Revelstoke Liquid Waste Management Plan - Stage 1

1.50.200

CITY OF REVELSTOKE

LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN - STAGE 1

MAY 2008

DAYTON & KNIGHT LTD. Consulting Engineers

1.50.200

THIRD PARTY DISCLAIMER AND COPYRIGHT

This document has been prepared by Dayton & Knight Ltd. for the benefit of the client to whom it is addressed. The information contained in this document represents Dayton & Knight Ltd.s best professional judgment in light of the knowledge and information available to Dayton & Knight Ltd. at the time of its preparation. Except as required by law, this document is to be treated as confidential and may be used and relied upon only by the client, its officers and employees. Dayton & Knight Ltd. denies any liability whatsoever to other parties who may obtain access to this document for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, or reliance upon, the document or any of its contents without the express written consent of Dayton & Knight Ltd. and the client. This document is for the sole use of the addressee and Dayton & Knight Ltd. This document contains proprietary and confidential information that shall not be reproduced in any manner or disclosed to or discussed with any other parties without the express written permission of Dayton & Knight Ltd. Information in this document is to be considered the intellectual property of Dayton & Knight Ltd. in accordance with Canadian Copyright Law.

Page i 1.50.200 2008

CITY OF REVELSTOKE LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Background.......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 LWMP Process and Objectives ........................................................................... 1-4 1.3 Scope of Work ..................................................................................................... 1-6 1.4 Conduct of Study ................................................................................................. 1-9 1.5 Acknowledgements............................................................................................ 1-10

2.0 PUBLIC CONSULTATION ........................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Committee Meetings............................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Public Information Meetings ............................................................................... 2-3

3.0 EXISTING AND PROJECTED LAND USE, DEVELOPMENT AND POPULATION ................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Wastewater and Drainage Facilities Planning ..................................................... 3-1 3.2 Official Community Plan..................................................................................... 3-2 3.3 Service Population Projections ............................................................................ 3-5 3.4 Unserviced Areas ................................................................................................. 3-7

3.4.1 Arrow Heights.......................................................................................... 3-7 3.4.2 Revelstoke Mountain Resort (RMR) ....................................................... 3-8 3.4.3 Big Eddy .................................................................................................. 3-9 3.4.4 Clearview Heights, CPR Hill................................................................... 3-9

4.0 EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES.................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Collection System ................................................................................................ 4-1 4.2 Pump Stations ...................................................................................................... 4-2 4.3 Revelstoke Wastewater Treatment Plant ............................................................. 4-4

TABLE OF CONTENTS (contd.)

Page ii 1.50.2002008

4.3.1 Treatment Facilities ................................................................................. 4-4 4.3.2 Discharge Permit...................................................................................... 4-7 4.3.3 WWTP Engineering Audit, 2002............................................................. 4-7 4.3.4 Impact of Population Growth on Process Selection ................................ 4-8

4.4 Queen Victoria Hospital WWTP ....................................................................... 4-10 4.5 Documented Sanitary Sewer Overflows............................................................ 4-10 4.6 Solids Handling and Treatment ......................................................................... 4-11

4.6.1 Septage................................................................................................... 4-11 4.6.2 Biosolids ................................................................................................ 4-12

5.0 EXISTING AND PROJECTED WASTEWATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY ....... 5-1

5.1 Wastewater Flow Rates........................................................................................ 5-2 5.2 Wastewater Quality.............................................................................................. 5-4 5.3 Inflow and Infiltration.......................................................................................... 5-6

5.3.1 Municipal Sewage Regulation ................................................................. 5-7 5.3.2 I&I Studies ............................................................................................... 5-8

5.4 Biosolids Quantity and Quality............................................................................ 5-9 5.5 Onsite Systems and Commercial/Industrial Wastewater..................................... 5-9

6.0 CAPACITIES OF LAND AND WATER TO ACCEPT WASTE .................................. 6-1

6.1 Terrestrial Resources ........................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Aquatic Resources ............................................................................................... 6-2

6.2.1 Columbia River and Arrow Lakes Reservoir .......................................... 6-3 6.2.2 Illecillewaet River.................................................................................... 6-5 6.2.3 Bridge Creek ............................................................................................ 6-6 6.2.4 Williamson Lake...................................................................................... 6-6 6.2.5 Other Streams........................................................................................... 6-6

6.3 Rare and Endangered Species.............................................................................. 6-7 6.4 Discharges to Surface Waters .............................................................................. 6-8 6.5 Application to Land ............................................................................................. 6-9

6.5.1 Onsite (Ground Disposal) Systems.......................................................... 6-9 6.5.2 Spray Irrigation of Reclaimed Water..................................................... 6-12

6.6 Official Community Plan................................................................................... 6-12

7.0 SOURCE CONTROL AND WASTE VOLUME REDUCTION ................................... 7-1

7.1 Source Control ..................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1.1 Source Control Bylaw.............................................................................. 7-2 7.1.2 Inspection and Monitoring....................................................................... 7-9 7.1.3 Penalties and Fines................................................................................... 7-9 7.1.4 Surcharges................................................................................................ 7-9


Page iii 1.50.2002008

7.1.5 Codes of Practice ................................................................................... 7-10 7.1.6 Source Control Education Programs...................................................... 7-10 7.1.7 City of Revelstoke Source Control Education....................................... 7-11 7.1.8 Alternatives for Source Control Education............................................ 7-12

7.2 Wastewater Volume Reduction ......................................................................... 7-12

9.0 PLAN CRITERIA............................................................................................................ 9-1

9.1 Population ............................................................................................................ 9-1 9.2 Wastewater Quantity............................................................................................ 9-1 9.3 Discharges to Surface Water................................................................................ 9-2

9.3.1 Provincial Regulations and Guidelines.................................................... 9-2 9.3.2 Federal Regulations and Guidelines ........................................................ 9-4

9.4 Discharges to Land .............................................................................................. 9-5 9.5 Reclaimed Water.................................................................................................. 9-7 9.6 Beneficial Use of Biosolids ............................................................................... 9-10

9.6.1 Permits, Approvals and Operational Certificates .................................. 9-10 9.6.2 Organic Matter Recycling Regulation ................................................... 9-11

10.0 WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES............................................... 10-1

10.1 Wastewater Treatment Technologies................................................................. 10-2 10.2 Biosolids Treatment Technologies .................................................................... 10-3 10.3 Preliminary Wastewater Collection and Treatment Alternatives for the

City of Revelstoke ............................................................................................. 10-4 10.3.1 Option 1 Expand and Upgrade Existing WWTP to Accommodate

Entire Service Area................................................................................ 10-4 10.3.2 Option 2 Construct New WWTP Near Mill to Accommodate

Entire Service Area................................................................................ 10-5 10.3.3 Option 3 Construct New WWTP Near Mill and Upgrade Existing

WWTP ................................................................................................... 10-6 10.3.4 Option 4 Upgrade Existing WWTP and Construct a New WWTP

to Serve Big Eddy .................................................................................. 10-7 10.3.5 Option 5 Upgrade Existing WWTP and Construct New WWTP

at Big Eddy to Serve Big Eddy and the Northern Part of Revelstoke.............................................................................................. 10-8

10.3.6 Option 6 Construct New WWTP Near Airport and Upgrade Existing WWTP..................................................................................... 10-8

10.3.7 Option 7 Construct New WWTP Near Airport to Accommodate Entire Service Area................................................................................ 10-9

10.3.8 All Options........................................................................................... 10-10 10.3.9 Environmental Impacts ........................................................................ 10-10

10.4 Use of Reclaimed Water .................................................................................. 10-13


Page iv 1.50.2002008

10.4.1 Agricultural Irrigation.......................................................................... 10-14 10.4.2 Forest Irrigation ................................................................................... 10-15 10.4.3 Reuse at Wastewater Treatment Facilities........................................... 10-15 10.4.4 Landscape and Golf Course Irrigation................................................. 10-15 10.4.5 Industrial Process Water ...................................................................... 10-16 10.4.6 Landscape Impoundments and Wetlands............................................. 10-16 10.4.7 Snow Making ....................................................................................... 10-16 10.4.8 Exfiltration Basins for Groundwater Recharge ................................... 10-16

10.5 Beneficial Use of Biosolids ............................................................................. 10-17 10.5.1 Silviculture........................................................................................... 10-17 10.5.2 Agriculture ........................................................................................... 10-18 10.5.3 Land Reclamation ................................................................................ 10-19 10.5.4 Topsoil Manufacture............................................................................ 10-20 10.5.5 Landfill................................................................................................. 10-20 10.5.6 Composting Operations ....................................................................... 10-21

11.0 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................... 11-1

11.1 Recommended Approach for Source Control.................................................... 11-1 11.2 Wastewater Volume Reduction ......................................................................... 11-4 11.3 Stormwater Management ................................................................................... 11-5 11.4 Design Criteria ................................................................................................... 11-7 11.5 Concept Options for Wastewater Collection and Treatment ............................. 11-8 11.6 Use of Reclaimed Water .................................................................................... 11-8 11.7 Beneficial Use of Biosolids ............................................................................... 11-8 11.8 Energy Recovery................................................................................................ 11-9

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................1

APPENDICES 1 LWMP Terms of Reference 2 Steering Committee, Technical and Local Advisory Committee Members 3 Public Advertising and Open House Material 4 Discharge Permits for City of Revelstoke and Queen Victoria Hospital 5 Sample Source Control Educational Materials 6 WWTP Operating Data 7 Preliminary Environment Assessment by Masse Miller Consulting Ltd. 8 Preliminary Hydrogeological Assessment by Golder Associates


Page v 1.50.2002008

LIST OF TABLES 3-1 Population Growth in The City of Revelstoke................................................................. 3-6 4-1 Pump Stations .................................................................................................................. 4-3 4-2 WWTP Design Data ........................................................................................................ 4-3 5-1 WWTP Influent Flows 2000 to 2006............................................................................... 5-3 5-2 Projected Wastewater Flows 2006 to 2026...................................................................... 5-4 5-3 City Of Revelstoke Ratio of MDF to ADWF 2000 to 2006 ............................................ 5-7 5-4 Dry Weather Flow Statistics And RDI&I For Each Monitoring Site.............................. 5-8 5-5 Typical Characteristics of Discharges From Residential Onsite Systems (From Metcalf & Eddy, 1991) ....................................................................................... 5-10 6-1 Fish Species Presence ...................................................................................................... 6-5 7-1 Comparison Of Prohibited And Restricted Waste Discharges For Sanitary Sewers.......... 7-6 9-1 Effluent Requireenments For Discharges To Surface Waters (Moe, 1999) .................... 9-2 9-2 Water Quality Guideliens For Microbiological Indicators Mpn/100 Ml (MOE, 2006) .. 9-4 9-3 Reclaimed Water Category And Permitted Uses............................................................. 9-8 9-4 OMRR Trace Metals Limits .......................................................................................... 9-13 10-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Wastewater Collection and Treatment Options......................................................................................................................... 10-12 10-2 Area and Storage Requirements for Agricultural Irrigation Using Reclaimed Water .......................................................................................................................... 10-14 11-1 Summary of Wastewater Collection and Treatment Options ........................................ 11-9 LIST OF FIGURES 3-1 Existing Land Use 4-1 Stage 1 Liquid Waste Management Plan Serviced and Unserviced Areas 4-2 Stage 1 Liquid Waste Management Plan Existing Wastewater Facilities 4-3 Wastewater Treatment Options 5-1 Flow Monitoring February 21 to April 17, 2006 5-2 BOD, Influent and Effluent 2002 to 2006 (Grab Samples from different data sets, see

Appendix 6) 5-3 TSS, Influent, Cell 1 and Effluent 2002 to 2006 (Grab Samples from different data sets, see

Appendix 6) 6-1 Hydrology 6-2 Areas of Environmental Value 6-3 Aquifers in Revelstoke 6-4 Stage 1 Liquid Waste Management Plan Suitability for Ground Disposal of Wastewater


Page vi 1.50.2002008

8-1 Stage 1 Liquid Waste Management Plan Existing Stormwater System 10-1 Option 1 Expand and Upgrade Existing WWTP to Accommodate Entire Service Area 10-2 Option 2 Construct New WWTP to Accommodate Entire Service Area 10-3 Option 3 Construct New WWTP Near Mill and Upgrade Existing WWTP 10-4 Option 4 Upgrade Existing WWTP and Construct New WWTP to Serve Big Eddy 10-5 Option 5 Expand and Upgrade Existing WWTP and Construct New WWTP at Big Eddy to Serve Big Eddy and Part of Revelstoke 10-6 Option 6 Construct New WWTP near Airport 10-7 Option 7 Construct New WWTP near Airport to Accommodate Entire Service Area

Page ES-1 1.50.2002008

CITY OF REVELSTOKE

LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of Revelstoke Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP) is to lay the groundwork for

wastewater management over the next 20 to 30 years. The LWMP must address existing and

future development, including servicing of areas that are not yet connected to the central

wastewater collection system, greenfield developments, and the Revelstoke Mountain Resort

(RMR). The City is currently updating its Official Community Plan (OCP) to address planned new

development and the resulting service area expansions. The LWMP is designed to minimize the

adverse environmental impacts of development according to the OCP, as well as to address existing

problems. To ensure the consistency between the two planning processes, liaison between the

LWMP consulting team and the team updating the OCP was ongoing throughout the project.

The LWMP was developed using the Guidelines produced by the B.C. Ministry of Environment

(MOE). In accordance with provincial guidelines, the LWMP includes consideration of source

control of contaminants, wastewater volume reduction, stormwater management, wastewater

collection and treatment, and beneficial reuse of treated wastewater and residual solids.

The Guidelines for developing a LWMP produced by the MOE require a three-stage process,

each involving meaningful public consultation. Stage 1 includes identification of existing

conditions, development projections, and consideration of a range of treatment, reuse and

disposal options. The treatment, reuse and disposal options that pass an initial technical

evaluation and public review are advanced to Stage 2 for more detailed evaluation. Finally, the

selected option is described and costed, the implementation schedule is developed, and draft

Operational Certificates are prepared in Stage 3. When the Stage 3 LWMP is approved by the

Page ES-2 1.50.2002008

Ministry of Environment (MOE), the local government has the authority to implement the Plan.

This report contains the results of the Stage 1 LWMP, culminating in recommended options that

will be advanced to Stage 2 for more detailed evaluation.

The MOE Guidelines require the local government to strike a Technical Committee comprised of

municipal staff and representatives from senior government agencies, and a Local Advisory

Committee comprised of local government staff, at least one elected official, and a cross-section

of community interests. Adequate consultation with the public while preparing a LWMP is

essential, since there is no mechanism to appeal a Plan once approved by the Minister. The

process is intended to give the public open access to liquid waste planning within their own

community.

A consulting team led by Dayton & Knight Ltd. was retained by the City of Revelstoke to assist

with preparation of the LWMP. The consulting team included specialty assistance from sub-

consultants in the fields of environmental protection (Masse Miller Consulting Ltd. of Nelson,

B.C.), and hydrogeological services (Golder Associates Ltd. of Kamloops, B.C.).

The study area for the LWMP encompasses the areas that are serviced by centralized collection and

treatment of domestic wastewater at the Revelstoke Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), which

discharges secondary-treated effluent to the Illecillewaet River. Currently unserviced areas with

development potential were also included in the study area. Development projections provided by

the City and the OCP update team were used to develop projected wastewater flows to the year

2026 and to ultimate build-out capacity; these were used to develop design options for

wastewater collection and treatment in the study area.

If the existing WWTP is to continue in use for the long term, upgrading of this facility will be

required to address development. The City recently evaluated the potential for relocating the

central WWTP. The LWMP included a review of this process, and evaluation of the feasibility

of developing one or more additional sites for WWTPs to serve all or part of the City. The

Project Team and the Joint Advisory Committee developed a short list of draft options for

Page ES-3 1.50.2002008

collecting and treating wastewater. These options were then presented to the community at the

Stage One Open House. The option that was selected for advancement to Stage 2 was to

continue to upgrade and expand the treatment facilities at the existing site for the foreseeable

future (this was designated Option 1). All of the other options involved the construction of new

wastewater treatment facilities at alternative sites (near the Downie Street Mill, at Big Eddy, at

Westside Road or near the Airport); these options were not advanced to Stage 2, due to a

combination of poor ground conditions, environmental and habitat concerns, community

recreation conflicts, and high costs. However, it was recommended that the LWMP include a

commitment by the City to undertake a formal investigation to determine if an alternative site for

the wastewater treatment facilities might better serve the Citys needs for the long-term future.

Additional input from the public will be solicited in Stage 2.

The selected approach (Option 1) is to upgrade and expand the existing wastewater treatment

facilities at the present location. The expanded treatment plant can potentially serve the entire

City of Revelstoke, including Big Eddy, Clearview Heights, and Arrow Heights, as well as

Revelstoke Mountain Resort. The existing aerated lagoon treatment system will have to be

converted to a more space efficient process as flows increase. The trunk sewer system and its

pump stations will also have to be expanded. A new outfall to the Columbia River may have to

be constructed, depending on the results of environmental impact studies.

Options for stormwater management that were recommended for advancement to Stage 2 were to

undertake the preparation of a Master Drainage Plan for the City, incorporate protection of

environmental resources into drainage planning (e.g., aquifers, stream corridors, etc.), develop a

storm drainage bylaw and enforcement policy, encourage on-site infiltration of precipitation,

develop a containment source control program, and conduct an inventory of potential

contaminant sources.

The feasible option for reclaimed water use that was selected for advancement to the Stage 2

LWMP was reuse at the wastewater treatment facility for non-potable applications.

Page ES-4 1.50.2002008

Biosolids use options that were selected for advancement to the Stage 2 LWMP were identified to

be manufacture of compost and reclamation of disturbed land or contaminated sites. The City is

planning to construct a composting facility at the Jordan Pit that will process waste solids from the

WWTP, septage, and yard waste. The compost product will be used at City parks and recreation

facilities and as cover material at the Regional District landfill.

Sampling and analysis should be undertaken in Stage 2 to evaluate the concentration of trace

metals in the biosolids that were removed from the WWTP in 2006.

Treatment of wastewater and biosolids presents opportunities for energy recovery. Opportunities

include combustion of the gas produced by anaerobic digestion for heating and/or generation of

electrical power. Heat recovery from the raw wastewater stream is also possible. The practical

application of these options depends on such factors as the size of the treatment facilities and the

location of potential energy users in relation to the plant. Options for energy recovery should be

addressed during the pre-design and detailed design phases for WWTP upgrades and expansions.

1 1.50.2002008


1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The City of Revelstoke has decided to undertake the development of a Liquid Waste

Management Plan (LWMP). Preparation of a LWMP is a timely project for the City,

since it provides the community with an opportunity to review past wastewater

management decisions, and to reassess future plans in light of updated data bases and

new environmental regulations.

As set out in the Terms of Reference (attached as Appendix 1), the City of Revelstoke

LWMP is to lay the groundwork for wastewater management over the next 20 to 30

years, including centralized treatment and disposal or reuse of wastewater, management

of solid residuals (biosolids), and treatment of septage from unserviced areas within and

outside the municipal boundary. The LWMP must also address the possibility of

increasingly stringent discharge standards in the future.

Guidelines for developing a LWMP were produced in 1992 by the B.C. Ministry of

Environment (MOE). The City has specified that the LWMP be developed using the MOE

Guidelines. These Guidelines typically serve as an adjunct to the terms of reference for a

LWMP. The Guidelines encompass municipal and industrial wastewater, urban storm run-

2 1.50.2002008

off, septage, solid residuals, and reuse or recycling of treated wastewater and solid

residuals.

The LWMP must address existing and future development, including servicing of areas

that are not yet connected to the central wastewater collection system, greenfield

developments, and the Revelstoke Mountain Resort (RMR). The City is currently

updating its Official Community Plan (OCP) to address planned new development and

the resulting service area expansions.

The municipal OCP sets out the proposed strategy for future development in the study area.

The LWMP is designed to minimize the adverse environmental impacts of development

according to the OCP, as well as to address existing problems. To ensure the consistency

between the two planning processes, liaison between the LWMP consulting team and the

team updating the OCP was ongoing throughout the project.

The study area for the LWMP encompasses the areas that are serviced by centralized

collection and treatment of domestic wastewater at the Revelstoke Wastewater Treatment

Plant (WWTP), which discharges secondary-treated effluent to the Illecillewaet River.

Currently unserviced areas with development potential (e.g. Arrow Heights, Big Eddy,

RMR) are also included in the study area. Options such as independent community

(satellite) treatment plants for new developments, on-site systems, reclamation/reuse of

treated effluent, and expansion/upgrading of the existing WWTP were considered in the

LWMP.

Considerable development is expected to occur in the near future at RMR. The City

recently completed a formal agreement to accept the Resorts wastewater at the Citys

WWTP. Since the trunk sewer will pass through the Arrow Heights area, this will facilitate

servicing of Arrow Heights. The Big Eddy area has poor drainage conditions and is

potentially unsuitable for ground disposal of wastewater. Sewer servicing of this area

3 1.50.2002008

would allow potential development. The City recently completed a study to explore the

feasibility and cost of providing sewer service to the Clearview Heights area. This

neighbourhood has petitioned the City for sewer service, and a local improvement project is

currently being designed. The first phase of the local improvement is expected to proceed

to construction in the summer of 2008. The first phase is limited to existing residents only.

The City has also investigated the ground conditions in this area for slope stability and

ground disposal of effluent.

Ground disposal of effluent from on-site (septic tank) systems can threaten groundwater

and surface water quality if ground conditions (water table, soils, slope, etc.) are unsuitable.

The MOE and the Ministry of Health (MOH) have concerns with some on-site sewage

systems that affect groundwater and lake water quality in the study area. The LWMP

includes an evaluation of the suitability of on-site systems for designated sectors of the

study area, and an evaluation of the environmental impacts of ground disposal of effluent,

as well as alternatives for management of septage.

The most important aspect of the LWMP from the standpoint of the MOE (Nelson office) is

the discharge of treated wastewater to the Illecillewaet River. Consideration will be given

in the LWMP to relocating the discharge to the Columbia River. Additional MOE

objectives include sewer servicing of Arrow Heights, RMR and the local hospital, long-

term management of septage, and composting of waste solid residuals at the Regional

District Landfill.

If the existing WWTP is to continue in use for the long term, upgrading of this facility will

be required to address development. The City recently evaluated the potential for

relocating the central WWTP, and the most cost-effective approach was determined to be to

continue at the existing WWTP site. The LWMP includes a review of this process, and

evaluation of the feasibility of developing one or more additional sites for satellite WWTPs

to serve outlying areas. The satellite WWTP site(s) could potentially be expanded in future

4 1.50.2002008

to become major facilities. If the community desires an alternative approach for the long-

term future, planning and public consultation will be required, to select one or more sites

for new wastewater treatment facilities to be constructed in the future.

A key issue for the Province is water conservation. This can reduce the volume of

wastewater discharge to the environment, as well as result in potential cost savings for

wastewater collection and treatment. The LWMP Guidelines and the Municipal Sewage

Regulation (MSR) both emphasize reduction of inflow and infiltration (I&I) to the sanitary

sewer system.

The provincial Guidelines specify that stormwater run-off be included in a LWMP. Urban

development generally results in reduced infiltration of precipitation and increased surface

run-off. This tends to cause greater erosion and sedimentation in streams, as well as

reduced groundwater replenishment, which in turn leads to lower dry season water levels in

lakes and streams. In addition, contaminants associated with urban and agricultural

activities often become incorporated into surface run-off, and can adversely affect water

quality. Comprehensive drainage planning and watershed management are typically

outside the scope of a LWMP, however these processes should be coordinated with relevant

aspects of the LWMP.

1.2 LWMP Process and Objectives

The Guidelines for developing a LWMP produced by the MOE require a three-stage

process, each involving meaningful public consultation (B.C. Environment, 1992a).

Stage 1 includes identification of existing conditions, development projections, and

consideration of a range of treatment, reuse and disposal options. The treatment, reuse

and disposal options that pass an initial technical evaluation and public review are

advanced to Stage 2 for more detailed evaluation. Finally, the selected option is

described and costed, the implementation schedule is developed, and Draft Operational

5 1.50.2002008

Certificates are prepared in Stage 3. When the Stage 3 LWMP is approved by the

Ministry of Environment (MOE), the local government has the authority to implement

the Plan. Permits are cancelled in favour of Operational Certificates issued under the

LWMP. An approved LWMP allows the local government to implement the works

without further approvals from the electorate. An approved LWMP should be updated

from time to time (e.g. every 5 to 10 years), to monitor progress and evaluate changing

conditions and new technologies.

As set out in the MOE Guidelines, the Citys LWMP was developed by the combined

efforts of the Steering Committee, the Technical Advisory Committee, and the Local

Advisory Committee as summarized below.

Steering Committee: The objective of the Steering Committee is to provide overall direction for the preparation of the plan. Participants are the City of Revelstoke

(Council member and staff representative), and a Ministry of Environment (MOE)

representative.

Technical Advisory Committee: The objective of the Technical Advisory Committee is to address technical and regulatory issues, develop design criteria, and to provide

technical input and assist in developing technically sound solutions and

recommendations. Participants include municipal staff and representatives from

senior government agencies including the MOE, the Ministry of Community

Services, the Ministry of Health, and others as applicable (e.g. Environment Canada).

Local Advisory Committee: The objective of the Local Advisory Committee is to provide input on all aspects of the LWMP process from a community perspective,

focusing on the anticipated acceptability of various options and providing ongoing

liaison with the public. Invited participants include the City of Revelstoke, and

6 1.50.2002008

members of the public that represent a cross-section of local interests (e.g. local

businesses, rate payers associations, environmental groups, School District, Rotary

Club, First Nations representatives, interested citizens, etc.).

The Technical and Local Advisory Committees may be combined if desired, to facilitate

communications between technical and community/stakeholder representatives. The City

elected to combine the Technical and Local Advisory Committees for preparation of this

LWMP. The Joint Committee membership is listed in Appendix 2.

The local government must also organize a public participation process. Adequate

consultation with the public while preparing a LWMP is essential, since there is no

mechanism to appeal a LWMP once approved by the Minister. Furthermore, the bylaw

to adopt the LWMP does not require the assent of the electors. A full range of possible

alternatives should be investigated and presented in an easy-to-understand format, clearly

showing their advantages or disadvantages. The process is intended to give the public

open access to liquid waste planning within the community.

1.3 Scope of Work

The terms of reference (contained in Appendix 1) required the following scope of work for

the City of Revelstoke LWMP.

Forecast the sewage collection and treatment needs and reclaimed water utilization or effluent disposal requirements for 20 - 30 years, based on population projections

contained in the draft Official Community Plan.

7 1.50.2002008

Prioritize areas of existing development requiring connection to the sewer facility based on projected costs in relation to projected nutrient reduction (phosphorus and/or

nitrogen), resolution of health concerns and any other projected benefits.

Examine all methods of sewage treatment and disposal of treated liquid waste and bio-solids including those that may be suggested by the public for technical

practicality and cost.

Provide direction on both long-term and short-term disposal and utilization of waste sludge from the sewage treatment plant and septage from septic tanks.

Examine all watercourses contained within the City boundaries and classify all water courses and streams in accordance with the Ministry of Environment guidelines and

regulations. Examine all methods of storm water management, including those that

may be suggested by the public for technical practicality and cost. The options

should indicate any proposed potential storm water retention areas and guidelines for

development adjacent to sensitive streams.

Organize Workshops or Focus Group Sessions, with technical representatives from the appropriate federal and provincial agencies to discuss the LWMP Draft.

Organize and arrange two Public Information Meetings. The thrust of the public involvement efforts shall be to inform the public so that they can provide meaningful

input to Council to assist them in selecting the preferred option or mix of options.

Prepare the LWMP in the following three (3) stages:

8 1.50.2002008

Stage 1 will outline possible sewage treatment and disposal methods with rough

preliminary costs, including ideas received at the first public information

meeting;

Stage 2 will outline the various options with an implementation schedule. The

various options will be costed out in sufficient detail to give some

appreciation of short and long range user costs. The health and

environmental benefits and concerns with respect to each option are to be

clearly presented. The Stage 2 draft will be presented at a second public

information meeting where further public input will be solicited to assist

Council in selection of the preferred option;

Stage 3 will be a short overview report, which will contain an executive summary

which gives the selected option or mix of options. The executive summary

must include an overview of the process followed, the options considered,

the reasons why options were discarded and the reasoning behind the

selection of the preferred option. Any necessary draft bylaws to be

prepared or other follow-up action needed is to be tabulated, with those

who will be taking the follow-up action clearly identified.

Both the final Stage 1 and Stage 2 reports are to include a summary of public participation for that stage, to assure the Ministry of Environment that an appropriate

level of public participation has occurred during the development of the LWMP.

Provide provincial/federal representatives with the appropriate technical details required to permit pollution prevention staff to prepare the Operational Certificate

which will replace the Waste Management Permit once the LWMP has been signed

by the Minister of Environment.

9 1.50.2002008

Prepare submissions on behalf of the City of Revelstoke to the Ministry of Environment for their review and approval, of each of the final documents as they are

produced.

Prepare press releases and informational handouts as required during the course of the development of the LWMP.

1.4 Conduct of Study

The City of Revelstoke issued a request for proposals to prepare a LWMP in November

2006. The process commenced on December 11, 2006 with a Council recommendation to

accept Dayton & Knight Ltd.s proposal for assisting the City to prepare the LWMP.

Information advertisements were published in the local newspaper to advise the public

about the LWMP, and to invite participation from the public and from local stakeholder

groups as members of the Joint Advisory Committee (JAC). The meetings of the JAC were

open to the general public.

A consulting team led by Dayton & Knight Ltd. was retained by the City to assist the

project team responsible for providing the technical input and analysis for the study. The

team included specialty assistance from sub-consultants in the fields of environmental

protection (Masse Miller Consulting Ltd. of Nelson, B.C.), and hydrogeological services

(Golder Associates Ltd. of Kamloops, B.C.).

The work was initially undertaken through the development of a series of draft chapters for

the Stage 1 report. The draft chapters were circulated to the members of the LWAC for

review. After a review period, the draft material was discussed at follow up meetings of the

Joint Advisory Committee; the draft material was then revised as required based on

discussion at the meetings and written comments from committee members. After approval

10 1.50.2002008

by the Joint Advisory Committee, the draft material was presented at the Public Open

House to gain input from the public. The Stage 1 LWMP report was then submitted to the

MOE Nelson office for review. After the Stage 1 report was endorsed by MOE Nelson,

Stage 2 was initiated.

1.5 Acknowledgements

The participation and assistance of all of the members of the Steering Committee and the

Joint Advisory Committee is gratefully acknowledged (see Appendix 2 for a list of the

Committee membership). In addition, we thank the City of Revelstoke staff for their

valuable assistance in providing technical information, organizing Committee meetings,

and providing follow-up documentation.

1 1.50.2002008


2.0 PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Effective public consultation is essential to the success of the LWMP process. The public

consultation program for the LWMP commenced with the formation of the Steering, Technical

and Local Advisory Committees, and continued through newsletters, posting information on the

Citys website, press releases, committee meetings and a Public Open House. A summary of the

public consultation program undertaken during the LWMP is outlined in this section.

2.1 Committee Meetings

As described in Section 1.2, the MOE guidelines (B.C. Environment, 1992a) require the

City of Revelstoke to strike Advisory Committees to administer the development of the

LWMP. A summary of the meetings of the Advisory Committees is provided below.

1. Steering Committee Meeting No. 1

Steering Committee Meeting No. 1 was held on March 15, 2007 to initiate the

Stage 1 work. Items presented and discussed with the Technical Advisory

Committee at Meeting No. 1 included LWMP process, the roles of the Advisory

Committees, meeting protocols, review of the project work plan and schedule,

and Committee membership.

2 1.50.2002008

2. Joint Advisory Committee Meeting No. 1

Joint Advisory Committee (JAC) Meeting No. 1 was held on May 9, 2007.

Committee terms of reference, meeting protocols, role of committees and means

of defining consensus were reviewed with the members of the JAC. The work

plan and schedule were also reviewed. JAC Meeting No. 1 also included a

presentation on the Municipal Sewage Regulation, and the fundamentals of

wastewater treatment.


JAC Meeting No. 2 was held June 19, 2007 to discuss the initial sections of the

30% draft report, which included the study area description, existing and

projected development and waste volumes, source control, wastewater volume

reduction, and stormwater management.


JAC Meeting No. 3 was held on October 10, 2007. The primary objective of

Meeting No. 3 was to discuss and develop draft options for wastewater collection

and treatment, and to identify which options should be advanced for public

consultation with the community at large. Seven concept designs were

considered. After extended discussion, it was agree that an additional committee

meeting (No.4) would be needed to reach a decision.

5. Joint Advisory committee Meeting No. 4

JAC Meeting No. 4 was held on October 24, 2007; this meeting was an extension

of Meeting No. 4 (see above). The JAC developed a list of advantages and

3 1.50.2002008

disadvantages for each of the seven concept options. It was agreed that an aerial

map showing the committees preferred option along with the alternate WWTP

sites associated with the other concept options would be presented for discussion

at the Public Open House. The Committees preferred option (Option 1) was to

retain the central wastewater collection system, and to upgrade and expand the

treatment facilities at the location of the existing aerated lagoon facility.

The Committee also requested that the City provide basic information regarding

Development Cost charges at the Public Open House. Supplemental information

was to be provided on information basis.

6. Joint Committee Meeting No. 5

JAC Meeting was held on February 18, 2008, to discuss the results of the Public

Open House and to finalize Stage 1 of the LWMP (the Open House results are

summarized in Section 2.2 below). The updated Arrow Heights Sewerage

Servicing Plan and the Big Eddy Sewerage Planning Study were also presented to

the JAC. It was determined at JAC Meeting No. 5 that Option 1 (existing

treatment plant site) would be advanced to the Stage 2 LWMP, and the other

concept options would be dropped. However, it was agreed that the LWMP would

include a commitment by the City to carry out a formal WWTP siting study to

determine if an alternate WWTP site might better serve the Citys needs for the

long-term future (i.e., 50+ years).

2.2 Public Information Meetings

The Public Open House was held on December 5, 2007 at the Revelstoke Community

Centre. The draft material from the Stage 1 LWMP was summarized on poster displays.

The Open House was staffed by representatives of the City and by members of the

4 1.50.2002008

consulting team, who were available for discussion and questions throughout the

evening. Representatives of senior government regulatory agencies were also present.

There was a summary slide presentation by Dayton & Knight Ltd., followed by a

question and answer session.

Approximately fifty people attended the Open House, and nineteen questionnaires were

filled out and submitted. The primary purpose of the Open House was to obtain public

feedback regarding which options should be advanced to Stage 2 of the LWMP for more

detailed study.

A summary of the questionnaire responses is attached in Appendix 3. As shown, most of

the respondents (nearly 70%) learned of the Open House through newspaper advertising

(Question #1). Most of the Citys neighbourhoods were represented by at least one

respondent (Question #2), with nearly 70% of respondents being serviced by septic

tank/ground disposal systems, and the remainder connected to sewer (Question #3).

Source control of contaminants was supported by 100% of respondents (Question #4).

Water conservation (Question #5) and beneficial use of biosolids (Question #6) were

supported by 95% of respondents.

Question #7 asked whether all residents of the City should contribute financially to an

expanded and improved waste management system to pay the costs generated by new

development; 42% of respondents supported this, with 53% disagreeing and 5% not sure.

All respondents agreed that new development should contribute financially to an

expanded and improved waste management system to pay the costs generated by new

development (Question #8).

Question #9 asked for input regarding the wastewater collection and treatment options.

Option 1 (expand and upgrade existing WWTP at present location) was supported by

90% of respondents. Approximately 74% of respondents disagreed with Option 2 (new

5 1.50.2002008

WWTP near Downie Street Mill), 63% disagreed with Option 3 (new WWTP at Big

Eddy), and 58% disagreed with Option 4 (new WWTP near Airport). Suggestions

regarding the options are listed on page 6 of the summary included in Appendix 3.

Nearly 80% of respondents agreed that the open house material was easy to understand,

with 10% disagreeing and 10% not answering this question (#10). Approximately 85%

agreed that the level of information presented at the Open House was appropriate, with

5% disagreeing and 10% not answering this question (#11).

Question #12 requested additional input from members of the public; the comments

received are listed on page 7 of the summary contained in Appendix 3.

During the course of the LWMP work display advertisements and news articles will be

published in the local media to keep citizens informed on the progress of the work and to

notify citizens of Committee meetings and Open Houses. These documents are included

in Appendix 3.

1 1.50.2002008

CITY OF REVELSTOKE

LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE 1

3.0 EXISTING AND PROJECTED LAND USE, DEVELOPMENT AND

POPULATION

3.1 Wastewater and Drainage Facilities Planning

Wastewater and drainage facilities must be planned for the long-term future. Long term

planning particularly applies to the selection and siting of wastewater treatment plants

and the main interceptor and trunk sewers that lead to the plants. A lack of long term

planning may lead to the need to duplicate gravity interceptors, trunk sewers, and storm

drains at great expense well before the useful life of these pipelines has expired. Should

a treatment plant site become too small for future development or should the site become

inappropriate with respect to future development, then substantial costs and public

opposition may be incurred to reconstruct interceptors and trunk sewers and to locate a

new plant site.

It is generally accepted in the municipal wastewater field that treatment plant sites should

be secured for a 50 to 100 year planning horizon, or the full development of the service

area. Interceptors and trunk sewers are generally sized for a minimum 40 year design

period, while pumped mains are generally restricted by hydraulic conditions to a 20 year

design period before duplication is needed.

Land use planning and development also has an impact on stormwater management.

Development tends to increase the amount of impervious land area, reducing the amount

2 1.50.2002008

of rainwater that infiltrates into the ground, and increasing the amount of surface runoff.

Protection of key natural components of the drainage network, as well as drainage and

detention facilities constructed to control flooding downstream of developments and/or to

remove contaminants from surface runoff, can require significant amounts of space.

Land use planning and development should include consideration of the space

requirements for protected areas and drainage facilities.

3.2 Official Community Plan

In order to properly plan for wastewater facilities, it is necessary to project future land

use and populations within the Plan area. The LWMP guidelines require that the Official

Community Plan (OCP) completed by the municipal or regional government(s) form the

basis of the LWMP (B.C. Environment, 1992a). The LWMP should then be incorporated

as part of the OCP.

The OCP for the City of Revelstoke from 1996 and other relevant information were

reviewed during the Stage 1 LWMP, to determine land use planning and population

growth projections in the study area. A twenty-year planning horizon to 2026 was

adopted for the LWMP. The study area boundary and land use planning within the study

area according to the OCP are shown on Figure 3-1. Currently the OCP is undergoing an

update. Available information from the update was included in the LWMP as it became

available.

The City of Revelstoke includes residential as well as industrial, commercial and

institutional (ICI) development, with the largest industries being Downie Street Sawmills

Ltd. located in South Revelstoke, Joe Kozek Sawmills Ltd. located in Arrow Heights, and

some forestry activities and the hydroelectric complex located on the Westside Road.

Residential development is mainly single family, with some multi-family. Future

development is expected to see a similar proportion of single-family and multi-family

housing to existing development.

City of Revelstoke

May 2007

C:\DWG Projects\City of Revelstoke\Plots-April Background Reports\Parks and Recreation-11x17.mxd

Existing Land UseFig. 3-1

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500Meters

1:40,000

OCP Comprehensive Review

LegendCity Boundary-2007

Main Transportation Routes

Rail Line

Lakes, Rivers and Creeks

Marshes

OCP Land UseResidential

Rural Residential

Neighbourhoods

Resort Cores

Resort Lands

Public & Institutional

Central Business District Commercial

Neighbourhood Commercial

Highway Commercial

Service Commercial

Light Industrial

Heavy Industrial

Airport Industrial

Urban Reserve

Parks and Trails

Agricultural

Sand & Gravel

Reservoir Drawdown

3 1.50.2002008

Development within the City boundary is constrained by the Columbia River, by steep

terrain, unstable soils, lack of accessibility by roads, protection of the natural setting of

Revelstoke, and other factors. Future development will be focused on vacant lands,

which hold potential for some form of urban development yet do not easily fit within one

particular land use designation.

The 1996 OCP lists the following Council policies directly relating to the wastewater

system:

require that all residential, commercial, industrial and public/institutional developments are served by the community sanitary sewer system or a properly

functioning on-site sewerage disposal system;

work toward providing community sanitary sewer services to all urban residential areas advancement of this initiative will be dependent upon acuity of need for

health and environmental reasons and financial viability;

aggressively pursue senior government funding assistance; focus on the continued servicing of South Revelstoke for extension of the community

system;

monitor the operation of the treatment and disposal works to ensure that they are meeting the permit requirements set out by the provincial Ministry of Environment;

do not extend community sanitary sewer services to users located outside of municipal boundaries, and;

do not initiate extensions of community sewer services within municipal boundaries new developments requiring such service will be paid for by the developer through

arrangements to be determines in consultation with the City existing developments

requiring such services may petition the City for extensions through the use of local

improvement projects or similar mechanisms.

4 1.50.2002008

The Official Community Plan (OCP) requires that all residential, commercial, industrial

and public/institutional developments be served by the community sanitary sewer system

or a properly functioning on/site sewerage disposal system.

Included in the 1996 OCP is the Mount Mackenzie Resort Area Official Community Plan

Amendment, which includes a Vision, Principles, Policies, and an Implementation Plan.

The communitys vision for the Revelstoke Mountain Resort (formerly Mount

Mackenzie Resort) is a four-season tourism destination and commercial activity node

surrounded by mixed-use neighbourhoods.

The Mount Mackenzie Resort Area 1996 OCP includes the following policies directly

relating to the wastewater and drainage system:

treatment of the Resorts wastewater should consider either piping the effluent to the Citys WWTP or a treatment plant located in a location that is within the broader

Resort Lands (the City and the RMR agreed in 2006 to connect the RMR to the Citys

WWTP); and

the storm water drainage system for the Resort shall be designed in consideration of the capacity limits of existing storm drains and watercourses and avoid reliance on

other types of surface flows in the Arrow Heights neighbourhood.

5 1.50.2002008

3.3 Service Population Projections

According to the Canada Census data, the population of the City of Revelstoke in 2001

was 7,827. The 2006 population was 8,026 according to BC Stats, which represents an

increase of about 0.5% per year from 2001 to 2006. Updating of the OCP at the time of

writing this report included three potential development scenarios for population growth,

namely high, moderate and low growth scenarios. For all three scenarios, the Citys base

population was projected to increase to about 9,900 people by the year 2026. Most of the

population growth was attributed to the RMR, including both in-migrating workers and

resort guests.

The high growth scenario was based on the assumption that the RMR would be fully

constructed by 2026 (16,520 Bed Units), and would carry an equivalent population of

10,365 guests (about 63% occupancy), with an additional 2,625 in-migrant workers

associated with the RMR, resulting in a total equivalent population of about 22,900 by

2026 (including the City and RMR). The low growth scenario was based on the

assumption that only half of the RMR units (8,260 Bed Units) would be developed by

2026 and resort occupancy would be relatively low (about 31% occupancy or 2,600

people) with an additional 1,300 in-migrant workers, resulting in a total equivalent

population of 13,800 (City plus RMR). The moderate growth scenario was also based on

half (8,260) of the RMR units constructed by 2026, but with higher occupancy than the

low growth scenario (i.e., 63% occupancy or 5,200 people) and 1,300 in-migrant

workers, for a total population equivalent of 16,400 people (City plus RMR). At the time

of writing this report, the moderate growth scenario was selected for the OCP update

(BHA, 2008).

The projected population growth according to the moderate growth scenario from the

ongoing OCP update work is included in Table 3-1 (assuming that all of the Citys

residential population will eventually be connected to sewer). For the purposes of

developing infrastructure capacity needs, it was judged advisable to assume 100% resort

6 1.50.2002008

occupancy to reduce the risk of encountering capacity shortfalls. This results in a

projected total population equivalent of about 19,500 people, assuming the medium

growth scenario (i.e., 9,900 City base population, plus 1,300 in-migrant workers, plus

8,260 resort guests). As shown, the projected 2025 service population for the WWTP is

about 19,500; this compares to the 2025 service population of 17,100 estimated

previously (Dayton & Knight Ltd., 2006).

TABLE 3-1 POPULATION GROWTH IN THE CITY OF REVELSTOKE (adapted from BHA, 2008)

City1,3 RMR2 City + RMR2,3

1995 5,815 - 5,8151997 8,286 5,883 - 5,8831998 8,123 5,952 - 5,9521999 7,985 6,020 - 6,0202000 7,888 6,088 - 6,0882001 7,827 6,157 - 6,1572002 7,913 6,225 - 6,2252003 7,888 6,293 - 6,2932004 7,932 6,362 - 6,3622005 7,964 6,430 - 6,4302006 8,029 6,430 - 6,4302010 8,796 8,796 1,506 10,3022015 9,666 9,666 3,851 13,5172020 10,744 10,744 6,975 17,7172025 11,201 11,201 8,260 19,461

YearCity Population1

(including in-migrants)

WWTP Service Population3

1 1997 to 2006: BC Regional District and Municipal Population Estimates, 1996-2006 - Prepared by BC Stats,

adjusted for Census undercount, 2010 to 2025 projections from BHA (2008), includes City base plus in-migrant

workers 2 resort equivalent population assuming 100% occupancy 3 Service population 1996 to 2006 from D&K report WWTP Upgrades, Draft No. 2, March 2007, service population

2010 to 2025 assumes all residents connected to sewer

3.4 Unserviced Areas

7 1.50.2002008

Currently unserviced areas with development potential are Arrow Heights, Revelstoke

Mountain Resort, Big Eddy, and Clearview Heights. As described in Section 3.3, service

population projections for the wastewater collection and treatment system were based on

the (conservative) assumption that all residents would eventually be connected to sewer.

3.4.1 Arrow Heights

The developed Arrow Heights area to be serviced is approximately 58.5 ha. The total

future area could exceed 150 ha. The land located within Arrow Heights is currently

zoned for Single Family Residential. Currently the Arrow Heights development is

intended to allow for minimum 0.084 to 0.09 ha lots with development densities of about

10 development units per hectare (DU/ha). This allowance would allow for a maximum

of 650 to 695 lots in the Arrow Heights area. Total build-out population was estimated at

3,000 in accordance with March 21, 2006 Technical Memorandum No. 1, Sewage

Treatment Plant Upgrade 2006 Impact of Population Growth on Process Section. The

City of Revelstoke assumes a build-out population of 6,000.

The City of Revelstoke is currently updating the OCP and is preparing a DCC policy for

anticipated growth in the City, in particular the Arrow Heights subdivision. Although

Arrow Heights has good conditions for ground disposal of wastewater, the increase in

density from the present population of 3,100 to 5,000 or 6,000 people will require sewer

servicing of this area. Servicing of Arrow Heights will be facilitated by the trunk sewer

that will be constructed to service the Revelstoke Mountain Resort and the lift station at

the Illicillewaet River (see Section 3.4.2 below)

8 1.50.2002008

3.4.2 Revelstoke Mountain Resort (RMR)

Considerable development is expected to occur in the near future at Revelstoke Mountain

Resort (RMR). The recreational area is about 4,450 ha (USL 1990), adjacent to the

Arrow Heights area on the west slope of Mt. Mackenzie. The resort area includes about

200 ha (OCP). Several studies were conducted for the development of RMR including

use of the City treatment facility, or construction of an independent treatment facility that

discharged to ground (rapid infiltration) or to the Columbia River, or produced reclaimed

water for snowmaking.

The City recently completed a formal agreement to accept the RMR wastewater at the

City of Revelstoke WWTP. Since the trunk sewer will pass through the Arrow Heights

area, this will facilitate servicing of Arrow Heights.

The City previously evaluated the following three options to collect and treat the

wastewater from Arrow Heights and Revelstoke Mountain Resort (Dayton & Knight

Ltd., 2006):

Option 1: construction of a new Arrow Heights WWTP located near the hospital; Option 2: discharge to the existing WWTP, which would require a pump station to

be located adjacent to the hospital, flows would then be conveyed to a new pump

station located at Illecillewaet Road and Airport Way where flows would be pumped

to the existing WWTP; and

Option 3: discharge to a new Revelstoke Mountain Resort WWTP, at two possible locations, one within the Revelstoke Mountain Resort, and the other in the southeast

area of the City.

Option 2 (discharge to the existing City WWTP) was selected, because the City and the

Revelstoke Mountain Resort determined that this option was the most cost-effective.

9 1.50.2002008

3.4.3 Big Eddy

The Big Eddy area has poor drainage conditions and is potentially unsuitable for ground

disposal of wastewater. Sewer servicing of this area would allow potential development.

The City is currently evaluating provision of sewers to the Big Eddy area.

3.4.4 Clearview Heights, CPR Hill

The Clearview Heights area lies along the north side of the Canadian Pacific Railway

(CPR) tracks between Pearson Street on the west, the Eastern Access Road on the East

and Trans Canada Highway to the North. The development currently has about 35

properties now on septic tanks and drain fields. About 120 non-sewered lots are

currently in existence. The overall sewer catchment area is partially developed at this

time; 46.8 ha of the land are currently zoned for Single Family Residential, and

approximately 1.4 ha are zoned Industrial (CP Railway).

The City of Revelstoke has determined that septic tank failures are potentially occurring

in the Clearview Heights development. The City has examined the drainage from the

area and found it to contain high numbers of coliforms that suggest failure of the septic

drainage system. The City recently completed a study to explore the feasibility and cost

of providing sewer service to the Clearview Heights area; the cost of servicing the

existing houses was estimated at $860,000 with an additional $880,000 to service future

development (Dayton & Knight Ltd., 2006). The residents of Clearview Heights have

petitioned the City for sewer service, and a local improvement project is a underway.

1 1.50.200 2008

CITY OF REVELSTOKE

LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE 1 4.0 EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES

The study area for the LWMP encompasses the areas that are serviced by centralized collection

and treatment of domestic wastewater at the Revelstoke Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP).

The WWTP is a two-cell aerated lagoon system, which discharges secondary-treated effluent to

the Illecillewaet River. An overview of the existing City of Revelstoke wastewater system is

illustrated on Figure 4-1. Unserviced areas with development potential such as Arrow Heights,

Big Eddy, Revelstoke Mountain Resort, and Clearview Heights are also included in the study

area and are included in on Figure 4-1. More detailed illustration of the piped collection system

is shown on Figure 4-2. The wastewater collection system includes six major pumping stations,

namely Burke, Wales, Downie, Edward, Moss, and Oscar. The Downie station is the main

influent pump station for the WWTP. The Burke and Wales pump stations discharge into the

Downie station wet well; the Edward and Moss pump stations discharge into the Downie

forcemain. The Oscar pump station discharges directly to the WWTP. There are also two small

systems; the Trailerpark and Oscar pump stations.

All components of the wastewater system are owned, operated and maintained by the City of

Revelstoke. Major components of the existing system are described below.

4.1 Collection System

The wastewater collection system in Revelstoke was constructed in stages, the oldest

parts dating back to 1905. In 1973, the independent pumping systems, which consisted of

combined sanitary and storm sewers and which discharged directly to the Columbia

2 1.50.200 2008

River, were tied together and connected to the Downie pump station, which discharged to

the Columbia River. In 1975, the sewer system was connected to the new wastewater

treatment plant, with the treated effluent discharged to the Illecillewaet River. The

capacity of the consolidated sewer system was not adequate, and storm sewers began

being disconnected from the system in 1975. Some parts of the downtown area of the

Downie subsystem are still on combined sewers.

A computer model of the wastewater collection system has been developed to identify

bottlenecks, and to allow evaluation of the effects of new development on the system

(Dayton & Knight Ltd., March 2008). The model was calibrated with new rain gauge and

flow data from 2006, to provide more information about the capacity and condition of the

sewer system. Efforts to reduce inflow and infiltration of storm runoff and groundwater

are described in Section 5.3 of this report.

4.2 Pump Stations

The Pump stations within the City are summarized in Table 4-1.

3 1.50.200 2008

TABLE 4-1 PUMP STATIONS

Sewage Station Description Pumps

Pump Design Flow

Peak Modelled Wet Weather

Flow1 Comments

Burke Serves the Burke sub-area. Pumps into the 100 mm AC forcemain to the MH SW001 in the Wales sub-area.

2 Smith & Loveless 4B2B pumps (3 hp).

28.4 L/s 28.6 L/s

Wales Serves the Wales sub-area. Pumps into the 250 mm AC forcemain to the MH SD084 in the Downie sub-area.

2 Chicago VPM #64121, 1750 rpm pumps.

60 L/s 66.1 L/s Nearing capacity. Refer to D&K letter, Revelstoke crossing development for detailed pump station upgrading requirements.

Downie Main influent pump station to the WWTP. Receives flow from Burke, Wales and Downie sub-areas. Pumps into 400 mm AC forcemain to the WWTP.

2 Gorman Rupp Model T8A2, 50 Hp, 1050 rpm

71 L/s2 136.5 L/s Station is >25 years old. Pumps replaced 2001. At capacity, refer to D&K letter, Revelstoke crossing development for detailed pump station upgrading requirements.

Moss Serves the Moss sub-area. Pumps into 150 mm AC forcemain to the MH SD124, then into the 400 mm forcemain to the WWTP.

2 - Flygt C3127MT 433 Imp (9.4 HP, 1800 rpm) pumps

18.0 L/s 11.7 L/s No improvement is required for current condition.

Edward Serves the Edwards sub-area. Pumps into 100 mm AC forcemain to MH SD239 in the Downie sub-area.

2 Flygt C3127 484 Imp (10 hp) pumps

26.0 L/s 16.9 L/s No improvement is required for current condition.

Oscar Serves the Oscar sub-area. Pumps into 150 mm PVC forcemain to the WWTP.

2 Flygt C3126 (9.4 hp) pumps

21.0 L/s 19.1 L/s Nearing capacity.

1 calculated peak SANSYS wet weather flow (Dayton & Knight Ltd., 2007) 2 Higher pumping rates are possible from the existing pumps, if the pump rpm is increased.

4 1.50.200 2008

4.3 Revelstoke Wastewater Treatment Plant

4.3.1 Treatment Facilities

The Revelstoke Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) incorporates two aerated lagoons

in series, followed by chlorination, and discharge to the Illecillewaet River. Sewage is

pumped from the Downie pump station to a comminutor at the inlet works at the WWTP.

Lagoon Cell 1 has an area of 0.44 hectares and a volume of 19,750 m3. Lagoon Cell 2 is

larger with an area of 1.3 hectares and a volume of 60,000 m3. The effluent is disinfected

in a chlorine contact tank prior to discharge. Following the chlorine contact tank, the

effluent flows by gravity to the Illecillewaet River in a 350 mm AC pipe approximately

196.5 m to the South Bank outfall. The outfall does not have a diffuser section; there is a

screen at the end of the discharge pipe.

The lagoon facility was constructed in 1975, and has undergone several upgrades since.

An upgrade in late 1998 changed the aeration system in Lagoon Cell 1 to a fine bubble

diffuser system (from a coarse bubble system), and in 2002 the aeration blowers were

replaced with three 50 Hp Aerzen positive displacement type blowers. The coarse bubble

aeration system was retained in Cell 2. In the 1998 upgrade, the high-density

polyethylene (HDPE) liner in Cell 1 was also replaced and the cell desludged.

Key design parameters for the existing WWTP are shown in Table 4-2.

Recent and ongoing upgrade to the WWTP are as follows (budget $2 million): 2006 Cell 2 desludged 2007 replace Cell No.2 liner 2007/08 replace the existing chlorine gas disinfection system with a

hypochlorite/sodium bisulphite chemical system;

5 1.50.200 2008

2007 replace the coarse bubble diffusers with a fine bubble system; 2007/08 improvements to the chlorine tank (use of UV disinfection to replace the

chlorine is not recommended until the treatment is converted to an activated sludge

process);

2007/08 motor control centre (MCC) upgrade; and 2007 upgrade the plant power to 600 V.

Recommended upgrades for 2008 include a new headworks screening building, upgrades

to the existing building, and adding a diffuser to the river outfall as required in the

Environmental Impact Study (EIS). These improvements, which will require additional

funding beyond the existing $2 million budget, will provide the WWTP with a capacity

of 8,500 population equivalents, assuming that other improvements for operations and

maintenance are undertaken during this growth period. The outfall improvements are

shown as the last priority under the current funding program.

6 1.50.200 2008

TABLE 4-2 WWTP DESIGN DATA

*peak pumping capacity from Downie pump station in 2006

Service Population 6,500 8,500Wastewater Quantity Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) m3/d 2,925 3,825

Maximum Design Flow* m3/d 9,000 11,475Average Annual Unit L/c/d 450 450

Influent Wastewater 5 day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) Concentration mg/L 200 200 Daily load kg/d 660 660Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Concentration mg/L 200 200 Daily load kg/d 660 660

Chlorine Contact Tank Number of tanks 1 1Water depth m 1.8 1.8Width m 8.3 8.3Lengt m 11.8 11.8Detention time, ADWF min 88 68Detention time, max. design flow min 29 23

Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 1 Cell 2Lagoo aerated aerated partially aerated partially

Are ha 0.45 1.34 0.45 1.34Volume m3 18,930 56,780 18,930 56,780No of 28 67

Detention time, ADWF day 6.5 19.4 4.9 14.8Detention time, max. design flow day 2.1 6.3 1.6 4.9BOD 5 remaining, summer mg/L 80 14.6 94 21.3BOD 5 remaining winter mg/L 97.5 23.5 110.9 32.5Aerator/Oxygen Requirements, summer kgO2/hr 55.2 30.1 63.7 43.7SOTE (standard oxygen transfer), summer cfm 470 256 546 370SOTE (standard oxygen transfer), summer m3/min 13.3 7.3 15.4 10.6Aerator requirements, winter kgO2/hr 43.8 31.7 49.5 43.9SOTE (standard oxygen transfer), winter cfm 370 270 425 373SOTE (standard oxygen transfer), winter m3/min 10.6 7.7 12.0 10.6

k P : TBOD 5 kinetic rate constant at 15?C, summer days-1 0.231k P : TBOD 5 kinetic rate constant at 5?C, winter days-1 0.162A 2:1 ratio of BOD 5 removal to O2 is required

2006 2010

2006 Facilities 2010 Design

7 1.50.200 2008

4.3.2 Discharge Permit

The City of Revelstoke WWTP operates under Ministry of Environment Pollution

Control Permit No. PE-02147 and its amendments (attached as Appendix 4), which

specify the following requirements:

effluent maximum BOD5 45 mg/L effluent maximum TSS 60 mg/L effluent maximum discharge 4,152 m3/d chlorine residual in disinfection chamber with minimum

1 hour retention time at average flow rates 0.5 mg/L to 1.0 mg/L

Completion of the LWMP will result in replacement of the City of Revelstoke WWTP

Permit PE-02147 with an Operational Certificate.

4.3.3 WWTP Engineering Audit, 2002

In 2002, Dayton & Knight Ltd. conducted an engineering audit of the City of Revelstoke

WWTP. The purpose of the study was to provide recommendations that could be applied

to a capital works improvement budget for upgrading the WWTP, and to provide

recommendations for the operation of the facility. Needed improvements that were

identified in the audit included improvements at the headworks, instrumentation and

control, dechlorination (or switch to ultra violet disinfection), replacement of failed

infrastructure and old equipment, and odour control. The lagoon was shown to be

capable of meeting the Municipal Sewage Regulation criteria for 8,500 people.

It was determined that odour objectives could be largely met by undertaking source

control measures within the City to ensure septage and indiscriminate high strength

wastes are excluded from the system. No solids handling issues were identified, other

8 1.50.200 2008

than lagoon cleaning. Odours may be an issue during a solids removal program. The

need for an effluent sampling station was also identified.

An Environmental Impact Study (EIS) completed in conjunction with the audit identified

the potential need for phosphorus and ammonia removal from the discharge. The EIS

also identified the need for a diffuser on the outfall pipe to improve dilution.

4.3.4 Impact of Population Growth on Process Selection

The current WWTP service population equivalent is about 6,500; the current plant

treatment capacity with appropriate upgrades is about 8,500 people (see Section 4.3.1).

Increased service population growth beyond 8,500 will require additional upgrades. As

the flow and load to the plant increased in future, a change from aerated lagoons to a

mechanical treatment plant will be needed, since the site is not sufficient in size to use

aerated lagoon technology for a service population of 12,000.

Future upgrades can be undertaken through expansion of existing infrastructure and by

converting the existing plant into an activated sludge process. This could involve

converting lagoon Cell 1 to a conventional activated sludge basin, and converting Cell 2

to an aerated sludge digester and sludge holding lagoon. Construction of secondary

settling tanks (clarifiers) with return sludge pumping and piping would be required for

conversion of Cell 1 to activated sludge. The conversion could include a provision for

biological phosphorus removal, or phosphorus removal by chemical addition if required.

The activated sludge process can also be designed for the required removal of ammonia-

nitrogen. The Downie Street Pump Station would need to be upgraded for added

capacity. Upgrades to the plant headworks and expansion of the chlorine disinfection (or

replacement with UV disinvection) system would also be required.

9 1.50.200 2008

The City has previously reviewed the following options for the treatment plant to serve

increasing population due to development that was forecast at that time (Dayton &

Knight Ltd., 2006):

Option 1: continue at the existing site of the WWTP with discharge of treated wastewater to the Illecillewaet River capital costs estimated at $12.7 million for the

first stage (12,000 population) and $6 million for the final stage to serve 17,100;

Option 2: replace the existing WWTP with a new plant constructed on the east bank of the Columbia River, west of the Downie mill capital costs estimated at $28

million for the first stage (12,000 population) and $10 million for the final stage to

serve 17,100; and

Option 3: retain the WWTP at the current site, but do not expand this facility beyond the year 2010 construct a new plant at the Columbia River site (same as Option 2)

for all ensuing population increases capital cost estimated at $17 million for the first

stage (12,000 population) and $6.5 million for the final stage to serve 17,100.

The three options are illustrated on Figure 4-3. Options 2 and 3 have the advantage of

discharging part or all of the Citys treated wastewater to the Columbia River, which has

a much greater flow than the Illecillewaet River. Option 1 could include discharge of a

portion of peak WWTP discharges or the entire discharge to the Columbia River via a

pump station and forcemain (Figure 4-3); this was not included in the cost estimate

described above for Option 1. As described earlier, population growth projections are

currently under review as a component of the OCP update, and the projected 2026 service

population for the WWTP has yet to be confirmed.

10 1.50.200 2008

4.4 Queen Victoria Hospital WWTP

The Queen Victoria Hospital, which is situated on the west side of the Arrow Heights

region, has its own wastewater treatment facility, with discharge to the Illecillewaet River

via an outfall (Figure 4-1). A copy of the discharge permit (PE-00250) is included in

Appendix 4. The hospital maximum day permitted discharge is 57 m3/d. Current sewage

flow is reported to be about 80% of capacity. The City is currently conducting

discussions with the Hospital regarding connection of their wastewater discharge to the

trunk main that will service the Revelstoke Mountain Resort; this will allow the Hospital

wastewater treatment plant to be decommissioned, since the wastewater will then be

conveyed to the Citys WWTP.

4.5 Documented Sanitary Sewer Overflows

From information provided by the City of Revelstoke, the following sanitary sewer

overflows (SSOs) have occurred on the Citys system:

before 1975 there were several sanitary sewer overflows because of the combined sewer system; in 1975 the Pollution Control Branch of the Provincial Government

ordered the City of Revelstoke to begin to upgrade the sanitary sewer collection

system by substantially discontinuing the discharge of storm waters to the sanitary

sewer system (USL, 1977);

no further SSOs have been reported by the City; and due to the remaining partially combined sewer systems in the City, SSOs could occur

at some locations in the future, especially as flows increase with development.

11 1.50.200 2008

4.6 Solids Handling and Treatment

4.6.1 Septage

Onsite systems are those designed for treatment and ground disposal of wastewater

within the boundaries of individual lots or parcels. These systems typically include a

septic tank followed by a subsurface disposal field. Accumulated solids (normally

referred to as septage) must be periodically removed from septic tanks by pumper

trucks, to prevent clogging of the disposal field. Pumper truck discharges can include

industrial and commercial wastes as well as septage generated in onsite systems.

During the summers of 1999 and 2001, odour events were reported at the WWTP. It is thought that the odour was caused by the Acrolein and was introduced through the septage receiving facility. Urban Systems Ltd. conducted a feasibility study in 2001 with options for septage treatment, disposal and reuse; study findings are summarized as follows: septage disposal at the WWTP was not recommended due to odour problems, and due

to the highly concentrated waste;

a separate treatment facility would have several disadvantages such as possible odour problems, problems to handle seasonal waste, and high costs; and

composting of the septage was recommended, using either a windrow or static pile process that produces Class A compost the cost was estimated to be approximately

$500,000 a source control program was recommended to minimize the risk of

problematic substances being added to the process.

The

Revelstoke Liquid Waste Management Plan - Stage 1

Documents

Transcript of Revelstoke Liquid Waste Management Plan - Stage 1