Joint Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee. D-B Stage 3 LWMP - Phase 1 Conceptual Assessments

Transcription

1 Opus DaytonKnight Consultants Ltd North Vancouver Office Harbourside Drive North Vancouver BC V7P 3S1 Canada TO Joint Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee COPY Bob Macpherson, District of Tofino Blake Medlar, LWMP Consultant FROM Al Gibb, Ph.D., P.Eng., Roger Warren, M.Eng., P.Eng., Aline Bennett, M.A.Sc., EIT DATE April 15, 2016 FILE SUBJECT D-B Stage 3 LWMP - Phase 1 Conceptual Assessments t: f: w: Cost estimates were developed for the four selected site options, Grice Point, the Hospital Site, DL 114 and Chesterman Beach. These four sites were selected from a long list of sites to be advanced to Phase 1 by the JLWMAC and Steering Committee in February The cost estimates include the capital and operations and maintenance costs for: conveyance of wastewater to the new wastewater treatment plant site; wastewater treatment plant infrastructure; upgrading, repairing or building a new outfall; and managing the waste residuals produced in the wastewater treatment process. The cost estimates do not include: costs for acquiring land or right of ways for siting the wastewater treatment facility, pump stations or forcemains; replacement of to existing conveyance infrastructure that may be nearing the end of its useful life, but does not require upgrading or replacement to service the new wastewater treatment facility; administration, training, insurance, or legal costs; additional vehicle costs. The cost estimates produced at this level of design are considered Class D cost estimates with a level of accuracy of ±50%. Therefore, these are high level estimates, that are adequate to compare the options, but not adequate to use for budgeting or construction purposes. More detailed cost estimates are then developed for one or two selected options that are advanced to Phase 2. This avoids spending extra money on engineering fees for options that will not be pursued. The cost estimates developed in Phase 1 were compared to those developed in Associated Engineering s 2005 LWMP. The costs for the SBR plant and conveyance infrastructure are comparable, given inflation. Table 1 provides a high level summary of each option with the capital and O&M cost estimates, and the 20-year present value estimate for each option. A description of each option follows.

2 Table 1: Comparison of Order of Magnitude, Class D Cost Estimates for the Four Selected Site Options,± 50% Option 1 - Grice Point Option 2 - Hospital Option 3 - DL 114 Option 4 - Chesterman Beach Capital Cost Estimate O&M Cost Estimate Capital Cost Estimate O&M Cost Estimate Capital Cost Estimate O&M Cost Estimate Capital Cost Estimate O&M Cost Estimate Conveyance $ 1,900,000 $ 47,400 $ 2,400,000 $ 52,700 $ 4,400,000 $ 67,500 $ 10,800,000 $ 58,800 Treatment $ 16,000,000 $ 450,000 $ 16,000,000 $ 450,000 $ 12,100,000 $ 330,000 $ 12,100,000 $ 330,000 Residuals Management $ 2,300,000 $ 228,000 $ 2,300,000 $ 228,000 $ 2,300,000 $ 228,000 $ 2,300,000 $ 228,000 Total $ 20,100,000 $ 730,000 $ 20,600,000 $ 730,000 $ 18,800,000 $ 630,000 $ 25,200,000 $ 620, Year Net Present Value - No $ 28,400,000 $ 29,000,000 $ 26,000,000 $ 32,300,000 grant funding 20 Year Net Present Value - 50% capital grant $ 18,400,000 $ 18,700,000 $ 16,600,000 $ 19,700,000 Net Present Value calculated assuming a discount rate of 6%. It includes the capital costs of infrastructure and 20 years of O&M costs. Costs are in 2016 CAD dollars

3 1 Option 1 WWTP at Grice Point Grice Point is the smallest site of the four sites with a footprint of approximately 2740 m 2. Figures 1a and 1b illustrate the treatment plant location and conveyance system for Option Conveyance The option to put the new wastewater treatment plant at Grice Point requires the least amount of new conveyance infrastructure to transport wastewater to the treatment plant site. Putting the plant at this site will require a new pump station (PS-A) at the Cedar Street Outfall for the Cedar Street catchment, and a new low lift pump station (PS-B) at the First Street Outfall to convey wastewater to the treatment plant. There would be no opportunity to divert odorous wastewater from passing through the District core. The First Street Outfall would be used for effluent discharge to Duffin Passage, and the Cedar Street Outfall would be abandoned. The First Street Outfall has capacity for the 20-year design flow, however, it is prone to significant sedimentation, meaning it may have higher than normal O&M costs. Capital costs for extending the outfall have been included in the estimate, and O&M costs for managing sedimentation have been included. 1.2 Wastewater Treatment Facility For the purposes of this conceptual assessment, we have chosen the moving bed bioreactor dissolved air flotation (MBBR-DAF) technology for costing a small footprint treatment plant. The MBBR-DAF is an effective, small footprint secondary treatment process capable of consistently providing the required effluent quality. The treatment plant size is based on a doubling of the current flows and loads to the plant, or a 20-year design life. Note that this type of treatment technology is easily enclosed to be made pretty, and odour control can be comprehensive. The site has the necessary footprint for the treatment process, but would not have capacity to expand in the future if needed. As well, there would not be adequate footprint to have a buffer of trees around the site, making the facility quite visible. Since the location of the plant is quite central and visible, we have assumed as part of this cost estimate that odour control and architectural design is required. 1.3 Residuals Management Wastewater treatment plants produce solids which come from a) solids removed from wastewater coming into the plant (primary sludge) and b) bacterial growth in the biological process (waste biological sludge). The solids must be treated prior to reuse or disposal and there are a number of ways to do this. For the purposes of this conceptual assessment, we have assumed that a reasonable approach in Tofino would be to compost the solids at the landfill and use the compost as landfill cover, or for other purposes as opportunities allow. This approach has been used for all four sites to keep cost estimates consistent.

4 1.4 Order of Magnitude, Class D Cost Estimate, ± 50% A summary of the costs associated with Option 1 is shown in Table 2. A more detailed breakdown of the costs for this option is attached. Table 2: Cost Estimate Summary for Option 1 - Grice Point Option 1 Capital Cost Estimate Annual O&M Cost Estimate Conveyance $ 1,900,000 $ 47,400 Treatment $ 16,000,000 $ 450,000 Solids Management $ 2,300,000 $ 228,000 Total $ 20,100,000 $ 730, Year Lifecycle Cost No Grants $ 28,400, Year Lifecycle Cost 50% Capital Grant $ 18,400,000

5 GRICE POINT FIRST STREET OUTFALL OPTION 1 - GRICE POINT N PS-B PS-1 NOTES: Plot Date 14 Apr 10:16 AM Path \\vcsv01\vc_gen_g\d&k CAD Drawings\DKSERVER P Share\Drawings\TOFINO\D-B1201\CURRENT WORKING FOLDER\KBEHNKA\WORKING\Tofino Outfalls_KMB.dwg option 1 (A) (2) PLOT SCALE: 1:1 PLOTTED BY: Kirsten Behnka LAST SAVED BY: kbehnka North Vancouver Office DRAWN BY: EK LEGEND: Harbourside Drive North Vancouver BC V7P 3S1, Canada DWG. No. CEDAR STREET OUTFALL EXISTING SEWER / FORCEMAIN PROPOSED SEWER / FORCEMAIN EXISTING OUTFALLS PROPOSED OUTFALL EXISTING PUMP STATION PROPOSED PUMP STATION PS-A PS-7 PS-4 1. NEW PS-A AT END OF CEDAR STREET, PUMP INTO GRAVITY SEWER ON NEILL STREET. 2. NEW PS-B AT FIRST STREET OUTFALL WITH FLOW TO NEW WWTP SITE (LOW HEAD) 3. REPAIR FIRST STREET OUTFALL. ABANDON CEDAR STREET OUTFALL. TOFINO STAGE 3 LWMP PHASE 1-CONCEPTUAL ASSESSMENT OF SITES

6 OPTION 1 - GRICE POINT WWTP PS-A PS-B PROPOSED SEWER / FORCEMAIN PROPOSED PUMP STATION FIGURE 1B

7 2 Option 2 WWTP at the Hospital Site The hospital site is slightly larger than the Grice Point site, at approximately 5,900 m 2. Figures 2a and 2b illustrate the treatment plant location and conveyance system for Option Conveyance This site will require a small pump station (PS-A) at the Cedar Street Outfall for the Cedar Street catchment, and a larger pump station (PS-B) at the First Street Outfall to convey wastewater to the treatment plant. As with Option 1 would be no opportunity to divert odorous wastewater from passing through the District core. This option would require the installation of a new forcemain to convey the wastewater to the new treatment plant. The treatment plant will discharge treated effluent through the Cedar Street Outfall. Based on a condition inspection report, the outfall has capacity for the 20-year design flow, but should be repaired and extended to reduce issues with sedimentation. O&M costs for the Cedar Street Outfall are assumed to be the same as for the First Street Outfall in Option Wastewater Treatment Facility The assumptions used for the treatment plant are the same as in Option 1, a small footprint plant, with comprehensive odour control, enclosure of tanks and processes, and architectural design. The hospital site has the advantage that it is larger and would have adequate footprint for a small buffer and some room to expand in the future if necessary compared to Option 1. As with Option 1, we have assumed that odour control and architectural design would be necessary since it is a fairly visible location in a residential neighbourhood. 2.3 Residuals Management Same as Option Order of Magnitude, Class D Cost Estimate, ± 50% A summary of the costs associated with Option 2 is shown in Table 3. A more detailed breakdown of the costs for this option is attached. Table 3: Cost Estimate Summary for Option 2 Hospital Site Option 2 Capital Cost Estimate Annual O&M Cost Estimate Conveyance $ 2,400,000 $ 52,700 Treatment $ 16,000,000 $ 450,000 Solids Management $ 2,300,000 $ 228,000 Total $ 20,600,000 $ 730, Year Lifecycle Cost No Grants $ 29,000, Year Lifecycle Cost 50% Capital Grant $ 18,700,000

8 HOSPITAL SITE FIRST STREET OUTFALL PS-B PS-1 OPTION 2 - HOSPITAL SITE NOTES: 1. NEW PS-A AT THE END OF CEDAR STREET WITH FLOW TO NEW WWTP SITE. N Plot Date 14 Apr 10:23 AM Path \\vcsv01\vc_gen_g\d&k CAD Drawings\DKSERVER P Share\Drawings\TOFINO\D-B1201\CURRENT WORKING FOLDER\KBEHNKA\WORKING\Tofino Outfalls_KMB.dwg option 1 (B) PLOT SCALE: 1:1 PLOTTED BY: Kirsten Behnka LAST SAVED BY: kbehnka North Vancouver Office DRAWN BY: EK LEGEND: Harbourside Drive North Vancouver BC V7P 3S1, Canada DWG. No. CEDAR STREET OUTFALL EXISTING SEWER / FORCEMAIN PROPOSED SEWER / FORCEMAIN EXISTING OUTFALLS PROPOSED OUTFALL EXISTING PUMP STATION PROPOSED PUMP STATION PS-A PS-7 PS-4 2. NEW PS-B AT FIRST STREET OUTFALL WITH FLOW TO NEW WWTP SITE. 3. REPAIR CEDAR STREET OUTFALL. ABANDON FIRST STREET OUTFALL. TOFINO STAGE 3 LWMP PHASE 1-CONCEPTUAL ASSESSMENT OF SITES

9 OPTION 2 - HOSPITAL WWTP PS-A PS-B PROPOSED SEWER / FORCEMAIN PROPOSED PUMP STATION FIGURE 2B

10 3 Option 3 WWTP at DL 114 The DL 114 site has a footprint of approximately 16,600 m 2, located at approximately 25 m of elevation. Figures 3a and 3b illustrate the treatment plant location and conveyance system for Option Conveyance This site will require new pump stations PS-A and PS-B and forcemains, similar to Options 1 and 2 to convey the wastewater to the wastewater treatment plant site. For Option 3, there is also an opportunity to divert odorous wastewater at Industrial Way before it passes through the District core by installing a new pump station, PS-C at Industrial way and conveying sewage to the treatment plant site through installation of a new forcemain along Industrial Way, and following the walking path. The treatment plant will discharge treated effluent through the Cedar Street Outfall. The costs associated with the outfall are the same as in Option 2. O&M costs for the Cedar Street Outfall are assumed to be the same as for the First Street Outfall in Option Wastewater Treatment Facility The DL 114 site is a slightly large site than Grice Point or the Hospital site, so a less expensive treatment process with a slightly larger footprint, producing the same quality of effluent as the MBBR-DAF, can be used. For conceptual purposes, a sequencing batch reactor (SBR) biological treatment process is proposed for this site. The SBR tanks will not be enclosed, which adds some odour risk, and is less aesthetically pleasing than a fully enclosed process. Since this site is close to community infrastructure, it is assumed that odour control on the enclosed treatment processes (screening and dewatering), and architectural enhancements will be necessary. The proximity to both the school and community centre may allow for some form of heat recovery to supply a district heating system, though the feasibility or cost of this has not been assessed at this point. 3.3 Residuals Management Same as Option 1.

11 3.4 Order of Magnitude, Class D Cost Estimate, ± 50% A summary of the costs associated with Option 3 are provided in Table 4. A more detailed breakdown of the costs for this option is attached. Table 4: Cost Estimate Summary for Option 3 DL114 Option 3 Capital Cost Estimate Annual O&M Cost Estimate Conveyance $ 4,400,000 $ 67,500 Treatment $ 12,100,000 $ 330,000 Solids Management $ 2,300,000 $ 228,000 Total $ 18,800,000 $ 630, Year Lifecycle Cost No Grants $ 26,000, Year Lifecycle Cost 50% Capital Grant $ 16,600,000

12 FIRST STREET OUTFALL N PS-B PS-1 OPTION 3 - DL 114 Plot Date 14 Apr 10:42 AM Path \\vcsv01\vc_gen_g\d&k CAD Drawings\DKSERVER P Share\Drawings\TOFINO\D-B1201\CURRENT WORKING FOLDER\KBEHNKA\WORKING\Tofino Outfalls_KMB.dwg option 1 (C) PLOT SCALE: 1:1 PLOTTED BY: Kirsten Behnka LAST SAVED BY: kbehnka North Vancouver Office DRAWN BY: EK LEGEND: Harbourside Drive North Vancouver BC V7P 3S1, Canada DWG. No. CEDAR STREET OUTFALL EXISTING SEWER / FORCEMAIN PROPOSED SEWER / FORCEMAIN EXISTING OUTFALLS PROPOSED OUTFALL EXISTING PUMP STATION PROPOSED PUMP STATION PS-A DL114 SITE PS-4 PS-C PS-7 NOTES: 1. NEW PS-A AT THE END OF CEDAR STREET WITH FLOW TO NEW WWTP SITE. 2. NEW PS-B AT FIRST STREET OUTFALL WITH FLOW TO NEW WWTP SITE. 3. NEW PS-C AT INDUSTRIAL WAY WITH FLOW TO NEW WWTP SITE. (FOLLOWS TRAIL) 4. REPAIR CEDAR STREET OUTFALL, ABANDON FIRST STREET OUTFALL. TOFINO STAGE 3 LWMP PHASE 1-CONCEPTUAL ASSESSMENT OF SITES

13 OPTION 3 - DL114 PS-A PS-B WWTP PS-C PROPOSED SEWER PROPOSED PUMP STATION FIGURE 3B

14 4 Option 4 WWTP at Chesterman Beach The 'triangle lot' in the Chesterman Beach area is currently the most probable location in the Chesterman area for a treatment facility, with a footprint of approximately 21,100 m 2. Figures 4a and 4b illustrate the treatment plant location and conveyance system for Option 4. This option was advanced since it may have advantages associated with siting the outfall and treatment facility. Reversal of flow in the existing forcemain through the Village to the new Chesterman Beach site may reduce odour problems between the District Core and the treatment facility. 4.1 Conveyance This site will require that wastewater be conveyed primarily from the District core to the new treatment plant site and will require more conveyance infrastructure than Options 1, 2 or 3. A new PS-A will be required for the Cedar Street catchment, as well as a new, larger PS-B to convey wastewater to a manhole near Abraham Road. From there, it will flow by gravity to PS-7 at Lynn Street. PS-7 will be reconfigured to pump into the treatment plant. PS-13 at Maltby Road will pump into the treatment plant, and the forcemain will be configured for this. A new outfall going out at Chesterman Beach will be required and will extend approximately 3.5 km to get into deep waters. There are unknowns with this outfall location, so allowances for studies have been included in the cost estimate to determine the viability of this option. The advantage of this outfall location is that it has potential to be much less susceptible to the damaging sedimentation that occurs at the First Street and Cedar Street outfalls, and may also reduce the risk to recreational and fisheries receiving water uses. 4.2 Wastewater Treatment Facility Similar to Option 3, a slightly larger footprint, less expensive SBR process can be used since this site is larger and will have room for expansion should it be needed in the future. As this site is in somewhat close proximity to a residential neighbourhood, it is assumed that odour control and architectural enhancements will be necessary. 4.3 Residuals Management Same as Option 1.

15 4.4 Order of Magnitude, Class D Cost Estimate, ± 50% A summary of the costs associated with Option 4 are provided in Table 5Table 4. A more detailed breakdown of the costs for this option is attached. Table 5: Cost Estimate Summary for Option 4 Chesterman Beach Option 4 Capital Cost Estimate Annual O&M Cost Estimate Conveyance $ 10,800,000 $ 58,800 Treatment $ 12,100,000 $ 330,000 Solids Management $ 2,300,000 $ 228,000 Total $ 25,200,000 $ 620, Year Lifecycle Cost No Grants $ 32,300, Year Lifecycle Cost 50% Capital Grant $ 19,700,000

16 FIRST STREET OUTFALL PS-B PS-1 OPTION 4 NOTES: N - CHESTERMAN BEACH CEDAR STREET OUTFALL PS-A 1. NEW PS-A AT THE END OF CEDAR STREET WITH FLOW TO NEILL STREET GRAVITY MAIN TO PS-B. 2. NEW PS-B AT FIRST STREET OUTFALL WITH FLOW TO TIE INTO EXISTING FLOW NEAR MH NEAR ABRAHAM ROAD. 3. DIRECT PS-13 TO WWTP. PS-4 4. UPGRADE PS-7, PUMP INTO WWTP. 5. NEW OUTFALL AT CHESTERMAN BEACH. ABANDON FIRST STREET AND CEDAR STREET OUTFALLS ABRAHAM ROAD PS-5 PS-7 CHESTERMAN BEACH SITE LENGTH OF NEW OUTFALL IS APPROXIMATELY 3.5km TO 30m WATER DEPTH PS-13 LEGEND: EXISTING SEWER / FORCEMAIN PROPOSED SEWER / FORCEMAIN EXISTING OUTFALLS PROPOSED OUTFALL EXISTING PUMP STATION PROPOSED PUMP STATION North Vancouver Office DRAWN BY: GZ Harbourside Drive North Vancouver BC V7P 3S1, Canada DWG. No. TOFINO STAGE 3 LWMP PHASE 1-CONCEPTUAL ASSESSMENT OF SITES

17 OPTION 4 - CHESTERMAN BEACH PS-A NEW OUTFALL PS-B E = 6.3m WWTP E = 4.5m PROPOSED SEWER PROPOSED PUMP STATION PROPOSED MANHOLE FIGURE 4B

18 5 Summary Based on this analysis, the 20-year net present value of the options are listed from least expensive to most expensive: Option 3 - DL 114 $26,000,000 Option 1 - Grice Point $28,400,000 Option 2 - Hospital $29,000,000 Option 4 - Chesterman Beach $32,300,000 Option 3 at DL 114 is the least expensive option primarily because of the less expensive treatment technology required, and the fact that the outfall already exists. The new conveyance infrastructure proposed for Option 3 is more expensive than what is required in Options 1 and 2, because of the additional pump station and forcemain proposed at Industrial Way to divert odorous wastewater away from the District Core. The O&M costs for Option 3 are marginally higher than the O&M costs for Options 1 and 2 due to the additional pump station. Option 4 is the most expensive option, despite a less expensive treatment process, due to construction of a new 3.5 km outfall at Chesterman Beach. Options 1 and 2 have the lowest conveyance infrastructure costs, but higher treatment costs because the small site footprint requires a compact, more expensive treatment technology. Grants are generally available to help cover the capital construction costs, however, the grants typically do not cover ongoing O&M costs. Options 3 and 4 have the lowest operating costs overall due to the less expensive and less operations and maintenance intensive treatment plant. Table 6 summarizes some of the advantages and disadvantages associated with each option after developing the cost estimate. Table 6: Advantages and Disadvantages of each Site Site Options Advantages Disadvantages Option 1 Grice Point Option to repairing and extend existing First Street Outfall; Lowest conveyance infrastructure costs and O&M costs High profile, visible location close to residential and commercial development Smallest site, so a small footprint, more expensive treatment technology is required Site will likely not allow for increasing treatment capacity, and may not serve the District for year horizon; Option 2 Hospital Site Use existing Cedar Street Outfall with minor repairs and extension. Site is larger than Grice Point, allowing for increasing treatment Availability of site is uncertain. Site is within a residential area and visible. The site is still relatively small, requiring a small footprint, more expensive treatment technology Conveyance infrastructure costs and pumping costs are marginally greater than Option 1

19 Site Options Advantages Disadvantages Option 3 DL 114 Option 4 Chesterman Beach capacity should the District require it. Use existing Cedar Street Outfall with minor repairs and extension. Option to divert odorous wastewater from passing through the District Core by diverting it through Industrial Way and DL 117. Larger site allows for a larger footprint, less expensive treatment technology. Proximity to community centre and school may provide an opportunity for heat capture and recovery. Potential to site the WWTP away from residential development. Larger site allows for a larger footprint, less expensive treatment technology. New outfall with open marine discharge may reduce risk to recreational and fisheries receiving water uses. Reversal of flow in the existing forcemain through the Village to the new WWTP site may reduce odour problems between the District Core and the WWTP. Conveyance capital and pumping costs are greater than Options 1 and 2 because of the additional pump station and forcemain proposed at Industrial Way to divert odorous wastewater. However, the capital and pumping costs are not significantly greater, and the benefits of the location may outweigh the costs. Site may be close to planned residential development. Highest conveyance costs due to a new 3.5 km outfall which would be required for this option. Uncertainties associated with this outfall option which will require studies (drilling, environmental assessments); Proximity to tourism beaches may cause concerns. The next steps in this LWMP process are for the JLWMAC to review these cost estimates and advance 1 to 2 sites to be further evaluated in Phase 2.

20 OPTION 1 - GRICE POINT COST ESTIMATE Conveyance New Pump Stations $ 775, New Pump Stations $ 17, New Forcemain and Outfall Land Section $ 570, New Forcemain $ 20, Outfall Repairs $ 87, Outfall $ 10, Subtotal $ 1,430, Total $ 47, Engineering and Contingency, 30% $ 429, Total $ 1,859, Wastewater Treatment Facility Civil & SiteWork $ 525, Headworks $ 25, Treatment Process $ 3,500, MBBRs $ 55, Structural & Architectural $ 6,540, Aeration $ 43, Electrical & SCADA $ 1,700, Clarifiers $ 34, Subtotal $ 12,265, Pumps $ 6, Engineering & Contingency, 30% $ 3,679, Disinfection $ 21, Total $ 15,940, Dewatering $ 37, Electrical and SCADA $ 59, Labour $ 160, Total $ 450, Sludge Management Equipment $ 247, Power $ 5, Structural $ 645, Equipment Maintenance $ 9, Electrical $ 29, Labour $ 21, Installation & Construction $ 821, Trucking costs $ 193, Subtotal $ 1,742, Total $ 228, Engineering & Contingency, 30% $ 520, Total $ 2,260, Year Net Present Value No Grants 50% Capital Grants Capital Cost $ 20,060, Capital Cost $ 10,029, Annual O&M $ 8,320, Annual O&M $ 8,320, Total $ 28,380, Total $ 18,350, Assumptions: Class D cost estimate, +/- 50% Use MBBR-DAF combination for small footprint, site is ~2740 m2 This cost does not include land acquisition costs or ROW costs D-B /04/2016

21 OPTION 2 - HOSPITAL SITE COST ESTIMATE Conveyance New Pump Stations $ 875, New Pump Stations $ 22, New Forcemain and Outfall Land Section $ 900, New Forcemain $ 20, Outfall Repairs $ 82, Outfall $ 10, Subtotal $ 1,860, Total $ 52, Engineering and Contingency, 30% $ 558, Total $ 2,418, Wastewater Treatment Civil & SiteWork $ 525, Headworks $ 25, Treatment Process $ 3,500, MBBRs $ 55, Structural & Architectural $ 6,540, Aeration $ 43, Electrical & SCADA $ 1,700, Clarifiers $ 34, Subtotal $ 12,265, Pumps $ 6, Engineering & Contingency, 30% $ 3,679, Disinfection $ 21, Total $ 15,940, Dewatering $ 37, Electrical and SCADA $ 59, Labour $ 160, Total $ 450, Sludge Management Equipment $ 247, Power $ 5, Structural $ 645, Equipment Maintenance $ 9, Electrical $ 29, Labour $ 21, Installation & Construction $ 821, Trucking costs $ 193, Subtotal $ 1,742, Total $ 228, Engineering & Contingency, 30% $ 520, Total $ 2,260, Year Net Present Value No Grants 50% Capital Grant Capital Cost $ 20,620, Capital Cost $ 10,309, Annual O&M $8,380, Annual O&M $ 8,380, Total $ 29,000, Total $ 18,690, Assumptions Class D cost estimate, +/- 50% Use MBBR-DAF combination for small footprint, site footprint ~5900 m2 This cost does not include land acquisition costs or ROW costs D-B /04/2016

22 OPTION 3 - DL 114 COST ESTIMATE Conveyance New Pump Stations $ 1,500, Pump Stations $ 37, New Forcemain and Outfall Land Section $ 1,810, Forcemain $ 20, Outfall Repairs $ 82, Outfall $ 10, Subtotal $ 3,390, Total $ 67, Engineering and Contingency, 30% $ 1,017, Total $ 4,407, Wastewater Treatment Civil & Sitework $ 645, Headworks $ 27, Treatment Process $ 2,830, SBRs $ 15, Structural & Architectural $ 4,645, Aeration $ 18, Electrical & SCADA $ 1,200, Pumps $ 6, Subtotal $ 9,320, Disinfection $ 23, Engineering & Contingency, 30% $ 2,796, Dewatering $ 37, Total $ 12,120, Electrical and SCADA $ 40, Labour $ 160, Total $ 330, Sludge Management Equipment $ 247, Power $ 5, Structural $ 645, Equipment Maintenance $ 9, Electrical $ 29, Labour $ 21, Installation & Construction $ 821, Trucking costs $ 193, Subtotal $ 1,742, Total $ 228, Engineering & Contingency, 30% $ 520, Total $ 2,260, Year Net Present Value No Grants 50% Capital Grant Capital Cost $ 18,790, Capital Cost $ 9,393, Annual O&M $7,170, Annual O&M $ 7,170, Total $ 25,960, Total $ 16,560, Assumptions Class D cost estimate, +/- 50% Use SBR WWTP, site footprint ~ 16,600 m2 This cost does not include land acquisition costs or ROW costs D-B /04/2016

23 OPTION 4 - CHESTERMAN BEACH COST ESTIMATE Conveyance New/Upgrade Pump Stations $ 1,600, Pump Stations $ 38, New Forcemain $ 2,150, Forcemain $ 20, New Outfall $ 4,588, Outfall $ - Subtotal $ 8,340, Total $ 58, Engineering and Contingency, 30% $ 2,502, Total $ 10,842, Wastewater Treatment Civil & Sitework $ 645, Headworks $ 27, Treatment Process $ 2,830, SBRs $ 15, Structural & Architectural $ 4,645, Aeration $ 18, Electrical & SCADA $ 1,200, Pumps $ 6, Subtotal $ 9,320, Disinfection $ 23, Engineering & Contingency, 30% $ 2,796, Dewatering $ 37, Total $ 12,120, Electrical and SCADA $ 40, Labour $ 160, Total $ 330, Sludge Management Equipment $ 247, Power $ 5, Structural $ 645, Equipment Maintenance $ 9, Electrical $ 29, Labour $ 21, Installation & Construction $ 821, Trucking costs $ 193, Subtotal $ 1,742, Total $ 228, Engineering & Contingency, 30% $ 520, Total $ 2,260, Year Net Present Value No Capital Grant 50% Capital Grant Capital Cost $ 25,220, Capital Cost $ 12,611, Annual O&M $ 7,070, Annual O&M $ 7,070, Total $ 32,290, Total $ 19,680, Assumptions Class D cost estimate, +/- 50% Use SBR WWTP, site footprint ~21,100 m2 This cost does not include land acquisition costs or ROW costs D-B /04/2016