$100 per capita by year 2008 to pay for all projectedlocal and regional government programs.

These initial findings of the financial affordability reviewclearly show that all future regional expenditures mustbe carefully assessed as to their benefit in the contextof the other important expenditure needs of the regionand in the overall context of regional financialaffordability and of the ability of local residents to pay.

Reference Documents

The following tables list supporting documents to this LWMP report for the period 1987 - 1999.

Liquid Waste Management Planning

1. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Stage 1 GreaterVancouver Liquid Waste Management Plan – GreaterVancouver Receiving Water Quality Conditions, July1987

2. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Stage 1 GreaterVancouver Liquid Waste Management Plan – SourceControl Committee Report - Volumes I, II, III, April 1988

3. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Stage 1 GreaterVancouver Liquid Waste Management Plan – SewageTreatment Upgrading and Sludge Disposal CommitteeReport, May 1988

4. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Stage 1 GreaterVancouver Liquid Waste Management Plan – CombinedSewer Overflow and Urban Runoff Committee Report, June1988

5. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Stage 1 GreaterVancouver Liquid Waste Management Plan – WaterQuality and Water Use Committee Report, June 1988

6. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Stage 1 GreaterVancouver Liquid Waste Management Plan, February 1989

7. Sewage Treatment Review Panel, The Stage Two LiquidWaste Management Plan Process, June 24, 1993

8. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, LiquidWaste Management Options Assessment - Phase 1 Report,April 28, 1998

Public Consultation

9. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Creating OurFuture: Steps to a More Livable Region, September1990

10. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Creating Our Future:Steps to a More Livable Region, 1993

11. Viewpoints Research, GVRD Critical Choices BaselineSurvey, May 1993

12. Viewpoints Research, GVRD Sewerage and DrainagePublic Attitudes Survey, September 1995

Source Control

13. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Sewer DischargeLimits Determination - Detailed Technical Report, April1989

14. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, SewerUse Bylaw No. 164, 1990, last amended 1991

15. Greater Vancouver Regional District, BOD/COD/TSSSplit Sampling Study, September, 1993

16. Reid Crowther & Partners, Industrial Reduction Optionsfor Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and TotalSuspended Solids (TSS), February 1994

17. Greater Vancouver Regional District, BOD and TSSTreatment Costs for Regulated Industries, August 1994

18. Compass Resource Management Group, Rate DesignOptions for Industrial Wastewater Discharges, June 1996

19. Greater Vancouver Regional District, GroundwaterDischarges Discussion Paper, July 1996

20. El Rayes Environmental Corporation, WastewaterCharacterization and Inventory for Commercial andInstitutional Sectors in the GVS&DD, February 1997

21. Greater Vancouver Regional District, BOD/TSSIndustrial Pricing Strategy - Final Report, March 1997

22. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Wastewater Inventory- 1995 (Summary Report and Appendices A, B, C, D, &E), April 1997

23. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Background Paperfor Trucked Liquid Waste Task Force, May 1997

24. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Trucked Liquid WasteUser Fee - Discussion Paper, June 1997

25. Compass Resource Management Group, Food WasteDischarges to the Sanitary Sewer System - AnEvaluation of Policy Options, July 1997

26. CrossPoint Strategies Inc., GVRD Recognition Programfor Achievement in Waste Management, October 1997

27. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Trucked LiquidWaste Pricing Strategy - Issue Paper, December 1997

28. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Commercial &Institutional Pricing Strategy - Discussion Paper, March1998

29. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Results of the 1997Vancouver Sewerage Area Key Manhole MonitoringProgram, May 1998

30. Greater Vancouver Regional District, TechnicalMemorandum for TSS Discharge Limits Discussion Paper,May 1998

31. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Source ControlAnnual Report - 1997, June 1998

32. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Trucked Liquid WasteRegional Strategy - Final Report, June 1998

33. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Results of the 1998North Shore Sewerage Area Key Manhole MonitoringProgram - DRAFT, July 1998

34. CrossPoint Strategies Inc., Profile of the B.C. PrintingIndustry for Purposes of a Pollution Prevention Strategy,September 1998

35. Greater Vancouver Regional District, TechnicalMemorandum #2 for TSS Discharge Limits DiscussionPaper, September 1998

36. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Food Sector Code ofPractice and Best Management Practices - DRAFT,October 1998

37. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Trucked LiquidWaste Rate Calculation - 1999, November 1998

38. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Fraser SewerageArea Landfill Leachate Characterization - PreliminaryReport, December 1998

39. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Results of the 1998Vancouver Sewerage Area Key Manhole MonitoringProgram, - DRAFT, December 1998

Environmental Assessments

40. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Burrard InletEnvironmental Improvements Action Plan, June 1990

41. Greater Vancouver Regional District, BacteriologicalQuality of the Bathing Waters at the Beaches of EnglishBay, Point Grey, and Iona Island, May 1 to September 30,1989, July 1990

42. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District,Dioxin and Furan Levels in Waste Streams and Residuesat Wastewater Treatment Plants in Greater Vancouver,October 1992

43. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District ,Municipal Liquid Waste Discharges in Greater Vancouver -Water Quality Monitoring Review and Discussion ofMonitoring Methodologies, draft July 1993

44. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District,Stage 2 LWMP – Liquid Waste Discharge EnvironmentalMonitoring and Assessment Program, draft October 18,1993

45. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, andFraser Pollution Abatement Office of EnvironmentCanada, Clark Drive Combined Sewer System Winter 1993Overflow Characterization Study, September 1994

46. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District,Environment Canada, and City of Surrey, Fraser GlenWet Pond Urban Stormwater Characterization Study,draft November 1994

47. Seaconsult Marine Research Ltd., Effluent Dispersion in theFraser River from the Glenbrook Combined SewerOverflow at New Westminster, British Columbia , Preparedfor Environment Canada, June 1995

48. Norecol, Dames & Moore, Characterization of the ClarkDrive Combined Sewer Overflow and Stormwater from aResidential and an Industrial Catchment - Spring 1994,July 1995

49. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Westridge CombinedSewer System - Spring / Summer 1994 OverflowCharacterization Study, 1996

50. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Crowe StreetCombined Sewer System - Spring 1994 OverflowCharacterization Study, 1996

51. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Glenbrook CombinedSewer System - Spring 1994 / Winter 1995 OverflowCharacterization Study, June 1996

52. Seaconsult Marine Research Ltd. and EVS EnvironmentConsultants, Determining the Fate and Effects of theClark Drive Combined Sewer Overflow Discharges toBurrard Inlet, Prepared for the GVRD, December 1996

53. Norecol, Dames & Moore, Combined Sewer OverflowMonitoring at Clark Drive, Angus Drive and BalaclavaStreet in 1996, Prepared for the GVRD, May, 1997

54. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Effluent ToxicityStudy, 1996 Program, Annacis and Lulu WastewaterTreatment Plants, September 1997

55. EVS Environment Consultants, Fate and EffectsAssessment of the English Bay Combined Sewer Overflow,Prepared for the GVRD, December 1997

56. Baird & Associates Ltd. and Sea Science, English Bay /False Creek Hydrodynamic Study, Prepared for theGVRD, December, 1997

57. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Effluent ToxicityStudy, 1997 Program, GVS&DD Wastewater TreatmentPlants, 1998

58. Greater Vancouver Regional District, CSOCharacterization Analysis, July 1998

59. Morrow Environmental Consultants, Characterization ofStormwater Runoff in Three Catchments, Prepared for theGVRD, July, 1998

60. EVS Environmental Consultants, Design of aMonitoring Program to Evaluate Environmental Effectsof Stormwater Discharges, Prepared for the GVRD,November 1998

61. Greater Vancouver Regional District, GVS&DD MunicipalWastewater Treatment Plants, 1997 Monitoring Program ,December 1998

62. Seaconsult Marine Research Ltd. and EVS EnvironmentConsultants, Fate and Effects of discharges from theLions Gate Wastewater Treatment Plant, DRAFTReport, Prepared for the GVRD, January, 1999

63. ENKON Environmental Inc., Assessment of the Effects ofthe Glenbrook Combined Sewer Overflow on the ReceivingEnvironment of the Lower Fraser River, Prepared for theGVRD, January, 1999

64. EVS Environment Consultants, Fate and Effects ofDischarges from the Westridge Combined Sewer Outfall- DRAFT Report, Prepared for the GVRD, February1999

65. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Discharge RatingMeasures for LWMP Discharges, DRAFT Report, February,1999

Environmental Assessments - Iona Deep Sea Outfall

66. EVS Consultants Ltd., Environmental Monitoring 1986,Iona Deep Sea Outfall Project, prepared for the GVRD,March 1987

67. Seaconsult Marine Research Ltd., Iona Outfall PlumeCharacterization Study, Oceanographic Report, preparedfor the GVRD, November 1988

68. Beak Associates Consulting (B.C.) Ltd., EnvironmentalMonitoring 1987, Iona Deep Sea Outfall Project,prepared for the GVRD, Revised Ed. April 1989

69. Brown and Caldwell, Final Report, Wastewater PlumeCharacterization Study, Greater Vancouver RegionalDistrict, Iona Island Sewerage Treatment Plant, May 1989

70. Fanning, M.L., and Greater Vancouver Regional District,Bacteriological Water Quality Investigations 1989, IonaDeep Sea Outfall Project, Beak Associates Consulting(B.C.) Ltd., and Quality Control Division, GreaterVancouver Regional District, December 1989

71. Beak Associates Consulting (B.C.) Ltd. and GreaterVancouver Regional District, Bacteriological Water QualityInvestigations 1989, Iona Deep Sea Outfall Project,prepared for the GVRD, December 1989

72. EVS Consultants Ltd., Iona Deep Sea OutfallMonitoring 1989, Study 1.0: Evaluation of Pre-discharge Data , prepared for the GVRD, December1989

73. EVS Consultants Ltd., Iona Deep Sea Outfall Monitoring1989, Study 2.0: Biota Pathology and Contaminant BodyBurden, prepared for the GVRD, January 1990

74. Analytical Service Laboratories Ltd., Analysis of IonaEffluent, prepared for the GVRD, January 1990

75. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Summary Report,Iona Deep Sea Outfall Environmental Monitoring, 1989Studies, Quality Control Division, Greater VancouverRegional District, July 1990

76. Greater Vancouver Regional District, BacteriologicalQuality of the Bathing Waters at the beaches of EnglishBay, Point Grey, and Iona Island, May I to September30, 1989, Quality Control Division, Greater VancouverRegional District July 1990

77. EVS Consultants Ltd., Iona Deep Sea OutfallEnvironmental Monitoring 1990, prepared for the GVRD,January 1991

78. EVS Consultants Ltd., Iona Deep Sea Outfall, 1991Environmental Monitoring Program, Sediment Toxicity,Blue Mussel Larvae Bioassay, prepared for the GVRD,June 1991

79. Analytical Service Laboratories Ltd., Iona Deep SeaOutfall, 1991 Environmental Monitoring Program,Sediment Chemistry, prepared for the GVRD, September1991

80. EVS Consultants Ltd., Iona Deep Sea Outfall, 1991Environmental Monitoring Program, InfaunalCommunity Structure, prepared for the GVRD,December 1991

81. Beak Associates Consulting (B.C.) Ltd., Iona Deep SeaOutfall, 1991 Environmental Monitoring Program,Sediment Toxicity, Microtox Bioassay, Saline and OrganicExtracts, prepared for the GVRD, December 1991

82. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Iona Deep SeaOutfall, 1991 Environmental Monitoring Program,Sediment Bacteriology, June 1992

83. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Iona Deep SeaOutfall, 1991 Environmental Monitoring Program,Summary Report, June 1992

84. Analytical Service Laboratories Ltd., OrganicCharacterization of Iona Wastewater, Dry-Weather FlowPeriod Sampling, prepared for the GVRD, September1992

85. Beak Associates Consulting (BC) Ltd., Iona Deep SeaOutfall, 1993 Environmental Monitoring Program, BiotaCollection, prepared for the GVRD, July 1993

86. Beak Associates Consulting (BC) Ltd., Iona Deep SeaOutfall, 1993 Environmental Monitoring Program,Sediment Collection, prepared for the GVRD, July 1993

87. Analytical Service Laboratories Ltd., Iona Deep SeaOutfall, 1993 Environmental Monitoring Program, BiotaChemistry, prepared for the GVRD, August 1993

88. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Iona Deep SeaOutfall, 1993 Environmental Monitoring Program,Sediment Bacteriology, prepared for the GVRD,November 1993

89. Analytical Service Laboratories Ltd., Iona Deep SeaOutfall, 1994 Environmental Monitoring Program,Sediment Chemistry, prepared for the GVRD, May 1994

90. IRC Integrated Resource Consultants Inc., Iona DeepSea Outfall, 1994 Environmental Monitoring Program,Sediment Collection, prepared for the GVRD, June 1994

91. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Iona Deep SeaOutfall, 1993 Environmental Monitoring Program,Summary Report, June 1994

92. IRC Integrated Resource Consultants Inc., Iona DeepSea Outfall, 1994 Environmental Monitoring Program,Sediment Toxicity (Microtox), Adjunct Study, preparedfor the GVRD, July 1994

93. EVS Environment Consultants Ltd., Iona Deep SeaOutfall, 1994 Environmental Monitoring Program, Project3: Sediment Toxicity, prepared for the GVRD, September1994

94. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Iona Deep SeaOutfall, 1994 Environmental Monitoring Program,Project 4: Sediment Bacteriology, December 1994

95. IRC Integrated Resource Consultants Inc., Iona Deep SeaOutfall, 1995 Environmental Monitoring Program,Sediment and Infauna Collection, prepared for the GVRD,May 1995

96. Analytical Service Laboratories Ltd., Iona Deep SeaOutfall, 1995 Environmental Monitoring Program,Sediment Chemistry, prepared for the GVRD, May 1995

97. Greater Vancouver Regional District , Iona Deep SeaOutfall, 1994 Environmental Monitoring Program,Summary Report, prepared for the GVRD, June 1995

98. EVS Environment Consultants Ltd., Iona Deep SeaOutfall, 1995 Environmental Monitoring Program,Infaunal Community Structure, prepared for the GVRD,September 1995

99. Greater Vancouver Regional District , Iona Deep SeaOutfall, 1995 Environmental Monitoring Program,Summary Report, June 1996

100. Greater Vancouver Regional District , Iona Deep SeaOutfall Environmental Monitoring Program, AnEvaluation of Sediment Relative Apparent Toxicity,Review Report, June 1996

101. Analytical Service Laboratories Ltd., Iona Deep SeaOutfall, 1996 Environmental Monitoring Program, Water-Column Chemistry, prepared for the GVRD, December1996

102. IRC Integrated Resource Consultants Inc. and GreaterVancouver Regional District , Iona Deep Sea Outfall,1996 Environmental Monitoring Program, ReceivingWater Quality, June 1997

103. 2WE Associates Consulting Ltd., Iona DeepSea Outfall:Recommendations for Monitoring into the 21st Century,Report IN PROGRESS for the GVRD.

Annacis Island WWTP Pre-upgrade Environmental Assessment

104. EVS Consultants, Annacis Island WWTP PredischargeMonitoring Study; Reconnaissance Water Quality andBiological Monitoring Results, prepared for the GVRD,March 1996

105. Norecol, Dames & Moore, Pre-Discharge Water andSediment Monitoring Program Annacis Island WastewaterTreatment Plant, Prepared for the GVRD, July, 1996

106. Norecol, Dames & Moore, Pre-Discharge Water andSediment Monitoring Program Annacis IslandWastewater Treatment Plant, prepared for the GVRD,February, 1997

107. Seaconsult Marine Research Ltd. and ABR Consultants,Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant Pre-dischargeMonitoring Dilution / Dispersion Study, Final Report,prepared for the GVRD, April 1997

108. Norecol, Dames & Moore, Pre-Freshet Water andSediment Monitoring Program Annacis IslandWastewater Treatment Plant, prepared for the GVRD,February, 1998

Lulu Island WWTP Pre-upgrade Environmental Assessments

109. Seaconsult Marine Research Ltd., Dilution andDispersion Study of the Lulu Island WastewaterTreatment Plant Effluent Discharge During Low RiverFlow Conditions (and addendum), prepared for theGVRD, December, 1997

110. Seaconsult Marine Research Ltd., Lulu WWTP Pre-upgradeMonitoring Program: Collection and analysis of receivingwater and sediment samples, prepared for the GVRD,February, 1999

Northwest Langley WWTP

111. Dayton &Knight Ltd., Planning for N. W. LangleyWWTP Expansion & Upgrading - Stage 1, September1994

112. Greater Vancouver Regional District, N. W. Langley WWTPUpgrade - Industry Impact Report, February 1998

Routine Wastewater Treatment Plant Monitoring

113. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Quality ControlLaboratory Report for the Greater Vancouver Sewerageand Drainage District, 19xx. [Annual reports for eachof the four main District treatment plants (Lions Gate,Iona Island, Annacis Island and Lulu Island),summarizing the quality control laboratory testingperformed for the year.]


114. ABR Consultants, 1991 Update of Sanitary SewageFlows -Fraser Sewerage Area and Lulu Island SewerageArea,February 19,1992

115. ABR Consultants, Predesign Report for Annacis Island andLulu Island Wastewater Treatment Plants - Evaluation andSelection of Secondary Facilities, Vol. I & 2, March 1992

116. The Sewage Treatment Review Panel, December 4,1992

Sewerage Areas• • Vancouver Sewerage Area (VSA);• • North Shore Sewerage Area (NSSA);• • Fraser Sewerage Area (FSA); and• Lulu Island West Sewerage Area (LIWSA)

117. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, EastFraser Area Servicing Review, August 1995

118. Gore and Storrie Limited, Greater Vancouver RegionalDistrict - Overview of the East Fraser River ServicingReview, August 1995

119. CH2M Gore and Storrie Limited, Iona Island BODSource Study, 1996

120. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Computer SimulationModel Development for NSSA, Stage 1: RUNSTDY Model,September 1996

121. CH2M Gore and Storrie Limited, Iona Island and LionsGate WWTP’s: Process Audits and Enhancements,December 1996

122. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Utility ManagementPlan Vancouver Sewerage Area, Northeast Sector, March1997

123. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Greater VancouverRegional District-BOD/TSS Industrial Pricing StrategyFinal Report, March 1997

124. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Summary Report1995 Wastewater Inventory Final, April 1997

125. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Appendices A, B,C, D, E 1995 Wastewater Inventory, Final, April 1997

126. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Computer SimulationModel Development for NSSA, Stage 2: Calibration andVerification, May 1997

127. Greater Vancouver Regional District, North ShoreSewerage Area Long-Term Servicing Options, July 31,1997

128. Greater Vancouver Regional District, North Areas DivisionBenchmarking Study, November 1997

129. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, 1997Basic Service Adequacy Assessment for Growth,December 1997

130. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Analysis of Stormsthat Cause Sanitary Sewer Overflows, December 1997

131. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Lions GateWastewater Treatment Plant, Business Case forHeadworks Upgrading, 1998

132. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Downtown VancouverSewer System Model Analysis, February 1998

133. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Lions Gate WWTPFlow Split Improvements, March 1998

134. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Examination ofDesign Criteria for the Harbour and Columbia PumpStations, March 2, 1998

135. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District,Results of the Vancouver Sewerage Area 1997 KeyManhole Monitoring Program, May 1998

136. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, Resultsof the North Vancouver Sewerage Area 1998 Key ManholeMonitoring Program - DRAFT, July 1998

137. Associated Engineering Limited, Greater VancouverRegional District - Chemically Enhanced PrimaryTreatment Pilot Scale Study: Lions Gate WastewaterTreatment Plant, August 1998

138. Associated Engineering Limited, Greater VancouverRegional District - Chemically Enhanced PrimaryTreatment Pilot-Scale Study: Iona Island WastewaterTreatment Plant-Draft, August 1998

139. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, BasicService Assessment and Long Range Growth Plan,September 1998

140. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, IonaIsland WWTP Upgrading Plan, February 1999

141. Greater Vancouver Regional District, ProceedingsReport, Iona Island WWTP Chemically EnhancedPrimary Treatment, February 1999.

142. Fraser Sewerage Area Technical Advisory Committee,Fraser Sewerage Area Facilities Plan - DiscussionDocument - DRAFT, March 1999

143. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Lions GateWastewater Treatment Plant Upgrading Plan, March1999

144. Lulu Island West Sewerage Area Technical AdvisoryCommittee, Lulu Island West Sewerage Area FacilitiesPlan - Discussion Document - DRAFT, April 1999

145. Greater Vancouver Regional District, VancouverSewerage Area Technical Advisory Committee LWMPReport - IN PROGRESS, April 1999

146. Greater Vancouver Regional District, North ShoreSewerage Area Technical Advisory Committee LWMPReport - IN PROGRESS, April 1999

Inflow and Infiltration

147. ABR Consultants, Infiltration-Inflow ManagementProgram for the Greater Vancouver Sewerage andDrainage District,December 1991

148. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, I/IQuantification Methodologies: A Summary of NorthAmerican Studies, June 1993

149. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, I/IDetection: The First Step, August 1993

150. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, I/I TaskForce: Background Information and Terms of Reference,December 1993

151. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District,Inflow and Infiltration Reduction Program –Preliminary I/I Analysis Methodology, May 1994

152. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, Inflowand Infiltration Reduction Program – Lulu Island WestSewerage Area Pilot Study: Pump Station FlowMonitoring, August 1994

153. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District,Inflow and Infiltration Reduction Program – FlowMonitoring and Velocity Profiling: Summary Report,August 1994

154. Delcan Corp., B&B Contracting, and Norecol Dames andMoore, Development of Unit Costs for Inflow andInfiltration Control Methods, December 1994

155. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District,Inflow and Infiltration Reduction Program – I/I AnalysisResults: 1993-1994 Flow Monitoring Sites, January1995

156. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, Inflowand Infiltration Reduction Program – Sewer SystemEvaluation Surveys Work Group Summary Report, June1995

157. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District,Inflow and Infiltration Reduction Program – I/I AnalysisWork Group Summary Report, June 1995

158. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, Inflowand Infiltration Reduction Program – New ConstructionWork Group Summary Report, June 1995

159. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District,Inflow and Infiltration Reduction Program – FlowMonitoring Data Quality Review: Theory andApplication, June 1995

160. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, Inflowand Infiltration Reduction Program - Velocity ProfilingSummary Report, June 1995

161. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, FlowMeasurement by Dye Dilution, October 1995

162. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, Inflowand Infiltration Reduction Program – Fraser SewerageArea: 1994-1995 I/I Analysis Results, October 1995

163. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District,Office and Field Flow Monitoring Procedures, Version2.0, May 1996 (original version: June 1995)

164. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, Inflowand Infiltration Reduction Program – Lulu Island WestSewerage Area: 1995-1996 I/I Analysis Results for TerraNova East PS, July 1996

165. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District,Inflow and Infiltration Reduction Program – LuluIsland West Sewerage Area: 1995-1996 I/I AnalysisResults Final Report, October 1996

Combined Sewer Overflows

166. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District,Fast-Tracking of Burrard Inlet CSO Control Facilities -Yukon Gate & Highbury Interceptor, September 1990

167. Brown and Caldwell Consulting Engineers, Iona IslandSewage Treatment Plant Expansion for Increased WetWeather Flows – Phase I Planning-Level Analysis, May1991

168. Golder Associates Ltd. Report to City of VancouverSewers Department on Tunnelling Technologies -Preliminary Design and Cost Estimates, May 1991

169. EMA Inc., Burrard Inlet CSO Study - CSO Facility andSCADA System Modifications - Vancouver Sewerage Area,November 1991

170. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District,Burrard Inlet CSO Study - Operational Plan, DraftNovember 1991

171. Delcan Consultants, Construction Cost Estimates for SewerSeparation Alternatives, March 1993

172. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District,Burrard Inlet Combined Sewer Overflow ControlAlternatives - Vancouver Sewerage Area, Draft March1993

173. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District,Combined Sewer Overflow Control Alternatives - NewWestminster and Westridge Areas, Draft April 1993

174. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, 1996Annual Report for Monitoring at Major CSODischarges, July 1997

175. CH2M Gore & Storrie Limited, Greater VancouverSewerage and Drainage District, Assessment of CSOTreatment Options - Draft Report, IN PROGRESS

GVS&DD Drainage Areas

176. Klohn-Crippen, Still Creek-Brunette River System,Stream Gauging Feasibility Study, December 1994

177. Klohn-Crippen, Still Creek-Brunette River System, FloodMapping Feasibility Study, February 1995

178. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, StillCreek-Brunette River Drainage Area - Issues andProposed Actions - DRAFT REPORT, September 1996

179. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Water QualityManagement System for Still Creek - Progress Report July1993 to September 1996, December 1996

180. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Water QualityManagement System for Still Creek - Progress ReportJuly 1993 to September 1997, December 1997

181. Dayton & Knight Ltd. Study of Coquitlam/Port MoodyDrainage Area, May 1988

182. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Still Creek-Brunette River Floodplain Mapping Technical Report,December 1998

183. KWL-CH2M, Integrated Stormwater Management Strategyfor Stoney Creek Watershed - FINAL DRAFT, February1999

Stormwater Runoff

184. BC Research, Urban Runoff Quality and Treatment:: AComprehensive Review, March 15, 1991

185. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, Rolesand Responsibilities in Developing a Regional StormwaterManagement Plan, discussion paper, January 1994

186. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District,Stormwater Management Practices and ExpenditureSurvey, March 1998

187. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, Optionsfor Municipal Stormwater Management Governance,Bylaws, Permits and Other Regulations, April 1998

188. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, BestManagement Practices Guide for StormwaterManagement - DRAFT, October 1998

189. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District,Proposed Watershed Classification System for StormwaterManagement in the GVS&DD Area - DRAFT, November1998

190. Klohn-Crippen Consultants Ltd., Watershed Flows andRunoff Volumes, IN PROGRESS

191. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District,Watershed Classification of Selected GVS&DD AreaWatersheds, IN PROGRESS

192. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District,Stormwater Management Plan for the GreaterVancouver Sewerage and Drainage District - Stage 2Liquid Waste Management Plan, IN PROGRESS

Residuals Management

193. Greater Vancouver Regional District, SludgeManagement Alternatives (Vol. 1: Summary Report; Vol.2: Sludge Analyses), June 1990

194. Hanscomb Consultants, Proceedings of Value ManagementWorkshop for Residuals Management Strategy Evaluation(Volumes I & II), June 1992

195. ABR Consultants, Wastewater Residuals ManagementPlan, June 30,1993

196. Renken, K., Environmental Effects of Copper MineTailings Reclamation with Biosolids - Field & LaboratoryExperiments, M.Sc. thesis, University of B.C., April 1995

197. Thomas, Larissa, Soil Quality Criteria and Standards forHeavy Metals - British Columbia and Canada, March1996

198. Sutherland, Kim, Discussion of Bioavailability of Metals inSoils (incl. Evaluation of Soil Testing Methods forAvailable Metals), May 1996

199. Thomas, Larissa, Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins(PCDD) and dibenzofurans (PCDF) in Canadiansewage sludge and the British Columbia environment:Burnaby case study, December 1996

200. Thomas, Larissa, Human Health Effects of Dioxins andFurans: A Review, January 1997

201. Thomas, Larissa, Removal of Cryptosporidium parvumoocysts during sewage sludge treatment: A Review,February 1997

202. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Recycling biosolids tosoil: Pathogen Reduction, December 1997

203. Sylvis Environmental Services Inc., Biosolids MineReclamation: Tree Species Establishment ScreeningTrial, December 1997

204. Sylvis Environmental Services Inc., Nitrogen Dynamicsfollowing Biosolids Forest Fertilization, [in press,completion expected March 1999]

205. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Recycling biosolidsto soil: Trace Metals, in press - expected completionApril, 1999

Financing

206. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, CostAllocation Task Force: Recommendations -Implementation of New Cost Allocation PrinciplesSewerage, September 16, 1994

207. Greater Vancouver Regional District, BOD/TSS IndustrialPricing Strategy Final Report, March 7, 1997

Strategic Planning

208. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Livable RegionStrategic Plan, October 1995

209. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Livable RegionStrategic Plan, April 1996

Sewerage and Drainage Public Information and Education Materials

The GVRD has developed public information and education materials to support communications and consultationon sewerage and drainage, projects and programs. These are listed below:

Information Publications• LWMP Stage 2 Fact Sheets (8):

1. Water Quality in the Region2. Wastewater Treatment Plants3. Combined Sewer Overflows4. Sanitary Sewer Overflows5. Stormwater Management6. Source Control7. Biosolids Recycling8. Non-Point Source Pollution

• A Guide to Wastewater Treatment, 1995• Sewerage & Drainage System Booklet, September 1993• Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant Update, May 1995• Secondary Treatment Pamphlet, 1993• Wastewater Residuals Pamphlet, 1993• Wastewater Collection Pamphlet, 1993• Combined Sewer Overflows Pamphlet, 1993• New pamphlet for Nutrifor, 1996

Multi-mediaCreating our Future, Drinking Water and Wastewater, interactive computer simulation on CD ROM, 1995From Source to Solution - Cable TV program, GVRD Sewerage and Drainage, 1995From Source to Solution - 30 minute video, 1995Treating It Right - 10 minute video, 1995

EducationGVRD Source to Sea education program. Training guide and materials for primary school teachers.

For more information on public information and education materials, please contact:

GVRD Communications and Education Department4330 KingswayBurnaby, BC, V5H 4G8Phone (604) 432-6339Fax: (604) 432-6399

E-Mail: [email protected]: http://www.gvrd.ca/