CITY OF POWELL RIVER LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN - STAGE 3

Transcription

1 CITY OF POWELL RIVER LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN - STAGE 3 DRAFT 8 APRIL 2015 D

2 LIMITATIONS AND DISCLOSURE This document has been prepared by Opus DaytonKnight Consultants Ltd. ( Opus DK ) for the exclusive use of the City of Powell River (the Client ). Any use which a third party makes of this document, or any reliance or decisions or actions taken by any such third party based upon this document are the sole responsibility of any such third party and Opus DK accepts no responsibility, liability or risk for any damages, loss, or claims, if any, suffered by any such third party or any related party of such third party as a result of any reliance, or decisions made or actions taken, based upon this document. The information, opinions, recommendations, conclusions and/or analysis contained within this document are based upon observations and information made available to Opus DK as at the time of the preparation of the document. Any information provided to Opus DK by the Client on any third party is assumed to be correct. The information, opinions, recommendations, conclusions and/or analysis contained within this document are given based upon observations made by Opus DK and using generally accepted professional judgment and principles. All reports and drawings submitted within this document are submitted for the confidential information and use of the Client. The information contained within this document is confidential and contains intellectual property of Opus DK, including without limitation, information which is the subject of copyright to Opus DK, and shall not be directly or indirectly disclosed to any third party or discussed with any third party, and shall not be published or reproduced, in whole or in part, in written or electronic form without the prior written consent of Opus DK. D

3 CITY OF POWELL RIVER LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Background LWMP Process Stage 1 and 2 LWMP Stage 3 LWMP Initial Stage 3 Scope of Work Initial Draft Stage 3 LWMP Updated Stage 3 Scope of Work PUBLIC CONSULTATION Stage 2 LWMP Consultation Stage 3 LWMP Consultation UPDATED SCOPE AND CRITERIA FOR STAGE 3 LWMP Meeting with MOE Design Criteria Service Population Pump Stations Forcemains and Gravity Sewers Wastewater Flow and Load Potential Disinfection at Consolidated and Wildwood WWTPs STAGE 3 LWMP Source Control Wastewater Volume Reduction Stormwater Management D Page i

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont d.) 4.4 Non-Point Source Pollution Infrastructure Management and Spill Reporting Climate Change, Sustainability and Resource Recovery Reclamed Water Heat Biogas Nutrients Biosolids Wastewater Collection and Treatment Wastewater Conveyance Consolidated WWTP Updated Cost Estimates Connection of the Wildwood Service Area Outfall Dilution Modelling Regulatory Update Provincial Standards for Effluent Discharges Federal Standards for Effluent Discharges Draft Operational Certificates Wildwood Lagoon Westview WWTP Townsite WWTP Stage 3 LWMP Commitments REFERENCES...1 APPENDICES 1 Letter of Approval for Stage 2 2 Consultation With Ministry of Environment 3 Stage 3 LWMP Minutes of Joint Advisory Committee Meetings 4 First Nations Consultation 5 Budget Cost Estimates For UV Disinfection at Consolidated and Wildwood WWTPs 6 Memorandum Describing Bypass Frequencies And Permit Compliance at the Westview and Townsite WWTPs 7 Draft Operational Certificate for Wildwood WWTP 8 Draft Operational Certificate for Westview WWTP 9 Draft Operational Certificate for Townsite WWTP LIST OF TABLES 3-1 Per Capita Flows at Westview, Townsite And Wildwood Influent TSS and BOD Loads at Westview, Townsite and Wildwood D Page ii

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont d.) 3-3 Influent Daily Per Capita TSS and BOD Loads at Westview, Townsite and Wildwood Westview Master Drainage Plan Summary of Discharge Design Criteria (From KWL, 2007) Cost Estimates For Consolidated WWTP Cost Estimates Per Single Family Dwelling Permit Monitoring Summary for Wildwood WWTP 2010 to Westview WWTP Permit Monitoring Summary 2008 to Permit Monitoring Summary for Townsite WWTP 2010 to Stage 3 LWMP Financial commitments and Schedule LIST OF FIGURES 1-1 Westview, Townsite, Cranberry and Wildwood Service Areas 4-1 Phased Consolidated WWTP Located at Existing Townsite WWTP D Page iii

6 CITY OF POWELL RIVER LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Powell River began preparation of a Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP) in Stage 1 of the LWMP was completed in May The Stage 2 report was adopted by Council on July 12, 2005, and was approved by the Regional Manager of the MOE by letter dated January 20, This Stage 3 report is the third and final step in completing the City s LWMP. The City of Powell River is serviced by three separate wastewater collection and treatment systems. These are the Westview system, the Townsite system, and the Wildwood system. Each plant provides a secondary level of treatment, and each discharges effluent through an outfall to Malaspina Strait. The Wildwood wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) is a single-cell aerated lagoon facility that accepts trucked liquid waste (mainly septic tank pumpage). The Townsite WWTP, which was constructed in 1974, includes secondary (biological) treatment using the activated sludge process, with aerobic digestion of waste solids, and off-line flow equalization tanks to capture high flows during wet weather. Extreme high flows that exceed the capacity of the tanks and are bypassed directly to the outfall. The Westview WWTP, which was constructed in 1974 and upgraded in 1998, includes advanced biological treatment using the membrane bioreactor (MBR) process followed by UV disinfection. D Page 1

7 Due to the inability of the membrane bioreactor process at the Westview WWTP to consistently meet its permit requirements and the high costs to operate the facility, as well as MOE concerns with the Townsite WWTP, the City s LWMP included the identification of a site for a new facility designed to consolidate the Westview WWTP and Townsite WWTP into one common updated facility, termed the Consolidated WWTP. The City was subsequently presented with an opportunity for Joint Treatment (also known as Co-treatment) of the City wastewater at the Catalyst Mill s Effluent Treatment System. Consideration and evaluation of these alternatives was undertaken during the Stage 3 LWMP and is described in this report. The City has undertaken extensive public and stakeholder consultation during the development of the LWMP. The City engaged a facilitator in 2011 to assist in the development of a formal Public Consultation Plan; the Plan included an Information Phase (Open House), a Dialogue Phase following the Open House, and a final Accountability Phase to inform the community of the final LWMP. Based on the studies carried out during the Stage 2 and Stage 3 LWMP process and the stakeholder and public feedback received, the City of Powell River Council approved a Consolidated WWTP approach. This involves design and construction of a new Consolidated WWTP for secondary treatment of the City s wastewater constructed on lands at or near the existing Townsite WWTP, with discharge of the treated wastewater to Malaspina Strait via a new outfall. The design layout and site space allotment will be such that facilities for more advanced treatment and/or recovery of resources for beneficial use can be added in future if needed. A list of commitments for the City of Powell River LWMP is included in Section 4 of this report, together with a schedule for implementation. In addition to Consolidated Treatment, the commitments include components for non-point source pollution and source control, upgrading D Page 2

8 of the sewer collection system, water conservation and wastewater flow reduction, biosolids management, and stormwater management. D Page 3

9 CITY OF POWELL RIVER LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE INTRODUCTION This report presents the findings for Stage 3 of the Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP) for the City of Powell River, formerly the District of Powell River. 1.1 Background The City of Powell River is serviced by three separate wastewater collection and treatment systems. These are the Westview system, the Townsite system, and the Wildwood system. The facility locations and service areas are illustrated on Figure 1-1. Service populations are discussed in Section Each plant provides a secondary level of treatment, and each discharges effluent through an outfall to Malaspina Strait. The discharges are authorized under Permits issued by the B.C. Ministry of Environment (MOE), formerly the Ministry of Water, Land & Air Protection (MWLAP). The Wildwood Lagoon facility was constructed in The lagoon receives collected domestic wastewater from the Wildwood area, as well as trucked septage from areas within the Powell River Regional District. The Wildwood facility is a single cell partial aerated lagoon with floating mechanical aerators. Upgrades to the Wildwood Lagoon carried out during the Stage 2 LWMP included the addition of two floating aerator/mixers. An annual budget was also identified for eventual removal and D Page 1-1

10 P006 P022 P010 P008 P007 P021 P009 P003 P005 P023 P001 P024 P004 P012 P014 P020 LEGEND - SEWAGE AREAS LEGEND - PUMP STATIONS CITY OF POWELL RIVER STAGE 3 LWMP WESTVIEW, TOWNSITE, CRANBERRY & WILDWOOD SEWAGE AREAS, TRUNK SEWERS, PUMP STATIONS, TREATMENT PLANTS & OUTFALLS North Vancouver Office DRAWN BY: CWW Harbourside Drive, North Vancouver, BC, V7P 3S1, CANADA DWG. No. D m FIGURE 1-1

11 dewatering of accumulated solids. The City and the Regional District of Powell River have a long-term agreement to allow septage collected from the Regional District to be discharged to the Wildwood Lagoon. A trucked waste receiving facility has been added to the Wildwood Lagoon to improve monitoring and control of trucked waste. The Townsite treatment plant, which was constructed in 1974, includes secondary (biological) treatment using the activated sludge process, with aerobic digestion of waste solids. The Townsite plant includes off-line flow equalization tanks to capture high flows during wet weather. Extreme high flows that exceed the capacity of the tanks are bypassed directly to the outfall. Digested solids are also discharged through the outfall. The MOE placed the City of Powell River on notice by letter dated 17 July 2001 stating that they have concerns with the effluent bypass and the sludge discharge through the outfall from the Townsite WWTP, that the existing Townsite plant must be upgraded to meet current ministry standards, and that a schedule should be developed to accommodate the upgrade. The Westview treatment plant was constructed in 1974, and was upgraded in The upgraded plant includes advanced biological treatment using the membrane bioreactor process (MBR), followed by UV disinfection. As set out in the plant discharge permit (PE-00073), the membrane bioreactor process is required to treat base flows of up to 4,600 m 3 /d; high wet weather flows up to the maximum allowable discharge of 13,640 m 3 /d that exceed the capacity of the membrane process are bypassed through a fine screen and then discharged to the outfall along with the MBR effluent. Waste solids from the biological process are dewatered and sent to the Sechelt area for mine reclamation. The City began preparation of a LWMP in Due to the inability of the membrane bioreactor process at Westview to consistently meet its permit requirements and the high costs to operate the facility, as well as MOE concerns with the Townsite WWTP, the LWMP objectives included the identification of a site for a new facility designed to D Page 1-2

12 consolidate the Westview WWTP and Townsite WWTP into one common updated facility, termed the Consolidated WWTP. Provisions were also included for the possible future connection of the Wildwood service area to the Consolidated WWTP. 1.2 LWMP Process Guidelines for developing a LWMP were produced in 1992 by the MOE (BC Environment, 1992). The guidelines suggest a three-stage process, each involving meaningful public consultation. Stage 1 is intended to identify existing conditions and to consider a range of treatment and disposal options. Treatment and disposal options that have merit are advanced to Stage 2 for more detailed evaluation. Finally, the selected option is described and costed, the implementation schedule is developed, and draft operational certificates are prepared in Stage 3. When the Stage 3 plan is approved by the Minister of Environment, the local government has the authority to implement the plan. Permits are cancelled in favour of Operational Certificates issued under the LWMP. An approved LWMP also allows the local government to implement the works without further approvals being sought from the electorate. An approved LWMP should be updated from time to time (e.g. every 5 to 10 years), to monitor progress and evaluate changing conditions and new technologies. 1.3 Stage 1 and 2 LWMP In March 1998 the City (District) of Powell River Council passed a motion to undertake a Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP). Stage 1 of the LWMP was completed in May 2001 (NT, 2001). The City began the preparation of the Stage 2 LWMP in December In accordance with provincial guidelines, the City engaged a technical consultant, Dayton & Knight Ltd., Consulting Engineers (now Opus DaytonKnight Consultants Ltd.), and formed a project technical team, a Steering Committee, and Technical and Local Advisory Committees. The Technical and Local Advisory Committee were D Page 1-3

13 combined to form a Joint Advisory Committee (JAC), to optimize communication and effort. The JAC included representatives of various government agencies, local members representing a cross section of the community, Tla amin (Sliammon First Nation), City staff, and Council. During Stage 2, the technical team and the JAC developed a number of draft liquid waste management options for consideration by the community. Important issues central to wastewater collection and treatment included problems associated with the existing treatment plant at Westview, and site selection for a new Consolidated WWTP to serve the Westview and Townsite areas. Other issues included source control of contaminants, wastewater volume reduction through water conservation, reclamation and reuse of treated wastewater, beneficial reuse of the solid residuals (biosolids) produced by wastewater treatment, and management of stormwater runoff. All of these issues were considered in developing the draft LWMP options. More detail regarding the options development process can be found in the Stage 1 and Stage 2 reports (NT, 2001 and DK, 2005b). The Stage 2 LWMP report was supported by the following supplementary reports: Environmental Impact Study: Westview Treatment Plant Discharge (DK, 2003a); Liquid Waste Management Plan Stage 2 Westview/Townsite Treatment Plant Consolidation Study (DK, 2003b); Liquid Waste Management Plan Stage 2 Public Consultation Report (DK, 2005a); and Sanitary Sewer System, 2003 Inflow and Infiltration Program (DK, 2004). Essential to the success of the LWMP process is effective public consultation. The public consultation program for the City of Powell River Stage 2 LWMP commenced with the formation of the Steering and JAC and continued throughout Stage 2. Public input was obtained by conducting an open house meeting to explain the draft LWMP D Page 1-4

14 options to members of the community, and to ask for their comments and suggestions. Feedback from the public was considered by the Joint Advisory Committee in refining the draft options and in identifying the preferred options to be advanced to Stage 3 (see Section 2 of this report for more detail). The Stage 2 LWMP Report was adopted by Council on July 12, 2005, and was approved by the Regional Manager of the MOE by letter dated January 20, A copy of the approval letter is attached as Appendix 1. This Stage 3 LWMP report includes a summary of the LWMP components that were advanced to Stage 3, with additions and updates to address the Stage 3 scope of work as outlined in Section Stage 3 LWMP Initial Stage 3 Scope of Work The initial scope of work for Stage 3 is summarized below. The tasks were developed in light of discussions with City staff and the MOE prior to commencing Stage 3 of the LWMP. 1. Meet with City staff to discuss and finalize LWMP components. 2. Meet with MOE staff at Surrey office to review and agree upon Stage 3 Terms of Reference, and ongoing liaison with MOE throughout Stage 3 (see meeting minutes attached in Appendix 2). 3. Review Stage 2 LWMP components with City staff, and update schedule and costs set out in Table 11-1 of the Stage 2 Report. 4. Review City s updated (2014) Official Community Plan and make appropriate revisions to LWMP if required. D Page 1-5

15 5. Add commitment to Stage 3 for outfall dilution modeling to identify sampling locations for Wildwood discharge so that the need for disinfection of this discharge can be assessed develop costs and schedule for dilution modeling, identification of sampling stations and testing for fecal coliforms. 6. Add commitment to Stage 3 for outfall dilution modeling and environmental impact assessment (EIS) for the proposed discharge from the Consolidated WWTP develop costs and schedule for carrying out dilution modeling, EIS and monitoring of fecal coliforms. 7. Develop budget costs and add corresponding contingency amounts to LWMP for adding disinfection to Wildwood and Consolidated WWTPs in the event that future monitoring shows disinfection is needed. 8. Develop draft Operational Certificates for the Westview and Wildwood WWTPs. Add commitment to Stage 3 LWMP for developing Operational Certificate for Consolidated WWTP once the EIS and pre-design studies are completed. 9. Prepare Draft Stage 3 LWMP Report and circulate to members of Joint Advisory Committee. 10. Meeting of Joint Advisory Committee to confirm Stage 3 components, funding and schedule obtain consensus on Stage 3 LWMP Report with revisions as determined at the meeting so that the Committee can provide a recommendation to the Steering Committee. 11. Revise Stage 3 report if needed in light of Council input. Once Council has adopted the report, submit Stage 3 to Ministry of Environment for review (including draft D Page 1-6

16 Operational Certificates). Meet with MOE to discuss and finalize Stage 3 LWMP for adoption by Council and submission to the Minister Initial Draft Stage 3 LWMP The first draft Stage 3 LWMP report based on the above scope of work was completed in August 2006, and was subsequently submitted to the MOE for review and comment. Comments were returned by MOE by on June 26, 2007 (copy attached in Appendix 2). Based on these comments, the second draft Stage 3 LWMP report was completed in September As noted earlier, a primary objective of the LWMP was consolidation of wastewater treatment for the Westview and Townsite service areas at a single Consolidated Treatment Plant (WWTP). The City s LWMP involved consideration of a number of potential sites for the Consolidated WWTP. Following completion of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 LWMP reports by 2005, the Waste Transfer Site was selected as the location for the new Consolidated WWTP, after the other candidate sites on the short list were withdrawn from consideration by the property owner. The City subsequently formed a Joint Venture with the owners of the Catalyst Mill (Mill) and the Tla amin (Sliammon) First Nation. The Joint Venture was formed to oversee the sale and redevelopment of about 320 hectares of property surplus to the core operation of the Mill. The proposed redevelopment resulted in the existing Townsite WWTP coming back into consideration as a site for the Consolidated WWTP. In addition, two new candidate sites were identified Updated Stage 3 Scope of Work The City was subsequently presented with an opportunity for Co-treatment (Joint Treatment) of the City wastewater at the Catalyst Mill s Effluent Treatment System. The Co-treatment option was extensively investigated by the City in consultation with the D Page 1-7

17 Joint Advisory Committee and the community. As described later in this report, the City decided to pursue the Consolidated WWTP rather than the Co-treatment option. D Page 1-8

18 CITY OF POWELL RIVER LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE PUBLIC CONSULTATION A summary of the public consultation program undertaken during the Stage 2 and Stage 3 Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP) is outlined in this section. 2.1 Stage 2 LWMP Consultation Public consultation undertaken during completion of the Stage 2 LWMP was described in the Stage 2 report and in the supporting Public Consultation Report (DK, 2005a and 2005b). As noted in those reports, Provincial Guidelines require local governments that are undertaking a LWMP to strike a Technical Advisory Committee composed of municipal staff and invited representatives of senior government agencies (Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Community and Rural Development, Ministry of Health, Environment Canada, at least one non-government representative, at least one elected municipal; official, others as applicable). Invited government agencies often limit their participation to correspondence and review of material, and do not attend Committee meetings. A Local Advisory Committee is also required to represent a wide range of interests in the community, and should include at least one member of the Technical Committee, municipal staff, Ministry of Environment regional manager or designate, elected officials, local environmental groups, business, labour, rate-payer and consumer groups, school D Page 2-1

19 districts, local large waste generators, owners/operators of local private wastewater management systems, First Nations, and others as appropriate. A Steering Committee is often established comprising members of Council and municipal staff to guide the Advisory Committees and to make recommendations to Council. At the outset of the Stage 2 LWMP and in consultation with the Ministry of Environment, the City (then the District) of Powell River elected to combine the Local and Technical Advisory Committees into a Joint Advisory Committee (JAC), in order to minimize the number of meetings and to ensure a wider expression of views and improved communication. Seven meetings of the JAC and two workshops (one involving the JAC and the other involving municipal treatment plant staff) were held during Stage 2 (January, 2003 through March, 2004). A Public Open House was held on June 16, 2004 to present the draft Stage 2 LWMP to the members of the community at large. Display advertisements and articles in the local news media were published in support of the public consultation. Documented minutes and record of all JAC meetings were provided. Members of the public were invited to attend the JAC meetings and to ask questions and provide comment. The main focus of the Stage 2 LWMP and the public consultation was selection of a suitable site for the construction of a new Consolidated Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) to replace the existing Westview and Townsite facilities, with possible future connection of Wildwood. Before site selection was completed, all but one of the candidate sites identified as viable for the Consolidated WWTP were withdrawn from consideration by the property owner. The sole remaining site was the Waste Transfer Site, which was then adopted for the Stage 2 LWMP and presented at the Stage 2 Public Open House. The Stage 2 LWMP report incorporating the public consultation results was completed in August, 2005 (DK, 2005b). The Stage 2 LWMP was approved by the regional manager of the Ministry of Environment by letter dated January 20, 2006 (see Appendix 1). D Page 2-2

20 2.2 Stage 3 LWMP Consultation During the Stage 3 LWMP, information regarding the Stage 3 LWMP and the wastewater treatment options was made available to members of the public, who were invited to attend JAC meetings. Public feedback was then presented to the JAC for discussion and endorsement to the Steering Committee. Frequently Asked Questions from the community together with responses from the LWMP technical team and the City were maintained on the City s website. The Joint Advisory Committee (JAC) re-assembled in 2007 for the Stage 3 LWMP. The first JAC meeting for Stage 3 was held in June 2007 (see Appendix 3 for JAC meeting minutes). The City conducted a review of JAC membership at that time, and all but two of the original members agreed to continue as members of the JAC. At a meeting of the Steering Committee held on June 28, 2010, the membership of the JAC and the 2007 review of JAC membership were discussed in response to a concern expressed by a member of the community; no changes to Committee membership were recommended by the Steering Committee. Following the first JAC meeting for Stage 3, the LWMP was delayed pending resolution of available sites for construction of the Consolidated WWTP. The City was subsequently presented with an opportunity for Co-treatment of the City s wastewater in the Catalyst Mill s Effluent Treatment System (also known as Joint Treatment). A twophase study was then undertaken, to allow the Co-treatment option to be developed in sufficient detail to be compared to the options for a Consolidated WWTP developed earlier in the LWMP. Phase 1 was a feasibility study to determine if there were any significant technical or regulatory barriers to Co-treatment; the Phase 1 Study findings indicated that Co-treatment was feasible (DK, 2010a). The Co-treatment option was then developed to the concept design level in Phase 2 for comparison with the Consolidated WWTP options developed previously. D Page 2-3

21 The first draft of the Phase 2 Co-treatment report describing concept design alternatives and costs for the Co-treatment option (DK, 2010b) was presented to the JAC on May 11, 2010 (see Appendix 3 for meeting minutes). The meeting was advertised in the local media and presentations from two local groups (Cranberry Ratepayers Association and CUPE) were included on the agenda. Members of the public were also invited to attend the meeting to ask questions and provide comment. Information provided to members of the JAC (e.g., the Phase 1 Feasibility Study letter report, and the first draft of the Phase 2 Co-treatment report) was also made available to the public for review, and comments could be submitted verbally or in writing to City staff or to the City s website via . A subsequent JAC meeting held on June 29, 2010 included delegations from one of the JAC members and from the Powell River Joint Water Watch Coalition, as well as tabling of a submission by CUPE and letters of support and opposition regarding the Co- Treatment option. The Public Consultation Plan and the Communications Plan were also discussed. Additional JAC meetings were held on August 12, 2010 and August 25, 2010, mainly as a round-table discussion among Committee members. Minutes from these meetings are included in Appendix 3. The next JAC meeting was held on November 8, 2010, to review and discuss the Phase 2 Co-treatment report, which had been revised to address stakeholder comments on the first draft. The second draft of the Co-treatment report contained sufficient information for the JAC members to compare the Co-Treatment option with the Consolidated WWTP alternatives previously developed. Tla amin (Sliammon) First Nation was also consulted regarding preferred locations for facilities and pipeline routes and potential conflicts with archaeological sites (see Appendix 4 for more information on consultation with First Nations). Meetings of the JAC were held on November 30, 2010, December 14, 2010 and January 19, 2011, to discuss weighting for the Consolidated WWTP site ranking matrix, to D Page 2-4

22 discuss material for the planned Public Open House, and to update the Public Consultation Plan. Delegations from a representative of the Powell River Water Watch were received at all three meetings (see minutes in Appendix 3). At a meeting of the JAC held in February 15, 2011, the results of a bus tour for Committee members of the Consolidated WWTP candidate sites were presented. The Public Consultation Plan was further discussed, and a facilitator retained by the City for the public consultation process was introduced. It was determined to postpone ranking of the candidate sites for the Consolidated WWTP until after Public Consultation (see minutes in Appendix 3). At a JAC meeting on March 15, 2011, a delegation from the Powell River Water Watch Coalition and correspondence from local groups and members of the community were received. Drafting of a comprehensive community consultation process was discussed (see minutes in Appendix 3). The draft material for the Public Open House was reviewed with the JAC at a meeting on March 28, Comments were received and revisions to the material made accordingly. The facilitator retained by the City reviewed the proposed public consultation process, which was developed to include an Information Phase (Open House), followed by a Dialogue Phase (Discussion Session) one week after the Open House, and culminating in an Accountability Phase (Town Hall Meeting), where Council s decision would be presented to the community. A JAC meeting was held on May 3, 2011 to finalize material to be presented at the Public Open House. It was noted at the meeting that a Council motion on April 21, 2011 approved provision of opportunities for interested parties to have a table at the Open House. Issues regarding amendment of the Mill s permit to potentially accommodate Cotreatment were reviewed (see minutes in Appendix 3). D Page 2-5

23 The Public Open House was held on May 10, Illustrated boards describing the various LWMP components were displayed, with City staff and/or consultants available at each station to answer questions. A questionnaire was distributed to assist in documenting public feedback, and a total of 117 completed questionnaires were handed in. The results are summarized as follows (more detail can be found in the Facilitator s Report, InFocus, 2011): A. Demographics: 1. 77% of respondents learned of the Open House primarily from newspaper (58); word of mouth (40) or flyers or brochures (38) % of attendees came from Westview, 22% from Townsite, and 11% from Wildwood % of respondents are connected to the City s sanitary sewer system. B. Important Components of LWMP: 4. 91% agree, in some measure, that control of storm water runoff is important % agree, in some measure, that Source Control of contaminants is important % agree, in some measure, that water conservation is important % agree, in some measure that biosolids should be considered as a soil conditioner. C. Preferred Treatment Option: 8. 72% prefer a Consolidated stand-alone system; 17% prefer other solutions and 11% prefer a Joint Treatment option. D Page 2-6

24 D. Matrix Selection Criteria for Consolidated Option: 9. In order of importance, criteria were Environment (34%); Social (23%); Economic (22%); Technical (19%) and Other (2%). E. Matrix Selection Criteria for Co-treatment Option 10. In order of importance, criteria were Environment (31%); Economic (25%); Social (17%); Technical (17%) and Other (10%). F. Open House Information % agree, in some measure, that the Open House material was clear, easy to follow and understand % agree, in some measure, that the level of detail was appropriate to the subject. At a JAC meeting on May 30, 2011, recommendations to the Steering Committee for a publically owned and operated Consolidated WWTP were carried (this followed an earlier, similar motion at the JAC meeting on May 24, 2011 see minutes in Appendix 3). A meeting of the JAC was held on March 6, Topics of discussion included the schedule for completion of the LWMP, funding from senior government, the proposed referendum on wastewater treatment, and cash flow and debt servicing. Members of the JAC were informed that the City and Tla amin (Sliammon) First Nation were still in favour of the Co-treatment option (see Appendix 3 for draft minutes). No additional meetings of the JAC were held from March 6, 2013 to the date of publication of this Stage 3 LWMP report. The City subsequently decided to pursue the D Page 2-7

25 Consolidated WWTP, and on February 5, 2015, a Council motion was carried to call a Town Hall meeting to complete the Public Consultation Plan; and update the Liquid Waste Management Plan for submission to the Ministry of Environment removing cotreatment as an option, and including only a publicly-owned and operated, technologically and/or environmentally innovative consolidated stand-alone facility as the option. Another Council motion carried on the same date was that treatment of wastewater for Sliammon be removed from the Liquid Waste Management Plan Stage 3. (Sliammon had previously informed the City that they intended to pursue their own independent solution to wastewater treatment). The Information Phase (Public Open House) and the Dialogue Phase (Discussion Session) of the Public Consultation Plan were completed in The Accountability Phase (Town Hall Meeting) to communicate Council s decision to the public will be completed in June 15, D Page 2-8

26 CITY OF POWELL RIVER LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE UPDATED SCOPE AND CRITERIA FOR STAGE 3 LWMP 3.1 Meeting with MOE The draft Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Stage 3 Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP) were developed by the consulting team in consultation with City staff. A copy of the draft TOR was then sent to the Ministry of Environment (MOE) Surrey office for review. A meeting with representatives of MOE, the City, and Opus DaytonKnight was held on March 28, 2006, to discuss and finalize the Stage 3 TOR. Copies of the meeting minutes and the draft TOR are attached as Appendix 2 (also included in Appendix 2 are copies of recent letters regarding ongoing non-compliance of the Westview WWTP with the facility Operating Permit). 3.2 Design Criteria Service Population As noted earlier in this report, the City currently has three WWTPs, one at Westview, another at Townsite (also serving the Cranberry Lake area), and a third at Wildwood. The City s LWMP is based on consolidating the Westview and Townsite/Cranberry Lake service areas with treatment at a single Consolidated WWTP (DK, 2007). For the purpose of the Stage 3 LWMP, it was assumed that the Wildwood area may be connected to the D Page 3-1

27 Consolidated system in future, and that the concept designs for a City treatment system should include the capacity for treatment of the wastewater from all of these service areas. The residential population for the City was adopted from Canada Census information as used in the recent pre-design report for the City drinking water system (DK, 2010c). Future projected service populations using the proportional distribution among the three WWTP service areas provided by the City Planning Department as set below were used for developing concept designs for the Stage 3 LWMP. Design Population Westview ,994 11,975 Townsite ,323 Cranberry Lake 2,871 3,073 3,080 Sub-Total 11,822 13,930 16,378 Wildwood 1,314 1,314 1,314 Total 13,136 15,244 17,692 For the purpose of developing concept designs for the Stage 3 LWMP, a design service population of 16,500 people was adopted. This allowed a balanced comparison with other wastewater management alternatives previously developed for the City s LWMP, which used a similar service population. The concept designs allow for future expansion to accommodate additional long-term growth Pump Stations Design Population Station year 2030; Pumps year HP and less 1 operating and 1 standby pump. 25 HP and greater 2 operating pumps, 1 standby pump. Design flow = Maximum Day (960 lpcd) x 1.5. D Page 3-2

28 Submersible pumps. Standby generator. Reuse existing outfall as emergency overflow when feasible Forcemains and Gravity Sewers Design population = Year 2030 Design flow = Maximum Day (960 lpcd) x 1.5. Manning n = Wastewater Flow and Load In the Stage 2 LWMP report, it was noted that the per capita wastewater flows were considered high compared to most other communities, and in light of future reductions in per capita flows through water conservation and I&I reduction, recommended per capita flows for planning purposes were 400 L/c/d for average dry weather flow (ADWF), 490 L/c/d for average annual flow (AAF), 550 L/c/d for maximum week flow (MWF), and 960 L/c/d for maximum day flow (MDF). For this Stage 3 LWMP report, recent plant historic operating data for the three WWTPs were reviewed and compared against the historical data from previous reports (DK, 2007 and DK, 2010b). Flows recorded at the City s three WWTP s from 2000 to 2012 are summarized in Table 3-1. As shown, per capita ADWF and AAF have been reduced at all three WWTP s since However, wet weather flows (AWWF, MWF and MDF) remain high, indicating that ongoing reduction of wet weather I&I is needed. (Note that the accuracy of the flow meter for the primary bypass at the Westview WWTP is suspect for high wet weather flows). Prior to detailed design of wastewater facilities that are governed by hydraulics (e.g., pump stations, headworks screens, settling tanks, etc.), flow data and design criteria should again be reviewed and updated. The City should continue to investigate and remediate sources of wet weather inflow D Page 3-3

29 and infiltration to the sewer collection systems at all three WWTPs (see LWMP commitments for I&I reduction in Table 4-6 in Section 4 of this report). Table 3-2 summarizes the influent TSS and BOD load for the three WWTP s for the period from 2000 to 2012, indicating the annual average and maximum month loads in kg/d. Table 3-3 summarizes the daily per capita TSS and BOD loads for the three WWTPs over the same period. As shown in Table 3-3, the observed average per capita BOD loads varied widely among the three facilities, from 70 g/c/d at the Townsite WWTP to 120 g/c/d at the Westview WWTP. This compares to the assumed values of 90 g/c/d (average) and 150 g/c/d (maximum week) used in the (2005) Stage 2 LWMP, which was based on earlier data collected to that point. Typical average per capita loads for domestic sewage systems without significant industrial inputs are normally in the range 70 g/c/d to 90 g/c/d. It is recommended that the City undertake a review of sampling and analysis procedures at the three WWTPs, to ensure that representative data are being obtained. Prior to detailed design of wastewater facilities that are governed by organic and solids loading (e.g., settling tanks, bioreactors, solids handling and treatment), plant loading data and design criteria should be reviewed and updated as needed. D Page 3-4

30 TABLE 3-1 PER CAPITA FLOWS AT WESTVIEW, TOWNSITE AND WILDWOOD Westview Townsite 1 Wildwood Unit Flows (L/c/d) Unit Flows (L/c/d) Unit Flows (L/c/d) Year Service AAF ADWF AWWF Max. Service Max. AAF ADWF AWWF Max. Service Max. Pop. Pop. Pop. AAF ADWF AWWF Max. Week Day Week Day Week , ,190 3, ,070 1,200 1,500 1, ,090 1, , ,000 1,160 1,370 3, ,510 1, ,160 1, , ,180 1,520 3, ,080 1,280 1, ,150 1, , ,320 2,250 3, ,110 1,640 1, ,180 1, , ,200 1,370 3, ,130 1,380 1, ,100 1, , ,090 1,640 2,210 3, ,010 1,500 1,780 1, ,170 1, , ,140 1,280 1,990 3, ,040 1,370 1,151 1, ,230 1, , ,170 1,430 3, ,060 1, ,120 1, , ,070 1,280 3, , , , ,030 1,620 1,740 3, ,080 1, ,080 1, , ,400 1,860 3, ,300 1,670 1, ,130 1, , ,050 1,240 3, , ,140 1, , ,190 1,340 1,410 3, ,010 1, ,130 Average 8, ,000 1,260 1,600 3, ,040 1,310 1, ,110 1,310 1 Sewer separation completed in No ADWF available for 2001, since lagoon outlet valve closed frequently during summer D Page 3-5

31 TABLE 3-2 INFLUENT TSS AND BOD LOADS AT WESTVIEW, TOWNSITE AND WILDWOOD Year Westview Townsite 1 Wildwood TSS (Kg/d) BOD (Kg/d) TSS (Kg/d) BOD (Kg/d) TSS (Kg/d) BOD (Kg/d) Ave Annual Max Month Ave Annual Max Month Ave Annual Max Month Ave Annual Max Month Ave Annual Max Month Ave Annual Max Month , , ,500 1,040 1, ,710 1,180 2, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Average 680 1, , Sewer separation completed in 2006 D Page 3-6

32 Year TABLE 3-3 INFLUENT DAILY PER CAPITA TSS AND BOD LOADS AT WESTVIEW, TOWNSITE AND WILDWOOD Population Westview TSS (g/cap/d) Ave Annual Max Month BOD (g/cap/d) Ave Annual Max Month Population Townsite 1 TSS (g/cap/d) Ave Annual Max Month BOD (g/cap/d) Ave Annual Max Month Population Wildwood TSS (g/cap/d) Ave Annual Max Month BOD (g/cap/d) Ave Annual Max Month Average Sewer separation completed in 2006 D Page 3-7

33 3.3 Potential Disinfection at Consolidated and Wildwood WWTPs The Stage 3 LWMP includes a commitment to carry out dilution modeling for the outfall discharges from the proposed Consolidated WWTP and from the existing Wildwood WWTP. The need for adding effluent disinfection facilities to the two WWTPs can then be assessed. The Stage 3 LWMP includes budget contingency amounts for adding disinfection facilities at the Consolidated and Wildwood WWTPs at some time in the future, in the event that the need is identified. For budgeting purposes, cost estimates for the Consolidated WWTP were based on disinfection using ultraviolet (UV) light, since regulatory agencies are not generally supportive of chlorine as a disinfection agent for new installations. For the Wildwood Lagoon, cost estimates were based on the use of effluent filtration followed by UV disinfection; this will require more detailed study if disinfection is required, to determine if UV disinfection is feasible at Wildwood. If not, chlorination using sodium hypochlorite solution could be used. Dechlorination following disinfection could be accomplished using sodium bisulfite solution. It was assumed for the purpose of developing cost estimates for the addition of disinfection that effluent filtration to remove residual suspended solids would be implemented prior to UV disinfection for the Consolidated WWTP (effluent filtration would not be needed if chlorination were used for disinfection, and may not be needed for UV disinfection, depending on process selection and other factors). Filtration would have the effect of reducing effluent suspended solids to 5 mg/l or less, compared to the required provincial secondary treatment standard of 45 mg/l (effluent BOD5 would also be removed to a similar level). Effluent filtration using rotating disk filter technology was assumed, since this method is much more space-efficient than sand bed filters. Details of the capital cost estimates for UV disinfection at the Consolidated WWTP and chlorination at the Wildwood WWTP (adjusted for inflation to 2015) are detailed in Appendix 5. The costs for these items are summarized in Table 4-6 at the end of Section 4. D Page 3-8

34 CITY OF POWELL RIVER LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE STAGE 3 LWMP The Stage 3 LWMP components are summarized in this section. The Stage 3 components were developed from the approved Stage 2 LWMP, with updates and additions according to the Initial and Updated Stage 3 scope of work set out in Sections and of this report, as well as supplemental work carried out during the evaluation of Co-treatment of the City s wastewater at the Catalyst Mill s Effluent Treatment System. Financial commitments and the schedule for implementing the Stage 3 LWMP components are shown in Table 4-6 at the end of Section 4. Additional detail regarding evaluation of options can be found in the Stage 2 LWMP Report (DK, 2005b), in earlier drafts of the Stage 3 report (DK 2006), the Consolidation Study report (DK, 2007), and in the Co-treatment report (DK, 2010a and 2010b). 4.1 Source Control Source controls are used to discourage the discharge of wastes to the sanitary sewer (and storm drainage system) that may degrade the quality of receiving waters, or hinder the efficiency of treatment facilities. These discharges may enter the system via service connections from buildings, or from pumper truck discharges (e.g. septage and trucked liquid waste from private businesses). Source controls can be implemented through either a regulatory or an educational approach, or through a combination of the two. Source control components included in the City of Powell River LWMP include the development of a sanitary sewer source control bylaw (completed 2005), development of a monitoring and enforcement program for the bylaw, and an education program aimed at public and private sector sewage dischargers. These commitments are listed in Table 4-6 D Page 4-1

35 at the end of Section 4. More detail can be found in the Stage 2 LWMP Report (DK, 2005b). 4.2 Wastewater Volume Reduction Wastewater volume reduction programs are aimed at reducing the liquid volume reaching wastewater treatment plants. The principal areas of potential volume reduction are infiltration and inflow (I&I) of stormwater into the sewage collection system, and a reduction of water leaving buildings within the service area. Volume control measures included in the City of Powell River LWMP include I&I reduction programs for the Townsite, Westview, Cranberry Lake and Wildwood service areas, as well as the development of an education program for water conservation, and future reuse of reclaimed effluent on-site at the Consolidated WWTP. Commitments for I&I reduction are included in Table 4-6 at the end of Section 4. More detail on the I&I reduction measures is provided in the Stage 2 LWMP report (DK, 2005b). 4.3 Stormwater Management Provincial guidelines call for the inclusion of stormwater management in liquid waste management plans. Stormwater initiatives included in the City of Powell River LWMP include the preparation of a Master Drainage Plan, review of development approval procedures to ensure that stormwater issues are considered at the outset of the planning process, promotion of on-site infiltration, development of a storm drainage bylaw with an accompanying enforcement policy, inclusion of stormwater issues in the source control program, and a stormwater monitoring program (see Table 4-6 at the end of Section 4). The City has completed a stormwater management plan for the Westview area (KWL, 2007). The Westview Master Drainage Plan (MDP) outlines 5-year and 15-year capital plans for drainage improvements for major (100-year return period) and minor (10-year return period) storms for the Squatter s Creek and McGuffie/McFall Creek watersheds. The recommended improvements include re-routing of a storm sewer to avoid infiltration D Page 4-2

36 of leachate from a historic (now inactive) landfill site into the stormwater collection system that discharges to Squatter s Creek. A recommended program for flow monitoring to allow calibration of the computer model for storm runoff is included in the MDP. In addition to the recommended drainage improvements, the Westview MDP contained recommendations for environmental protection and water quality protection. A summary of the recommended measures, which include both Low Impact Development Techniques and stormwater treatment, is outlined in Table 4-1 (for discharges to creeks and for direct discharges to Malaspina Strait). TABLE 4-1 WESTVIEW MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN SUMMARY OF DISCHARGE DESIGN CRITERIA (from KWL, 2007) Receiving Component Criteria / Guidelines Flood Protection Water Creeks and Malaspina Strait Minor drainage system 10-year return period design event 1 Major drainage system 100-year return period design event 1 Water Quality Creeks Provide treatment for 6-month event for impervious areas where source controls are not achievable. 2 Malaspina Strait Provide treatment for all new impervious surfaces up to the 6-month storm (calculated by multiplying the 2- year, 24-hour rainfall amount on the IDF curve by 72%). Volumetric Reduction Creeks Infiltrate, evaporate, transpirate, or re-use all rainfall up to the 6-month storm (calculated by multiplying the 2-year, 24-hour rainfall amount on the IDF curve by 72%). 2 Malaspina Strait Not required. Rate Control Creeks Control post-development flows to pre-development levels for 6-month, 2-year and 5-year events. 2 Malaspina Strait Detention required. A cost analysis shows that it is more economical to construct a detention pond rather than upgrading the downstream infrastructure. The release rate should not exceed pre-development levels for all storms up to the 100-year event. 1 City of Powell River Subdivision Drainage Criteria. 2 Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2001 Urban Stormwater Guidelines and Best Management Practices for Protection of Fish and Fish Habitat (Draft). D Page 4-3

37 At the time of publishing this Stage 3 LWMP report, the City was also undertaking the preparation of a Master Drainage Plan for the Cranberry, Townsite and Wildwood watersheds. 4.4 Non-Point Source Pollution Non-point source pollution includes on-site septic tank and ground disposal systems. There are few on-site systems within the City of Powell River municipal boundary. Wastewater discharges from boats are a potential second non-point source. The LWMP includes the following components for non-point source pollution: a study to evaluate the costs of eliminating all on-site systems within the municipal boundary; ensuring that charges for accepting trucked waste reflect the costs of treatment; improvements to the Wildwood Lagoon where pumper truck discharges are presently treated; and addition of a boat holding tank pump-out station at Westview Marina. In a 2005 study, the costs of eliminating onsite systems within the City were estimated at about $1.8 million; it was recommended that the City work with the local Health Unit to identify and address sewer servicing of problem lots on a priority basis (DK, 2005c). Improvements completed to eliminate onsite systems include sewer extensions in the Cranberry Lake service area (see Table 4-6 for more detail). The City has completed improvements to the Wildwood Lagoon to control and monitor pumper truck discharges. A boat holding tank pumpout station has been installed at the Westview Marina (see Table 4-6 at the end of Section 4). 4.5 Infrastructure Management and Spill Reporting The City of Powell River maintains ongoing infrastructure management programs for maintenance of wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure. These programs D Page 4-4

38 include operations, as well as replacement, repair and rehabilitation of sewers, pumping stations, treatment facilities and related infrastructure and equipment. Financial commitments for these programs are included in Table 4-6 at the end of Section 4, including capital upgrades and ongoing O&M costs for the treatment facilities, as well as rehabilitation of sewer systems in the Westview, Townsite, Cranberry Lake and Wildwood service areas. Emergency procedures and wastewater bypasses at treatment facilities are set out in the draft Operational Certificates discussed later in this report. Under the Spill Reporting Regulation, the unauthorized release or discharge of 200 kg of a substance that can cause pollution (e.g., 200 L of sewage) would be classified as a spill. In the event of a spill, the City will immediately inform the MOE and the Provincial Emergency Program (PEP). Contact information is as follows: Ministry of Environment Provincial Emergency Program Street Surrey, B.C. V3R 0Y3 Tel: (604) Fax: (604) The following information will be reported to the extent practical: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) the reporting person s name and telephone number; the name and telephone number of the person who caused the spill; the location and time of the spill; the type and quantity of the substance spilled; the cause and effect of the spill; details of action taken or proposed; a description of the spill location and of the area surrounding the spill; the details of further action contemplated or required; D Page 4-5

39 (i) (j) the names of agencies on the scene; and the names of other persons or agencies advised concerning the spill. The Spill Reporting Regulation also specifies that, where a spill occurs, the person who immediately before the spill had possession, charge or control of the spilled substance shall take all reasonable and practical action, having due regard for the safety of the public and of himself or herself, to stop, contain and minimize the effects of the spill. 4.6 Climate Change, Sustainability and Resource Recovery Climate change is a significant local, regional, and global issue. In selecting the new site for the Consolidated WWTP, the City has considered reduction of greenhouse gases by including energy consumption (pumping costs) as a site selection criteria. The City will also consider the use of treatment processes with minimal energy demand and low greenhouse gas emissions in designing the Consolidated facilities. Recovery and beneficial use of resources extracted or produced at wastewater treatment facilities is becoming more common. Construction of a new Consolidated WWTP allows the City to consider resource recovery at the design stage. In general, resource recovery can include reclaimed water, recovery of heat from the wastewater stream, production of biogas for generation of combined heat and power, recovery of nutrients (e.g. struvite pellets for use as fertilizer), and beneficial use of solid residuals as a natural fertilizer / soil conditioner. The economics of resource recovery from wastewater treatment depends upon factors such as the size of the WWTP, the capital and operating costs of recovering the resources, the market for the recovered resources, and the distance between the WWTP and the end users. Brief descriptions of potential resource recovery strategies for the City s new Consolidated WWTP are outlined below. D Page 4-6

40 4.6.1 Reclaimed Water Use of reclaimed effluent for non-potable applications such as irrigation, industrial process water, ornamental ponds, and toilet flushing is one of the more common resource recovery strategies, particularly in areas of the world where water is in short supply. Production of reclaimed water to meet regulatory standards can add substantially to the capital and operating costs of treatment, particularly if the reclaimed water is to be used in applications where direct contact by the public is possible. In general, the proximity of potential users dictates the cost effectiveness of water reclamation, since the costs of conveyance to sites remote from the treatment facility are high. Production of reclaimed water to meet regulatory standards for use in publicallyaccessible areas requires additional levels of treatment (e.g., tertiary filtration and disinfection of effluent, use of membrane bioreactors, etc.); these additional levels of treatment can add substantially to the capital and operating costs of the treatment facilities. Treating the entire wastewater stream to reclaimed water standards and then discharging the bulk of that water to the outfall if customers are not identified will incur unnecessary costs. Use of reclaimed water for non-potable applications at the wastewater treatment plant itself is usually cost effective, although this typically represents a relatively small portion of the total wastewater flow. Locating the WWTP in an area zoned for industrial (or agricultural) use increases the probability that there may be significant reclaimed water users near the plant. Use for toilet flushing is normally undertaken in new construction of high density residential developments (e.g. high rise buildings); retrofitting a separate ( purple pipe ) reclaimed water system to existing single-family development such as Powell River would be extremely costly. D Page 4-7

41 It is recommended that the Consolidated WWTP be designed with an in-plant water reuse system, with allowances made in the plant design for expansion of the reclaimed water system if additional users in the area are identified in future. Water reuse at the new WWTP for non-potable applications will help to reduce energy inputs to the potable water distribution system, and will reduce potable water demand Heat Recovery of thermal energy from wastewater streams can be used to heat buildings and hot water supplies. This normally requires heat exchangers to transfer the thermal energy to a closed loop piping system that circulates the heat to the end user, which may be a single facility, or a district energy sharing system may be used for an entire neighbourhood. An example is the Saanich Peninsula WWTP, where heat recovered from the wastewater is used to heat an adjacent municipal swimming pool. The Saanich system is designed so that it can be expanded in future to service a school, residential areas, greenhouses and the WWTP buildings. Another example is the Whistler WWTP, where the former Olympic Athlete s Village (now converted to high density residential) is heated by a neighbourhood energy system that extracts heat from the nearby WWTP. Installation of heat recovery systems adds substantially to the capital cost of WWTPs. Use of these systems for the Consolidated WWTP at Powell River will depend on the proximity of users (industrial or high density residential developments). It is recommended that the Consolidated WWTP be designed so that facilities for heat recovery from the wastewater stream can easily be accommodated, in the event that a nearby end user can be identified Biogas Processing of the waste solids produced by wastewater treatment (commonly referred to as digestion) to produce biogas for production of combined heat and power from cogeneration engines has been in common use for many decades throughout the world. The D Page 4-8

42 capital investment for this type of system is high, as gas-tight reactors and complex gas handling systems are required. As a result, biogas recovery and co-generation are not typically cost-effective at WWTP s in the size range of the City s proposed Consolidated WWTP. However, research and development of new technologies are ongoing, and this may become a viable option in future. The new Consolidated WWTP should be designed with this in mind, so that digestion facilities for generation of biogas can be retro-fitted to the plant if (when) this becomes economically viable Nutrients Recovery of nutrients (primarily phosphorus and nitrogen) from wastewater streams can be undertaken to produce magnesium ammonia phosphate pellets (also known as struvite) for use as commercial fertilizer. A patented technology pioneered at the University of B.C. that has been commercialized by Ostara as the Crystal Green process is now in use at several large wastewater treatment plants in North America. Use of the Crystal Green process for smaller treatment plants has also been investigated at the City of Salmon Arm WWTP in collaboration with Ostara, Opus DaytonKnight, and UBC. The technical aspects of this project were successful, but the economic analysis showed that the use of this technology for smaller plants (less than about 100,000 population) would not be cost effective. However, facilities of this nature can potentially be added to existing WWTP s in future if the economics become more favourable, particularly if the WWTP is designed to accommodate this type of retro-fit Biosolids Management of the solid residuals (biosolids) produced by wastewater treatment is an important component of a LWMP. Biosolids produced by the City at the Westview WWTP are currently being trucked to the Sechelt area for mine reclamation under an agreement with a private contractor. The City continues to investigate alternative options for beneficial use of biosolids. As a component of this initiative, the City undertook two D Page 4-9

43 demonstration projects for forest fertilization using the biosolids produced at the Westview WWTP. The concept design for the Consolidated WWTP includes aerobic digestion to produce Class B biosolids suitable for land application in areas with restricted public access. (Production of Class A biosolids requires heat treatment, which generally increases cost and odour risk). Potential beneficial use of the biosolids produced at the new Consolidated WWTP include land application and compost production. A sustainable biosolids management program should contain more than one alternative for beneficial use of the product, since changing circumstances may eliminate one or more alternatives in future. With this in mind, the Stage 3 LWMP includes a commitment for the development of long-term biosolids management strategy, building on the success of the previous poplar plantation demonstration, and investigating further options for beneficial use of the biosolids produced at the future Consolidated WWTP. 4.7 Wastewater Collection and Treatment As described earlier in this report, the City of Powell River is serviced by three separate wastewater collection and treatment systems. These are the Westview system, the Townsite system, and the Wildwood system. Service populations are summarized in Section of this report. The facility locations and service areas are illustrated on Figure 1-1 in Section 1.1. Facility descriptions and MOE concerns regarding the discharges from the Westview and Townsite facilities are also contained in Section 1.1. In an dated June 26, 2007, the MOE requested that a summary of bypass frequencies at the Westview and Townsite WWTPs be prepared (see Appendix 2 for a copy of that ). A Memorandum describing the bypass frequencies and other permit compliance issues at that time is attached as Appendix 6. A discussion of permit compliance at the Westview WWTP based on more recent data is contained in Section of this report. D Page 4-10

44 A teleconference was held with the MOE on March 5, 2015, to clarify items associated with wastewater treatment needed for approval of the Stage 3 LWMP. Minutes of that teleconference are included in Appendix Wastewater Conveyance The Consolidated WWTP strategy involves conveying the City s wastewater from the Townsite and Westview service areas to a central location for treatment. Allowance for adding the wastewater from the Wildwood service area is included. The Westview WWTP would be decommissioned and replaced by a pump station. The Townsite WWTP may also be decommissioned, or it may be retro-fitted, expanded and upgraded as the Consolidated WWTP for treatment of the City s wastewater, depending on final site selection by the City. The following three route options for conveying the wastewater from Westview to the Consolidated WWTP at or near the existing Townsite WWTP were identified (see Figure 4-1): Foreshore route located in the intertidal zone; Park Trail route through Millennium Park to the Mill s haul road; and Marine Avenue route Consolidated WWTP As described earlier in this report, the Stage 2 LWMP involved extensive examination of candidate sites for a new Consolidated WWTP to replace the existing Townsite and Westview WWTPs. The location of the new Consolidated WWTP is to be at the existing Townsite WWTP site, or at an alternate site nearby. Regardless of the site chosen for the Consolidated WWTP, the Westview WWTP would be abandoned except for the pumping station, which would be upgraded to pump the wastewater collected from the Westview service area to the new Consolidated WWTP. The same would apply to the Townsite WWTP, unless the Townsite plant were selected as the location for the Consolidated D Page 4-11

45 DlSd 26 DlSd 17 FUTURE CONNECTION TO WILDWOOD DlSd 23 DlSd 25 DlSd 24 DlSd 22 DlSd 18 DlSd 27 FUTURE SITE OF PROPOSED SECONDARY TREATMENT PLANT LEGEND FUTURE PHASE 2 OUTFALL DlSd 22 WESTVIEW PUMP STATION CITY OF POWELL RIVER STAGE 3 LWMP PHASED CONSOLIDATED WWTP APPROXIMATE LOCATION North Vancouver Office Harbourside Drive, North Vancouver, BC, V7P 3S1, CANADA FIGURE 4-1

46 WWTP, in which case the Townsite facilities would be upgraded and expanded to accommodate all of the City s wastewater (see DK, 2005b for details). The Consolidated WWTP is to be commissioned not later than 2025, or sooner if at least 50% capital funding from senior government can be obtained (see minutes of March 5, 2015 teleconference with MOE in Appendix 2). During the development of the Stage 2 LWMP, the Joint Advisory Committee advised that, for the purpose of the LWMP, the concept design for the Consolidated WWTP should be based on secondary treatment to meet regulatory requirements, with the facility designed to provide reliable and effective performance while minimizing capital and operating costs. It is important to emphasize that the processes used for the concept design are examples only, so that approximate capital and operating cost estimates could be developed. Once the site for the Consolidated WWTP has been confirmed, then a predesign study should be undertaken to investigate site characteristics (e.g. seismic vulnerability, archaeological issues, etc.), select the treatment processes, develop a site layout and hydraulic profile, and carry out an Environmental Impact Study for the new discharge. For the purpose of developing concept level cost estimates, a variant of the extended aeration activated sludge process for secondary treatment was used (see the Consolidation Study report for more detail, DK 2007). This type of process is extensively used in various locations throughout the world, including in British Columbia at the City of Campbell River and Central Saanich WWTPs; it is a robust, highperforming process with excellent effluent quality and very economical capital and operating costs, as demonstrated at Campbell River. Variants of extended aeration activated sludge do not normally include primary sedimentation to separate crude fecal solids (primary sludge) from the wastewater by gravity settling. This means that primary sludge, which is a strong potential source of nuisance odours, is not normally generated at extended aeration activated sludge plants, simplifying solids handling and reducing odour risk. D Page 4-12

47 For the purpose of developing cost estimates for the Consolidated WWTP in the Townsite area, the following assumptions were carried over from previous work: control / administration building; preliminary treatment consisting of an enclosed perforated mechanical screen with screenings washer/compactor and a vortex grit separator with grit classifier/washer; secondary treatment using a variant of the extended aeration activated sludge process, including two aeration tanks and two secondary clarifiers; enclosed facility for thickening and dewatering of waste solids; aerobic digester for treatment of thickened waste solids, including two aeration tanks; odour control for enclosed areas using media biofilters; and new outfall to Malaspina Strait. Based on the discussion in Section 4.6, the most cost-effective (recommended) approach is for the City to design the Consolidated WWTP for secondary treatment, with advanced treatment to reclaimed water standards sized to treat only the portion of the flow for which end users have been identified and confirmed (e.g. use of reclaimed water for nonpotable applications within the treatment plant). However, the treatment facilities should be designed so that the reclaimed water system can be easily expanded and so that additional resource recovery facilities such as heat recovery can be easily added in future if a market for the recommended resources is identified. Situating the treatment facility in an industrial-zoned area increases the probability that relatively large users of recovered resources (e.g. heat, reclaimed water) may locate near the WWTP in future. Long conveyance distances to end users tend to significantly increase costs. D Page 4-13

48 4.7.3 Updated Cost Estimate Cost estimates developed previously for wastewater conveyance, treatment and disposal were updated to 2015 for this Stage 3 LWMP Report. The basis for updating of the costs included unit rates for excavation and concrete from recent tender documents, quotes from suppliers for major equipment, and adjustment for inflation using the Engineering News Record (ENR) cost index. It is important to note that the concept design cost estimates are adequate for the purpose of comparing alternatives, but more detailed cost estimates should be developed for the selected alternative during pre-design for project budgeting purposes. An updated (2015) cost summary for a new Consolidated WWTP located at or in the vicinity of the existing Townsite WWTP is presented in Table 4-2. Use of the existing Townsite WWTP tanks and other infrastructure to the extent possible could result in a cost saving if the new plant were constructed at that location. We understand that the City is also exploring alternative sites on the adjacent PRSC lands for the Consolidated WWTP, and for this alternative, there would be no opportunity to utilize existing WWTP infrastructure. Costs for both of these alternatives are included in Table 4-2. The system with pipeline routing options is illustrated on Figure 4-1. The estimated cost for the predesign study shown in Table 4-2 includes evaluation and selection of treatment technologies and pipeline routes, and concept design of pump stations, assuming that the City has previously confirmed the site for the Consolidated WWTP. Geotechnical, archaeological, and outfall studies should be undertaken at the same time, to allow preparation of more detailed cost estimates. Note that the cost estimates for treatment are based on the secondary treatment facilities described in Section 4.7.2, and do not include advanced treatment or resource recovery facilities. D Page 4-14

49 TABLE 4-2 COST ESTIMATES FOR CONSOLIDATED WWTP Estimated Cost 1 Located at Existing 2 Townsite WWTP Alternate location near Townsite WWTP predesign study for conveyance upgrades, Consolidated WWTP and outfall (not incl. public $250,000 $250,000 consultation) 3 design and construct upgrades to wastewater conveyance system 4,5 $5,450,000 to $6,710,000 $5,450,000 to $6,710,000 annual operation and maintenance cost for conveyance 4,5 $75,000 to $115,000 $75,000 to $115,000 land purchase (allowance) $250,000 $250,000 allowance for geotechnical and archaeological studies $150,000 $150,000 allowance for outfall studies $100,000 $100,000 design and construct Consolidated WWTP 6 $17,760,000 $19,310,000 design and construct new outfall $1,260,000 $1,260,000 annual operation and maintenance cost for $860,000 $860,000 Consolidated WWTP 6 Total System Capital Cost (not including studies) 6 $24,470,000 to $25,730,000 $26,020,000 to $27,280,000 Total System Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost 6 $935,000 to $975,000 $935,000 to $975,000 1 costs updated to 2015 using ENR construction cost index-capital costs include construction plus a 30% allowance for engineering and contingencies unless otherwise noted. 2 capital cost for Consolidated WWTP at Existing Townsite WWTP assume cost savings for use of some of the existing infrastructure. 3 Includes evaluation and selection of treatment technologies, pipeline routes, pump station concept design, assuming site selection for the Consolidated WWTP is previously completed by the City. 4 cost depends on pipeline route from Westview service area to Consolidated WWTP. Lower cost is for Foreshore or Park Trail route, higher cost for Marine Avenue route. 5 conveyance cost for alternate location could vary from that shown depending upon the location of the site selected. 6 capital and operating costs for Consolidated WWTP are based on secondary treatment using a variant of the extended aeration activated sludge process with aerobic digestion and dewatering of waste solids, and do not include advanced treatment, resource recovery or biosolids management. D Page 4-15

50 As shown in Table 4-2, the updated (2015) capital cost for the Consolidated WWTP, assuming the treatment works were located at or near the Townsite WWTP, would be in the range of $17.8 million to $19.3 million, with an additional $1.3 million for a new outfall; the higher capital costs would be incurred if the Consolidated WWTP were located at an alternative site with no existing infrastructure, rather than at the existing Townsite WWTP. Annual operating costs for the Consolidated WWTP would be approximately $860,000 per year regardless of the site, unless the alternate site had a significantly higher elevation or was in a location more difficult to service than the Townsite WWTP location. The estimated capital cost of upgrading the conveyance system ($5.5 million to $6.7 million) would depend on the pipeline route for conveying wastewater from the Westview service area to the new Consolidated treatment works, with the Foreshore route being the least costly and the Marine Avenue route being the most costly from a construction point of view (see Figure 4-1 for illustration of routes). Annual operation and maintenance costs for the pump stations are estimated at $75,000/year to $115,000/year, depending on the pipeline route. Total system capital costs including conveyance, treatment and the outfall would be in the range $24.5 million to $27.3 million. Note that the conveyance costs shown do not include connection of the Wildwood service area. Costs allowances for land purchase, and geotechnical, archaeological and environmental studies are included in Table 4-2. The City will apply for grant funding when available. As shown in Table 4-3, estimated costs to property owners and annual debt servicing costs have been calculated based on three possible funding scenarios: 100% financing by the City through borrowing 50% funding received by grant 2/3 grant funding obtained leaving 33% percent for the City to finance D Page 4-16

51 TABLE 4-3 COST ESTIMATES PER SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING City of Powell River Contribution: 100% Contribution 50% Contribution 33% Contribution City of Powell River Project Cost $25,000,000 $12,500,000 $8,333,333 Additional Annual Cost based on 66 property frontage for a Single Family Dwelling: User Fee. $61.88 $30.94 $20.63 Collection Sewer Frontage. $65.47 $32.73 $21.83 Disposal Treatment. $76.32 $38.16 $25.44 TOTAL Additional Annual Cost $ $ $67.89 Percentage increase 53% 27% 18% Annual Debt Servicing Cost ( %) $1,456,783 $728,392 $485,594 Total Cost at end of 30 years $43,700,000 $21,850,000 $14,568,000 To accommodate a Consolidated WWTP at the site of the existing Townsite WWTP or at an alternative location based on the concept design outlined earlier, a site area of 4.5 ha would be required, assuming a 50 m buffer zone between treatment facilities and the property boundary (recommended). Note that the capital cost is based on use of a variant of the extended aeration activated sludge process for secondary treatment, and assumes that there would be sufficient space available for this type of facility (e.g. 4.5 ha site). If space restrictions dictate the use of small-footprint technologies, or if resource recovery facilities are added to the WWTP, the capital cost (and the operating cost) would be higher than that shown in Table Connection of the Wildwood Service Area During the development of the LWMP, the potential for future connection of the Wildwood service area to the City s central wastewater collection system was discussed. The Tla amin (Sliammon) First Nation also expressed an interest in connecting to the City s wastewater system, but has since elected to pursue their own solution. D Page 4-17

52 Connection of the Wildwood service area to the Consolidated facility collection system would involve decommissioning of the lagoon treatment facility, and installation of a pump station on the plant influent sewer. A forcemain would carry the pumped wastewater to connect with the Townsite sewer system. The pump station and forcemain route are shown on Figure 4-1. For the purpose of developing cost estimates, a total service population of 1,475 people was assumed for Wildwood. An additional future population of 1,475 was assumed for conceptual design of the Wildwood pump station and forcemain to allow for growth. The septage receiving station at the Wildwood WWTP could be relocated to the new Consolidated WWTP if desired. The estimated cost for connecting the Wildwood service area are as follows: 1) Capital Pump Station; 2-50 HP, S/B Generator $ 425,000 Forcemain 250 mm, 2400 m x $424/m $ 1,020,000 River Crossing, allowance $ 105,000 Sub-Total $ 1,550,000 Engineering and Contingencies, 30% $ 465,000 TOTAL $ $3,565,000 2) Operation and Maintenance Power 50 HP x 33% x $425/HP $ 7,000 Labour - daily: 0.5 hr x 2 people x 260 days x $58/hr $ 16,000 - quarterly: 8 hrs x 2 people x 4 days x $58/hr $ 4,000 Annual Service - $ 6,000 TOTAL $ 33,000/year D Page 4-18

53 4.8 Outfall Dilution Modelling As set out in the Scope of Work (Section 1.3), the Stage 3 LWMP is to include commitments to carry out dilution modelling for the outfall discharges from the proposed Consolidated WWTP and from the existing Wildwood facility. For the Consolidated WWTP, dilution modelling will form a component of the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) that will be required prior to construction of the new plant and the outfall. The Municipal Wastewater Regulation should be used as a guide in designing and carrying out the EIS. For the Wildwood facility, the primary purpose of the dilution modelling is to determine whether or not disinfection of the effluent is needed to meet water quality standards in the receiving environment. Financial commitments and the schedule for carrying out the EIS for the Consolidated WWTP and the dilution modelling for the Wildwood facility are included in Table 4-6 at the end of Section 4. The costs for dilution modelling are based on the use of a current computer modelling program such as CORMIX developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, using the receiving environment information that is currently available (temperature, current, tides, etc.). 4.9 Regulatory Update Provincial Standards for Effluent Discharges In July 1999 the Province of B.C. introduced regulatory standards for wastewater discharges and for the use of reclaimed water under the Municipal Sewage Regulation (MSR). The MSR was updated in 2012, with the objectives of clarifying registration requirements, reorganizing the regulation to improve ease of use, simplifying the requirements for reclaimed water use, and providing flexible storage and alternate disposal options for reclaimed water. Because of the extensive reorganization that the D Page 4-19

54 Regulation underwent, it was renamed the Municipal Wastewater Regulation (MWR). The MWR specifies a minimum of secondary treatment of all flows up to twice the average dry weather flow (2 times ADWF) at the treatment plant. Flows in excess of 2 times ADWF may receive only primary treatment, provided that reduction of inflow and infiltration is addressed as part of a LWMP. The ultimate objective is to ensure that all flows receive a minimum of secondary treatment. Despite the extensive reorganization, the water quality standards for effluent discharges and for reclaimed water have not changed from the earlier version of the Regulation. The MWR standards for discharges greater than 50 m 3 /d to open marine waters as follows: maximum day effluent five-day biochemical oxygen demand concentration 45 mg/l maximum day effluent total suspended solids (TSS) concentration 45 mg/l ph 6 to 9 It is important to note that effluent discharges (and use of reclaimed water) that are authorized under an Operational Certificate as part of a LWMP are not registered under the MWR. However, the MOE generally uses the MWR standards in developing Operational Certificates. The LWMP process allows local governments to develop their own schedules (in consultation with MOE and other stakeholders) for meeting Provincial regulatory requirements for wastewater discharges. Draft Operational Certificates for the City of Powell River LWMP are contained later in this section Federal Standards for Effluent Discharges The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment has developed a Canada-wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent (CCME, 2007 and Environment Canada, 2007). The CCME strategy focuses on effluents released from wastewater treatment systems and overflows from sewer collection systems. National performance standards regulated under the Fisheries Act and in provincial and territorial regulatory instruments are contained in the Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations D Page 4-20

55 (WSER), which are now in force. The following discharge criteria are defined in the WSER: BOD5 effluent average not to exceed 25 mg/l TSS effluent average not to exceed 25 mg/l residual chlorine maximum 0.02 mg/l acute toxicity include specific requirements and timelines to identify and reduce toxicity in cases of acute toxicity test failure ammonia include specific requirements if acute toxicity test failure is due to ammonia that would authorize discharge of ammonia in effluent based on receiving environment considerations. Monitoring of the environment and timelines to achieve effluent discharge levels are based on risk while considering elements such as sensitivity of the receiving environment, size and composition of the effluent release. The WSER requires that the minimum discharge standards be met by January 1, 2015, unless a Transitional Authorization has been granted. The City of Powell River has not been granted a Transitional Authorization Draft Operational Certificates The letter of approval from MOE for the Stage 2 LWMP set out conditions for items to be included in Stage 3. As set out in the letter of approval (Appendix 1), the Stage 3 LWMP is to include draft Operational Certificates for the existing Wildwood and Westview WWTPs. An Operational Certificate for the phased Consolidated WWTP will be developed after the location of the plant and process selection have been finalized. The interim draft Operational Certificates for the Wildwood Lagoon, the Westview WWTP, and the Townsite WWTP are attached as Appendix 7, 8 and 9, respectively. As requested by the regional office of the MOE, the draft Operational Certificates are based on the existing discharge permits, with the federal WSER standards also included (see minutes of March 5, 2015 teleconference with MOE in Appendix 2). D Page 4-21

56 Wildwood Lagoon The draft Operational Certificate for the Wildwood Lagoon (Appendix 7) is based on the plant Discharge Permit PE-118, with additional effluent criteria from the new federal WSER included (see Appendix 7). For the Wildwood WWTP, the federal WSER requires that the annual average concentrations of BOD5 and TSS not exceed 25 mg/l. Note that the WSER allows the months of July through October to be excluded in calculating the average TSS, if these values cause the average to exceed 25 mg/l; this is due to recognition of the fact that lagoon effluents frequently contain algae, which is detected in effluent samples as TSS. PE-118 requires that the maximum day BOD5 and TSS not exceed 45 mg/l and 60 mg/l, respectively, and that the maximum day discharge not exceed 2,000 m 3 /d. The performance data for the Wildwood WWTP for the period 2010 to 2014 are summarized in Table 4-4. As shown, the Wildwood WWTP has consistently exceeded the requirements of the Federal WSER and of Permit PE-115, particularly for effluent TSS; the high effluent TSS is most likely due to growth of algae and other aquatic vegetation such as duckweed in the lagoon. D Page 4-22

57 TABLE 4-4 PERMIT MONITORING SUMMARY FOR WILDWOOD WWTP 2010 TO 2014 Year Max. Day Flow (m 3 /d) BOD (mg/l) Max. Day Annual Avg. Max. Day TSS (mg/l) Annual Avg.* * does not include July-October data Westview WWTP The draft Operational Certificate for the Westview WWTP is based on the plant Discharge Permit PE (see Appendix 8). As described earlier in this report, the Westview WWTP is unable to meet the requirements of the existing Discharge Permit PE 00073, due mainly to the limited capacity of the membrane bioreactors, which cannot process the daily volume of 4,600 m 3 /d specified in the Permit. Analysis of the plant operating data from January 2004 to June 2007 showed that 66% to 75% of the annual wastewater volume was treated in the membrane plant, with the remainder receiving treatment in the bypass screen. The daily flow treated by the membrane plant on an annual average basis ranged from 3,900 m 3 /d in 2004 to 4,330 m 3 /d in 2005 (see Appendix 8 for more detail). The plant monitoring data from 2008 through 2014 are summarized in Table 4-5. As shown, consistent and ongoing violations of the plant discharge permit (PE-00073) continue to be an issue, mainly due to the inability of the membrane bioreactor to process the required flows up to 4,600 m 3 /d. The maximum allowable combined discharge of 13, 640 m 3 /d was exceeded in 2009, 2010 and 2014 (Table 4-4). D Page 4-23

58 The federal WSER requires that, for the Westview discharge, the quarterly average concentrations of BOD5 and TSS not exceed 25 mg/l, while PE requires that the maximum day concentration of BOD5 and TSS not exceed 45 mg/l. The data in Table 4-5 show that the maximum concentrations of BOD5 and TSS observed in the combined effluent often exceed current Permit limits (45 mg/l maximum), and that the effluent quarterly average concentrations of BOD5 and TSS are consistently greater than the allowable value of 25 mg/l set out in the new federal WSER. In light of the above, it is apparent that the Westview WWTP cannot comply with its discharge permit, nor can it comply with the requirements of the new federal WSER. D Page 4-24

59 Year TABLE 4-5 WESTVIEW WWTP PERMIT MONITORING SUMMARY 2008 TO 2014 Plant Flow Rate (m 3 /d) Blended Effluent Quality 1 Average Total Membrane Maximum Day Quarterly Average BOD 5 (mg/l) Maximum Day Quarterly Average TSS (mg/l) Maximum Day ,148 3,482 10, ,009 3,836 13, ,301 3,699 15, ,175 3,669 10, ,490 3,612 11, ,827 3,200 11, ,057 3,194 17, Includes membrane plant effluent plus bypass flow. 2 Permit violations are mainly due to the inability of the membrane plant to treat all flows up to 4,600 m 3 /d D Page 4-25

60 As directed by MOE (see minutes of March 5, 2015 teleconference in Appendix 2), the draft OC for the Westview WWTP states that the replacement Consolidated WWTP is to be commissioned no later than 2025, or sooner if at least 50% capital funding from senior government can be obtained Townsite WWTP The draft Operational Certificate for the Townsite WWTP (Appendix 9) is based on the Plant Discharge Permit PE 171 with the additional effluent criteria from the new federal WSER included. For the Townsite WWTP, the federal WSER requires that the annual average concentrations of BOD5 and TSS not exceed 25 mg/l. Permit PE-171 requires that the maximum day discharge not exceed 6,520 m 3 /d, that the maximum day concentration of BOD5 not exceed 45 mg/l, and that the maximum day concentration of TSS not exceed 60 mg/l. The performance data for the Townsite WWTP for the period 2010 to 2014 are summarized in Table 4-6. As shown, the effluent is generally in compliance with the federal WSER, but periodically exceeds the requirements of PE-171 for both BOD5 and TSS. TABLE 4-6 PERMIT MONITORING SUMMARY FOR TOWNSITE WWTP 2010 TO 2014 Year Max. Day Flow (m 3 /d) BOD (mg/l) TSS (mg/l) Max. Day Annual Avg. Max. Day Annual Avg , , , , , D Page 4-26

61 4.10 Stage 3 LWMP Commitments The financial commitments and schedule for the City of Powell River Stage 3 LWMP are outlined in Table 4-7. TABLE 4-7 STAGE 3 LWMP FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS AND SCHEDULE LWMP Component Estimate Schedule Funding Source 1. Update LWMP and Annual Reporting Review LWMP Progress, Update as Required and Prepare Annual Report $50, $10,000/yr (budget, O&M) 2. Wastewater Treatment a. Consolidated WWTP Capital Budget & Grant Pre-design study $250,000 Item Design and construct trunk sewers and pump stations $5.46 M to $6.71 M Annual O&M cost for pump stations $75,000/yr to $115,000/yr Land purchase $250,000 Allowance for archaeological and $150,000 geotechnical studies Allowance for outfall studies $100,000 (dilution modelling, current studies) Operational Certificate $3,000 Design and construct treatment $17.76 M to facilities $19.31 M Design and construct new outfall $1.26 m See draft Operational Certificate in Appendix 8 for schedule By 2025 Add effluent disinfection (if need is demonstrated by EIS) Future if needed o Disk filtration $1,300,000 o UV disinfection $360,000 Outfall Monitoring Program See draft o Design program $5,000 Operational O&M Item o Annual monitoring $20,000/yr Certificate in Annual O&M Cost for $860,000/yr Appendix 8 for Consolidated WWTP schedule O&M Item D Page 4-27

62 LWMP Component Estimate Schedule Funding Source b. Upgrades to Wildwood Lagoon two new aerators $40,000 Completed 2004 Capital Budget Item partition lagoon (if needed) $25,000 Future Capital Budget Item (if requirement confirmed) outfall dilution modelling $5, Capital Budget Item add disinfection (if need is demonstrated by outfall dilution monitoring) Future Capital Budget Item o disk filtration $350,000 o UV disinfection $100,000 headworks/septage receiving $500,000 Completed 2008 PRRD facility biosolids removal and dewatering $10,500/yr ongoing from 2004 Budget O&M Item (into Reserve) Annual O&M cost $42,000/yr Ongoing O&M Item c. Connection of Wildwood Service Area to Central System Capital $1,900,000 Future Annual O&M $31,800/yr 3. Non-point Source Pollution Infrastructure Funding Grants, Capital Budget Items See Item 7 Source Control See Item 7 See Item 7 See Item 7 Boat Pump Out at Westview $23,000 Completed 2012 Capital Budget and Marina Grant Study to Evaluate Elimination of Onsite Systems Sewer Extensions in Cranberry Lake Area - Chilcotin Avenue $15,000 Completed 2005 District $5,000 Prov Infrastructure Grant $10,000 $484,300 Completed Capital Budget Item Capital Budget Item - Yukon Avenue $126,800 Completed - Cassiar Street $210,900 Completed 2002 Capital Budget Item 4. Upgrade Sewer Collection System a. Westview critical sewer rehabilitation $600, to 2006 Infrastructure Funding Grant ($1.9 M 1/3 CDPR Cost) complete I&I investigations $86, to 2005 Infrastructure Funding Grant ($1.9 M 1/3 CDPR Cost) D Page 4-28

63 LWMP Component Estimate Schedule Funding Source sewer rehabilitation $65,000/yr Ongoing Programmed Budget Item (O & M) flow monitoring $30,000 $65,000 Completed to 2015 Post I & I Planning Grant for $10,000 Study. Remainder Capital Budget Items b. Townsite complete I&I investigations $83,500 Completed 2004 See 4a 1 st bullet initial sewer separation $1,300,000 Completed 2005 Infrastructure Funding Grant complete sewer separation $1,271,000 Ongoing (complete prior to 2025) Capital & Grant c. Cranberry Lake complete I&I investigations $127,500 Completed 2005 Capital & Grant rehabilitation $20,000/yr Completed 2005 Programmed Budget Item (O&M) d. Wildwood undertake I&I investigations $100, to 2016 Capital & Grant rehabilitation $20,000/yr 2016 to 2018 Programmed Budget Item (O&M) 5. Water Conservation and Wastewater Flow Reduction Cost benefit study for universal water metering and water efficient plumbing fixtures Evaluate on-site water reuse at new Consolidated WWTP $25,000 Completed 2006 Planning Grant & Capital $15,000 (include in design) Planning Grant & Capital 6. Biosolids Management Mine reclamation at Sechelt $110/tonne Ongoing Programmed Budget Item (O&M) Develop long-term biosolids management strategy $75, Capital & Grant 7. Source Control a. Source Control Bylaw Develop bylaw $15,000 Completed 2005 District $5,000 Infrastructure Grant $10,000 develop monitoring and enforcement program $10, Budget Item O&M D Page 4-29

64 LWMP Component Estimate Schedule Funding Source b. Education Program develop program $5,000/yr Ongoing Budget & Planning Grant c. Publicize Source Control Program $10,000 Ongoing Budget $2,000/yr d. Future Planning inventory of $15, to 2018 Grant & Student commercial/industrial dischargers monitor water quality Future 8. Stormwater Management Westview Master Drainage $163,000 Completed 2007 Plan Cranberry, Townsite and $75, Wildwood Master Drainage Plan Review Development $10, to 2017 Budget O & M Application Approval Procedures (Possible inclusions with Subdivision Control Bylaw) Update Storm Drainage Bylaw $20, Capital D Page 4-30

65 CITY OF POWELL RIVER LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE 3 REFERENCES (NT, 2001), Powell River Liquid Waste Management Plan, Stage 1, NovaTec Consultants Inc., May BC Environment (1992) Guidelines for Developing a Liquid Waste Management Plan, Municipal Waste Branch, August DK (2003a) District of Powell River, Environmental Impact Study, Westview Treatment Plant Discharge, Dayton & Knight Ltd., December DK (2003b) District of Powell River, Westview/Townsite Treatment Plant Consolidation, Dayton & Knight Ltd., Consulting Engineers, West Vancouver, B.C. DK (2003c), Environmental Impact Study, Westview Treatment Plant Discharge, for Corporation of the District of Powell River, December 2003 DK (2004) District of Powell River, Sanitary Sewer System, 2003 Inflow and Infiltration Program, Dayton & Knight Ltd., December DK (2005a), District of Powell River, LWMP Stage 2 Public Consultation Report, Dayton & Knight Ltd., September DK (2005b) District of Powell River, Liquid Waste Management Plan Stage 2, Dayton & Knight Ltd., August DK (2005c) City of Powell River Feasibility Study for Sewer Servicing of Lots Using Onsite Systems, Dayton & Knight Ltd., November DK (2006) City of Powell River, Liquid Waste Management Plan Stage 3, Draft No. 1, Dayton & Knight Ltd., August D Page 1

66 DK (2007) City of Powell River, Update to the Westview/Townsite Treatment Plant Consolidation Study, Dayton & Knight Ltd., June DK (2010a) Co-Treatment of Wastewater at Catalyst Mill, letter report by Dayton & Knight Ltd. to City of Powell River, March 12, 2010 DK (2010b) City of Powell River, Liquid Waste Management Plan, City/Catalyst Mill Joint Wastewater Treatment Plant Draft No. 2, by Dayton & Knight Ltd, October, DK (2010c) City of Powell River, Drinking Water Upgrade Pre-design Report, by Dayton & Knight Ltd., 2010 InFocus (2011) City of Powell River, Liquid Waste Management Plan, Stage 3 Public Consultation Results, by In Focus Facilitation, Powell River, BC KWL (2007), Westview Watershed Master Drainage Plan, by Kerr Wood Leidal Ltd., March MWLAP (2002), Organic Matter Recycling Regulation, BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Sylvis (2004), Powell River Biosolids Recycling Forest Fertilization Demonstration, by Sylvis Environmental Services, Document # D Page 2

67 CITY OF POWELL RIVER LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE 3 APPENDIX 1 LETTER OF APPROVAL FOR STAGE 2

68

69

70 CITY OF POWELL RIVER LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE 3 APPENDIX 2 CONSULTATION WITH MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97 ORGNAL for flung FILE NO. _2Q-O_ BRITISH CoLuMBIA The Best Place on Earth February 13, 2013 File: PE-73 City of Powell River / 6910 Duncan Street Powell River, British Columbia V8A1V4 ATTENTION: Tor Birtig, A.Sc.T. Manager of Operational Services Dear Tor Birtig: Re: Waste Management Permit PE-73, Westview Wastewater Treatment Plant This letter is to acknowledge receipt of the discharge monitoring data for the above referenced permit covering the period from October 1, 2012 to December 31, A review of the data indicates that the facility is out of compliance for the following reasons: Four out of twelve results for carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand exceeded the permit limit of 45 mg!l for when the discharge quantity was greater than 4600 m3/day. The membrane filters were not fully optimized at a discharge quantity of 4600 m3/day during the quarter. The ministry expects that permittees will be in compliance with permit conditions at all times and requests that you take the necessary steps to resolve this issue. Please note that failure to comply with permit requirements is a violation of the Environmental Management Act and violations are subject to legal action.

98 If you have any questions, please call me at (604) Sincerely, Environmental Protection Officer Government & Compliance Unit

99 ORIGINAL for FiLING FILE NO BRITISH COLUMBIA The Best Place on Earth May 8, 2013 File: PE-73 City of Powell River 6910 Duncan Street Powell River, British Columbia V8A1V4 ATTENTION: Tor Birtig, A.Sc.T. Manager of Operational Services Dear Tor Birtig: Re: Waste Management Permit PE-73, Westview Wastewater Treatment Plant This letter is to acknowledge receipt of the discharge monitoring data for the above referenced permit covering the period from January 1, 2013 to March 31, A review of the data indicates that the facility is out of compliance for the following reasons: One out of thirteen results for total suspended solids exceeded the permit limit of 10 mg/l for when the discharge quantity was less than 4600 m3/day. One out of thirteen results for total suspended solids exceeded the permit limit of 45 mg!l for when the discharge quantity was greater than 4600 m3/day. Five out of thirteen results for biochemical oxygen demand exceeded the permit limit of 45 mg/l for when the discharge quantity was greater than 4600 m3/day. The membrane filters were not fully optimized at a discharge quantity of 4600 m3/day during the quarter. MAY CflYOFPOWELLRIVER

100 The ministry expects that permittees will be in compliance with permit conditions at all times and requests that you take the necessary steps to resolve this issue. Please note that failure to comply with permit requirements is a violation of the Environmental Management Act and violations are subject to legal action. If you have any questions, please call me at (604) Sincerely, Si to Bosa Environmental Protection Officer Government & Compliance Unit

101 ORlGNAL for RUNG FILE NO. BRITISH COLUMBIA The Best Place on Earth August 27, 2013 File: PE-73 City of Powell River 6910 Duncan Street Powell River, British Columbia V8A 1V4 ATTENTION: Frank D Angio, A.Sc.T. Manager of Engineering Services Dear Frank D Angio: Re: Waste Management Permit PE-73, Westview Wastewater Treatment Plant This letter is to acknowledge receipt of the discharge monitoring data for the above referenced permit covering the period from April 1, 2013 to June 30, A review of the data indicates that the facility is out of compliance for the following reasons: e One out of thirteen results for total suspended solids exceeded the permit limit of 45 rngil for when the discharge quantity was greater than 4600 m3/day. o The membrane filters were not fully optimized at a discharge quantity of 4600 m3/day. The ministry expects that permittees will be in compliance with pennit conditions at all times and requests that you take the necessary steps to resolve this issue. Please note that failure to comply with permit requirements is a violation of the Environmental Management Act and violations are subject to legal action. 4j vi.n.. ii Iii L C1DO 2013 LEJI

102 If you have any questions, please call me at (604) Sincerely, istobosa Environmental Protection Officer Govermnent & Compliance Unit

103 LfJ: 2Di jy OF PCWELL RIVER I ORGNAL for RUNG FENO BRITISH CoLuMBIA The Best Place on Earth February 3, 2014 File: PE-73 City of Powell River 6910 Duncan Street Powell River, British Columbia V8A 1V4 ATTENTION: Frank D Angio, A.Sc.T. Manager of Engineering Services Dear Frank D Angio: Re: Waste Management Permit PE-73, Westview Wastewater Treatment Plant This letter is to acknowledge receipt of the discharge monitoring data for the above referenced permit covering the period from October 1, 2013 to December 31, A review of the data indicates that the facility is out of compliance for the following reasons: o One out of twelve results for total suspended solids exceeded the permit limit of 45 rng/l for when the discharge quantity was greater than 4600 m3/day. Eight out of twelve results for 5-day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand exceeded the permit limit of 45 mg/l for when the discharge quantity was greater than 4600 m3/day. o The membrane filters were not fully optimized at a discharge quantity of 4600 m3/day. The ministry expects that permittees will be in compliance with pennit conditions at all times and requests that you take the necessary steps to resolve this issue. Please note that failure to comply with permit requirements is a violation of the Environmental Management Act and violations are subject to legal action.

104 If you have any questions, please call me at (604) Sincerely, Sisto Bosa Environmental Protection Officer Govermnent & Compliance Unit

105 CITY OF POWELL RIVER STAGE 3 LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN TELECONFERENCE WITH MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT MEETING MINUTES DATE: OBJECTIVE: March 5, 2015, 3:00 pm Clarify Items Need for Approval of Stage 3 LWMP ATTENDING: City or Powell River Frank D Angio Nancy Marquis MOE Opus DaytonKnight Trevor Hamelin Al Gibb ITEM DESCRIPTION ACTION BY 1. Consolidated WWTP City has decided to select the Consolidated WWTP option (no Co-treatment). Stage 3 Report will reflect this. City / Opus DK 2. WWTP site MOE will accept Stage 3 LWMP on the basis of the Consolidated WWTP being located at the existing Townsite WWTP or an alternate site in the same area. MOE 3. Funding and Schedule 4. Draft Operational Certificate 5. Resource Recovery MOE will not approve LWMP if construction of Consolidated WWTP is contingent on funding from senior government. Need to break out costs for pre-design separately. Need to have a date in the LWMP for Consolidated WWTP to be online no later than 2025, sooner if at least 50% funding is secured (this is to be included in the Draft Operational Certificate for the Westview WWTP). This is to be conveyed at the Public Meeting. Draft Operational Certificate s in the Stage 3 LWMP should include all three WWTP s. Effluent standards should include both the existing permit requirements and the new WSER. A section regarding resource recovery at the new Consolidated WWTP has been added to the Stage 3 Report. The recommendation is to design the facilities so that resource recovery can easily be added when markets for the recovered resources are identified. Info City / Opus DK Info Minutes recorded by: Opus DaytonKnight Consultants Ltd. The content of these minutes reflects the writer s interpretation of the proceedings. Participants shall advise the author of any errors or omissions within 5 days of receipt of these Meeting Minutes. Al Gibb, PhD, P.Eng. AG/lp

106 CITY OF POWELL RIVER LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE 3 APPENDIX 3 STAGE 3 LWMP MINUTES OF JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGS

107 Page 1 of 2 27 June 2007 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No CITY OF POWELL RIVER Minutes of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory (Stage 3) Committee meeting held in the Committee Room of the City Hall on Wednesday, 27 June 2007 at MEMBERS PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Councillor S.L. Tremblay, Chair Clark Banks Noel Hopkins Ann Nelson Frank Greenwood Ross Monk Ted Wrubleski Ron Ostensen Sarah Barkowski Mel Low Milton Johnson Eugene Louie Richard Stogre, Manager of Engineering Services Frank D'Angio, Engineering Technologist Allan Gibb, Dayton & Knight Stan Westby, Chief Administrative Officer Tricia Greenwood, Recording Secretary Councillor E.H. Rodonets Councillor M.K. Leishman Members of the Public Larry Gemmill Reg Gillies Don Krompocker Leonard Wegner Gino Francescutti 1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: The following was removed from the agenda as item 6 b): Decision Matrix. 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 3. DELEGATIONS: 4. CORRESPONDENCE: a) Committee Update 21 February 2005 and 16 June 2005 Moved by Clark Banks, seconded by Ann Nelson that the agenda be adopted as amended. CARRIED Moved by Frank Greenwood seconded by Ann Nelson that the minutes of the 08 September 2004 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee meeting stage 2 be adopted. CARRIED None Updates for information only.

108 Page 2 of 2 27 June 2007 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS a) Introduction by Committee Chair, Councillor Tremblay The Chair welcomed the Committee back; the last time the Committee met was in September The purpose of reconvening was to revisit the siting for the consolidated wastewater treatment facility. The Committee was advised that the matrix, adopted in phase 2, will be used for the evaluation of the sites. The draft Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP) - Stage 3 and the draft Update to the Westview/Townsite Treatment Plant Consolidation Study were distributed to the Committee. The Steering Committee has identified new sites for consideration. Although the Townsite location has been included in the presentation and updated consolidation study, inclusion of this site for further consideration by the Advisory Committee will be forwarded to the Steering Committee for direction. b) Presentation by Dayton & Knight 7. ADJOURNMENT: Next Meeting Al Gibb, Dayton & Knight, presented a general overview of the Stage 2 Liquid Waste Management Plan; status of Stage 3 LWMP; update on recent developments; and, information on the consolidated plant siting. The following items were requested to be placed on the next agenda: Biosolids Management Plan update; Media Involvement in Liquid Waste Management Plan process; Decision Matrix Evaluation of Sites; Report from Sliammon First Nations Liquid Waste Management plan to be forwarded for review and comment over the summer. Moved by Clark Banks, seconded by Ann Nelson that the Committee adjourn at CERTIFIED CORRECT: Tricia Greenwood, Recording Secretary

109 CITY OF POWELL RIVER MEMORANDUM File No DATE: 15 August 2007 TO: FROM: CC: SUBJECT: Members of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee Don MacKinnon, City Engineer Mayor and Council S. Westby, CAO T. Birtig, Manager of Operational Services/Sanitary Sewer Section Personnel Al Gibb, Ph.D., P.Eng., Dayton & Knight Clarification on Technologies for Wastewater Treatment During the 27 June 2007 meeting of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee, Al Gibb made a presentation to the Committee that included a review of example technologies for wastewater treatment. In retrospect, Al believes he may have downplayed the effectiveness of relatively inexpensive technologies, such as the oxidation ditch technology currently being used at Campbell River. As a follow-up to his presentation, Al has prepared the attached letter for the information of the Committee members. (This letter will also be attached to the minutes of the 27 June meeting.) Don MacKinnon, P.Eng. City Engineer DM/tlk Attachment: Letter from Dayton & Knight dated 31 July 2007

110

111

112

113 Page 1 of 2 21 November 2007 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No CITY OF POWELL RIVER Minutes of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory (Stage 3) Committee meeting held in the Committee Room of the City Hall on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at MEMBERS PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Councillor E.A. Byng, Chair Noel Hopkins Larry Gemmill Ann Nelson Frank Greenwood Ross Monk Ted Wrubleski Ron Ostensen Sarah Barkowski Mel Low Milton Johnson Reg Gillies Gino Francescutti Richard Stogre, Manager of Engineering Services Don MacKinnon, City Engineer Allan Gibb, Dayton & Knight Frank D'Angio, Engineering Technologist Tricia Greenwood, Recording Secretary Councillor S.L. Tremblay Councillor E.H. Rodonets Councillor M.K. Leishman Councillor R.J. Astope Members of the Public Clark Banks Don Krompocker Leonard Wegner Eugene Louie 1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: Moved by Noel Hopkins, seconded by Mel Lowe that the agenda be adopted. CARRIED 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: Moved by Noel Hopkins, seconded by Ann Nelson that the minutes of the 27 June 2007 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee meeting Stage 2 be adopted. CARRIED 3. DELEGATIONS: None 4. CORRESPONDENCE: None 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: a) Action Items from 27 June 2007 Minutes i. Report from Information will be presented to the Committee upon receipt.

114 Page 2 of 2 21 November 2007 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No Sliammon First Nations ii. Media Involvement The Manager of Engineering Services advised that the media have been provided with information on the meeting. He also made reference to the recent Sustainable Environment Initiatives campaign and colouring contest prepared by staff in the Powell River Peak; and a recent article involving an interview with the City Engineer. iii. Biosolids The Manager of Engineering Services updated the Committee on the biosolids management plan. The City s current contract is valid until 31 December Biosolids are trucked to Sechelt for use in mine reclamation will be used as a planning year to determine future options for disposal. 6. NEW BUSINESS a) Potential Option 5 Catalyst Co- Treatment b) Review of Consolidated Treatment Plant Siting Utilizing Decision Matrix 7. ADJOURNMENT: CERTIFIED CORRECT: Tricia Greenwood, Recording Secretary The City Engineer provided information on a proposal brought forward by Catalyst for co-treatment of sewage. The proposal is in the preliminary stage and will require further information and consideration. The Committee was requested to continue with the review of the four identified sites. If the fifth option is deemed feasible the Committee will be asked to review it in the future. Mr. Al Gibb presented the decision matrix to the Committee. Staff provided baseline numbers to assist the Committee in completing the matrix; it was stressed that the numbers were only to be used as a starting point and not to be construed as an attempt to influence the members on ranking. The Committee did not alter the matrix from the one presented. Discussion included dissatisfaction from the Committee on reviewing the sites again; proposals on other potential siting options; and suggestions on modifying the structure of the matrix. Moved by Frank Greenwood, seconded by Ross Monk, that the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee recommend to the Liquid Waste Management Steering Committee that the Waste Transfer Station site be nominated as a potential site for a consolidated liquid waste treatment facility and further that staff continue to work with Catalyst on other potential treatment options. CARRIED Opposed: Milton Johnson Gino Francescutti Don MacKinnon Sarah Barkowski Moved by Milton Johnson, seconded by Ted Wrubleski that the Committee adjourn at 2030.

115 Page 1 of 3 11 May 2010 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No CITY OF POWELL RIVER Minutes of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory (Stage 3) Committee meeting held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall on Tuesday, 11 May 2010 at MEMBERS PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Councillor J. G. Palm, Chair Clark Banks Frank Greenwood Ross Monk Ted Wrubleski Ron Ostensen Sarah Barkowski Milton Johnson Reg Gillies Gino Francescutti Ann Nelson (arrived at 1925) Allan Gibb, Dayton & Knight Councillor D.J. Formosa Councillor C.W. McNaughton Eugene Louie, Sliammon First Nations Stan Westby, Chief Administrative Officer Richard Stogre, Manager of Engineering Services Tor Birtig, Manager of Operational Services Frank D'Angio, Engineering Technologist Tricia Greenwood, Recording Secretary Members of the Public Media Representatives Larry Gemmill Don Krompocker Mel Low 1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: Moved by Clark Banks, seconded by Reg Gillies that the agenda of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee meeting of 11 May 2010 be adopted. CARRIED 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: Moved by Councillor Palm, seconded by Ross Monk that the minutes of the 11 November 2007 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee meeting Stage 3 be adopted. CARRIED 3. DELEGATIONS: See Item CORRESPONDENCE: None 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS a) Introduction The Chair welcomed the Committee and advised that the

116 Page 2 of 3 11 May 2010 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No b) Presentation Dayton & Knight 7. DELEGATIONS: a) Tony Colton, Cranberry Ratepayers Association b) Graham Mahy, CUPE 798 purpose of the meeting was to provide the Advisory Committee with an update on recent developments regarding the proposal for co-treatment of liquid waste at the Catalyst paper mill. The Committee was asked to receive the information and not make any evaluations or recommendations until the technical evaluation is completed. The Manager of Engineering Services provided a background and status report on the Catalyst Co-treatment of the City s liquid waste. Eugene Louie advised that Sliammon First Nations are preparing a feasibility study to pump their sewage to the mill site. The Chief Administrative Officer presented an overview of the Agreement in Principle with Catalyst Paper Corporation for Cotreatment of Liquid Waste and Biosolids. He commented on: ministerial support; $100,000 planning grant for the feasibility study Commitment to work within the Collective Agreement Potential for funding construction; Timeframe for funding applications, ministerial approvals of the LWMP, and construction. Sarah Barkowski, Catalyst Paper Corporation, reported that Catalyst is committed to finding the best way to co-treat the City s liquid waste in a safe manner. Mr. Gibb presented an overview of the Liquid Waste Management Plan, action taken to date, current status and next steps. He provided information on the Catalyst co-treatment feasibility study and pre-design. The Chair recognized the following delegations. Mr. Colton presented concerns regarding the Catalyst Cotreatment option. He urged the Committee to retain the treatment of liquid waste as a public service. Mr. Mahy appeared before the Committee regarding concerns over the privatization of essential public services. CUPE requested that the City proceed with Phase 2 of the Feasibility Study and complete a full financial review before proceeding with any agreement to privatize the treatment of liquid waste. 8. CLOSING STATEMENTS: The Chair advised the Committee that Council is committed to exploring the co-treatment option. The technical evaluation will be completed and presented to the Committee late June/early July. The Chair acknowledged the passing of Mr. Noel Hopkins. Mr. Hopkins was a long standing member of the committee with a history of active community involvement.

117 Page 3 of 3 11 May 2010 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No ADJOURNMENT: CERTIFIED CORRECT: Moved by Clark Banks, seconded by Ron Ostensen that the Committee adjourn at Tricia Greenwood, Recording Secretary

118 Page 1 of 3 29 June 2010 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No CITY OF POWELL RIVER Minutes of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory (Stage 3) Committee meeting held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall on Tuesday, 29 June 2010 at MEMBERS PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Councillor J. G. Palm, Chair Clark Banks Ross Monk Ron Ostensen Sarah Barkowski Milton Johnson Reg Gillies Gino Francescutti Larry Gemmill Don Krompocker Ann Nelson (arrived at 1917) Allan Gibb, Dayton & Knight Councillor C.W. McNaughton Stan Westby, Chief Administrative Officer Richard Stogre, Manager of Engineering Services Frank D'Angio, Engineering Technologist Tricia Greenwood, Recording Secretary Members of the Public Media Representatives Mel Low Leonard Wegner Frank Greenwood Ted Wrubleski 1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 3. DELEGATIONS: a) Gino Francescutti, LLWAC member Moved by Clark Banks, seconded by Don Krompocker that the agenda of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee meeting of 29 June 2010 be adopted. CARRIED Moved by Clark Banks, seconded by Ron Ostensen that the minutes of the 11 May 2010 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee meeting Stage 3 be adopted. CARRIED Discussion on the need to work on the social issues in conjunction with the pre-design. b) Water Watch Coalition - Catalyst Co-treatment Mr. Murray Dobbin presented on behalf of the Water Watch Coalition. He advised that the coalition presented at the Steering Committee meeting on 28 June Major concerns of the coalition include: Draft City/Catalyst Mill Joint Wastewater Treatment Report, dated June 2010, does not include land costs for Townsite. If there is a shutdown at the mill a bypass is planned. This will result in non-compliance similar to the current situation at

119 4. CORRESPONDENCE: a) CUPE Submission Catalyst Paper Company Wastewater Co- Treatment Agreement b) Letters of Support and Opposition 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: a) Catalyst Paper Liquid Waste Co- Treatment Option 6. NEW BUSINESS a) Public Consultation Plan Page 2 of 3 29 June 2010 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No the Westview treatment plant, thus the City is no better off. Requested clarification on the funding source for the cotreatment plant. Deadline creates a necessity to make rushed decisions which historically are not always good decisions. Consultation is happening along with pre-design. Received and filed. Received and filed. The Draft City/Catalyst Mill Joint Wastewater Treatment Report, dated June 2010 was distributed via hardcopy (previously distributed electronically) to the committee members. Mr Allan Gibb presented the report to the committee. Highlights include: Potential cost savings if use of the mill s pump station H is secured. Use of this infrastructure has not been negotiated. Report does not include costs for extras such as gas lines, archaeology, land, etc. Contingency plan for temporary bypass must be approved by MOE through LWMP process. Catalyst to confirm time span for shutdowns suggested 5 years is more realistic than 2. Contingency plan to be shelf ready, funding to support plan must be addressed. Sarah Barkowski advised that the treatment plant at the Catalyst Paper mill in Elk Falls has been operating despite a long term shutdown of mill operations. Industrial sites do not have the flexibility of municipalities in their permits. Sarah Barkowski will investigate the life expectancy of pump station H. The committee questioned if the 100% funding was available for a stand alone plant. The Chief Administrative Officer advised that it was not, the funding is related to innovation. The City has applied twice for 2/3 rd funding for a consolidated treatment plant without success. Future funding is uncertain. The Manager of Engineering Services reported on a meeting at the Ministry of Environment (MOE) with himself and Councillor Palm. Key question was to define MOE s expectations for public consultation. MOE expects the City to meet the LWMP guidelines, with at least two public meetings (one to be held in Sliammon). MOE requested a public consultation plan for review. Staff requested that the Committee provide their input on the

120 Page 3 of 3 29 June 2010 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No plan. Discussion: Advertising; Invite stakeholders, general public, ratepayers associations, SFN, Vancouver Coastal Health, Regional District, Fisheries; Large venue at night, comfortable; Tight rein on moderation of meetings; Prepare for more than one night; Information meeting soon; Define project, goals and objectives clearly, provide comparison of what we have already. b) Communication Plan Staff requested that the Committee provide their input on a communication plan. 8. CLOSING STATEMENTS: The Committee requested that a meeting be scheduled for a roundtable discussion. 8. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Clark Banks, seconded by Gino Francescutti that the Committee adjourn at CERTIFIED CORRECT: Tricia Greenwood, Recording Secretary

121 Page 1 of 3 12 August 2010 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No CITY OF POWELL RIVER Minutes of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory (Stage 3) Committee meeting held in the Committee Room of the City Hall on Thursday, 12 August 2010 at MEMBERS PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Councillor J. G. Palm, Chair Ted Wrubleski Reg Gillies Clark Banks Ann Nelson Sarah Barkowski Frank Greenwood Ross Monk Ron Ostensen Milton Johnson Gino Francescutti Larry Gemmill Mel Low Councillor C.W. McNaughton Councillor M.J. Hathaway Stan Westby, Chief Administrative Officer Richard Stogre, Manager of Engineering Services Frank D'Angio, Engineering Technologist Tricia Greenwood, Recording Secretary Members of the Public Media Representatives Leonard Wegner Don Krompocker 1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 3. DELEGATIONS: Moved by Milton Johnson, seconded by Ross Monk that the agenda of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee meeting of 12 August 2010 be adopted. CARRIED Moved by Ross Monk, seconded by Mel Low that the minutes of the 29 June 2010 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee meeting Stage 3 be adopted. CARRIED None 4. CORRESPONDENCE: None

122 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: a) Catalyst Paper Liquid Waste Co- Treatment Option Page 2 of 3 12 August 2010 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No The Chair advised that a meeting was held with Mr. Stewart Gibson, Catalyst Paper, to discuss co-treatment at the Catalyst mill. City staff and Councillors will be meeting with Mr. Brian Baarda on 24 August. The Manager of Engineering Services presented two flow charts: 1. Interconnected tasks to complete the co-treatment proposal: Permits, Political, Technical, Financial and Legal. Discussion on the risks and challenges associated with each topic and necessity to complete all tasks in parallel. 2. Liquid Waste Management Planning process. Sarah Barkowski advised that a document defining the Catalyst permit process will be distributed to Committee members. The following items were discussed: Motions of Council/Steering Committee; Examples of wastewater treatment systems; Callan & Brooks Inc. Report preliminary study which concluded no adverse effects of mixing effluents; Catalyst Pump stations Catalyst will consider use of any pump station with legitimate pre-screening and grit removal; Cap & Trade Provincial initiative still in early stages, little relationship with sewage treatment. 6. NEW BUSINESS a) Membership Review Moved by Ann Nelson, seconded by Clark Banks that the composition of the Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee remain the same unless there are further losses on the Committee. CARRIED b) Roundtable Discussion Goal: establish focus early, formulate list of questions and encourage participation. 1. Why Now? Current treatment permits are out of compliance/do not meet current standards Townsite treatment plant is beyond design life Pressure from Ministry of Environment to complete LWMP Maintenance costs Minimal investment in current facilitates, shortening lifespan 2. Scope: Westview, Cranberry Townsite, future needs of Wildwood and Sliammon For discussion at future meetings: 3. AIP/Negotiations 4. Lands 5. Matrix 6. Summarized costs 7. Present operational cost

123 Page 3 of 3 12 August 2010 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No ADJOURNMENT: CERTIFIED CORRECT: Moved by Ann Nelson that the Committee adjourn at Tricia Greenwood, Recording Secretary

124 Page 1 of 3 25 August 2010 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No CITY OF POWELL RIVER Minutes of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory (Stage 3) Committee meeting held in the Committee Room of the City Hall on Thursday, 25 August 2010 at MEMBERS PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: 1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 3. DELEGATIONS: 4. CORRESPONDENCE: Councillor J. G. Palm, Chair Reg Gillies Clark Banks Sarah Barkowski Ron Ostensen Milton Johnson Gino Francescutti Mel Low Councillor M.J. Hathaway Richard Stogre, Manager of Engineering Services Frank D'Angio, Engineering Technologist Tricia Greenwood, Recording Secretary Members of the Public Media Representatives Leonard Wegner Don Krompocker Ted Wrubleski Ann Nelson Frank Greenwood Ross Monk Larry Gemmill Moved by Clark Banks, seconded by Mel Low that the agenda of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee meeting of 25 August 2010 be adopted. CARRIED Moved by Mel Low, seconded by Ron Ostensen that the minutes of the 12 August 2010 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee meeting Stage 3 be adopted. CARRIED None None

125 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: a) Catalyst Paper Liquid Waste Co-Treatment Option Page 2 of 3 25 August 2010 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No The Chair reported on a meeting with Catalyst representatives on 25 August. Further negotiations will commence in mid-september. A working group has been established between City and Catalyst staff to collaborate on permit amendments. During the review of the Dayton & Knight feasibility study it was determined that a second option is available for a contingency plan if the mill shuts down: old primary clarifier. This option will reduce legal obstacles during transition as it is a separate entity to the mill buildings and will reduce costs for pumping. Ms. Barkowski reviewed the Waste Discharge Authorization Application Process Flow Sheet. This sheet illustrates the steps required for Catalyst to amend their permit. The requested amendment will be for acceptance of City effluent only. Urban Systems, engineering consulting firm with experience in co-treatment, has offered to supply Catalyst with a terms of reference document which will define the scope of work for the technical report, which makes up part of the permit amendment application process. Matrix Review Committee members were requested to review the decision matrix, Table 3-1 Candidate Site Ranking Matrix, as presented in the June 2007 Dayton & Knight Report Update to the Westview/Townsite Treatment Plant Consolidation Study. Changes to the matrix will be considered at the next meeting and will require a recommendation to the Steering Committee. Roundtable Discussion Due to the number of members absent from the meeting the Committee concurred that the Roundtable discussion will be deferred to the next meeting. 6. NEW BUSINESS None 7. OTHER The Committee was requested to forward any questions they wished answered to the Engineering Services Division for response at the next meeting. Questions that were posed at the meeting from committee members and the public included: What is the total debt ratio for a standalone plant inclusive of all other City commitments? And interest payments? Summarization of costs for co-treatment on one table? A feasibility study was done by Weyerhaeuser for cotreatment in approximately 1995, can this be located? Does lifecycle costing include land acquisition? Is the AIP binding? Can Catalyst sue the City if co-

126 Page 3 of 3 25 August 2010 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No treatment is turned down? Will an Environmental Impact Assessment need to be completed if City s pre-treated effluent is allowed to bypass the mill s treatment plant during a mill shut down? Do the innovation funds include the original construction and retrofit costs? If Urban Systems is retained to assist with the Catalyst permit amendment who pays? Is there a stipulation in Committee s terms of reference on meeting attendance? 8. ADJOURNMENT: The Committee adjourn at CERTIFIED CORRECT: Tricia Greenwood, Recording Secretary

127 Page 1 of 3 08 November 2010 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No CITY OF POWELL RIVER Minutes of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory (Stage 3) Committee meeting held in the Committee Room of the City Hall on Monday, 08 November 2010 at MEMBERS PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: 1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: Councillor J. G. Palm, Chair Banks, Clark Barkowski, Sarah Francescutti, Gino Gillies, Reg Greenwood, Frank Johnson, Milton Krompocker, Don Low, Mel Nelson, Ann (arrived at 1915) Ostensen, Ron Wrubleski, Ted Al Gibb, Dayton & Knight Ltd. Members of the Public Media Representatives Marie Claxton, City Clerk Lynda Sowerby, Manager of Accounting Services Richard Stogre, Manager of Engineering Services Frank D Angio, Engineering Technologist Tricia Greenwood, Secretary Sheri Konkin, Recording Secretary Gemmill, Larry Monk, Ross Moved by Clark Banks, seconded by Milton Johnson that the agenda of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee meeting of 08 November 2010 be adopted. CARRIED Corrections to the minutes: The last sentence of paragraph 3 under item 5a) was revised as follows: Urban Systems, engineering consulting firm with experience in co-treatment, has offered to supply Catalyst with a terms of reference document which will define the scope of work for the technical report, which makes up part of the permit amendment application process. The 6 th bullet under item 7 was revised as follows: Will an environmental impact assessment need to be completed if City s pre-treated effluent is allowed to bypass the mill s treatment plant during a mill shutdown?

128 Page 2 of 3 08 November 2010 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No Moved by Sarah Barkowski, seconded by Ted Wrubleski that the minutes of the 25 August 2010 Joint Local / Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee meeting Stage 3 be adopted as amended. CARRIED 3. DELEGATIONS: 4. CORRESPONDENCE: 5. REPORTS: a)report from the Chair LWMP Steering Committee Meeting 04 November UNFINISHED BUSINESS: a) Liquid Waste Management Plan City/Catalyst Mill Joint Wastewater Treatment Draft Report No. 2, Presentation - Dayton & Knight None None The Chair reported on the LWMP Steering Committee meeting held 04 November Mr. Gibb, presented the LWMP City/Catalyst Mill Joint Wastewater Treatment Draft Report No. 2. Ann Nelson arrived at 1915 Discussion included the following main topics: Possible conflict with proposed pipeline routes and natural gas main. Use of the old primary clarifier is now part of the cotreatment option and was not rated earlier in the Matrix. Land acquisition costs not yet available for the old primary clarifier site. Potential connection of Sliammon s sewage treatment system into the City s treatment plant. b) Matrix Review of weighting Moved by Gino Francescutti, seconded by Frank Greenwood that the Joint Local / Technical Advisory Committee review the criteria and weighting in the decision matrix. CARRIED Opposed: Clark Banks c) Answer questions listed in the Joint Local/Technical LWM Advisory Meeting 25 August 2010 Regarding the debt ratio for a standalone plant, the Manager of Accounting Services reported that the City s total borrowing commitments is $1.586 million for the next 5 years and based at an interest rate of 3.75 %, it will cost $64,000/year to borrow $1 million. Summarization of costs for co-treatment is outlined in Draft Report No.2. Could not locate a feasibility study by Weyerhauser for co-treatment. Life cycle costing does not include land acquisition. City solicitor advised that the current Agreement in Principle between the City and Catalyst is not binding and Catalyst cannot sue the City if the co-treatment option is turned down.

129 Page 3 of 3 08 November 2010 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No An Environmental Impact Assessment is required if City s effluent is allowed to bypass a mill shut down. Catalyst is responsible for paying Urban Systems to assist with the permit amendment but ultimately the project will pay. There is no stipulation in Committee s terms of reference regarding meeting attendance. A quorum of a majority of Committee members is required to conduct a meeting. Moved by Clark Banks, seconded by Mel Low that a recommendation be made to the Steering Committee that members who have missed three consecutive meetings of the Joint Local/Technical Advisory Committee be asked if they are going to return; if not, then they are to be removed from the Committee. CARRIED d) Roundtable Discussion By unanimous consent, the Roundtable discussion was postponed. 7. NEW BUSINESS a) Public Consultation Plan The Steering Committee referred the draft Public Consultation Plan to the Joint Local/Technical Advisory Committee for review and comment. By unanimous consent, this matter will be included on the next Advisory Committee Agenda and Committee members may submit their comments to staff prior to the meeting so that staff may compile the comments for the meeting. a) Establishment of regular meeting dates By unanimous consent the next meeting was set for 30 November It was suggested that the Committee meet regularly two weeks prior to the scheduled LWMP Steering Committee meetings. This matter was referred to the next Advisory Committee meeting. 8. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Clark Banks, seconded by Ann Nelson that the meeting adjourn at CERTIFIED CORRECT: Sheri Konkin, Recording Secretary The next LWMP Joint Local/Technical Advisory Meeting will be held at 1830 on Tuesday 30 November 2010.

130 Page 1 of 3 30 November 2010 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No CITY OF POWELL RIVER Minutes of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory (Stage 3) Committee meeting held in the Committee Room of the City Hall on Tuesday, 30 November 2010 at MEMBERS PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Councillor J. G. Palm, Chair Banks, Clark Barkowski, Sarah Gemmill, Larry Greenwood, Frank Johnson, Milton Krompocker, Don Low, Mel Ostensen, Ron (arrived at 1845) Wrubleski, Ted Sisto Bosa, Dipl.T., Environmental Protection Officer, Ministry of Environment Members of the Public Media Representatives Stan Westby, Chief Administrative Officer Marie Claxton, City Clerk Richard Stogre, Manager of Engineering Services Frank D Angio, Engineering Technologist Sheri Konkin, Recording Secretary Francescutti, Gino Gillies, Reg Monk, Ross Nelson, Ann 1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: Moved by Mel Low, seconded by Clark Banks that the agenda of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee meeting of 30 November 2010 be adopted as amended. CARRIED 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: Moved by Frank Greenwood, seconded by Ted Wrubleski that the minutes of the 08 November 2010 Joint Local / Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee meeting Stage 3 be adopted. CARRIED 3. DELEGATIONS: Marilee Prior Powell River Water Watch Ms. Prior circulated a copy of her presentation, with maps, which included the following main topics: Concern about proposed routes interfering with gas line and foreshore Use of old Catalyst primary clarifier facility Costs and funding Concern of inadequate public consultation Ensuring control of essential service Matrix review

131 Page 2 of 3 30 November 2010 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No The Chair introduced Sisto Bosa, Environmental Protection Officer from the Ministry of Environment. 4. CORRESPONDENCE: 5. REPORTS: None None 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: a) Matrix Weighting The Committee reviewed the matrix weighting. By unanimous consent the following sub-totals were agreed upon for each factor: Social 30 Regulatory 15 Environmental 15 Technical 15 Economic 25 By unanimous consent, it was agreed that each Committee member will review the matrix weighting on their own, and assign a value/weight for each constraint to reflect the revised factor subtotals. Staff will the revised matrix and clarifying documentation to Committee members by Friday, 03 December 2010 for evaluation; staff will compile the results for further review at the next Committee meeting. b) Public Consultation Plan The Manager of Engineering Services reported that the following suggestions were submitted regarding the Public Consultation Plan: Hold an Open House at Dwight Hall, prior to recommendation of the Plan, and include: o large display of items in Dayton & Knight Draft Report No. 2; possibly including photos or slide show of site locations, force main options and matrix o pros and cons of each site o large Dayton & Knight presence, including facilitator o technical kept to a reasonable level o borrowing costs o history of sites Following the Open House, hold a second meeting for questions and answers. Hold consultation meeting with Sliammon First Nation. By unanimous consent, staff was directed to update the Public

132 Page 3 of 3 30 November 2010 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No Consultation Plan to include the suggestions and bring back for further review at the next Committee meeting. c) Establishment of regular meeting dates Moved by Larry Gemmill, seconded by Clark Banks that the Liquid Waste Management Joint Local/Technical Advisory Committee (Stage 3) meet two weeks prior to the Liquid Waste Management Steering Committee meetings from 1830 to 2030 for the duration of the Liquid Waste Management Planning process with the following dates confirmed: 14 December January February March 2011 CARRIED Staff advised the Committee of the updated Liquid Waste Management Plan link on the City s website. This link provides direct access to reports, presentations, Q&A, and Ministry guidelines. The public may send questions to info@cdpr.bc.ca for inclusion on the Q&A sheet posted on the City s website and available at City Hall free of charge. 7. NEW BUSINESS a) Best practices - Odour Elimination The Committee discussed the issue of odour elimination at a waste water treatment facility. Moved by Don Krompocker, seconded by Clark Banks that a recommendation be made to the Steering Committee to assure best practices for odour elimination will be used in the overall design of a waste water treatment facility. CARRIED 8. ADJOURNMENT: By unanimous consent, the meeting adjourned at CERTIFIED CORRECT: Sheri Konkin, Recording Secretary The next LWMP Joint Local/Technical Advisory Meeting will be held at 1830 on Tuesday 14 December 2010.

133 Page 1 of 3 14 December 2010 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No CITY OF POWELL RIVER Minutes of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory (Stage 3) Committee meeting held in the Committee Room of the City Hall on Tuesday, 14 December 2010 at MEMBERS PRESENT: Councillor J. G. Palm, Chair Banks, Clark Barkowski, Sarah Francescutti, Gino Gemmill, Larry Gillies, Reg Greenwood, Frank Johnson, Milton Krompocker, Don Low, Mel Nelson, Ann Wrubleski, Ted Sisto Bosa, Dipl.T., Environmental Protection Officer, Ministry of Environment (via teleconference) ALSO PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Members of the Public Media Representatives Avtar Sundher, Government and Compliance Section Head, Ministry of Environment (via teleconference) Stan Westby, Chief Administrative Officer Marie Claxton, City Clerk Cathy Greiner, Deputy Clerk Frank D Angio, Engineering Technologist Sheri Konkin, Recording Secretary Monk, Ross Ostensen, Ron 1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: Moved by Clark Banks, seconded by Larry Gemmill that the agenda of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee meeting of 14 December 2010 be adopted. CARRIED 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: Sisto Bosa confirmed that he is a member of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory (Stage 3) Committee. The minutes of 30 November 2010 were corrected to include Mr. Bosa as a member present. Moved by Don Krompocker, seconded by Ann Nelson that the minutes of the 30 November 2010 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee meeting (Stage 3) be adopted as amended. CARRIED

134 Page 2 of 3 14 December 2010 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No DELEGATIONS: Trish Cocksedge Powell River Water Watch Ms. Cocksedge appeared before the Committee to speak about the innovation component of the Waste Water Management Plan. Her presentation covered the following main topics: qualifications for and required outcomes of Innovation Fund application; examples of innovative technologies being explored and introduced worldwide; consider innovation technology not just in the co-treatment proposal but in all City infrastructure projects 4. CORRESPONDENCE: 5. REPORTS: None None The Chief Administrative Officer arrived at 18:36 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: a) Matrix Weighting The Committee reviewed the matrix weighting on the Ranking of Candidate Sites table. By unanimous consent, the Committee agreed to the following revisions: Factor Constraint Maximum Points Social: Impacts from truck traffic: 1 point Regulatory: Site remediation: 4 points Technical: Treatment complexity: 5 points Future connection to other sites: 2 points Moved by Ann Nelson, seconded by Frank Greenwood that the Ranking of Candidate Sites table revised 14 December 2010 be referred to the Steering Committee for approval CARRIED b) Public Consultation Plan The Committee reviewed the revised Public Consultation Plan. 7. NEW BUSINESS a) None By unanimous consent, staff was directed to revise the last paragraph on page 4 by deleting the words A consultation meeting will be held with Sliammon First Nation as well, and inserting The City will undertake consultation with Sliammon First Nation. Moved by Gino Francescutti, seconded by Ted Wrubleski that the Liquid Waste Management Plan (Stage 3) Public Consultation Plan revised 14 December 2010 be referred to the Steering Committee for approval. CARRIED

135 Page 3 of 3 14 December 2010 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Ann Nelson, seconded by Sarah Barkowski that the meeting adjourn at 19:25 CERTIFIED CORRECT: Sheri Konkin, Recording Secretary The next LWMP Joint Local/Technical Advisory Meeting will be held at 1830 on Tuesday 18 January 2011.

136 Page 1 of 4 19 January 2011 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No CITY OF POWELL RIVER Minutes of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory (Stage 3) Committee meeting held in the Committee Room of the City Hall on Tuesday, 19 January 2011 at MEMBERS PRESENT: Councillor J. G. Palm, Chair Banks, Clark Barkowski, Sarah Francescutti, Gino Gillies, Reg Greenwood, Frank Johnson, Milton Low, Mel Monk, Ross Nelson, Ann Ostensen, Ron Wrubleski, Ted Sisto Bosa, Dipl.T., Environmental Protection Officer, Ministry of Environment (via Skype) ALSO PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Members of the Public Media Representatives Al Gibb, OPUS DaytonKnight Consultants Ltd. Avtar Sundher, Government and Compliance Section Head, Ministry of Environment (via Skype) Cathy Greiner, Acting City Clerk Richard Stogre, Manger of Engineering Services Frank D Angio, Engineering Technologist Sheri Konkin, Recording Secretary Gemmill, Larry Krompocker, Don 1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: Moved by Gino Francescutti, seconded by Milton Johnson that the agenda of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee meeting of 19 January 2011 be adopted. CARRIED 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: Moved by Clark Banks, seconded by Ann Nelson that the minutes of the 14 December 2010 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee meeting (Stage 3) be adopted. 3. DELEGATIONS: Merrilee Prior Powell River Water Watch CARRIED Ms. Prior appeared before the Committee to speak about her conclusions and questions after meeting with representatives of the Ministries of Environment and Communities, Sport and Cultural Development which included:

137 Page 2 of 4 19 January 2011 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No CORRESPONDENCE: dated 14 January 2011 from Murray Coell, Minister of Environment, to Marion Blank 5. REPORTS: a) Minutes of the 06 January 2011 Steering Committee Funding is not only applicable for co-treatment, but other options as well If the mill were to shut down, discharge of sewage directly into the Strait of Georgia would not be accepted How can the consolidated Townsite plant still be an option if the land is not available and the City has no intention of expropriating? Pipeline route concerns included issues around digging up the Millennium Park Trail route and the need to cross the golf course lands, or possible conflict with development plans Complexities of co-treatment and missing information: Cost for best practices, the old clarifier and retro-fit, environmental impact and archaeological studies, and cost to replace Pump station H and pipeline to SET plant Concern that co-treatment will cost the same as a consolidated plant, thus the need for a stand alone plant anyway The dated 14 January 2011 from Murray Coell, Minister of Environment, to Marion Blank regarding the development of a new LWMP for the City of Powell River and the public consultation process that has accompanied it was received. The Chair reported on the minutes of the 06 January 2011 Steering Committee meeting. b) Frequently Asked Questions #2: 22 December 2010 The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Sheet #2, dated 22 December 2010 was received. The Chair reminded that questions should be forwarded to the City Clerk at info@cdpr.bc.ca for addition to the Frequently Asked Questions Sheet and posting on the City s website. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: a) None 7. NEW BUSINESS a) Rating of Candidate Sites Al Gibb, OPUS DaytonKnight Consultants Ltd, reviewed powerpoint slides regarding Wastewater Treatment Matrix Selection. The main points covered were: Replacing existing Townsite and Westview treatment plants with a new consolidated WWTP located at Waste transfer site or Townsite WWTP; or alternatively opting for Joint treatment at Catalyst Mill. Cost summary of options By unanimous consent, Al Gibb was directed to update and correct the Cost Summary of Options page in the Wastewater Treatment Matrix Selection presentation to read:

138 Page 3 of 4 19 January 2011 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No Annual operating and maintenance costs for Options 3 and 4 to include the annual $750,000 fee payable to Catalyst Mill Option 4 to read: Retro-fit Old Clarifier for secondary treatment and to resubmit the Cost Summary of Options to the Advisory committee for review. The following Tables on the presentation slides will be updated as follows: Table 3-1: Candidate Site Ranking Matrix to read: Environmental: o Impact on terrestrial fauna, flora and their associated habitats o Impact on marine and aquatic fauna, flora and their associated habitats Table 3-1: Candidate Site Ranking Matrix and Table 4-1 Ranking of Candidate Sites to read: o Social: Public health and safety, impact on air quality By unanimous consent, the Advisory Committee agreed to meet on 01 February 2011 at 1300 at City Hall s rear parking lot to take a field trip to view each candidate site in order to rate the Social component on Table 4-1 Ranking of Candidate Sites. Moved by Clark Banks, seconded by Mel Low to reconsider the description and points assigned for the high constraint clarification for the Economic factor on Table 3-1: Candidate Site Ranking Matrix. By unanimous consent this motion was deferred until the next Advisory Committee meeting in order for staff to bring forward the former motion to be reviewed for amendment. By unanimous consent the Advisory Committee agreed the factors under Table 4-1: Ranking of Candidate Sites will be filled in by the following parties: Social: Advisory Committee while viewing candidate sites Regulatory: Staff and consultants to complete in consultation with Tla amin (Sliammon First Nation) Environmental: Consultants to provide scope of work and obtain a cost estimate Technical: Consultants Economic: Staff and Consultants The results will be brought back to the next Advisory Committee meeting for review and further discussion in order to finalize before submitting to the Steering Committee for approval.

139 Page 4 of 4 19 January 2011 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Ross Monk, seconded by Milton Johnson that the meeting adjourn at 20:38. CERTIFIED CORRECT: Sheri Konkin, Recording Secretary The next LWMP Joint Local/Technical Advisory Meeting will be held at 1830 on Tuesday 15 February 2011.

140 Page 1 of 3 15 February 2011 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No CITY OF POWELL RIVER Minutes of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory (Stage 3) Committee meeting held in the Committee Room of the City Hall on Tuesday, 15 February 2011 at MEMBERS PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Councillor J. G. Palm, Chair Banks, Clark Barkowski, Sarah Gillies, Reg Greenwood, Frank Johnson, Milton Krompocker, Don Nelson, Ann Wrubleski, Ted Sisto Bosa, Dipl.T., Environmental Protection Officer, Ministry of Environment (via Skype) Members of the Public Media Representatives Avtar Sundher, Government and Compliance Section Head, Ministry of Environment (via Skype) Stan Westby, Chief Administrative Officer Marie Claxton, City Clerk Richard Stogre, Manger of Engineering Services Frank D Angio, Engineering Technologist Sheri Konkin, Recording Secretary Francescutti, Gino Gemmill, Larry Low, Mel Monk, Ross Ostensen, Ron 1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: Addition: Verbal report from the Chief Administrative Officer regarding status of gas tax innovation funding application, to follow adoption of the minutes. Moved by Clark Banks, seconded by Reg Gillies that the agenda of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee meeting of 15 January 2011 be adopted as amended. CARRIED 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: Moved by Milton Johnson, seconded by Clark Banks that the minutes of the 19 January 2011 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee meeting (Stage 3) be adopted. CARRIED

141 Page 2 of 3 15 February 2011 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No REPORTS: a) Report form the Administrative Officer regarding a meeting with the Ministry of Community Sport and Cultural Development The Chief Administrative Officer reported on a meeting with the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development last week; one of the main issues being to find out the status and timeline for the Gas Tax Innovation Application Fund. The City s application was submitted a couple of times due to some questions from the Ministry and the engineering consultant. The application deadline is 29 February 2011; prior approval was for early February. The City s application has been posted to the City s website under Liquid Waste Management Plan. 3. DELEGATIONS: None Chief Administrative Officer left at CORRESPONDENCE: Letter dated 27 January 2011 from Diana Collicutt 5. REPORTS con t: b) Summary of the Bus Tour to view candidate sites The letter dated 27 January 2011 from Diana Collicutt, in opposition to proposed use of the decommissioned primary clarifier for treatment of the city s sewage (pre or post) was received. The Manager of Engineering Services reported on the Bus Tour taken 01 February 2011 to view candidate sites. His report included the following main points: A majority of Committee members attended including the Environmental Protection Officer, along with City staff and the Peak Handouts were provided for the Social component of the Matrix including constraint clarifications and an aerial photo for reference Information was provided on the process and size of the footprint of proposed candidate sites. Six stops were made: Townsite Old Clarifier Catalyst existing treatment facility Viewpoint overlooking old clarifier Larch Avenue Waste Transfer station b) Frequently Asked Questions #3: 09 February UNFINISHED BUSINESS: a) Public Consultation Plan i) Memo from the City Clerk regarding direction from LWMP Steering Committee The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Sheet #3, dated 09 February 2011 was received and is posted on the City s website under the Liquid Waste Management Plan heading. The memo dated 15 February 2011 from the City Clerk regarding direction from the LWMP Steering Committee regarding the Public Consultation Plan was received.

142 Page 3 of 3 15 February 2011 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No The Manger of Engineering Services introduced Mr. Geoff Allan of InFocus Facilitation. Mr. Allan has been retained by the City to provide a proposal for the public consultation process. Mr. Allan s spoke on the following key components of public consultation: Information exchange - Open House Consultation - Dialogue meeting Closure and accountability - Report on what was heard and what was done with the information The City Clerk advised on importance of meaningful community consultation with a neutral facilitator, who will analyze the community input and provide the analysis to the Committee. b) Ranking of Candidate Sites Moved by Frank Greenwood, seconded by Don Krompocker that, based on the Steering Committee s direction to staff to develop a comprehensive community consultation process in advance of site selection, and after hearing from Geoff Allan, the ranking of candidate sites be postponed until after Public Consultation. CARRIED c) Review of the Economic factor on the Candidate Site Ranking Matrix By unanimous consent, staff was directed to request Al Gibb, OPUS DaytonKnight, to provide written clarification as to how the Economic factor will be rated on the ranking of candidate sites table 7. NEW BUSINESS None CERTIFIED CORRECT: Sheri Konkin, Recording Secretary The next LWMP Joint Local/Technical Advisory Meeting will be held at 1830 on Tuesday 15 March 2011.

143 Page 1 of 5 15 March 2011 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No CITY OF POWELL RIVER Minutes of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory (Stage 3) Committee meeting held in the Committee Room of the City Hall on Tuesday, 15 March 2011 at MEMBERS PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor S.B. Alsgard, Alternate Chair Banks, Clark Barkowski, Sarah Gemmill, Larry Gillies, Reg Johnson, Milton Krompocker, Don Low, Mel Nelson, Ann Ostensen, Ron Wrubleski, Ted Sisto Bosa, Dipl.T., Environmental Protection Officer, Ministry of Environment (via Skype) Members of the Public Media Representatives Avtar Sundher, Government and Compliance Section Head, Ministry of Environment (via Skype) Stan Westby, Chief Administrative Officer Marie Claxton, City Clerk Richard Stogre, Manger of Engineering Services Frank D Angio, Engineering Technologist Sheri Konkin, Recording Secretary Councillor J. G. Palm, Chair Francescutti, Gino Greenwood, Frank Monk, Ross 1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: Addition: 5. Reports a) i) Message from the Chair to the Joint Advisory Committee 7. New Business b) Provincial Grant Application c) Alternate Chair Moved by Clark Banks, seconded by Don Krompocker that the agenda of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee meeting of 15 January 2011 be adopted as amended. CARRIED 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: Moved by Milton Johnson, seconded by Don Krompocker that the minutes of the 15 February 2011 Joint Local/Technical Liquid

144 Page 2 of 5 15 March 2011 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No Waste Management Advisory Committee meeting (Stage 3) be adopted. CARRIED 3. DELEGATIONS: 4. CORRESPONDENCE: a) Received at the Steering Committee 03 March 2011 Merrilee Prior, Powell River Water Watch Coalition, appeared before the Committee regarding current choices for a Liquid Waste Management Plan. Her presentation included the following concerns: funding for co-treatment and that co-treatment will not be cheaper than a consolidated plant that technology has already been decided where public consultation fits in with the decision making process use of the clarifier, including repair costs and negotiations to purchase cost of running pipeline along Marine not enough information on costs to make an informed decision start date of April 2011 on the application for funding; that cotreatment is moving ahead The following information was received by the Steering Committee on 03 March 2011: Letter dated 10 February 2011 from Deborah and Leo Zagwyn concerning use of old clarifier for storage and treatment of sewage. Letter received 24 February 2011 from Patricia Barnsley regarding location of sewage treatment plant. Petition dated 03 March 2011 from Townsite Ratepayers. Presentation from Judy Watts on the Public Meeting held by Water Watch 22 February Moved by Clark Banks, seconded by Mel Low that the correspondence be received. CARRIED 5. REPORTS a) i) Frequently Asked Questions #4: 03 March 2011 ii) Message from the Chair The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Sheet #4, dated 03 March 2011 was received. Mayor Alsgard summarized a message from the Chair, Councillor Palm, regarding the LWMP process: Staff is following the Committee s direction to develop a comprehensive community consultation process in advance of site selection. A draft consultation plan will be presented to the Advisory Committee for their review on 15 March. Public consultation has occurred and will continue to occur until a decision has been made.

145 Page 3 of 5 15 March 2011 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No Upcoming public consultation events will provide open collaborative dialogue for all community members. The City must be consistent in its messaging, noting that a decision has not been made, and in following its process. The Chair and Council must keep an open mind while gathering technical information, receiving public feedback and considering the issues in order to come to a decision that is in the best interests of the community. b) i) ii) Update from the Manager of Engineering Services regarding a resolution from the Steering Committee. LWMP Evolution of options Proposal: Focus on Co-treatment or Consolidation The Manager of Engineering Services presentation included the following main points: The Steering Committee resolved on 03 March that the Public Consultation Plan focus on the two treatment options: cotreatment or consolidation; and further, that following public consultation, the Advisory Committee provide a recommendation to the Steering Committee on the preferred treatment option. Summary of where we are now in the planning stage and where we are going. Review of the diagram titled Evolution of Options summarizing the challenge of rating consolidation with the co-treatment option, and the need to simplify the process. Review of the diagram titled Proposal: Focus on Co-treatment or Consolidation summarizing the simplified option of choosing between two processes: consolidation or co-treatment. Process selection is only the beginning; we are currently only at the concept planning stage. Implementation of the LWMP (design, technology, source control, volume reduction, stormwater management; non-point source pollution, and Wildwood Lagoon Upgrade) is the next step. In response to a question from the Committee, Sisto Bosa, Environmental Protection Officer, Ministry of Environment, advised there is no real deadline for completion of a Liquid Waste Management Plan; however, the City s sewage treatment plants are still in non compliance. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: a) Draft Public Consultation Plan The City Clerk presented the Draft Public Consultation Plan. Staff will present the Open House material and information to the Advisory Committee for review before the event. The Committee reviewed the Draft Public Consultation Plan and suggested that on page 2, under Situational Analysis, the second bulleted item describing the Local Advisory Committee be moved to precede the description of the Technical Advisory Committee.

146 Page 4 of 5 15 March 2011 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No The Committee discussed the Open House event and suggestions included the following: Ensure there is sufficient time for the Advisory Committee to review the information and material for the Open House. Review what a contract would look like if there is a service agreement. Revise the Proposal: Focus on Co-treatment or Consolidation diagram to include all possibilities. 7. NEW BUSINESS a) Proposed Meeting dates The Manager of Engineering Services reviewed the diagram titled LWMP Proposed Meeting Dates which included the following main points: A revised diagram was distributed which included the Advisory Committee meeting date for 19 April Staff requested the Committee provide feedback to staff as soon as possible to allow time for compiling the information for the next Committee meeting. b) c) Provincial Grant Funding Alternate chair Alternates for the Committee By unanimous consent, the Committee agreed to the following date revisions: Change the Advisory Committee meeting on 29 March to 28 March Change the Advisory Committee meeting on 25 May to 24 May Moved by Don Krompocker, seconded by Clark Banks, that the City of Powell River correspond with UBCM expressing that the Advisory Committee did not and has not agreed to co-treatment. Moved by Clark Banks, seconded by Don Krompocker, that the main motion be postponed until the 28 March 2011 Joint Advisory Committee meeting. CARRIED Moved by Don Krompocker, seconded by Ann Nelson that a recommendation be made to the Steering Committee to allow the Joint Local /Technical Advisory Committee assign an alternate chair when the Chair is absent. CARRIED Moved by Don Krompocker, seconded by Ann, that a recommendation be made to Council suggesting having alternates to the Joint Local /Technical Advisory Committee. CARRIED 8. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Don Krompocker, seconded by Larry Gemmill that the meeting adjourn at CARRIED

147 Page 5 of 5 15 March 2011 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No CERTIFIED CORRECT: Sheri Konkin, Recording Secretary The next LWMP Joint Local/Technical Advisory Meeting will be held at 1830 on Monday 28 March 2011.

148 Page 1 of 5 28 March 2011 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No CITY OF POWELL RIVER Minutes of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory (Stage 3) Committee meeting held in the Committee Room of the City Hall on Tuesday, 28 March 2011 at MEMBERS PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Councillor J. G. Palm, Chair Banks, Clark Barkowski, Sarah Gemmill, Larry Gillies, Reg Francescutti, Gino Johnson, Milton Krompocker, Don Nelson, Ann Ostensen, Ron Wrubleski, Ted Sisto Bosa, Dipl.T., Environmental Protection Officer, Ministry of Environment (via Skype) Members of the Public Media Representatives Avtar Sundher, Government and Compliance Section Head, Ministry of Environment (via Skype) Stan Westby, Chief Administrative Officer Marie Claxton, City Clerk Richard Stogre, Manager of Engineering Services Frank D Angio, Engineering Technologist Sheri Konkin, Recording Secretary Greenwood, Frank Low, Mel Monk, Ross 1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: Moved by Ann Nelson, seconded by Clark Banks that the agenda of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee meeting of 28 March 2011 be adopted. CARRIED 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: None 3. DELEGATIONS: 4. CORRESPONDENCE: 5. REPORTS a) Frequently Asked Questions #5: 28 March 2011 None None The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Sheet #5, dated 28 March 2011 was reviewed and received.

149 Page 2 of 5 28 March 2011 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No Moved by Sarah Barkowski, seconded by Gino Francescutti, that a letter of clarification be sent to UBCM which makes clear that the Joint Local/Technical Advisory Committee has been consulted on the co-treatment option among other options but has not made a recommendation yet regarding the Liquid Waste Management Plan option. Moved by Clark Banks, seconded by Don Krompocker, that this motion be postponed for consideration as item 7.e) on the Agenda. CARRIED 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: a) Draft Public Consultation Plan Revisions made to the Draft Public Consultation included: On page 2, under Situational Analysis, the second bulleted item describing the Local Advisory Committee was moved to precede the description of the Technical Advisory Committee. On page 3, third paragraph, special interest was removed before a group called Powell River Water Watch. 7. NEW BUSINESS Moved by Ron Ostensen, seconded by Clark Banks, that the Public Consultation Plan be referred to the Liquid Waste Management Steering Committee for consideration. CARRIED a) Open House material The Manager of Engineering Services reviewed the draft Open House material completed to date, noting the balance of information will be provided in subsequent meetings. The following items were reviewed: Timeline Slides prepared by the Consultant, OPUS Dayton and Knight. Slides still to come include: What is a LWMP and Financial information Questionnaire Compilation of FAQ sheets Recommendations from the Advisory Committee to staff included: Stormwater Management Slide: check dictionary for meaning of impervious: Existing Facilities Slide: Delete line which reads float cabins (few with Municipality) Joint Treatment Option: How does joint treatment at the Catalyst Mill WWTP work Slide? Revise to include the same level of detail for Biological (secondary) treatment as illustrated on the Consolidated Wastewater Treatment Plant Option slide. Consolidated Wastewater Treatment Plant Option. How does secondary wastewater treatment work Slide? Revise page to read: Waste Biological Solids

150 Page 3 of 5 28 March 2011 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No Existing Facilities and Future Improvements: Under Townsite Wastewater Treatment Plant, revise second paragraph to read: The treatment facilities at Townsite are more than 30 years old and they do not meet today s standards Present as a viable option that, in the event of mill closure, the joint treatment option is an interim transition or solution to building a stand alone plant; provides an opportunity to build a reserve. Include more financial information; costs of operating system as is Clarify if any deadline to completing a LWMP, non compliance issues and commitment to LWMP. Staff requested Committee members: forward their recommendations for the Open House material to the Engineering Secretary. send unanswered questions from the community to the Engineering Secretary for addition to the next agenda in preparation for the Dialogue event, provide input to staff for compiling 6 key questions for roundtable discussion at the Dialogue event. provide input regarding what information they would need from the Community in order to help them make a recommendation for a treatment option. The Facilitator, Geoff Allan, provided an overview on how the dialogue event will work. Staff will review the 11 questions for the Open House meeting submitted by Ted Wrubleski on 21 March 2011 to see if they have been answered. Additional recommendations from the Committee for the open house material included: Address inconsistencies in use or co-treatment and joint treatment. Preference is to use co-treatment". Explain what oxidation ditch means in this context Include terminology list Timeline: Staff to verify the date co-treatment was proposed (2009) b) Schedule of Public Events Moved by Clark Banks, seconded by Milton Johnston that the Open House be held on Tuesday, 10 May 2011 from 1400 to 2000 in the Cedar/Arbutus Room, at the Recreation Complex. CARRIED Opposed: Don Krompocker Moved by Larry Gemmill, seconded by Sarah Barkowski that the Dialogue Event be one meeting held at Dwight Hall on Tuesday, 17 May 2011 from 1800 to CARRIED

151 c) Training date for Open House Page 4 of 5 28 March 2011 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No By unanimous consent, the Advisory Committee agreed to meet on Tuesday, 12 April 2011 from 1915 to 2015 for training in preparation for the Open House. Venue to be determined once attendance is confirmed. d) Providing a table for Water Watch or CUPE at Open House Moved by Don Krompocker, seconded by Larry Gemmill, that a recommendation be made to the Steering Committee to offer one table at the Open House for Powell River Water Watch Coalition and CUPE to share. CARRIED Sarah Barkowski informed that Catalyst will have information ready for the Open House after 27 April 2011 regarding Catalyst s submission of the permit amendment application. She informed that the Ministry of Environment was in agreement that public consultation regarding the permit amendment application could take place at the same time as the City s Public Consultation. The Committee requested staff electronically forward the presented open house material to the Committee. e) Revisit Grant Funding Application and postponed motion Consideration of the main motion regarding clarification to the UBCM resumed. Moved by Gino Francescutti, seconded by Larry Gemmill that the main motion be amended by adding the following words at the end of the motion: and further, that a point of clarification be made that the Joint Local/Technical Advisory Committee (as one of the stakeholders) wishes to make it clear that they did not select the co-treatment option but rather agreed to consider it as an option. CARRIED Opposed: Clark Banks Don Krompocker Ron Ostensen The main motion as amended was adopted with the final wording as follows: Moved by Sarah Barkowski, seconded by Gino Francescutti, that a recommendation be made to the Steering Committee that a letter of clarification be sent to UBCM which makes clear that the Joint Local/Technical Advisory Committee has been consulted on the co-treatment option among other options but has not made a recommendation yet regarding the Liquid Waste Management Plan option, and further, that a point of clarification be made that the Joint Local/Technical Advisory Committee (as one of the stakeholders) wishes to make it clear that they did not select the co-treatment option but rather agreed to consider it as an option. CARRIED Opposed: Clark Banks Don Krompocker

152 Page 5 of 5 28 March 2011 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No Ron Ostensen Milton Johnson 8. ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent the meeting adjourned at CERTIFIED CORRECT: Sheri Konkin, Recording Secretary The next LWMP Joint Local/Technical Advisory Committee Meeting will be held at 1830 on Tuesday, 19 April 2011.

153 Page 1 of 4 03 May 2011 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No CITY OF POWELL RIVER Minutes of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory (Stage 3) Committee meeting held in the Elm Room at the Recreation Complex on Tuesday, 03 May 2011 at MEMBERS PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Councillor J. G. Palm, Chair Barkowski, Sarah Gemmill, Larry Francescutti, Gino Johnson, Milton Nelson, Ann Ostensen, Ron Wrubleski, Ted Avtar Sundher, Government and Compliance Section Head, Ministry of Environment Members of the Public Media Representatives Al Gibb, OPUS DaytonKnight Consultants Ltd Stan Westby, Chief Administrative Officer Marie Claxton, City Clerk Richard Stogre, Manager of Engineering Services Frank D Angio, Engineering Technologist Sheri Konkin, Recording Secretary Gillies, Reg Greenwood, Frank Krompocker, Don Low, Mel Monk, Ross Sisto Bosa, Dipl.T., Environmental Protection Officer, Ministry of Environment 1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: Moved by Milton Johnson, seconded by Ted Wrubleski that the agenda of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee meeting of 03 May 2011 be adopted. CARRIED The Chair acknowledged Clark Banks resignation from the Committee; a letter will be sent for his years of service from Council and the Mayor. Drinking Water Week Engineering Services reported that May 1-7 has been proclaimed as Drinking Water Week by the Province, BC Water & Waste Association (BCWWA) and the City of Powell River bringing awareness to water use and the related costs. 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: Moved by Ted Wrubleski, seconded by Larry Gemmill that the minutes of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management

154 Page 2 of 4 03 May 2011 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No Advisory Committee meeting of 15 March 2011 be adopted. CARRIED 3. DELEGATIONS: 4. CORRESPONDENCE: Moved by Gino Francescutti, seconded by Sarah Barkowski that the minutes of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee meeting of 28 March 2011 be adopted. CARRIED None The following correspondence was provided as information, noting that it was received by the Steering Committee on 07 April 2011 and staff was directed to respond. dated 24 March 2011 from Sara McClinchey regarding her objection to Powell River's wastewater being treated at the mill. Questions received 03 March 2011 from Andy Davis regarding withdrawal of the Innovation Funding Application for Cotreatment. 5. REPORTS a) Update from the City Clerk regarding resolutions from Council 21 April 2011 Terms of Reference The City Clerk reviewed the amended Committee Terms of Reference noting that Council approved the Committee s suggestions regarding an alternate chair and alternate members on 21 April By unanimous consent, the Committee agreed to forward names of possible Committee alternates to the City Clerk for Council s consideration. Tables at Open House for interested parties The City Clerk reported that at the 21 April Council meeting Council approved providing an opportunity for interested parties to have a table at the City s Liquid Waste Management Plan Stage 3 Open House on 10 May 2011 and that the tables be set up in the upper foyer of the Recreation Complex. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Staff has received confirmation from CUPE and Water Watch requesting tables at the Open House. Staff requested the Committee notify the City Clerk of other known interested parties wishing to have a table at the Open House so tables could be arranged. a) Open House material Al Gibb, OPUS DaytonKnight Consultants Ltd, presented revisions made to the DRAFT open house material. Further suggested revisions included:

155 Page 3 of 4 03 May 2011 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No Page 20: add that the City s discharge permits will be replaced by operational certificates. Page 21: Replace impervious with impermeable. Page 23: Under Wastewater reduction, add the date initiated for educational program for water conservation. Page 27: May add text under contingency plans for the joint treatment alternative; another feasible option could be to use the mill s clarifier instead of the old clarifier. Pre-approval from the Ministry of Environment (MOE) is required. Page 30: Replace if required under the dashed arrow with if or when required. Financial figures highlighted in yellow may change as financial figures are still being finalized. Page 35: Title will read Wastewater Management Alternatives. Revise first bullet under Joint Treatment to read Joint treatment has also been referred to as Co-treatment. The ninth bullet will be revised to reflect an estimated 15% probability of occurrence. Create a new board that shows a map of service areas for each of the City s existing wastewater treatment facilities. Sarah Barkowski reported on a conference call with MOE. MOE cannot amend Catalyst s permit amendment until the City has completed a LWMP. Hence, MOE asked Catalyst to postpone the permit amendment application process. The process will be re-started only if the City chooses joint treatment and when the LWMP has been submitted to the MOE for approval. Avtar Sundher, MOE, reported that the City needs to first select a wastewater treatment option and complete a LWMP. The Minister and Regional Director will then need to approve. The permit amendment will not be approved until a LWMP has been completed. The Chief Administrative Officer reported that PRSC is making approximately 14 acres of land available for the City to purchase if needed to complete their LWMP. This will go to the LWMP Steering Committee on 05 May 2011 for approval for staff to enter into negotiations to solidify the right to purchase at fair market value for future use. The Manager of Engineering Services reported on the open house material. The main points included: A 5 th option, Joint treatment with pre-treatment works at the Townsite WWTP, may be added pending the Steering Committee s approval on 05 May The financial information will not include the 15% risk factor at the Open House but will show the full treatment cost for joint treatment; this being done to simplify information presented and is not required at this point as the matrix is not being used; only a decision for a treatment option. Labour analysis is still being finalized. An from the Manager of Human Resources dated 03 May 2011

156 7. NEW BUSINESS Page 4 of 4 03 May 2011 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No regarding labour analysis included the following main points: The Consolidated Treatment option would see a small increase in required labour that would be easily accomplished by the City s existing part-time workforce. The Co-treatment option would see a reduction in required labour, however, in the absence of a detailed service agreement between the City and Catalyst regarding Co-treatment, it is not yet possible to confirm the staffing impacts of this option to either the City or Catalyst. Neither the cost associated with the increased labour of consolidated treatment nor the savings from the reduced labour requirement of Cotreatment are significant enough to impact the decision of which option to pursue. The $750,000 annual operating and maintenance payment to Catalyst will likely be reduced; to be discussed at the Steering Committee meeting on 05 May Impact on taxpayers: Director of Finance is working on; this will be available at the open house. Additional revisions may be made following the Steering Committee meeting. By unanimous consent the Committee agreed to receive updated information for the Open House by or phone. a) Dialogue Questions Feedback received from the Joint Advisory Committee has been forwarded to Geoff Allan, Facilitator, who is working on compiling the dialogue questions. 8. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Ann Nelson, seconded by Ron Ostensen that the meeting adjourn at CERTIFIED CORRECT: Sheri Konkin, Recording Secretary The next LWMP Joint Local/Technical Advisory Committee Meeting will be held at 1830 on Tuesday, 25 May 2011.

157 Page 1 of 3 24 May 2011 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No CITY OF POWELL RIVER Minutes of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory (Stage 3) Committee meeting held in the Cedar Room at the Recreation Complex on Tuesday, 24 May 2011 at MEMBERS PRESENT: Councillor J. G. Palm, Chair Barkowski, Sarah Gemmill, Larry Francescutti, Gino Johnson, Milton Nelson, Ann Ostensen, Ron Wrubleski, Ted Avtar Sundher, Government and Compliance Section Head, Ministry of Environment ALSO PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Members of the Public Media Representatives Al Gibb, OPUS DaytonKnight Consultants Ltd via Skype Marie Claxton, City Clerk Richard Stogre, Manager of Engineering Services Sheri Konkin, Recording Secretary Gillies, Reg Greenwood, Frank Krompocker, Don Low, Mel Monk, Ross Sisto Bosa, Dipl.T., Environmental Protection Officer, Ministry of Environment 1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: Moved by Milton Johnson, seconded by Ann Nelson that the agenda of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee meeting of 24 May 2011 be adopted. CARRIED 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: Page 3, under Unfinished Business, the first paragraph was revised to read: Sarah Barkowski reported on a conference call with MOE. MOE cannot amend Catalyst s permit amendment until the City has completed a LWMP. Hence, MOE asked Catalyst to postpone the permit amendment application process. The process will be restarted only if the City chooses joint treatment and when the LWMP has been submitted to the MOE for approval. Moved by Ron Ostensen seconded by Sarah Barkowski that the minutes of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee meeting of 03 May 2011 be adopted as amended. CARRIED

158 Page 2 of 3 24 May 2011 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No DELEGATIONS: 4. CORRESPONDENCE: None A letter dated 09 May 2011 from George Orchiston regarding the LWMP and disinfection was received. The Chair recognized George Orchiston who then reviewed the comments of his letter. An dated 16 May 2011 from Carol Ciup regarding Catalyst solution was received. 5. REPORTS a) Report from the Facilitator regarding public consultation Geoff Allan, Facilitator, presented a summary of results from the public consultation events. Open House Attendance: between attendees o 50% Westview o 22% Townsite o 11% Wildwood Preferred treatment option: o 72% Consolidated o 17% Other alternatives o 11% Joint treatment Open House Results: o strong opposition to joint treatment option o overwhelming support for consolidation option o focus on environmentally progressive and state of the art technology o consider several smaller plants versus single consolidated plant o references to examples from Europe/U.S. World Café/Dialogue event: Attendance: between attendees Results: o overwhelming support for some sort of publicly owned consolidated plant option o joint treatment rejected at all levels o strong desire to have the City explore innovative global solutions to reduce the footprint, impacts and costs o sustainability and environmental responsibility are key attributes Staff advised the report will be available to the public after the meeting and on the City s website. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: a) Next Steps The Manager of Engineering Services presented options for the next steps regarding the LWMP: make a recommendation to the Steering Committee take time to review the information or gather more; possibly

159 7. NEW BUSINESS Page 3 of 3 24 May 2011 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No create a modified matrix choose not to make a recommendation; unable to decide In response to a question regarding an option for multiple sites, the Manager of Engineering Services clarified that in Stage 2 it was decided it was most economical to consolidate. Moved by Gino Francescutti, seconded by Larry Gemmill, that a recommendation be made to the Steering Committee to select the Consolidation option for treatment of the City s wastewater. CARRIED Opposed: Sarah Barkowski Ron Ostensen Ann Nelson Councillor Palm a) Meeting schedule The Committee agreed to meet before or after the next Steering Committee meeting on 02 June 2011 to set the next Advisory meeting date. 8. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Larry Gemmill, seconded by Ted Wrubleski that the meeting adjourn at CERTIFIED CORRECT: Sheri Konkin, Recording Secretary

160 Page 1 of 2 30 May 2011 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No CITY OF POWELL RIVER Minutes of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory (Stage 3) Committee meeting held in the Committee Room at City Hall on Tuesday, 30 May 2011 at MEMBERS PRESENT: Councillor J. G. Palm, Chair Barkowski, Sarah via telephone conference at 1805 Gemmill, Larry Gillies, Reg via telephone conference at 1807 Greenwood, Frank Francescutti, Gino Johnson, Milton Krompocker, Don via telephone conference at 1800 Low, Mel Nelson, Ann Wrubleski, Ted ALSO PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Members of the Public Media Representatives Avtar Sundher, Government and Compliance Section Head, Ministry of Environment via telephone conference at 1804 Marie Claxton, City Clerk Richard Stogre, Manager of Engineering Services Frank D Angio, Engineering Technologist Sheri Konkin, Recording Secretary Ostensen, Ron Sisto Bosa, Dipl.T., Environmental Protection Officer, Ministry of Environment 1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: Moved by Mel Low, seconded by Milton Johnson that the agenda of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee meeting of 30 May 2011 be adopted. CARRIED 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: None 3. DELEGATIONS: None The Chair acknowledged a letter of resignation dated 22 May 2011 received from Ross Monk due to health reasons and advised that the City is responding with acknowledgment of his service. 4. CORRESPONDENCE: The letter dated 26 May 2011 from Avtar S. Sundher, Ministry of Environment clarifying Ministry staff s role as observers on to the JAC proceedings and non voting participants was received. 5. REPORTS a) None

161 Page 2 of 2 30 May 2011 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No UNFINISHED BUSINESS: a) Reconsideration of Motion from meeting held 24 May 2011 Moved by Larry Gemmill, seconded by Sarah Barkowski to reconsider the vote on the motion adopted by the JAC committee on 24 May 2011 recommending consolidation as the City s waste water treatment option. CARRIED Motion from 24 May recommending consolidation: Moved by Gino Francescutti, seconded by Larry Gemmill that a recommendation be made to the Steering Committee to select the consolidation option for treatment of the City s wastewater. Moved by Don Krompocker, seconded by Milton Johnson that the main motion be amended by inserting the words a publicly owned and operated before the word consolidation. CARRIED The main motion as amended was adopted with the final wording as follows: 7. NEW BUSINESS a) None That a recommendation be made to the Steering Committee to select a publicly owned and operated consolidation option for treatment of the City s wastewater. CARRIED Opposed: Sarah Barkowski 8. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Frank Greenwood, seconded by Larry Gemmill that the meeting adjourn at CERTIFIED CORRECT: Sheri Konkin, Recording Secretary

162 DRAFT Page 1 of 3 March 6, 2013 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No CITY OF POWELL RIVER Minutes of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory (Stage 3) Committee meeting held in the Committee Room at City Hall on Wednesday, March 6, 2013 at 6:37pm.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Councillor J. G. Palm, Chair Barkowski, Sarah Gillies, Reg Francescutti, Gino Johnson, Milton Krompocker, Don Low, Mel Wrubleski, Ted ALSO PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Members of the Public Media Representative Avtar Sundher, Government and Compliance Section Head, Ministry of Environment via telephone conference Al Gibb, Opus DaytonKnight Consultants Ltd. Ellen Hausman, Catalyst Paper Councillor M. Hathaway, arrived at 6:52pm Mac Fraser, Chief Administrative Officer arrived at 6:45pm Tor Birtig, Director of Infrastructure Frank D Angio, Acting Manager of Engineering Services Nancy Marquis, Recording Secretary Gemmill, Larry Nelson, Ann Ostensen, Ron Sisto Bosa, Dipl.T., Environmental Protection Officer, Ministry of Environment 1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: Moved by Gino Francescutti seconded by Sarah Barkowski that the agenda of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee meeting of March 6, 2013 be adopted. CARRIED 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: Moved by Mel Lowe seconded by Sarah Barkowski that the minutes of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee meeting of May 24, 2011 be adopted. CARRIED Moved by Don Krompocker seconded by Ted Wrubleski that the minutes of the Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee meeting of May 30, 2011 be adopted. CARRIED

163 DRAFT Page 2 of 3 March 6, 2013 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No DELEGATIONS: 4. CORRESPONDENCE: 5. REPORTS: a)minutes of LWMP Steering meeting of June 2, 2011 b)draft minutes of LWMP Steering meeting of September 18, 2012 c)liquid Waste Management Plan Stage 3 dated February 2013 None The following correspondence were received and the chair invited questions: Letter dated May 17, 2011 from Bruce Finlay regarding joint treatment with Catalyst. Letter dated May 19, 2011 from George Orchiston regarding further evaluation of co-treating city wastewater with mill effluent. There were questions and discussion on feasibility, liability, and City/Mill relations in response to this letter. dated May 22, 2011 from Ronald W. Salome regarding opposition to City entering into an agreement with Catalyst. dated May 24, 2011 from Marion Stoodley regarding opposition to Catalyst treating City sewage. dated May 25, 2011 from Anne Sullivan regarding concerns about the sewage treatment site. Memo from City Clerk regarding s dated May 22-27, 2011 requesting a Town Hall meeting before a decision is made. Letter dated June 16, 2011 from Frank Greenwood regarding his resignation from the Joint Advisory Committee. Letter dated February 1, 2012 from Powell River Regional District advising that Stan Gisborne has been appointed as its representative to the committee. Letter dated December 13, 2011 from Union of BC Municipalities advising that the City s application for funding was not approved. The Committee reviewed the minutes. The Committee reviewed the minutes. Members were informed that Sliammon and Catalyst are still in favour of the co-treatment option. Al Gibb, Consultant, presented a summary of the Liquid Waste Management Plan Stage 3. Discussion included the following main topics:: Funding Gas Tax allocation Completion of plan this year Open House/Town Hall meeting

164 DRAFT Page 3 of 3 March 6, 2013 Joint Local/Technical Liquid Waste Management (LWM) Advisory Committee (Stage 3) Committee Meeting Minutes File No UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 7. NEW BUSINESS a) Review of Council Resolutions None The committee reviewed the resolutions of Council regarding LWMP for the period June 2, 2011 to September 20, Discussion included the following main topics:: Referendum Cash flow and debt servicing Future of the Joint Advisory Committee Recognition of Richard Stogre for his time and effort 8. ADJOURNMENT Prior to adjournment the Chair received questions from the press and public regarding: Location of consolidated plant Universal water metering Biosolids Contingency plans if Mill shuts down Moved by Mel Lowe, seconded by Don Krompocker that the meeting adjourn at 8:24pm. CARRIED CERTIFIED CORRECT: Nancy Marquis, Recording Secretary

165 CITY OF POWELL RIVER LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE 3 APPENDIX 4 FIRST NATIONS CONSULTATION

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181 DNA project managers planners architects engineers David Nairne + Associates Ltd. Suite W Esplanade North Vancouver British Columbia Canada V7M 3J9 T F E dna@ Sliammon First Nation City of Powell River Regional Wastewater System - Feasibility Study Meeting Minutes Location Powell River City Hall Total Pages Date + Time October 24 th, :00 - Subject Regional Wastewater feasibility study In Attendance: City of Powell River Sliammon First Nation DNA Tor Birtig, Director of Infrastructure Frank D Angio, Manager of Engineering Services Steven Galligos, Manager, Infrastructure & Capital Project Bruce Point, Councillor, Waste Water Treatment Plant Operator Fereydoun Dabiri, President, P. Eng. Simon Duplus, P. Eng. Please review for accuracy and advise Simon Duplus (604) ; sduplus@davidnairne.com) if any changes are needed. Status of City of Powell River Liquid Waste management Plan (LWMP): Stage 3 of LWMP could be submitted by the end of A meeting with Catalyst and the Ministry of Environment is expected in the near future. Two scenarios are considered: - co-treatment with Catalyst, or - a consolidated city operated Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP). Each option faces technical and administrative challenges. Construction is not expected before 3 to 5 years. The LWMP already includes provisions for the hook up of Sliammon First Nation (SFN) community. Sliammon Waste Water System: The sewer collection system serves Sliammon community, or approximately 770 people. Klahanie development, comprising 110 leased lots, is on septic fields and is not connected to SFN collection system. A repair program was implemented in 2007/2008 on SFN collection system to address Infiltration and Inflow issues. DNA Page 1 of 3

182 . The WWTP, a Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC), has almost reached full capacity. Sewage peak flow sometimes exceeds the plant capacity, causing raw sewage overflows. Before a long term solution is implemented, DNA is working with SFN to provide an interim fix to address these overflows. Wildwood: Wildwood waste water treatment plant has some residual capacity. A potential regional waste water system will need to make provisions for Wildwood Regional solution Feasibility Study: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) recently funded a program to confirm the technical feasibility of pumping raw sewage from Sliammon to Powell River. The investigation is carried out by DNA for SFN. The proposed sewer route would allow for the future connection of Wildwood community. DNA will also identify the requirements to enter into a regional wastewater system, cost sharing scenarios, ownership and operating responsibilities, etc. DNA will prepare a Memorandum of Understanding that indicates the willingness and the requirements to enter into a regional sewer agreement. Water: DNA will conduct a desktop study on Sliammon water system. Powell River water supply has large capacity and could serve up to 35,000 people. The current population of Powell River is approximately 13,500 people. Potential upgrades will mainly concern the distribution system. In light of DNA desktop study, a regional water supply system could also be discussed between SFN and the city. Next Steps Sliammon / DNA DNA Send a formal request to city of Powell River to formalize support from City and assess impact of SFN waste water loads on LWMP scenarios Work on the feasibility study DNA Page 2 of 3

183 Prepared by: Next Meeting: Simon Duplus To Be Determined DNA Page 3 of 3

184

185

186 City of Powell River City Hall MacGregor Building 6910 Duncan Street, Powell River BC V8A 1V4 Tel Fax File Nos March 11, 2014 Chief Councillor Clint Williams Sliammon First Nation 6686 Sliammon Road Powell River, B.C. V8A 0B8 VIA Dear Chief Williams, Re: Sliammon First Nation Feasibility of a Regional Wastewater System This letter is in response to your letter dated November 6, I apologize for the delay in responding. The City agrees that a regional approach would be a beneficial option for wastewater management. To that end, we will endeavour to provide information so that your consultant will be able to determine if the connection of Sliammon First Nation (SFN) wastewater into the City of Powell River (COPR) existing system and future system is technically feasible, financially viable and timely. The City of Powell River draft Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP) has made allowances for the future connection of wastewater from the Wildwood and SFN service areas with the new treatment works sized to include these areas. Our initial review of the Townsite conveyance system indicates that the existing piping system can accommodate SFN s sewage, but a detailed review of the existing treatment plant would need to be completed. The City requests that your consultant determine if the City s existing sewage treatment plant has sufficient capacity to accept the flows from the SFN should the connection occur in advance of the implementation of the LWMP. Although we have had discussions with the Ministry of Environment (MOE) regarding SFN connecting to the City s existing sewage system, the issue of using the existing Townsite Treatment Plant has not been broached. If the feasibility study proves that this option is viable, then a round table meeting would need to be arranged to discuss this topic with the MOE. The City is not currently in a position to cost-share the capital cost to extend the proposed sewer main from the Wildwood sewage lagoon to the tie-in point at Marine Avenue and Cedar Street. Our preference is for SFN to fund construction of this main and have the City pay their portion when the Wildwood sewage area is connected. Regarding the connection of the City s domestic water system to SFN, there is an interest to supply SFN with the City s domestic water but a preliminary engineering review would need to be conducted by your consultant to determine if it is technically feasible and financially viable.

187 Please contact me at if you have any further questions concerning this matter. Yours truly, CITY OF POWELL RIVER Tor Birtig, A.Sc.T., Director of Infrastructure TB/nm ec: Mayor and Council Mac Fraser, Chief Administrative Officer Frank D Angio, Manager of Engineering Services Simon Duplus, David Nairne & Associates Ltd.

188 CITY OF POWELL RIVER LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE 3 APPENDIX 5 BUDGET COST ESTIMATES FOR UV DISINFECTION AT CONSOLIDATED AND WILDWOOD WWTPs

189 District of Powell River LWMP WWTP Consolidation Study Disc Filtration Unit CAPITAL COST New Codes Item Description Quantity Unit 2013 Unit Rate 2013 Total Remarks 1 Excavation 1,125 cu.m $18 $20,100 New code 2 Disc Filtration unit 1 $372,700 $372,700 Supplied by Sanitherm, Aqua - Aerobic Systems (AquaDisk Package Model 54: 10 Disk Unit) 3 Installation & 100% of mechanical equipment $372,700 4 building for the disc filtration unit and UV system 100 cu.m $1,780 $178,000 Sub-Total $943,500 Engineering and Contingency $284,000 30% of sub-total Total $1,227,500 O&M COST 1 Annual parts replacement cost $14,100 Aqua - Aerobic Systems 2 Annual Power requirement /consumption cost KW-hrs $0.11 $700 Aqua - Aerobic Systems (based on average TSS of 20 mg/l) 3 total lubrication requirement 3.15 hr $32 $100 Aqua - Aerobic Systems TOTAL $14,900 Note: 1. Pricing include freight, installation supervision and startup services. 2. Pile filter cloth with 10 microns pore size was recommended. 3. Covering is requried where bright sunlight is expected. Design Specification; 1. Average flow: 7,840 cu.m/d 2. Peak flow: 15,400 cu.m/d 3. No. of disks per unit = Total filter area = 538 sq.ft = sq.m 5. TSS of effluent coming out of the filtration unit = 5 mg/l Assumptions: 1. Acceptable upstream process suc as an activated sludge min SRT 5 days. 2. Average TSS coming to the filtration unit = 20 mg/l. 3. Maximum TSS = 30 mg/l. 4. If Max TSS = 45 mg/l, adjustment of upstream process may be required to improve influent quality.

190 WWTP Consolidation Study UV Disinfection System CAPITAL COST New Codes Item Description Quantity Unit 2013 Unit Rate 2013 Total Remarks 1 Excavation 2 cu.m $24 $40 New code 2 UV system cost (model: Hanova Photon PMD320K6/8UV Disinfection System) 2 $64,800 $129,600 Supplied by Sanitherm (pricing for 2 units, tax included) 3 Installation & 100% of mechanical equipment $129,600 Sub-Total $259,240 Engineering and Contingency $77,800 30% of Sub-Total Total $337,040 O&M COST 1 Annual lamp replacement cost $20,000 Supplied by Sanitherm 2 Annual Power requirement /consumption cost (42KW X24X365) 367,920 KW-hrs $0.10 $35,000 Supplied by Sanitherm 3 Operators Training cost 15 /hr $36 $540 TOTAL $55,540 Note: 1. UV system complete with UVC monitor, Automatic Quartz Sleeve Wioping Device, Hour meter, thermal protector, and Photon Microprocessor Control Panel 2. Six (6) medium pressure UVC lampes Basis of Design: Peak flow: 15,400 cu.m/d Average flow: 7,840 cu.m/d UV Transmittance: 60% Recommended dosage: 30 mj/sq.cm Cost for Manual Labour: C$25/hr Evaluation period: TSS of water coming to the UV unit: 5 mg/l The effluent FC count not more than: 200 FC/100 ml Power Consumption; Average Power Draw: 3.5 kw/lamp * 6 lamps/system * 2 systems = 42 kw Annual operating hours: 8,760 Electrical Cost: $0.10/kWh Annual Power Cost: $35,000 Lamp Replacement: Lamp unit cost: US $ 667/lamp = CAD $696/lamp Guarantee Lamp life: 4,000 hrs Total no. of lamps installed: 12 Annual average no. of lamps replaced: 26 Annual lamp replacement cost CAD $696 x 26 = $ 18,100 Annual misc. parts replacement cost: 10% x $18,100 = $1,810 Operator hours to change lamps and wipers: $90 Annual Replacement Cost: $20,000

191 Wildwood Lagoon Chlorine Disinfection and Dechlorination System Capital Cost Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Rate 2013 Total Excavation 200 cu.m $19 $3,700 2 Chlorine injector 2 $0 3 Installation & 100% of mechanical equipment $29,700 4 Residual chlorine analyzer 2 $11,900 $23,800 5 Magmeter 1 $6,100 $6,100 6 Dechlorination unit 2 $0 7 Concrete cost 100 $1,778 $177,800 8 Chemical cost Sub-Total $242,000 Engineering and Contingency (30%) $73,000 Total $315,000 O&M Cost 1 Annual Power requirement/consumption cost (3.5kWx24x365) kwh $0 $0

192 CITY OF POWELL RIVER LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE 3 APPENDIX 6 MEMORANDUM DESCRIBING BYPASS FREQUENCIES AND PERMIT COMPLIANCE AT THE WESTVIEW AND TOWNSITE WWTPs

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204 CITY OF POWELL RIVER LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE 3 APPENDIX 7 DRAFT OPERATIONAL CERTIFICATE FOR WILDWOOD WWTP

205 DRAFT MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT OPERATIONAL CERTIFICATE PE-118 Under the Provisions of the Environmental Management Act THE CITY OF POWELL RIVER 6920 DUNCAN STREET POWELL RIVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA V8A 1V4 is authorized to discharge effluent to the waters of Malaspina Strait from a municipal sewage treatment plant located in the Wildwood area of Powell River, British Columbia, subject to the conditions listed below. Contravention of any of these conditions is a violation of the Environmental Management Act and may result in prosecution. 1.0 AUTHORIZED DISCHARGES 1.1 This subsection applies to the discharge of effluent from a MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT SERVING THE WILDWOOD AREA OF POWELL RIVER. The site reference number for this discharge is The maximum authorized rate of discharge is 2,000 cubic metres/day The characteristics of the discharge shall be equivalent to or better than: Five day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) Maximum Day 45 mg/l, Annual Average < 25 mg/l Daily Total Suspended Solids (nonfilterable residue) Maximum Day 60 mg/l, Annual Average < 25 mg/l (excludes the months of July, August, September and October, if that result is greater than 25 mg/l). Fish bioassay (rainbow trout) LT50 96 hours, minimum The authorized works are an aerated stabilization lagoon with related appurtenances, a septage receiving facility, and an outfall extending approximately 137 metres offshore and at a depth of approximately 7 metres below low water in Malaspina Strait approximately located as shown on attached Site Plan A The location of the facilities from which the discharge originates is Lot A of Block 56, D.L. 450, Gp.1, NWD, Plan

206 1.1.5 The location of the existing point of discharge is Malaspina Strait approximately 250 metres south and 2,120 metres wet of the southwest corner of D.L. 4899, Gp.1, NWD. 2.0 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 2.1 Maintenance of Works The City of Powell River shall inspect the authorized works regularly and maintain them in good working order. Notify the Regional Waste Manager of any malfunction of these works. 2.2 Bypasses The discharge of effluent which has bypassed the designated treatment works is prohibited unless the approval of the Regional Waste Manager is obtained and confirmed in writing. 2.3 Process Modifications The Regional Waste manager shall be notified prior to implementing changes to any process that may adversely affect the quality and/or quantity of the discharge. 2.4 Emergency Procedures In the event of an emergency which prevents compliance with a requirement of this operational certificate, that requirement will be suspended for such time as the emergency continues to until otherwise directed by the Regional Waste Manger provided that: a) due diligence was exercised in relation to the process, operation or event which caused the emergency and that the emergency occurred notwithstanding this exercise of due diligence; b) the Regional Waste Manager is immediately notified of the emergency; and c) it can be demonstrated that everything possible is being done to restore compliance in the shortest possible time. Notwithstanding (a), (b), and (c) above, the Regional Waste manger may require the operation to be suspended or production levels to be reduced to protect the environment while the situation is corrected.

207 2.5 Posting of Outfall A sign shall be erected along the alignment of the outfall above high water mark. The sign shall identify the nature of the works. The working and size of the sign shall be acceptable to the Regional Waste Manager. 2.6 Outfall Inspection The City of Powell River shall have the outfall inspected once each five years by independent qualified personnel to ensure it is in good condition. An inspection report shall be submitted to the Regional Waste Manager within 30 days after the inspection date. 2.7 Disinfection Although disinfection of the effluent is not required at this time, suitable provisions should be made to include such a facility in the future. If disinfection is by chlorination, dechlorination facilities may also be required. 2.8 Biosolids Use and Disposal Biosolids from the treatment plant shall be beneficially used or disposed of to a site and in accordance with the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation or as authorized by the Regional Waste Manager. 2.9 Facility Classification and Operator Certification The City of Powell River shall have the works authorized by this operational certificate classified by the Environmental Operators Certification Program Society (Society). The works shall be operated and maintained by persons certified within and according to the program provided by the Society. Certification must be completed to the satisfaction of the Regional Waste Manager. In addition, the Regional Waste Manger shall be notified of the classification level of the facility and certification levels of the operators, and changes of operators and/or operator certification levels within 30 days of any change. Alternatively, the new works authorized by this operational certificate shall be operated and maintained by persons who the City of Powell River can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director, are qualified in the safe and proper operation of the facility for the protection of the environment.

208 3.0 MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 3.1 Discharge Monitoring Flow Measurement Provide and maintain suitable flow measuring devices and record once per week the effluent volume discharged over a 24-hour period Sampling Suitable sampling facilities shall be installed and grab samples of the effluent authorized by Subsection 1.1 shall be obtained once each month. Proper care should be taken in sampling, storing and transporting the samples to adequately control temperature and avoid contamination, breakage, etc. Obtain analyses of the samples for the following: 5 day biochemical oxygen demand, mg/l; Total suspended solids (nonfilterable residue), mg/l; 3.2 Monitoring Procedures Sampling Procedures Sampling is to be carried out in accordance with procedures described in the latest version of British Columbia Field Sampling Manual for Continuous Monitoring plus the Collection of Air, Air-Emission, Water, Wastewater, Soil, Sediment, and Biological Samples, as published by the Ministry of Environment, or by suitable alternative procedures as authorized by the Regional Waste Manager. A copy of the above manual is available from the Ministry of Environment, P.O. Box 9342 Stn. Prov. Govt. Victoria, British Columbia, V8W 9M Chemical Analyses Analyses are to be carried out in accordance with procedures described in the latest version of British Columbia Environmental Laboratory Manual for the Analysis of Water, Wastewater, Sediment and Biological Materials, or by suitable alternative procedures as authorized by the Regional Waste Manager. A copy of the above manual may be purchased from Queen s Printer Publications Centre, P.O. Box 9452, Stn. Prov. Govt. Victoria, British Columbia, V8W 9V7 ( ).

209 3.3 Reporting Maintain data of analyses and flow measurements for inspection and submit the data, suitably tabulated, to the Regional Waste Manager for the previous year.

210