greater vancouver regional district utilities committee · 2015. 9. 22. · greater vancouver...

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT UTILITIES COMMITTEE

REGULAR MEETING

Thursday, September 10, 2015 9:00 am

2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia

R E V I S E D A G E N D A1 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 September 10, 2015 Regular Meeting Agenda That the Utilities Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for September 10, 2015 as circulated.

2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

2.1 July 16, 2015 Regular Meeting Minutes

That the Utilities Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held July 16, 2015 as circulated.

3. DELEGATIONS

3.1 Public Input re: “Biennial Report 2013 – 2014: Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan Opportunity for Public Input”

4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS 5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 Utility Infrastructure Investment Planning - Presentation Designated Speakers: Frank Huber, Rick Gallilee, and Dean Rear That the Utilities Committee receive for information the presentation titled “ Utility Infrastructure Investment Planning”.

5.2 Annual Update on Fisheries Initiatives in the Capilano, Seymour and Coquitlam Watersheds Designated Speaker: Heidi Walsh That the Utilities Committee receive for information the report titled “Annual Update on Fisheries Initiatives in the Capilano, Seymour and Coquitlam Watersheds” dated August 21, 2015.

1 Note: Recommendation is shown under each item, where applicable. UC - 1

5.3 Metro Vancouver Biosolids Drying Designated Speaker: Laurie Ford That the GVS&DD Board receive for information the report titled “Metro Vancouver

Biosolids Drying” dated July 23, 2015.

5.4 Monitoring of Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan Implementation Designated Speaker: Fred Nenninger That the GVS&DD Board designate the Standing Committee with oversight of the Liquid Waste function to review the implementation progress reports of the Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan, prior to their submission to the Ministry of Environment.

5.5 Liquid Waste Public Outreach Program - Wipes Pilot Project Update Designated Speaker: Larina Lopez

That the GVS&DD Board receive for information the report titled “Liquid Waste Public Outreach Program - Wipes Pilot Project Update”, dated September 2, 2015.

5.6 Managers’ Report

Designated Speakers: Tim Jervis and Simon So That the Utilities Committee receive for information the “Managers’ Report”, dated September 1, 2015.

6. INFORMATION ITEMS

6.1 Letter from P3 Canada to GVS&DD dated July 6, 2015 re: Lions Gate Secondary

Wastewater Treatment Plant

7. OTHER BUSINESS 7.1 Correspondence from Libby Dybikowksi in response to Letter Published in Merritt

Herald August 2015 8. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS 9. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

That the Utilities Committee close its regular meeting scheduled for September 10, 2015 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1)(g) and (i) as follows:

“90 (1) A part of a committee meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to or is one or more of the following:

(g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the regional district; (i) the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose.”

On Table

Attachment 1

Replaced On-Table

UC - 2

10. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION That the Utilities Committee adjourn/conclude its regular meeting of September 10, 2015.

Membership: Mussatto, Darrell (C) – North Vancouver City Becker, John (VC) – Pitt Meadows Cameron, Craig – West Vancouver Clay, Mike – Port Moody Fox, Charlie – Langley Township

Hicks, Robin – North Vancouver District Jackson, Lois – Delta Jordan, Colleen - Burnaby McEvoy, Jaimie – New Westminster Speirs, Craig – Maple Ridge

Stevenson, Tim – Vancouver Steves, Harold - Richmond Woods, Dave – Surrey

UC - 3

-This page intentionally left blank.-

UC - 4

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Utilities Committee held on Thursday, July 16, 2015 Page 1 of 7

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT UTILITIES COMMITTEE

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Utilities Committee held at 9:01 a.m. on Thursday, July, 16 2015 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Mayor Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City Vice Chair, Mayor John Becker, Pitt Meadows Councillor Craig Cameron, West Vancouver (arrived at 9:05 a.m.) Mayor Mike Clay, Port Moody Councillor Charlie Fox, Langley Township Councillor Robin Hicks, North Vancouver District Councillor Colleen Jordan, Burnaby Councillor Craig Speirs, Maple Ridge Councillor Tim Stevenson, Vancouver (arrived at 9:06 a.m.) Councillor Harold Steves, Richmond (departed at 10:42 a.m.) Councillor Dave Woods, Surrey MEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor Lois Jackson, Delta Councillor Jaimie McEvoy, New Westminster STAFF PRESENT: Tim Jervis, General Manager, Water Services Simon So, General Manager, Liquid Waste Services Carol Mason, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Janis Knaupp, Assistant to Regional Committees, Board and Information Services, Legal and

Legislative Services 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 July 16, 2015 Regular Meeting Agenda It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for July 16, 2015 as circulated.

CARRIED

UC - 5


2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES 2.1 June 25, 2015 Regular Meeting Minutes

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held June 25, 2015 as circulated.

CARRIED 3. DELEGATIONS

No items presented.

4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS No items presented.

5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 Water Conservation Campaign 2015 Update Report dated July 6, 2015 from Larina Lopez, Division Manager, Corporate Communications, External Relations, providing an update on Metro Vancouver’s 2015 Water Conservation Campaign. Members discussed the provincial review of bulk water rental rates. Request of Staff Staff was requested to report back to the Utilities Committee, through the Managers’ Report, on the status of the provincial review of bulk water rates, when updates are available.

9:05 a.m. Councillor Cameron arrived at the meeting. 9:06 a.m. Councillor Stevenson arrived at the meeting.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee receive for information the report titled “Water Conservation Campaign 2015 Update” dated July 6, 2015.

CARRIED

5.2 Award of Contract Resulting from Tender No. 14‐187: Installation of Port Mann Main No.2 (North) Report dated June 24, 2015 from Tracey Husoy, Division Manager, Purchasing and Risk Management, Financial Services, advising of the results of Tender No. 14‐187, Installation of Port Mann Main No.2 (North) and recommending award of the contract in the amount of $14,800,075 (exclusive of taxes) to Pedre Constructors Ltd.

UC - 6


It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVWD Board authorize: a) Award of a contract in the amount of $14,800,075 (exclusive of taxes), for the

installation of Port Mann Main No. 2 (North), to Pedre Constructors Ltd.; and b) The Commissioner and the Corporate Officer to execute the contract.

CARRIED

5.3 Award of Contract Resulting from Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 14‐189: Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant – Supply and Delivery of Cogeneration System Report dated June 24, 2015 from Tracey Husoy, Division Manager, Purchasing and Risk Management, Financial Services, advising of the results of RFP 14‐189: Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant – Supply and Delivery of Cogeneration System and recommending award of the contract in the amount of $13,696,970 (exclusive of tax) to Finning (Canada). It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board authorize: a) Award of contract in the amount of $13,696,970 (exclusive of tax) to Finning

(Canada) for the Supply and Delivery of Cogeneration System for the Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant; and

b) The Commissioner and the Corporate Officer to execute the contract. CARRIED

5.4 Award of Contract Resulting from Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 14‐190:

Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant – Supply and Delivery of Standby Diesel Generators Report dated June 24, 2015 from Tracey Husoy, Division Manager, Purchasing and Risk Management, Financial Services, advising of the results of RFP 14‐190: Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant – Supply and Delivery of Standby Diesel Generators and recommending award of the contract in the amount of $7,276,671 (exclusive of tax) to Cummins Western Canada. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board authorize: a) Award of a contract in the amount of $7,276,671 (exclusive of taxes) to

Cummins Western Canada for the Supply and Delivery of Standby Diesel Generators for the Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant; and


5.5 Award of Contract Resulting from Tender No. 15‐020: Iona Island Wastewater

Treatment Plant Solids Handling Package 2 – Screening, Degritting and Thickening Report dated June 22, 2015 from Tracey Husoy, Division Manager, Purchasing and Risk Management, Financial Services, advising of the results of Tender 15‐020:

UC - 7


Iona Island Wastewater Treatment Plant Solids Handling Upgrade Package 2 – Screening, Degritting, and Thickening, and recommending award of the contract to Kenaidan Contracting Ltd. in the amount of $22,857,000 (exclusive of taxes). It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board authorize: a) Award of a contract in the amount of $22,857,000 (exclusive of taxes) to

Kenaidan Contracting Ltd. resulting from Tender No. 15‐020 for Solids Handling Package 2 at the Iona Island Wastewater Treatment Plant; and


5.6 Award of Contract Resulting from Tender No. 15‐021: Iona Island Wastewater

Treatment Plant Solids Handling Package 3 – Digester Mixing Report dated June 22, 2015 from Tracey Husoy, Division Manager, Purchasing and Risk Management, Financial Services, advising of the results of Tender 15‐021: Iona Island Wastewater Treatment Plant Solids Handling Package 3 ‐ Digester Mixing, and recommending award of the contract to Maple Reinders Inc. in the amount of $9,915,300 (exclusive of taxes). It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board authorize: a) Award of a contract in the amount of $9,915,300 (exclusive of taxes) to Maple

Reinders Inc. resulting from Tender No. 15‐021 for the Iona Island Wastewater Treatment Plant Solids Handling Package 3 – Digester Mixing; and


5.7 Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant – Quarterly Report

Report dated June 18, 2015 from Fred Nenninger, Director, Policy Planning and Analysis, Liquid Waste Services, providing an update on the work underway for the Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant (LGSWWTP) project. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board receive for information the report titled “Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant – Quarterly Report”, dated June 18, 2015.

CARRIED

5.8 Biosolids Ranchland Application Report dated June 29, 2015 from Laurie Ford, Program Manager, Utility Residuals Management, Liquid Waste Services, responding to the April 30, 2015 Utilities Committee request for information on the composition and farmland application of biosolids by Metro Vancouver, and providing a review of correspondence submitted by Thompson‐Nicola Regional District with respect to the application of biosolids.

UC - 8


Members were provided a presentation on Metro Vancouver’s biosolids ranchland application highlighting composition and classes, BC Organic Matter Recycling Regulation (OMRR), Metro Vancouver 2014 quality data, composting, application, and the Thompson‐Nicola Regional District resolution to the Province seeking establishment of a committee to examine and make recommendations on the biosolids review process and changes to the OMRR and Agricultural Land Commission Act. In response to questions, members were informed about: movement of biosolids by local and regional government to the Nicola Valley, classifications, status of the OMRR review, Metro Vancouver’s role in the provincial advisory panel, testing standards, soil sampling in land application; and public education efforts in Merritt.

Presentation material titled “Metro Vancouver’s Biosolids Ranchland Application” is retained with the July 16, 2015 Utilities Committee agenda. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee receive for information the report titled “Biosolids Ranchland Application”, dated June 29, 2015.

CARRIED Councillor Stevenson absent at the vote.

Main Motion It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board write a letter to the Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Health requesting that Metro Vancouver be included as part of the local government representatives examining and making recommendation in the Biosolids review process and part of the changes to the BC Organic Matter Recycling Regulation and Agricultural Land Commission Act. Members were informed that the matter will be considered at the 2015 Union of British Columbia Municipalities Conference and if passed, Metro Vancouver intends to be involved in the province‐wide review. Motion Withdrawn In response to clarification from staff, the Committee agreed to withdraw the motion.

5.9 2014 GVS&DD Environmental Management & Quality Control Annual Report Report dated June 15, 2015 from Andjela Knezevic‐Stevanovic, Director, Environmental Management and Quality Control, Liquid Waste Services, providing a summary of the 2014 GVS&DD Environmental Management and Quality Control Annual Report.

UC - 9


Members were provided a presentation on the 2014 GVS&DD Environmental Management and Quality Control Annual Report highlighting: Metro Vancouver’s Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP); WWTP flows, review of performance and regulatory compliance; monitoring of biosolids quality, effluent toxicity, endocrine disrupting substances and trace organics, bacteriological water quality at beaches, and the receiving and ambient environments; and conclusions.

Presentation material titled “2014 GVS&DD Environmental Management & Quality Control Annual Report” is retained with the July 16, 2015 Utilities Committee agenda. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board receive for information the report titled “2014 GVS&DD Environmental Management & Quality Control Annual Report”, dated June 15, 2015.

CARRIED

5.10 Managers’ Report Report dated July 7, 2015 from Tim Jervis, General Manager, Water Services and Simon So, General Manager, Liquid Waste Services, providing an update on the Federal‐Provincial Equivalency Agreement on Municipal Wastewater, Metro Vancouver water supply, and the Utilities Committee 2015 Work Plan. In response to questions, members were informed about water consumption and transmission system monitoring efforts, status of source reservoirs, the timing of the alpine lake storage transfer to the Capilano Reservoir, and ongoing peak use during prohibited sprinkling periods. Members discussed municipal enforcement, public communications efforts, and implications of Stage 3 restrictions as part of the Regional Water Shortage Response Plan. On‐table replacement Attachment 1 was distributed to members and is retained with the July 16, 2015 Utilities Committee agenda. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee receive for information the Managers’ Report dated July 7, 2015.

CARRIED 6. INFORMATION ITEMS

No items presented.

7. OTHER BUSINESS In response to questions, members were informed about staff efforts to explore the feasibility of, and opportunities for, energy recovery at regional water facilities.

UC - 10


10:42 a.m. Councillor Steves departed the meeting.

8. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS No items presented.

9. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee close its regular meeting schedule for July 16, 2015 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1)(j) and 90 (2)(b) as follows: “90 (1) A part of a committee meeting may be closed to the public if the subject

matter being considered relates to or is one or more of the following: (j) information that is prohibited, or information that if it were presented

in a document would be prohibited, from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; and

“90 (2) A part of a committee meeting must be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one or more of the following: (b) the consideration of information received and held in confidence

relating to negotiations between the regional district and a provincial government or the federal government or both, or between a provincial government or the federal government or both and a third party.”

CARRIED

10. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee adjourn its regular meeting of July 16, 2015.

CARRIED (Time: 10:43 a.m.)

____________________________ ____________________________ Janis Knaupp, Darrell Mussatto, Chair Assistant to Regional Committees 11643673 FINAL

UC - 11


UC - 12

To: Utilities Committee From: Heidi Walsh, Supervisor ‐ Environmental Management and Water Sampling,

Water Services Date: August 21, 2015 Meeting Date: September 10, 2015 Subject: Annual Update on Fisheries Initiatives in the Capilano, Seymour and Coquitlam

Watersheds

RECOMMENDATION

That the Utilities Committee receive for information the report titled “Annual Update on Fisheries Initiatives in the Capilano, Seymour and Coquitlam Watersheds” dated August 21, 2015.

PURPOSE To provide the Committee with the 2015 annual update on the fisheries initiatives associated with the Capilano, Seymour and Coquitlam watersheds. BACKGROUND To facilitate Metro Vancouver’s mandate of providing sufficient regional supplies of high quality drinking water as well as to accommodate important local fisheries initiatives, Metro Vancouver has worked cooperatively with other organizations including Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (FLNRO), BC Hydro, local First Nations and stewardship groups. The initiatives described in this report are varied. Successful initiatives have typically been based on a number of years of collaborative assessment and planning as well as rigorous scientific assessment. This report provides the Committee with an update on all significant fisheries initiatives and projects currently underway. GVWD FISHERIES INITIATIVES The key fisheries initiatives for each watershed are described below: a) Capilano Watershed The Capilano River, below Cleveland Dam, supports four (4) species of Pacific salmon (coho, chinook, pink and chum) as well as steelhead and cutthroat trout. Fisheries and Oceans Canada operates a fish hatchery below the Cleveland Dam on the Capilano River. This facility includes a weir, fish ladder and holding pond which were included as part of the Cleveland Dam construction in 1954. These three structures enable collection of adult salmon for transport and spawning above the dam. As part of its program, the hatchery annually transports a maximum of 7,500 adult coho salmon and all surplus steelhead trout (averaging 30 adults) above the Cleveland Dam into the upper reaches of the Capilano River. After these adult fish spawn, the resulting juvenile fish mature in the Capilano Watershed until they are ready to smolt (migrate from fresh to salt water).

5.2

UC - 13

To improve the survival rate for out‐migrating smolts, Metro Vancouver initiated a trap and truck program in 2008. Smolts are captured in three rotary screw traps (RST’s) located on the upper Capilano River and in ten trap nets located within the Capilano Reservoir. Once trapped, Metro Vancouver staff record essential information on the smolts. They are then transported by tank truck around the Cleveland Dam and released into lower Capilano River. During the 2015 season over 26,000 coho smolts were captured, the majority of these in the reservoir trap nets. Steelhead smolts tend to be more difficult to capture due to the current small population size and their preference to rear in the fast moving main stem waters. The 2015 season yielded the most steelhead caught to date at 396 smolts. The majority of these (258) were captured in the RST’s operating in the main stem of the upper Capilano River, with the remaining smolts (138) caught in a trial seine net program on the reservoir. The net traps and RST’s have been found to provide relatively low capture efficiency (10 to 40 percent) of the total smolt populations. Metro Vancouver staff continue to explore options to improve smolt capture efficiency. In this regard the traps provide an excellent opportunity to gather the data required for population estimates of both coho and steelhead. While a 60% increase in RST and trap net steelhead captures over 2014 was observed, the number trapped continues to represent less than 15% of the population. In keeping with a 2013 expert review of the effectiveness of the Capilano Trap and Truck Program, Metro Vancouver staff have adopted a continuous improvement model for the program including trials of various other trapping or netting methods. As such, staff completed a trial with a small purse seiner from May 12 to 18th, 2015. The 138 smolts captured using this method accounted for 38% of the total steelhead smolts captured in 2015. Staff have also continued research into an upstream smolt capture facility and expect to receive a consultant report confirming the preferred site as well as a conceptual design for a test smolt trap facility in November 2015. The next phase of this project includes additional biological monitoring of steelhead smolt movement in the river and reservoir through radio telemetry surveys for 2016/17. b) Seymour Watershed The Seymour River supports four (4) species of Pacific salmon (coho, chinook, pink and chum) as well as steelhead and cutthroat trout. The Seymour Salmonid Society operates the Seymour River Fish Hatchery immediately downstream of Seymour Falls Dam. The hatchery is funded by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Metro Vancouver and community sponsors. The GVWD Board approved a three year Contribution Agreement with the Seymour Salmonid Society in 2014. The agreement commenced January 1, 2015 and provides $125,000 annually in core funding. The Seymour Salmonid Society will provide an annual report to GVWD on or before January 31 that summarizes operations up to December 31 of the preceding year. The report will highlight program goals, results, challenges and significant issues as well as a detailed account of revenues and expenditures for the preceding year. Each year, with Metro Vancouver’s support, the hatchery transports an average of 40,000 juvenile coho above the Seymour Dam. These coho remain in the upper watershed until they are ready to out‐migrate during the spring freshet. The spillway on the Seymour Falls Dam is designed and operated to facilitate the safe passage of these out‐migrating smolts; however, due to the low snowpack this year, dam spill ended prior to the peak out‐migration period. As a result, the majority of smolts will remain in the lake for an additional year.

UC - 14

On December 7th, 2014 a rockslide partially blocked the Seymour River 13 kilometers below the Seymour Falls Dam. The rockslide created a barrier to upstream fish migration and a ponding of water approximately 700m long. As a result of the rockslide, the rotary screw trap program on the Seymour River has been cancelled. Metro Vancouver has been working closely with DFO, FLNRO, the Seymour Salmonid Society and local First Nations to determine a short term solution for the 2015 fall salmon runs. Metro Vancouver staff will be assisting with an adult trap and truck program to move the returning spawners upstream of the slide enabling travel northward towards the hatchery. Over the years Metro Vancouver, in cooperation with DFO, has been directly involved in the implementation of a variety of habitat restoration projects within the Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve. The projects include the introduction of woody debris, provision of gravel and nutrients to the Seymour River below the dam as well as the creation of significant off‐channel habitat. The current Seymour River Estuary Restoration Project, located where the Seymour River flows into Burrard Inlet, will provide a safer, more effective transition between freshwater and marine habitat for both returning and departing fish. Metro Vancouver continues to partner with the Rivers Institute ‐ British Columbia Institute of Technology (lead), Habitat Conservation Trust Fund, Seymour Salmonid Society, District of North Vancouver, and First Nations on this project. Work in 2015 included anchoring of an additional 50 pieces of large wood, planting of native riparian species and removal of invasive species along the east bank. The project includes a component of public education on the importance of a healthy river estuary through interpretative signage and First Nation’s artwork at the site. c) Coquitlam Watershed The Coquitlam River supports four (4) species of Pacific salmon (coho, chinook, pink, and chum) as well as steelhead and cutthroat trout. The lake also supports a kokanee population (land locked sockeye). The Al Grist Memorial Fish Hatchery, located below BC Hydro’s dam on the Coquitlam Reservoir, is operated by the Port Coquitlam Rod and Gun Club in cooperation with Fisheries and Oceans Canada. BC Hydro operates a fish trap and truck program to capture returning sockeye salmon adults and transport them above the dam. The program has resulted in 31 returning adult sockeye since 2006. While this number of returns could be viewed as disappointing to this point, the knowledge gained from this work has been considerable. Following the Coquitlam‐Buntzen Water Use Planning process completed in 2005, BC Hydro funded biological and technical feasibility studies to determine the potential for salmon restoration above the dam. To guide this work the Kwikwetlem Salmon Restoration Program (KSRP) was developed. This ongoing partnership includes BC Hydro, Metro Vancouver, Kwikwetlem First Nation, local and senior governments as well as community stewardship groups. In 2015, the KSRP received funding through BC Hydro’s Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program to further their sockeye re‐establishment plan. Metro Vancouver staff have participated in the 2015 work which included hydro‐acoustic surveys to track kokanee smolts and gill net samples to establish size and fitness levels during May and will include collection of kokanee brood stock for incubation at the DFO Roswell Hatchery in October. This plan will maintain BC Hydro’s operational requirements as well as Metro Vancouver’s Coquitlam Reservoir Expert Panel recommendations which included limiting returning sockeye adults entering the reservoir to 15,000 (+/‐ 5,000) to reflect high quality drinking water

UC - 15

supply requirements. Benefits in terms of sockeye returns to the Coquitlam River as a result of this work will take a number of years to realize. ALTERNATIVES This is an information report; no alternatives are presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS To date, the initiatives described in this report have been funded from base budgets, partnerships with other organizations, and the provision of external funding. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Metro Vancouver continues to proactively participate in a variety of meaningful fisheries initiatives throughout GVWD’s watershed lands, located both above and below the dams. A key Metro Vancouver objective is to ensure that fisheries protection and enhancement initiatives are evaluated, planned and implemented in a manner that consistently meets the Corporation’s mandate of providing consistently high quality drinking water supplies. As existing and new fisheries initiatives are assessed, decisions made will continue to be based on the availability of solid scientific information.

UC - 16

5.3

To: Utilities Committee From: Laurie Ford, Program Manager, Utility Residuals Management, Liquid Waste Services Date: July 23, 2015 Meeting Date: September 10, 2015 Subject: Metro Vancouver Biosolids Drying

RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board receive for information the report titled “Metro Vancouver Biosolids Drying” dated July 23, 2015.

PURPOSE To provide the Committee and GVS&DD Board with information on the conceptual design of a drying facility at the Annacis Wastewater Treatment Plant (AIWWTP) to dry biosolids from the region’s wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) for the use as fuel. BACKGROUND In keeping with the Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan to use liquid waste as a resource, Metro Vancouver has been beneficially using biosolids as fertilizer safely and responsibly for the last 24 years. Biosolids are the solids removed from the treatment process at Metro Vancouver’s WWTPs. These solids are heat treated to destroy harmful bacteria. Like manure, biosolids are rich in plant nutrients and organic matter and can help build healthy, productive soils, improve soil water retention, and increase vegetation growth when applied to land. Metro Vancouver has successfully used its biosolids to rebuild soil and grow vegetation on mine sites, gravel pits and closed landfills, to fertilize rangeland, hayfields and forests, and in fabricated topsoil for use in regional parks, capital works projects, and sold for use for local landscaping. Over the next 15 years, biosolids production in the region is anticipated to increase substantially due to the anticipated population growth and the planned upgrade of the two primary treatment plants to secondary treatment. Metro Vancouver has studied various alternatives to recover energy from the biosolids to diversify the current biosolids management program and to open up new markets for the future increased biosolids production. These studies have concluded that the most viable option is to dry a portion of Metro Vancouver’s biosolids at the AIWWTP using excess heat available from the cogeneration facility. The primary market for the dried biosolids is the local cement plants. However, dried biosolids are also suitable for use as a fertilizer and can complement the current land application program. The product is also suitable for production of a bagged soil amendment product or for bulk sale to industries such as greenhouses. Both cement plants located in Metro Vancouver have expressed interest in using dried biosolids as a coal substitute in the cement manufacturing process. Dried biosolids have approximately two‐thirds the energy value of a low‐grade coal, and also contain many of the same elements found in the raw materials used to produce Portland Cement. Ash from the combusted biosolids will be incorporated into the cement, eliminating the need for disposal or further management of that residual. The biosolids would partially displace coal as a fuel, resulting in cost savings to cement manufacturers

UC - 17

which are subject to a provincial carbon tax on coal use, and the region would benefit from significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions from the process. European cement manufacturers have been using dried biosolids in cement kilns for many years, and the following are North American examples:

Lehigh’s Union Bridge plant in Maryland was the first cement plant in the United States to use biosolids as a fuel in significant quantities. The plant begun testing the use of dried biosolids in 2004 and the system became fully operational in 2012.

The New England Fertilizer Company operates a facility that dries biosolids from the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. The dried pellets are used both as a fertilizer and as an alternative fuel at cement plants.

The Encina Wastewater Facility in Carlsbad, California produces dried biosolids pellets which are used as a fertilizer and for fuel at local cement plants.

Canadian company Anaergia is currently upgrading an existing facility in Rialto, California that will produce dried pellets for use as a fuel for local cement plants.

BIOSOLIDS DRYER CONCEPTUAL DESIGN Metro Vancouver is developing a RFP for the conceptual design of a facility at AIWWTP to dry biosolids using surplus heat from the cogeneration facility. The purpose of this project is to establish the life cycle cost, footprint, and preferred procurement method for a drying facility. Though located at AIWWTP, the facility will be able to dry biosolids from any of the five Metro Vancouver WWTPs to the specifications required by the local cement manufacturers to fuel their kilns. The dried biosolids will also be of a quality that can be used for other markets such as fertilizer, or other potential energy users. The conceptual design will be detailed enough to generate performance metrics that will be used in evaluation during the next phase: costs, supplemental natural gas use at the WWTP for drying and associated greenhouse gas emissions, greenhouse gas emissions displaced by the cement plants, and any other relevant indicators. The project is considered to be a good candidate for public private partnership (PPP) as Metro Vancouver does not have experience in biosolids drying. There are several companies in North America that offer this service, and a clear delineation of responsibility can be drawn between the WWTP and the drying facility. The conceptual design will provide a comparison of procurement models, including potential funding program opportunities, and determine whether the project value is significant enough to attract interest from the private sector. The conceptual design and evaluation of procurement options will form the basis for an RFP for the establishment of a biosolids drying facility. Staff will report back to the Committee and Board on the results of the conceptual design with a recommendation on whether to proceed with implementation.

Timeline/Schedule Depending on the procurement mechanism selected, the preliminary timeline for traditional design and construction of a regional biosolids dryer is as follows:

Conceptual Design: November 2015 to August 2016

Detailed Design: September 2017 to December 2018

Construction: June 2019 to December 2020

UC - 18

Should a public private partnership procurement model be pursued, this schedule could be condensed by approximately 8 months. RISK IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESMENT

Biosolids Ownership Issues Ownership models where Metro Vancouver does not control the biosolids from “cradle to grave” poses legal and management issues. Metro Vancouver cannot contract away its legal obligation to manage the material in an acceptable manner and will need to perform ongoing due diligence to ensure that the contractor is handling the product appropriately. Metro Vancouver will need to confirm ownership issues should the project proceed to implementation.

Cement Plant Operation Cement plants undergo annual maintenance periods of approximately 2 weeks when cement production stops. There is also the possibility of plant shut‐downs due to unplanned maintenance, or economic slow‐down, which could last several months. It is important to maintain a robust land application program as part of beneficial use of biosolids to reduce risk to Metro Vancouver due to unexpected cement plant shut‐downs. The cement industry in BC is subject to a provincial carbon tax, which is not currently applied to cement imported from out of province or other countries, creating a competitive disadvantage. The 2015 provincial budget included $27M over the next 5 years for the Cement Low‐Carbon Fuel Program, created to assist in the increase of the cement industry’s use of low carbon fuels to displace coal and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cement manufacturing. Should this be insufficient to enable the industry to compete with imported cement, leading to temporary or permanent closure of the local cement plants, Metro Vancouver would need to find alternate users of the product. ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Previous studies indicated that the initial capital cost to establish a biosolids drying facility at AIWWTP with the capacity to dry half of the biosolids Metro Vancouver currently generates (Phase 1) is estimated at $25 million and an additional $10M in 2030 to provide capacity for the additional biosolids to be generated by the secondary upgraded at IIWWTP (Phase 2). The annual operating cost was estimated to be $2.6M for Phase 1 and $4M for Phase 2. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Metro Vancouver is developing a RFP for the conceptual design of a biosolids dryer at AIWWTP that will process biosolids from the region’s WWTPs using excess heat from the cogeneration facility. The conceptual design and performance metrics will form the basis for an RFP for the establishment of a biosolids drying facility with the target completion of 2020. The conceptual design will also provide a comparison of procurement models based on their life cycle costs, including potential funding program opportunities, and various advantages and disadvantages. The project is considered to be a good candidate for a public private partnership (PPP). 11693753

UC - 19


UC - 20

5.4

To: Utilities Committee

From: Fred Nenninger, Director of Policy Planning and Analysis, Liquid Waste Services Date: August 12, 2015 Meeting Date: September 10, 2015 Subject: Monitoring of Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan

Implementation

RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board designate the Standing Committee with oversight of the Liquid Waste function to review the implementation progress reports of the Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan, prior to their submission to the Ministry of Environment.

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to obtain the Board’s approval that formalizes the use of the Utilities Committee to review progress reports on the implementation of the Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan, rather than using an ‘Integrated Utility Management Advisory Committee’ as originally outlined in the Plan. BACKGROUND In the past, the Utilities Committee has reviewed the progress of the Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan implementation through the Biennial Report prior to Board approval for its submission to the Ministry of Environment. Additional review was identified for Metro Vancouver’s Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ILWRMP action 3.5.1) and Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP action 2.11.1) through the following shared action:

Metro Vancouver will: Establish a new overarching committee, the Integrated Utility Management Advisory Committee (IUMAC), to advise Metro Vancouver on plan implementation, particularly from the perspectives of integrated planning and resource recovery across utility systems.

Metro Vancouver has attempted to maintain an ongoing IUMAC with responsibility for monitoring the Plans for both the Liquid Waste and Solid Waste Services. However, the broad scope of the integrated committee has made it challenging to recruit members with interest and expertise in both utilities, and limited its effectiveness in providing input on the implementation of these two distinct management plans. This report is being brought forward to present a revised approach that better aligns with the governance framework of Metro Vancouver.

UC - 21

PROPOSED STANDING COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT APPROACH Metro Vancouver staff looked at alternative methods for monitoring utility plan implementation, including those used in other regional districts. It was found that most regional districts monitor their liquid and solid waste utilities separately, and many use their elected officials to oversee the implementation of liquid and solid waste management plans. In response to Metro Vancouver’s request (Attachment A) the Ministry of Environment has confirmed (Attachment B) that it would be acceptable for Metro Vancouver to use its Utilities Committee to review implementation reports on the liquid waste management plan and its Zero Waste Committee to review implementation reports on the solid waste management plan ALTERNATIVES

1. That the GVS&DD Board designate the Standing Committee with oversight of the Liquid Waste function to review the implementation progress reports of the Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan, prior to their submission to the Ministry of Environment.

2. That the Board provide alternative direction to staff. Staff recommends Alternative 1. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no significant financial implications; all activities would be accommodated within the existing approved budgets. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Metro Vancouver’s approved Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan and Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan share a commitment to monitor the implementation of both Plans using an Integrated Utility Management Advisory Committee (IUMAC). Metro Vancouver has found it challenging to recruit members with interest and expertise in both solid and liquid waste, and to maintain an ongoing IUMAC that can provide effective input on implementation of two distinct management plans. Staff proposed to the Ministry of Environment that subject to Board approval, Metro Vancouver could monitor their liquid and liquid waste utilities separately, using our elected officials (Utilities Committee, and Zero Waste Committee) to oversee implementation of liquid and zero waste management plans. The Ministry of Environment confirmed that it agrees with this approach. Attachments: A. March 18, 2015 Letter from Carol Mason, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer, Metro

Vancouver (10996431) B. July 22, 2015 Letter from Lori Halls, Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Division,

Ministry of Environment (11739124) 11781507

UC - 22

ATTACHMENT 1

UC - 23

UC - 24

ATTACHMENT 2

UC - 25


UC - 26

5.5

To: Utilities Committee From: Larina Lopez, Corporate Communications Division Manager, External Relations

Department Date: September 2, 2015 Meeting Date: September 10, 2015 Subject: Liquid Waste Public Outreach Program ‐ Wipes Pilot Project Update

RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board receive for information the report titled “Liquid Waste Public Outreach Program ‐ Wipes Pilot Project Update”, dated September 2, 2015.

PURPOSE To provide an update to the Committee and the GVS&DD Board on the wipes pilot project in the City of Pitt Meadows to reduce the flushing of nonwoven fabrics (disposable wipes). BACKGROUND Metro Vancouver’s Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan, approved by the Minister of Environment in 2011, as well as the Liquid Waste strategic direction in the Board Strategic Plan, requires the development and implementation of targeted outreach initiatives to support liquid waste source control programs to protect the environment and human health. The flushing of wipes and other materials is a widespread problem that can damage equipment, contribute to sewer clogs and cause sewage to overflow into the environment. Research on approaches used by other cities conducted by Metro Vancouver in 2014 suggests that many outreach programs have not been successful in addressing this issue. This is partly because it is very difficult to change behaviours that take place in private places, like bathrooms. Metro Vancouver is working in collaboration with the City of Pitt Meadows to conduct a pilot project to test a different approach to this problem. It will then use the findings from this pilot to develop regional approaches for 2016. The City of Pitt Meadows was selected for this pilot because it has a Metro Vancouver pump station with wipes issues and a defined catchment area that flows into this pump station. The pilot project will target this defined catchment area and measure whether the number of wipes coming into the pump station is decreasing resulting from the outreach program. This will allow us to assess the success of the pilot and make any adjustments before consideration of a more regional approach in 2016. WIPES PILOT PROJECT UPDATE The wipes pilot project will be launched in the City of Pitt Meadows on September 14, 2015 and will run until the end of November. To help assess the project’s effectiveness, in May, 2015 Metro Vancouver began measuring the amount of wipes coming into the Baynes Road pump station. This established a pre‐project baseline. Metro Vancouver will continue to track any changes in wipes quantity during and after the pilot project. Measurement will continue until the end of 2015.

UC - 27

Pilot project approach The pilot project will target specific audiences and try to influence behaviour over time. The pilot campaign will be targeting women and this is reflected in the outreach materials. This target audience was determined based on a region‐wide survey conducted by Metro Vancouver in January 2015, which identified women using “personal hygiene” wipes in bathrooms as the main group flushing wipes. Metro Vancouver also conducted in‐person interceptor surveys on wipes use in three drugstores. Creative materials The pilot project materials have been developed around an “Adult Toilet Training” concept. This concept takes a humorous approach to bathroom behaviour and avoids “finger pointing”. The concept includes posters and an accompanying decal that are designed to be located in women’s washrooms. Since it is extremely difficult to reach people in their home bathrooms, a public washroom is the next most relevant location for wipes messages. Each poster features two flashcards with bathroom tips: the first with a humorous tip and the second one always reading “Never flush wipes”. The materials were tested in two focus groups of women and received a favourable response. Focus group participants responded to the humour, understood the message and many said they would be motivated to better dispose of wipes. The focus groups generally confirmed the findings of the regional survey regarding what types of wipes are flushed and why. The focus groups also showed that there is a general lack of knowledge around what should go down a toilet and confusion because of the labelling of wipes as “flushable”. Collaboration with City of Pitt Meadows Metro Vancouver staff have been working with the City of Pitt Meadows communications team on this pilot project. Pitt Meadows staff have seen the creative materials and are enthusiastic about being a part of the pilot. They have helped to give Metro Vancouver staff a better sense of their community and are supporting the pilot by making their communications channels available. Metro Vancouver will be making a short presentation to the City of Pitt Meadows Council about the pilot project on September 15, at the request of Pitt Meadows staff. Communications channels Because the intent is to reach wipes users where the flushing of wipes takes place (a bathroom), posters will be placed in women’s washrooms in various municipal and private facilities (such as gyms). Other channels include online advertising, geo‐targeted social media, a YouTube video, flyers, and a feature story on The Sustainable Region TV show. We anticipate that local media will also be interested in this story. The City of Pitt Meadows is also making its communications channels available, including: placing materials in municipal facilities, use of social media and community e‐newsletter, and posting information on their website. The posters in municipal facilities will be co‐branded with the Metro Vancouver and City of Pitt Meadows logos. Staff are currently working with the City of Pitt Meadows to try to develop some sort of display or non‐traditional event to raise awareness and generate conversation on this issue.

UC - 28

Evaluation The pilot project’s success will be evaluated based on the number of wipes coming into the Baynes Road pump station and a post‐campaign survey of residents. Metro Vancouver staff will also track website traffic, media coverage and social media activity to assess the number of people receiving wipes information. ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Financial support for the liquid waste outreach program, which includes public outreach efforts on the issue of grease, is identified in the approved operating budgets for the External Relations Department and the Liquid Waste Services Department, in the amount of $75,000 and $150,000 respectively, for a total budget of $225,000. Expenditures for the wipes pilot project are anticipated to be approximately $85,000. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The flushing of wipes and other materials is a widespread problem that can damage equipment, contribute to sewer clogs and cause sewage to overflow into the environment. Metro Vancouver and the City of Pitt Meadows are collaborating to pilot a behaviour change campaign. The approach will target women and will try to influence behaviour regarding the disposal of “personal hygiene” wipes. The information from this pilot project will be used to adjust and improve regional approaches before they are launched in 2016.

11820055

UC - 29


UC - 30

To: Utilities Committee

From: Tim Jervis, General Manager ‐ Water Services

Simon So, General Manager – Liquid Waste Services Date: September 1, 2015 Meeting Date: September 10, 2015 Subject: Managers’ Report

RECOMMENDATION That the Utilities Committee receive for information the “Managers’ Report”, dated September 1, 2015.

1. Water Supply Update – Tim Jervis

As of September 1, 2015, available storage in the GVWD source reservoirs and alpine lakes totaled 60% of maximum source storage (Attachment 1), within the normal range for this time of year. This figure includes the GVWD’s nominated storage from Coquitlam Lake and reflects the impact of the August 29 – 31, 2015 storm event. Stage 3 of the Water Shortage Response Plan (WSRP) was activated by the Commissioner on July 20, 2015 given the conditions of the GVWD source reservoirs, the level of water usage within the GVWD, and the predicted weather conditions for the remainder of the summer and into early fall of 2015. As shown on Attachment 2, since the activation of Stage 3 daily demand has averaged 1.11 billion litres/day, down considerably from daily consumption levels experienced under Stages 1 and 2. The highest peak day consumption was recorded on July 2, 2015 at 1.70 billion litres/day. This compares with the highest peak day consumption in summer 2014 of 1.58 billion litres/day on July 16, 2014. Metro Vancouver staff have worked closely with municipal staff throughout the summer to encourage all residents and businesses to increase their conservation efforts in accordance with the WSRP. Municipal advertising, education and enforcement of the WSRP restrictions have been key to achieving the necessary demand reduction. Staff continue to closely monitor the beneficial improvements of precipitation on the reservoir levels and the daily water usage demands, with the goal of returning storage levels to well within the seasonal average. Although Stage 3 restrictions currently remain in place, the water restrictions will be relaxed when an adequate supply has been established. 2. Utilities Committee – 2015 Work Plan – Tim Jervis/Simon So

Attached is the updated 2015 Work Plan indicating the status of the Committee’s key priorities together with the quarter that each priority is expected to be considered by the Committee.

5.6

UC - 31

Attachments: 1. Total Source Storage for Metro Vancouver Usage (including Coquitlam Lake) 2. Daily System Consumption – Summer 2015 2. Utilities Committee 2015 Work Plan

UC - 32

-

11.00

22.00

33.00

44.00

55.00

66.00

77.00

88.00

99.00

110.00

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

01/Jun 01/Jul 01/Aug 01/Sep 01/Oct 01/Nov

Tota

l So

urc

e S

tora

ge

(M

illi

on

s o

f C

ub

ic M

ete

rs)

Total Source Storage For Metro Vancouver Usage(Incl. Coquitlam Lake)

2013

2014

2015

NORMAL RANGE

Storage = of Max60%

LEGEND

September 06, 2015

On Table Replacement -5.6 Attachment 1

UC - 33

1.57

1.52

1.55

1.41

1.24

1.42

1.51

1.55 1.54

1.51

1.59

1.55

1.66

1.56

1.64

1.65

1.66

1.70

1.55

1.59

1.59

1.61

1.48

1.50

1.53

1.29

1.19

1.16

1.37

1.34

1.36

1.44

1.31

1.36

1.40

1.48

1.24

1.191.20

1.05

1.021.00

1.07

1.11

1.16

1.20 1.19

1.16 1.13

1.17

1.17

1.07 1.07

1.11

1.06

1.08

1.14

1.19 1.19

1.18

1.06

1.03

1.08

1.16

1.17

1.19

1.13

1.13

1.121.13

1.161.14

1.13

1.12

1.02

0.920.95

1.00

1.01

1.01

1.00

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

Mo

n, 1

5-Ju

nT

ue, 1

6-Ju

nW

ed,

17-

Jun

Thu

, 18-

Jun

Fri,

19-

Jun

Sat

, 20-

Jun

Sun

, 21-

Jun

Mo

n, 2

2-Ju

nT

ue, 2

3-Ju

nW

ed,

24-

Jun

Thu

, 25-

Jun

Fri,

26-

Jun

Sat

, 27-

Jun

Sun

, 28-

Jun

Mo

n, 2

9-Ju

nT

ue, 3

0-Ju

nW

ed,

01-

Jul

Thu

, 02-

Jul

Fri,

03-

Jul

Sat

, 04-

Jul

Sun

, 05-

Jul

Mo

n, 0

6-Ju

lT

ue, 0

7-Ju

lW

ed,

08-

Jul

Thu

, 09-

Jul

Fri,

10-

Jul

Sat

, 11-

Jul

Sun

, 12-

Jul

Mo

n, 1

3-Ju

lT

ue, 1

4-Ju

lW

ed,

15-

Jul

Thu

, 16-

Jul

Fri,

17-

Jul

Sat

, 18-

Jul

Sun

, 19-

Jul

Mo

n, 2

0-Ju

lT

ue, 2

1-Ju

lW

ed,

22-

Jul

Thu

, 23-

Jul

Fri,

24-

Jul

Sat

, 25-

Jul

Sun

, 26-

Jul

Mo

n, 2

7-Ju

lT

ue, 2

8-Ju

lW

ed,

29-

Jul

Thu

, 30-

Jul

Fri,

31-

Jul

Sat

, 01-

Aug

Sun

, 02-

Aug

Mo

n, 0

3-A

ugT

ue, 0

4-A

ugW

ed,

05-

Aug

Thu

, 06-

Aug

Fri,

07-

Aug

Sat

, 08-

Aug

Sun

, 09-

Aug

Mo

n, 1

0-A

ugT

ue, 1

1-A

ugW

ed,

12-

Aug

Thu

, 13-

Aug

Fri,

14-

Aug

Sat

, 15-

Aug

Sun

, 16-

Aug

Mo

n, 1

7-A

ugT

ue, 1

8-A

ugW

ed,

19-

Aug

Thu

, 20-

Aug

Fri,

21-

Aug

Sat

, 22-

Aug

Sun

, 23-

Aug

Mo

n, 2

4-A

ugT

ue, 2

5-A

ugW

ed,

26-

Aug

Thu

, 27-

Aug

Fri,

28-

Aug

Sat

, 29-

Aug

Sun

, 30-

Aug

Mo

n, 3

1-A

ugT

ue, 0

1-S

epW

ed,

02-

Sep

Thu

, 03-

Sep

Fri,

04-

Sep

Bill

ion

Lit

res

/Da

y

Daily System Consumption Summer 2015

July 3, 2015 - Stage 2 Activated

July 20, 2015 - Stage 3 Activated

Average Stage 3 Consumption: 1.11 Billion Litres/Day

Attachment 2

UC - 34

Attachment 3

Utilities Committee 2015 Work Plan

Priorities

1st Quarter Status

2015 Committee Priorities Complete

2015 GVWD and GVS&DD Capital Projects Complete Seymour‐Capilano Filtration Project Status – Q4 2014 Complete Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Project – Quarterly Update Complete

Contract Approvals – Contracts > $5M (as applicable) Complete

2nd Quarter

2016 Provincial Water Fees and Rentals Complete

Approval of Joint Water Use Plan for Capilano and Seymour Watersheds In Progress Tap Water Campaign ‐ Summer Water Wagon Schedule Complete Water Supply Forecast and Consumption/Conservation Update for Summer 2015 Complete Communication Strategy for Implementation of a Region‐wide Water Conservation Campaign in Partnership with Member Municipalities

Complete

Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures Complete GVWD Quality Control Annual Report for 2014 Complete Seymour‐Capilano Twin Tunnels Commissioning Complete

Barnston/Maple Ridge Pump Station Completion In Progress

Seymour River Rockslide – Status Update Complete

Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve – Public Process and Safety Management Complete

Spread of European Chafer Beetle and Potential Increase in Water Use Complete

Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Project ‐ Quarterly Update Complete

Municipal Requests for Sewerage Area Boundary Amendments Complete Regional Position on the Use of Food Grinders and Food Digesters Complete Public Outreach and Communications Strategy for Liquid Waste Source Control Complete UBC License of Use for Annacis Research Centre Complete Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan Biennial Report (2013‐2014) Complete Iona Island WWTP Upgrade – Project Initiation Complete


UC - 35

3rd Quarter

Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures Complete

Update on Fisheries Initiatives in the Capilano, Seymour and Coquitlam Watersheds In Progress

Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Project ‐ Quarterly Update Complete

GVS&DD Environmental Management & Quality Control Annual Report for 2014 Complete

Special Meeting to Receive Public Input on the Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan Biennial Report (2013‐2014)

In Progress

Integrated Stormwater Management Plan for Port Moody/Coquitlam Drainage Area In Progress

Sewer Heat Project Approval Pending


4th Quarter

Summer 2015 Water Supply Performance In Progress

Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures Pending

Water Conservation/Tap Water Campaign/Water Wagon Update In Progress

Update ‐ Metro Vancouver Regional Water Conservation Campaign In Progress

Optimization of Treatment Processes at SCFP & CWTP In Progress Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Project ‐ Quarterly Update Pending

Region‐wide Baseline for Onsite Stormwater Management In Progress

2016 Budgets – Water and Liquid Waste Services In Progress

Fermentation Sector Operations Bylaw In Progress

Municipal Requests for Sewerage Area Boundary Amendments Pending Policy on Regional versus Municipal Facilities In Progress

Policy on Pavement Restoration for Sewer and Water Main Installations In Progress

Policy on Direct Connections to Regional Sewer and Water Facilities In Progress

Policy on Transfer of Ownership of Sewer and Water Facilities In Progress

Policy on Provision of Water and Sewer Services Outside Municipal Service Areas In Progress

Contract Approvals – Contracts > $5M (as applicable) Pending

UC - 36

1+1 PPP Canada Chief Executive Officer

100 Queen Street. Suite 630 Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1J9

July 6, 2015

Fred Nenninger Director, Policy, Plarming & Analysis

Premier dirigeant

100, rue Queen, Suite 630 Ottawa (Ontario) K1P 1J9

Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, BC V5H 408

Dear Mr. Nenninger,

6.1

Thank you for your interest in the P3 Canada Fund, we are pleased to have received your application for the following project:

Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant

The project screening team has begun work on reviewing all applications received by the June 12, 2015, deadline. Over the next several weeks, you may be contacted for additional information and clarification regarding your project. Once we have completed the screening assessments, we will contact you with results and feedback in the fall.

If you have any questions regarding your submissions or the assessment process, please contact Carol Beaulieu, Vice President, Project Development, at (613) 992-5577 or carol [email protected].

Sincerely,

cc. Mark Liedemann, Vice President, Projects, Partnerships BC

C dl•l ana a COPY CPC- Confidential - 82 UC - 37

September 8, 2015

Mr. Darrell MussattoChair, Metro Vancouver Utilities CommitteeAndMembers of the GVRD Utilities Committee

By EmailDarrell Mussatto: [email protected] Becker: jheckerbeckerlawyers.caCraig Cameron: [email protected] Clay: jncjy@portmoodycaCharlie Fox: [email protected] Hicks: [email protected] Jackson: mayjdeIta.caColleen Jordan: [email protected] McEvoy: [email protected] Speirs:Tim Stevenson: clrstevensonvancouver.caHarold Steeves: [email protected] Woods: dave.woods@ surrey.ca

Dear Mr. Mussatto and Members of the Metro Vancouver Utilities Committee:

For the September 10 Agenda of the Committee

I have read with interest your letter published in the Merritt Herald in August. You have setout the case for land application of bio-solids as well as it can be set out. Even so, there areseveral serious flaws in your arguments, and I would like to bring these to your attention.

VIOLATION OF OUR RIGHTSCitizens of the Nicola Valley have just as much a right to clean air, clean land and cleanwater as do citizens of Metro Vancouver. We also have an expectation of enjoyment of ourhomes and peace in our community. These rights are being violated by the dumping ofMetro Vancouver’s bio-solids here.

We have the right to a process of full consultation: being informed about plans to haulsludge here, being seriously consulted about the effect (without a presumption that favoursthe company applying the sludge), having our views taken into consideration before anysuch change to our environment occurs. This right has been violated. As matters stand, the“environment” considered means only the application site, not properties down-hill, downstream, down-wind. Environment in the proper sense of the word be damned. Healthhazards be damned. Property values be damned.

1

UC - 38

DDavis

Text Box

7.1 On-Table

We have the right to be protected by our elected officials, not exploited. This right has been

violated.

The precautionary principle states that: “Where there are threats of serious or irteversible

damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as reason for postponing cost

effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” This should be adopted by

Metro Vancouver as a way to become more current in its processes, to prevent the travesty

that is occurring in the Nicola Valley, and to avoid legal action that will inevitably result

from the current path.

WATERSHED ISSUESAs a resident of Miller Estates, downhill from an approved bio-solids application site, I think

you need to look at what happens to bio-solids once deposited on the land. For your

information, our registered, community well for 44 properties is hydro-geologically

connected with the site. We have three expert hydro-geologist reports, all warning that our

well will become contaminated.

There is a lot of sandy and rocky land in the Nicola Valley, which supports a delicate and

unique environment of grassland, pine and aspen groves, protected and endangered

species. This type of soil also provides open pathways for bio-solid contamination through

the soil to groundwater and, in the case of extreme weather events, such as we had on May

23, 2015, flooding via surface water.

As elected officials of municipalities in Metro Vancouver, I would suggest that you would be

opposed to depositing bio-solids in the Capilano Watershed. The citizens you represent

would not let that happen. Well, just as you would be against such a travesty, so are we.

The recent findings about extreme soil contamination in the area of Rey Creek Ranch, where

Metro Vancouver bio-solids are received, by the Suzuki Organization is very disturbing, and

probably will result in enough liability to go around to the land-owner and operator, the

Ministry of the Environment, Interior Health Authority and Metro Vancociver. I believe you

already have a copy of the findings, but let me know if you need one. After all, it August 27,

2014 when Mr. Garthwaite was authorized to proceed to place bio-solids at Rey Creek

Ranch with the following warning from Anita Ely of Interior Health:

“This letter is afollow up to my ‘may proceed’ with June 10, 2014 Land Application Plan (LAP)letter ofyesterday. Although I didn’t communicate any objections for this most recent SAP, I do

have unanswered questions about the sustainability and cumulative impact to this watershed of

repeated applications to lands in this watershed of large quantities of biosolids over extended

time periods. My impression is there are plans to continue to apply to Rey Creek Ranch lands well

into the future. Therefore, please know forfuture Organic Matter Recycling Regulation Schedule13 Notification of biosolids SAPs I will request supporting evidence the cumulative impact of theplanned biosolids application and past applications to any lands in the watershed will not have adetrimental impact an water quality in the subject watershed.”

FOOD CHAIN ISSUESI will let others write to you about their concerns about the adverse effects bio-solids are

having on our food chain. Of note are the many large food processors that will not handle

source products that have grown in bio-solid “enhanced” soil (such as Del Monte, the dairies

2

UC - 39

that wilt not accept milk from cows fed on hay from fields where bio-solids have beenspread, Dairyland and Saputo). An on-line comment to your letter in the Merritt Heraldfrom Carolyn Snyder of Harvard University lists a plethora of organizations, all withscientists on their Boards, which are opposed to land application of bio-solids. Have a lookat it. Even the US National farmers Union is there.

TESTING OF BlO-SOLIDSThis is where the arguments in favout of land application really fall apart. You say there arebylaws that REDUCE contaminants, that certain waste is NOT ALLOWED — well, I’m not surethat everyone follows this rule, and reduction means there still remain metals that do notattenuate, but rather collect over time.

First, I believe your waste-water plants are reporting testing for only eleven elements:Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Cobalt, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Molybdemun, Nickel,Selenium, and Zinc. There are many more harmful substances in bio-solids than that.

As one example, I would point out that, in addition to normal household waste, industrialwaste, pesticides and road waste that already contain many toxic substances, there is agrave concern about the chemical waste that no doubt makes its way into the sewagesystem and then on to our watersheds from clandestine laboratories for the manufacture ofmethamphetarnines.

It has been known for years (see the 2005 report on Clandestine Drug Laboratories in BritishColumbia and the CORE Evidence Review on Healthy Community Environments, 2008) thatmeth manufacturing leaves behind 5 to 7 pounds of chemical waste for each pound of methproduced. These by-products are considered hazardous waste as they all producecorrosive, explosive, flammable, and toxic chemicals that present significant health andsafety hazards. The chemical residues dumped into the sewer system can cause similarreactions to those experienced by meth users — it may cause breathing difficulties, skin andeye irritation, headache, nausea, dizziness and even death.

It is hard to see how these substances can be considered beneficial to the soil here, whenthe above report notes that these chemicals contaminate the soil and groundwater whendumped. According to the Clandestine Drug Laboratories in British Columbia report,chemicals seized at labs discovered by police between 2003 and 2005 were:

AcetoneHydrocholoric AcidRed Phosphorous

TolueneSodium Hydroxide

Sulfuric AcidMethyl HydrateHydriodic Acid

Isopropyl AlcoholCamper Fuel

Safrol eIodine

Caustic Soda

3

UC - 40

MethanolFormic AcidEphedrine

Pseud oep h ed rifleHydrogen Peroxide

Ammonia AnhydrousIso sa frol eMDP-2-P

Sodium BicarbonatePotassium HydroxideWhite Phosphorous

N aph thaPoly Stripper

ButaneAmmonium Chloride

Mercuric ChlorideNitro ethane

formaldehydeDimethylamineButyl Alcohol

CodeinePhenyl-2-Propanone

Acetic AcidMagnesium SulfateTetrahydrofuran

EthanolSodium Bisulfate

PiperonalD e greaser

Methylamine

And this is only one type of source that gives us grave concern. Following ate extracts of a

letter from Mr. Al Home which provides a literature search on findings that have been made

since the EPA in the USA developed its rules concerning bio-solids.

Specifically, ... fails to address the issues offacilitated transport of metals into groundwater;

the presence, persistence, bioaccum ulation and toxicity of unregulated Emerging Substances

of Concern (ESOC’s); the pressing problem of antibiotic resistance in treated sewage sludge

bacteria; the possible presence, longevity and resistance to digestion ofprions in treated

biosolids, and the unsuitability of the digestive processes... in coping with the risks posed by the

foregoing.

I will reference the following:

“A case for Caution Revisited: Health and Environmental Impacts of the Application ofSewage

Sludges to Agricultural Land.” Harrison and McBride, Cornell Waste Water Management

Institute, Cornell University, 2008/2009.

“Canada-Wide Approach for the Management of Wastewater Biosolids. Factors to Be

Considered for Sound Management.” Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment,

4

UC - 41

October11, 2012.

“Emerging Substances of Concern in Biosolids: Concentrations and Effects of TreatmentProcesses.”For the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, by Hydromantis Inc.,Trent and Waterloo Universities, 2010.

“Wastewater Treatment Plants as Chemical Observatories to forecast Ecological and HumanHealth Risks of Man-made Chemicals.” Venkatesan and Halden, Center for EnvironmentalSecurity, Arizona State University. “Scientific Reports”, 2014.

Harrison and McBride, in the introduction to the Cornell study, (which consists of dozens ofptiblished scientific papers) assert (p. 2) that “A tremendous amount of new knowledge aboutthe presence and behavior ofchemicals and pathogens has been developed in the lastdecades. “) (Since the promulgation of the EPA 503 Rule.) Citing the National Research Council,they point out that the “risk assessment on which the current rules (EPA 503) are based..isoutdated” (p. 2).

The EPA Rule 503 ,.. is not an unbiased document, but rather is “consistent with the EPA’spolicy ofpromoting beneficial uses (of biosolids), and there is even an advertisementfor “TopGrow”, a biosolids-based compost, in the EPA Rule itself The EPA says it “... refers to sewagesitidge as ‘biosolids’ to emphasize its be!? eficial nattire.”

Citing tl?e Targeted National Sewage Sltidge Survey Report (2009), the Cornell authors assertthat the prevalence ofpersistent organic pollutants (POP ‘sj especially brominated flameretardants and the antimicrobials triclosan and triclocarban, should be ‘..ofgreat concern forthe land application (of biosolids). “POP’s are likely to build tip in soils with repeatedapplication and have the potential to bioaccumulate in foraging animals and therefore inmeat and milk” (p. 3).

Referring to the USEPA ‘S TNSSS Report, Harrison and McBride continue, “The prevalence of awide variety of pharmaceuticals, steroids and hormones...is a clear indication that sewagetreatment does not degrade these organic chemicals effectively, and sewage sludge becomesthe repositoryfor a large fraction of the chemicals used commercially and domestically” (p.3).

Venkatesan and Halden have created a National Sewage Sludge Repositoty at Arizona StateUniversity, sampling sludges (biosolids) from 164 wastewater treatment plants across the US.They likewise con chide, “Hundreds oforganic chemicals, including ... PCB s, brominatedflameretardants (BfR’s), and specific pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCP’s) such as

micro bials (triclosan and triclocarban) have been shown to accumulate in notable amountsin biosolids.” They class these chemicals as “contaminants of emerging concern” becatise theyare “persistent, cumtilative and toxic” and accttm ti/ate in “carbon and lipid-richenvironments “--i.e., biosolids and people.

Similarly, the Canadian Council ofMinisters of the Environment, (CCME) (“EmergingSubstances of Concern in Biosolids”) view with concern the “,..notable lack of a databaseregarding the presence in Canadian biosolids of a certain class of wastewater constituentstermed emerging substances of concern (ESOC’s)”(p, iv). This report is intended as apreliminary to more rigorous assessments of tl?e degree to which unregulated substances arepresent in treated Can adial? biosolids. (The CCME notes that the prevalence, levels and types ofESOC’s in Canadian and American biosolids sampled are nearly the same [p.1 76].) The ESOC’s

5

UC - 42

in this report “include an array ofpharmaceuticals, personal care products, (aka PPCP’s or

antimicrobials] brominated flame retardants, and indtistrial contamlna,9ts... “(p. iv). On page

ES-8 the CCME says, “Elevated concentrations of ESOC such as triclosan (an antimicrobial),

ciprofloxacin, (an antibiotic) BPA, and HHCP and AHTN (fragrances) ... may be one criterion

usedfor...detailed risk assessment.” The CCME adds that “There ate other criteria, however,

such as persistence, potentialfor bioaccumulation and toxicity that are at least as important

and also need to be consideredfor ..priority risk assessment. “(p. ES-Q) “At present, the risks

associated (with these ESOC’s)..are not well understood” (p. ES-i) and so the report calls for

‘full scale research” on these and “many other types of ESOC” (p.1 78). The CCME recommends

that “(data produced by this and similar investigations need to be transferred to appropriate

departments and agencies, federal and provincial regulators, municipalities and academic

researchers for risk assessment purposes “(p.1 78J.

Thus, the Cornell study, the Targeted National Sewage Sludge Survey Report, Venkatesan and

Ha/den, and the CCME (which, like the EPA, actively promotes the recycling and reuse of

biosolids, and is therefore a vety conservative source) all agree that there exists in biosolids

(treated sewage sludge] a number ofsubstances which, by wl?atever name, (POP’s, CEC, or

ESOC’s) are ubiquitous, toxic, persistent, accumulative, insufficiently studied and utterly

unregulated.

Some of the most common compounds found in biosolids, such as surfactants, are degraded

into compounds worse thai? the original. (Harrison and McBride, p. 15). Triclocarban, one of

the most widespread ESOC’ s, is also “not decomposed by anaerobic digestion” (p. 15.) The

CCME study showed that “Bisphyenyl A and ... musk fragrances HHBC and AHTN (were) either

unaffected by anaerobic digestion or in creased in concentration throtlgl? the process” (p. ES-

10). Further, “Naproxen (an anti-inflammatoty) appears to increase substantially through

aerobic camposting.... “(CCME, p.1 76).

Harrison and McBride, (Cornell, 2008/9) show that “(o)nce contaminated, stopping the

application ofpollutants such as metals and many organic chemicals that are in sewage

biosolids will not correct the problem. The contamination will remain for decades ot

cen tunes” (p. 2].

They observe that the risk assessment upon which the Part 503 US EPA rules are based

(Canadian studies are heavily based on the same i-u/es) does not include new information

about the roles some metals play in endocrine disruption in humans and animals. Lead,for

instance, “.has effects on sperm and may play a role in rising infertility that is being

observed”(p.4j. Cadmium has been shown to mimic estrogen and may be related to increased

breast cancer”(p.4). The contaminant limits in Part 503 (USEPA) do not include any

recognition of these endocrine-disrupting impacts.”

Hai-rison and McBride, in “Movement to groundwater through facilitated tiansport” show tl?at

metals, chemicals and pathogens can move far more easily through biosolids-amended soils

than through untreated soils. A substance that is in itself ielatively immobile (like many

metals] can thus move rapidly through soil and into groundwater by “piggy-backing “on the

dissolved organic matter present in biosolids. This ‘facilitated” oi “colloidal” transport moves

contaminants through soil into groundwater ‘..far moie iapidly thai? was piedicted in the

vety limited risk assessment ofgroundwater transport potential pet-formed to support the Part

503 Rules... which relied on a single paper based on test tube mobility tests from a single soil

type. No actualfield data were used”(pp7, 8].

6

UC - 43

In “Biosolid colloid-mediated transport of copper, zinc, and lead on waste-amended soils”Karathanasis eta! (2005) “.show up to 10,000 times increase in leaching of metals as a resultof binding of metals to organic colloids in sewage sludge.”

In addition to the demonstrated rapid movement of metals through biosolids-amended soilsinto groundwater, science also shows that applications ofsewage sludge facilitate thetransport of viruses and pesticides throtigh soil (Harrison and McBride, Cornell, pp. 8,9).

Pages 16-18 of the Cornell study contain fotti- papers addressing the pressing global and localpi-oblem of the expanding presence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in biosolids, such as that byS. Kim, et al, “Potential ecological and human health impacts of antibiotics and antibiotic-resistant bacteria from wastewater treatment plants” (2007). “Recent studies have confirmedthat the use of antimicrobials (mainly the ESOC’s triclosan and triclocarban) had created alarge pool of antibiotic-resistant bacteria that are detected in sewage sludge” (Harrison andMcBride, p. 17).

Besides antibiotic-resistant bacteria, prions, known to cause BSE (“mad cow” disease) and nowimplicated in Alzheimer’s, have the “potential to accumulate in sludges and persist throughtreatment” (Harrison and McBride, p. 19). In “the Persistence of Pathogenic Prion ProteinDuring Simulated Wastewater Treatment Processes” G.T. Hinkley et al, (2008) showed “prionsare highly resistant to degradation and many disinfection procedures, suggesting that ...prionscould survive conventional wastewater treatment”(Harrlson and McB i-ide, p. 19). “A largefraction of (prions) stirvived the simulated mesophilic anaerobic digestion “(p.20). The paperconcludes: “ifprions were to enter municipal wastewater treatment systems, most wotild ...bepresent in sewage sldge.” (Harrison and McBride, p. 20)

Likewise, in “Prions’ Great Escape ‘ Kaplan argues that p1-ions would survive treatment almostunscathed, enter plants, then animals, then humans, and create a contamination lastingdecades. Again, then, if any prions entered any wastewater anywhere ... they would certainlybe present in biosolids

Gibbs in “Selection of Salmonella typhimurium as an indicatorfor pathogen regrowthpotential of cornposted biosolids” (2002), asserts that “salmonella can survive treatment andre-grow in soil amendments and stored biosolids.”

And, in contrast to the commonly-heard manti-a that biosolids enrich soil, the Cornell studysummarizes three studies that demonstrate that “.sludge application.., decreases soilmicrobial diversity.” Thus, much of the rationale given for the importation of vast tonnages oftreated sewage sludge onto a sensitive and important watershed is undercut by soil scienceitself

Venkatesan and Halden (Arizona State University, 2014) state: “Research challenges theassumption that sludge is just nutrients. Instead, it is composed of thousands of inorganic andorganic compounds, some of which pose human health and ecological risks.”

One does not risk endangering the health ofpeople, no matter how urgent the need to disposeof unwanted human and industrial waste, (originally classified as a “pollutant” by the EPA andnow re- classified as “biosolids”for marketability and public acceptance.) Nor shotild the profitmotive (in the form of lucrative contracts) ever take precedence over the right ofpeople toenjoy clean air, soil and watei-...

7

UC - 44

.FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

If bio-solids are so beneficial, then why are ranchers and land-owners being paid to take it?

You would think they ought to be paying the municipalities or regional districts for it.

IN SUMMARY - POSSIBILITIES OTHER THAN LAND APPLICATION

I recommend that Metro Vancouver take the lead at the upcoming UBCM conference in

exploring alternatives to land application. tncineration and pyt-olysis at-e just two

possibilities. Sure, there is capital expenditure involved, but this is an on-going and never-

ending issue that needs your attention to current findings and solutions. Given the money I

see that you have spent on your wastewater plants recently (through the minutes of your

last meeting), you should build an incinerator with first-class scrubbers, use some of the

stuff as fuel, accept sludge from other areas, make some money on it. Just do not off-load

this toxic waste to the Nicola Valley any more.

Yours truly,

Libby Dybikowski

Email: [email protected] Merritt: 250-378-2855In West Vancouver: 604-925-2675

Copies:Chief Aaron Sam, Lower Nicola Indian Band

Ms Georgia Clement, friends of the Nicola Valley

Mr. Randy Murray, Representative, TNRD

.8

UC - 45

greater vancouver regional district utilities committee · 2015. 9. 22. · greater vancouver...

Documents