Okanagan Falls AreaLiquid Waste Management PlanAdvisory Committee Meeting #1

PRESENTATION OBJECTIVES

1. Provide a background summary some of the issues surrounding the current treatment plant;

3. Other relevant information.

2. Describe the results of the 2005 Strategic Review and other related studies undertaken by the RDOS; and

Sewage Treatment Plant Backgrounder

• Constructed in 1978 to process about 750 cubic metres of wastewater daily

• Comprised of an oxidation ditch, a clarifier, sludge drying beds, and infiltration basins

SecondaryClarifier

Waste Activated Sludge (WAS)

Oxidation Ditch

Ground Disposal

Sludge Drying Beds(Sludge Dewatering)

Landfill Disposal of Dried Sludge

EffluentRaw

Wastewater

Coarse BarScreen

Return Activated Sludge (RAS)

Effluent Pump

Mechanical Aeration Device

Sewage Treatment Plant Backgrounder

Sludge Drying Beds

Clarifier capacity

exceeded

Sludge drying beds create

odours

Oxidation ditch at capacity

• In the early ’90s, a multi-family housing complex was built next to the plant

• By the late ’90s flows were reaching 900 cubic metres per day andcapacity concerns were being expressed

• In 2005, proposed developments was expected to increase wastewater flow to 1,100 cubic metres per day

• Due to growth, by 2025 flows could reach 1,500 cubic metres per day

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

Nov-03

Dec-03

Jan-0

4Feb

-04Mar-0

4Apr-0

4May-0

4

Jun-04

Jul-0

4Aug

-04Sep-0

4Oct-

04Nov

-04D

aily

Flo

w (m

3 /day

)

Measured FlowAverage Annual Daily FlowClarifier Hydraulic Capacity

Theoretical capacity exceeded during summer

Sewage Treatment Plant Backgrounder• To address near term capacity issues, a Salsnes fine screen filter was installed in 2005 to provide a short-term capacity fix

RawWastewater

SecondaryClarifier

Waste Activated Sludge (WAS)

Oxidation Ditch

Ground Disposal

Sludge Drying Beds(Sludge Dewatering)

Landfill Disposal of Dried Sludge

Effluent

Coarse BarScreen

Return Activated Sludge (RAS)

Effluent Pump

Mechanical Aeration Device

SalsnesFilter

Raw

Was

tew

ater

Dewatered ScreeningsTo Landfill

• The 0.5mm screen reduces the organic load to the bioreactor and solids loading to secondary clarifier • No change to odour generation associated with sludge drying beds

Okanagan River

Creek

Existing System

Shuttleworth

Okangan Falls STP and Effluent Pump Station

Capacity of infiltration basins used for effluent disposal is estimated to be 800 m3/day

Johnson Lake

Johnson Lake

Okanagan Falls Sewage Treatment Plant Strategic Review Study

Objectives Of The 2005 Study

Work with the Public Advisory Committee (PAC) to develop servicing options for the Okanagan Falls area;

Recommend an upgrade scenario for the Okanagan Falls Sewage Treatment Plant.

Develop a servicing concept for Kaleden and Skaha Estates; and

Four treatment plant sites evaluated

Upgrade existing plant

New plant downstream of existing near

feed lot

New plant near mill

New plant at infiltration site

Upgrade Existing STP with Oxidation Ditch, Activated Sludge or BNR Process

•Very close to housing

•BNR upgrade could allow for river discharge

•Activated sludge & oxidation ditch options rely on RI Disposal & effluent pumping

DISADVANTAGES

ADVANTAGES

•All options provide good access to agricultural land for effluent reuse

•Access requires passing school & res.

•No land cost

•Limited site size –future constraints

Move STP to RI Site –Upgrade to Oxidation Ditch,

Activated Sludge or RBC Process

•Potential land-use conflict with vineyards

•Low population density = low risk of public impact

•All treatment options rely on RI Disposal & effluent pumping

DISADVANTAGES

ADVANTAGES

•All options provide good access to agricultural land for effluent reuse

•Options require high-lift wastewater pump – high consequence of forcemain failure

•Close to RI basins

•Does not require land purchase

Move STP to WeyerhauserSite – Upgrade to Activated

Sludge or RBC Process

•Close to community water supply well

•STP compatible with industrial land-use

•All treatment options rely on RI Disposal & effluent pumping

DISADVANTAGES

ADVANTAGES

•All options provide good access to agricultural land for effluent reuse

•Options require high-lift wastewater pump – high consequence of forcemain failure

•Close to RI basins

•Land lease or purchase is required

Move STP to Feed Lot Site Downstream of Existing STP – Upgrade to BNR Process

•Land lease or purchase is required

•Existing STP and infiltration basin could be de-commissioned

•Requires ALR exclusion and OCP amendment

DISADVANTAGES

ADVANTAGES

•Good access to agricultural land for effluent reuse

•Existing gravity main would have to be extended

•Effluent could be discharged to river

•Low population density

Decision Matrix with Criteria and Assessment Data

Weighting

Category Decision Criteria

By

Gro

up

By

Crit

eria

Opt

ion

1: O

xida

tion

Ditc

h at

Exi

stin

g ST

P

Opt

ion

2: O

xida

tion

Ditc

h at

RI S

ite

Opt

ion

3: A

ctiv

ated

Sl

udge

at E

xist

ing

STP

Opt

ion

4: A

ctiv

ated

Sl

udge

at R

I Site

Opt

ion

5: A

ctiv

ated

Sl

udge

Nr

Wey

erha

user

Opt

ion

6: B

NR

(T

ertia

ry) P

lant

at

Exi

stin

g ST

P

Opt

ion

7: B

NR

(T

ertia

ry) D

/S o

f E

xist

ing

STP

Opt

ion

8: F

ixed

Fi

lm (R

BC

) at R

I Si

te

Opt

ion

9: F

ixed

Fi

lm (R

BC

) Nr

Wey

erha

user

Opt

ion

10: P

rim

ary

at E

xist

ing

STP

&

Seco

ndar

y at

RI S

ite

Financial Life-Cycle Costs 0.250 1.00 8.4 8.8 9.9 10.3 10.5 10.6 12.0 9.2 9.4 9.8

Reliability 0.28 99.9 99.9 99.99 99.9 99.9 99.999 99.999 99.9 99.9 99.9

Future Flexibility/Expansion Provision 0.25 Adequate Good Good Good Good Very Good Very Good Adequate Adequate Adequate

Effluent Quality 0.12 2ndary 2ndary 2ndary 2ndary 2ndary Tertiary Tertiary 2ndary 2ndary 2ndary

Water Re-Use Potential 0.11 Yes Limited Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Limited Yes Limited

Operational Ease (Required Staff) 0.10 1 PT 1 PT 1 FT 1 FT 1 FT 1 FT 1 FT 1 PT 1 PT 1 PT

Method for Residuals Disposal 0.0081 Compost Compost Compost Compost Compost Compost Compost Compost Compost Compost

Technical

Site Access

0.263

0.050 Constrained Good Constrained Good Good Constrained Good Good Good Constrained

Habitat Impacts 0.50 Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Positive Neutral Neutral Neutral Environmental Emissions

0.188 0.50 Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral

Health Risks 0.22 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

Odour Levels 0.22 Frequent Frequent Rare Rare Rare Rare Rare Occasional Occasional Occasional

Potential for Public Conflicts (Risk) 0.19 High Moderate High Moderate Moderate High Low Moderate Moderate High

Economic Diversification 0.15 Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Good Good Neutral Neutral Neutral

Noise Levels 0.11 Frequent Frequent Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional

Compatibility with Surroundings 0.074 Negative Negative Negative Negative Neutral Neutral Neutral Negative Neutral Negative

Social

Aesthetics

0.300

0.037 Negative Neutral Negative Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral

DECISION SCORE 0.092 0.101 0.096 0.096 0.097 0.114 0.114 0.099 0.100 0.092

SCORING RANK 2 1 1 3

0.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

0.050

0.060

0.070

0.080

0.090

0.100

0.110

0.120

0.130

0.140

7.) B

NR (T

ertia

ry) D

/S o

f Exis

ting

STP

6.) B

NR (T

ertia

ry) P

lant

at E

xistin

g ST

P2.

) Oxid

atio

n D

itch

at R

I Site

9.) F

ixed

Film

(RBC

) Nr W

eyer

haus

er8.

) Fixe

d Fi

lm (R

BC) a

t RI S

ite8.

) Fixe

d Fi

lm (R

BC) a

t RI S

ite

5.) A

ctiva

ted

Slud

ge N

r Wey

erha

user

4.) A

ctiva

ted

Slud

ge a

t RI S

ite

3.) A

ctiva

ted

Slud

ge a

t Exis

ting

STP

1.) O

xidat

ion

Ditc

h at

Exis

ting

STP

Dec

isio

n Sc

ore

FINANCIALENVIRONMENTALTECHNICALSOCIAL

(2005 $) Rank

3,247,000 8,390,000 103,637,000 8,780,000 93,587,000 9,940,000 5

3,987,000 10,340,000 44,197,000 10,540,000 34,067,000 10,610,000 25,587,000 12,040,000 14,087,000 9,230,000 84,297,000 9,420,000 73,367,000 9,790,000 6

STP Capital Cost (2005 $)

Life-Cycle Cost

Option 8: Fixed Film (RBC) at RI SiteOption 9: Fixed Film (RBC) Nr WeyerhauserOption 10: Primary at Existing STP & Secondary at RI Site

Option 4: Activated Sludge at RI SiteOption 5: Activated Sludge Nr WeyerhauserOption 6: BNR (Tertiary) Plant at Existing STPOption 7: BNR (Tertiary) D/S of Existing STP

Option 1: Oxidation Ditch at Existing STPOption 2: Oxidation Ditch at RI SiteOption 3: Activated Sludge at Existing STP

Option

• Due to weighting of criteria, preferred option not the lowest cost option

• Results of the options assessment were presented to the public by means of a newsletter and open house

• A mail-in survey was used gauge public support

In 2005, annual cost to upgrade plant amounted to $349 per household –this cost will need to be updated

• 318 Survey Respondents

Concerning Kaleden & Skaha Estates…

!M

!M

!M0 400 800200Meters

4

Legend

!M Future Pumpstation

Future Sanitary

Gravity

Forcemain

Proposed Future Kaleden Sewerage

System

Proposed KaledenLakeshore

Sewerage Area

Proposed Kaleden Bench Sewerage Area

Forcemain to Skaha Estates

SkahaLake

!M

!M

!M

0 190 38095Meters

4 Legend

!M Future Pumpstation

Future Sanitary

Gravity

Forcemain

Proposed SkahaEstates

Sewerage Area

Proposed Future Skaha Estates

Sewerage System

Forcemainfrom Kaleden

Forcemain to Existing

Okanagan Falls Sewer

System

SkahaLake

• The relatively high costs and uncertain impacts on on Skaha Lake did not support sewering these communities at the time of the Strategic Review

• Therefore, consideration of upgrades to the Okanagan Falls Sewage Treatment Plant did not include provision for Kaleden and Skaha Estates

0 1,500 3,000750Meters

4

SkahaLake

Skaha Lake

Kaleden

Skaha Estates

Okanagan Falls Sewerage Area

• A monitoring program for SkahaLake was proposed in the Strategic Review to detect impacts of septic fields

• Sewering could be triggered by local support or identification of any impacts to Skaha Lake

• Follow-up options assessment for Kaleden & Skaha Estates completed July, 2007

• A survey was used gauge public support

Recommended option was to pump wastewater to Okanagan Falls treatment plant

Annualized cost for Kaleden & Skaha Estates $610 and $560 per household – higher than Okanagan Falls because it also includes pipes and pumps

Recommendation supported by public meetings and informal survey

• 94 Survey Respondents

In 2007/2008, RDOS was able to acquire and rezoned, a parcel of land adjacent to Okanagan River, near the KVR crossing

New STP location

Potential for partnering with Ducks Unlimited to provide for wetland enhancement has been pursued and is a possibility

The Latest Wrinkle - Gallagher Lake Servicing

• A sewer feasibility study for Gallagher Lake was completed in 2007

Gallagher Lake Area

Future treatment plant site

• Capital costs are high and servicing is only feasible if the treatment plant cost is shared with Okanagan Indian Band (OIB) or potentially Okanagan Falls

Next Steps

• Are there any other considerations or options that should be considered? Does the AC support the current approach?

• Update Okanagan Falls treatment plant plan, incorporating:

1) Any new considerations/options identified by AC;

2) New treatment plant site;

3) Allowance for servicing Kaleden & Skaha Estates;

4) Allowance for Gallagher Lake area, if appropriate;

5) Assessment of effluent reuse demand (agricultural irrigation, etc.);

6) Assessment of habitat (wetland) enhancement options;

7) Design criteria that addresses potential conflicts (ie, odour & aesthetics);

8) Design criteria that minimizes carbon footprint (energy efficiency, heat recovery, etc.); and

9) Conceptual site plan and costing.

QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION

Cauley Creek Water Reclamation Facility, Water Environment & Technology, Nov./08 Issue, p.66