2016 gvs&dd emqc annual report - metro vancouver › ... › 2016gvsdd-emqcannualreport.pdf ·...

Revised Edition July 2019

Wastewater The 2016 Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage

District Environmental Management and Quality Control

Annual Report

ISSN 1496-9602

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………iii LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………v APPENDICES …………………………………………………….…………………………………………………….…………………………………………vi PREFACE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.0 WASTEWATER TREATMENT MONITORING PROGRAM ................................................................................. 15

1.1 LABORATORY PROGRAMS ......................................................................................................................... 15 1.2 MONTHLY REPORTING FOR OPERATIONAL CERTIFICATES ........................................................................ 16 1.3 QUARTERLY REPORTING FOR WASTEWATER SYSTEMS EFFLUENT REGULATIONS (WSER) ....................... 16

2.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC) ............................................................................. 19 3.0 ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP ............................................................................................................................... 23

3.1 EFFLUENT QUALITY .................................................................................................................................... 23 3.2 COMPLIANCE REVIEW (ME-00387) AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY ....................................................... 23

3.2.1 OPERATIONAL CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE REVIEW ........................................................................ 24 3.2.2 PERFORMANCE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 25

3.3 WASTEWATER SYSTEMS EFFLUENT REGULATIONS (WSER) AND COMPLIANCE REVIEW ............ 28 3.3.1 WSER COMPLIANCE REVIEW ...................................................................................................... 28

3.4 SECONDARY PROCESS ............................................................................................................................ 31 3.5 SOLIDS TREATMENT ................................................................................................................................ 31

4.0 IONA ISLAND WWTP ...................................................................................................................................... 39 4.1 EFFLUENT QUALITY .................................................................................................................................... 39 4.2 COMPLIANCE REVIEW (ME-00023) AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY ....................................................... 39

4.2.1 COMPLIANCE REVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 39 4.2.2 PERFORMANCE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 40

4.3 WASTEWATER SYSTEMS EFFLUENT REGULATIONS (WSER) AND COMPLIANCE REVIEW .......................... 43 4.3.1 WSER COMPLIANCE REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 43

4.4 CHEMICALLY ENHANCED PRIMARY TREATMENT ...................................................................................... 45 4.5 SLUDGE TREATMENT/DIGESTER OPERATIONS .......................................................................................... 45

5.0 LIONS GATE WWTP ....................................................................................................................................... 53 5.1 EFFLUENT QUALITY .................................................................................................................................... 53 5.2 COMPLIANCE REVIEW (ME-00030) AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY ....................................................... 53



5.4 CHEMICALLY ENHANCED PRIMARY TREATMENT ...................................................................................... 58 5.5 SLUDGE TREATMENT /DEWATERING ........................................................................................................ 58

6.0 LULU ISLAND WWTP ...................................................................................................................................... 67 6.1 EFFLUENT QUALITY .................................................................................................................................... 67 6.2 COMPLIANCE REVIEW (ME-00233) AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY ....................................................... 67



6.4 SECONDARY PROCESS ................................................................................................................................ 72 6.5 SOLIDS TREATMENT ................................................................................................................................... 72 6.6 DEWATERED SLUDGE ................................................................................................................................. 73

7.0 NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP ...................................................................................................................... 81 7.1 EFFLUENT QUALITY .................................................................................................................................... 81 7.2 COMPLIANCE REVIEW (ME-04339) AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY ....................................................... 81



7.4 SECONDARY PROCESS ................................................................................................................................ 87 7.5 SLUDGE TREATMENT ................................................................................................................................. 87

ii

8.0 BIOSOLIDS MONITORING .............................................................................................................................. 95 8.1 ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP BIOSOLIDS MONITORING .................................................................................. 95 8.2 LIONS GATE WWTP BIOSOLIDS MONITORING ........................................................................................... 96 8.3 LULU ISLAND BIOSOLIDS MONITORING ..................................................................................................... 97 8.4 IONA ISLAND WWTP DIGESTED SLUDGE MONITORING ............................................................................ 98 8.5 NORTHWEST LANGLEY TRUCKED SLUDGE MONITORING ......................................................................... 98

9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................... 101 10.0 OVERFLOW MONITORING ........................................................................................................................... 103

10.1 COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW QUALITY MONITORING ......................................................................... 103 10.1.1 CSO MONITORING PROGRAM ...................................................................................................... 105 10.1.2 CSO RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT MONITORING PROGRAM .......................................................... 108

10.2 SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW MONITORING AND RISK ASSESSMENT .................................................... 109 11.0 WHOLE EFFLUENT MONITORING ................................................................................................................ 113

11.1 EFFLUENT TOXICITY TESTING ................................................................................................................... 113 11.1.1 ACUTE TOXICITY TESTING ............................................................................................................. 113 11.1.2 CHRONIC TOXICITY TESTING ......................................................................................................... 114 11.1.3 AMMONIA AS A POTENTIAL TOXICANT ........................................................................................ 115

11.2 SPECIAL CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION ................................................................................................. 116 12.0 RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT MONITORING PROGRAMS .............................................................................. 117

12.1 IONA DEEP-SEA OUTFALL RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT MONITORING PROGRAM ................................... 117 12.1.1 2016 SEDIMENT EFFECTS SURVEY ................................................................................................. 117 12.1.2 2016 INITIAL DILUTION ZONE BOUNDARY MONITORING............................................................. 119 12.1.3 2016 OUTFALL BIOTA SURVEY ...................................................................................................... 121

12.2 LIONS GATE OUTFALL RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT MONITORING PROGRAM ......................................... 123 12.2.1 2016 SEDIMENT EFFECTS SURVEY ................................................................................................. 124 12.2.2 2016 INITIAL DILUTION ZONE BOUNDARY MONITORING............................................................. 126

12.3 FRASER RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OUTFALLS RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT QUALITY ..... 129 12.3.1 2016 ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP INITIAL DILUTION ZONE (IDZ) BOUNDARY MONITORING ............ 129

12.4 RECREATIONAL WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM ................................................................... 132 12.4.1 TESTING ......................................................................................................................................... 133 12.4.2 REPORTING ................................................................................................................................... 133 12.4.3 GUIDELINES ................................................................................................................................... 134 12.4.4 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................ 134 12.4.5 STATUS AND TRENDS .................................................................................................................... 139

13.0 AMBIENT ENVIRONMENT MONITORING PROGRAMS ................................................................................ 140 13.1 STRAIT OF GEORGIA AMBIENT MONITORING PROGRAM ....................................................................... 140

13.1.1 APPROACH .................................................................................................................................... 140 13.1.2 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................ 142

13.2 FRASER RIVER AMBIENT MONITORING PROGRAM ................................................................................. 143 13.2.1 APPROACH .................................................................................................................................... 143 13.2.2 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................ 144

13.3 BURRARD INLET AMBIENT MONITORING PROGRAM .............................................................................. 146 13.3.1 APPROACH .................................................................................................................................... 146 13.3.2 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................ 147

13.4 BOUNDARY BAY AMBIENT MONITORING PROGRAM .............................................................................. 149 13.4.1 APPROACH .................................................................................................................................... 150 13.4.2 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................ 150

14.0 KEY MANHOLE MONITORING PROGRAM.................................................................................................... 152 15.0 LWS ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ........................................................................................ 154

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 3.1 2016 ANNACIS WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL DAILY FLOWS ................................................................... 25 FIGURE 3.2 2016 ANNACIS WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS .......................... 27 FIGURE 3.3 2016 ANNACIS WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL CBOD ............................................................................... 27 FIGURE 4.1 2016 IONA ISLAND WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL DAILY FLOWS ............................................................ 40 FIGURE 4.2 2016 IONA ISLAND WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS ................... 42 FIGURE 4.3 2016 IONA ISLAND WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL BOD CONCENTRATIONS ............................................ 42 FIGURE 5.1 2016 LIONS GATE WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL DAILY FLOWS .............................................................. 56 FIGURE 5.2 2016 LIONS GATE WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS ..................... 57 FIGURE 5.3 2016 LIONS GATE WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL BOD CONCENTRATIONS .............................................. 57 FIGURE 6.1 2016 LULU ISLAND WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL DAILY FLOWS ............................................................ 69 FIGURE 6.2 2016 LULU ISLAND WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS ................... 70 FIGURE 6.3 2016 LULU ISLAND WWTP EFFLUENT CBOD CONCENTRATIONS ..................................................... 71 FIGURE 7.1 2016 NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL DAILY FLOWS ............................................. 83 FIGURE 7.2 2016 NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS .... 84 FIGURE 7.3 2016 NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP EFFLUENT CBOD CONCENTRATIONS ...................................... 85 FIGURE 8.1 ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP BIOSOLIDS – FECAL COLIFORMS 2016 ..................................................... 95 FIGURE 8.2 LIONS GATE WWTP BIOSOLIDS – FECAL COLIFORMS....................................................................... 96 FIGURE 8.3 LULU ISLAND WWTP BIOSOLIDS – FECAL COLIFORMS ..................................................................... 97 FIGURE 9.1 LOCATION OF METRO VANCOUVER’S WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS ................................. 101 FIGURE 10.1 TYPICAL COMBINED SEWER SYSTEM (FROM ADAMS, 2006) ......................................................... 103 FIGURE 10.2 METRO VANCOUVER COMBINED SEWER OUTFALL (CSO) LOCATIONS MONITORED IN 2016 ....... 104 FIGURE 10.3 CSO INFRASTRUCTURE: GLENBROOK CSO SAMPLING KIOSK (LEFT), WILLINGDON CSO KIOSK WITH

AUTOSAMPLER (CENTER), SAMPLER ELECTRONICS AT CLARK DRIVE #2 CSO (RIGHT) .................... 105 FIGURE 10.4 COMPARISON OF RAINFALL AND OVERFLOW EVENTS AT CHILCO-BROCKTON, ENGLISH BAY AND

BALACLAVA CSO LOCATIONS ........................................................................................................... 106 FIGURE 10.5 SSO MONITORING LOCATIONS ...................................................................................................... 110 FIGURE 11.1 COMPARISON OF 2016 WWTP EFFLUENT QUALITY W/ ACUTE AMMONIA TOXICITY CURVE ....... 116 FIGURE 12.1 IONA DEEP-SEA OUTFALL SEDIMENT EFFECTS MONITORING ........................................................ 118 FIGURE 12.2 IONA WWTP DEEP-SEA OUTFALL INITIAL DILUTION ZONE BOUNDARY STUDY AREA ................... 120 FIGURE 12.3 COLOUR VIDEO SOUNDER SHOWING A STRONG PLUME AT 50 M (ENKON, 2016) ....................... 121 FIGURE 12.4 ROV FOOTAGE OF A PACIFIC OCTOPUS AT THE IONA DIFFUSER (OCEAN DYNAMICS, 2016) ........ 122 FIGURE 12.5 LIONS GATE WWTP MONITORING OF OUTER BURRARD INLET ..................................................... 124 FIGURE 12.6 LIONS GATE SEDIMENT EFFECTS SURVEY AREA, 2016 (RED STATIONS WERE ACTIVE IN 2016) .... 125 FIGURE 12.7 LIONS GATE INITIAL DILUTION ZONE BOUNDARY MONITORING STUDY AREA, 2016 ................... 126 FIGURE 12.8 MONITORING VESSEL AND COLOUR VIDEO SOUNDER FOR LIONS GATE INITIAL DILUTION ZONE

BOUNDARY MONITORING PROGRAM ........................................................................................... 127 FIGURE 12.9 ANNACIS INITIAL DILUTION ZONE BOUNDARY MONITORING STUDY AREA, 2016 ........................ 130 FIGURE 12.10 COLLECTING RECREATIONAL-WATER SAMPLES ............................................................................. 132 FIGURE 12.11 RECREATIONAL WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM BEACH LOCATIONS .......................... 132 FIGURE 12.12 QUANTI-TRAYTM TESTING METHOD ............................................................................................... 133 FIGURE 12.13 PRIMARY-CONTACT RECREATIONAL WATER STATUS (2007-2016):............................................... 138 (A) NUMBER OF DAYS THE BEACHES WERE POSTED FOR THE PARTICULAR WATER BODY ........... 138 (B) PERCENTAGE OF TIME THE GUIDELINE MET AND BEACHES OPEN FOR RECREATION ............. 138 FIGURE 13.1 OTHER MONITORING INITIATIVES AND DATA SOURCES FOR LONG-TERM WATER PROPERTY

TREND ANALYSIS AND WATER COLUMN MONITORING LOCATIONS FOR DISSOLVED AND PARTICULATE PCB, PBDE, BIOTA, AND TRACE METALS.................................................................. 141

FIGURE 13.2 FRASER RIVER AMBIENT WATER, SEDIMENT AND FISH MONITORING SITES ................................ 145 FIGURE 13.3 BURRARD INLET AMBIENT WATER, SEDIMENT AND FISH MONITORING SITES ............................. 149 ................................................................................................................................................................................... 149 FIGURE 13.4 BOUNDARY BAY AMBIENT WATER, SEDIMENT AND BIOTA MONITORING SITES .......................... 151

iv

FIGURE 14.1 VANCOUVER SEWERAGE AREA 2016 KEY MANHOLE MONITORING PROGRAM SAMPLING LOCATIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 153

FIGURE 14.2 FRASER SEWERAGE AREA 2016 KEY MANHOLE MONITORING PROGRAM SAMPLING LOCATIONS .... ........................................................................................................................................................ 153

v

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1.1 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT MONITORING PARAMETERS – INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT....... 17 TABLE 3.1 ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP – 2016 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY ............................................................. 23 TABLE 3.2 OPERATIONAL CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE LEVELS .......................................................................... 23 TABLE 3.3 PREDICTED 30 DAY FECAL COLIFORM GEOMEAN AT THE ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP IDZ ................. 25 TABLE 3.4 2007-2016 ANNUAL AVERAGE DATA FOR FLOW, SUSPENDED SOLIDS AND BOD ........................... 28 TABLE 3.5 WSER COMPLIANCE LEVELS ............................................................................................................. 28 TABLE 3.6 2016 WSER MONITORING REPORT .................................................................................................. 29 TABLE 3.7 ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP - 2016 ROUTINE MONITORING RESULTS AND PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY…….. ................................................................................................................................ 32 TABLE 3.8 ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP – 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM INFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 34 TABLE 3.9 ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP – 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 35 TABLE 3.10 ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP – 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM LOADINGS SUMMARY ................... 36 TABLE 4.1 IONA ISLAND WWTP – 2016 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY ................................................................... 39 TABLE 4.2 OPERATIONAL CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE LEVELS .......................................................................... 39 TABLE 4.3 2007 - 2016 ANNUAL AVERAGE DATA FOR FLOW, SUSPENDED SOLIDS AND BOD ......................... 41 TABLE 4.4 TRANSITIONAL AUTHORIZATION COMPLIANCE LEVELS FOR IONA ISLAND WWTP ......................... 43 TABLE 4.5 2016 WSER MONITORING REPORT .................................................................................................. 43 TABLE 4.6 IONA ISLAND WWTP - 2016 ROUTINE MONITORING RESULTS AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY ... 46 TABLE 4.7 IONA ISLAND WWTP – 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM INFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 48 TABLE 4.8 IONA ISLAND WWTP – 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 49 TABLE 4.9 IONA ISLAND WWTP – 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM LOADINGS SUMMARY ......................... 50 TABLE 5.1 LIONS GATE WWTP – 2016 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY ..................................................................... 53 TABLE 5.2 OPERATIONAL CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE LEVELS .......................................................................... 53 TABLE 5.3 PREDICTED 30 DAY FECAL COLIFORM GEOMEAN AT THE LIONS GATE WWTP IDZ ......................... 55 TABLE 5.4 2007-2016 ANNUAL AVERAGE DATA FOR FLOW, SUSPENDED SOLIDS AND BOD ........................... 56 TABLE 5.5 TRANSITIONAL AUTHORIZATION COMPLIANCE LEVELS FOR LIONS GATE WWTP ........................... 58 TABLE 5.6 2016 WSER MONITORING REPORT .................................................................................................. 58 TABLE 5.8 LIONS GATE WWTP – 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM INFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS

SUMMARY.. ...................................................................................................................................... 62 TABLE 5.9 LIONS GATE WWTP – 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS

SUMMARY.. ...................................................................................................................................... 63 TABLE 5.10 LIONS GATE WWTP - 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM LOADINGS SUMMARY ............................ 64 TABLE 6.1 LULU ISLAND WWTP – 2016 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY TABLE ......................................................... 67 TABLE 6.2 OPERATIONAL CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE LEVELS .......................................................................... 67 TABLE 6.3 PREDICTED 30 DAY FECAL COLIFORM GEOMEAN AT THE LULU ISLAND WWTP IDZ ....................... 69 TABLE 6.4 2007-2016 ANNUAL AVERAGE DATA FOR FLOW, SUSPENDED SOLIDS AND BOD ........................... 70 TABLE 6.5 WSER COMPLIANCE LEVELS ............................................................................................................. 71 TABLE 6.6 2016 WSER MONITORING REPORT .................................................................................................. 72 TABLE 6.7 LULU ISLAND WWTP – 2016 ROUTINE MONITORING RESULTS AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY .. 74 TABLE 6.8 LULU ISLAND WWTP – 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM INFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 76 TABLE 6.9 LULU ISLAND WWTP – 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM EFFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 77 TABLE 6.10 LULU ISLAND WWTP – 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM LOADINGS SUMMARY ......................... 78 TABLE 7.1 NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP – 2016 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY .................................................... 81 TABLE 7.2 OPERATIONAL CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE LEVELS .......................................................................... 81 TABLE 7.3 PREDICTED 30 DAY FECAL COLIFORM GEOMEAN AT THE NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP IDZ ........ 83

vi

TABLE 7.4 2007 - 2016 ANNUAL DATA FOR FLOW, SUSPENDED SOLIDS AND BOD .......................................... 84 TABLE 7.5 WSER COMPLIANCE LEVELS ............................................................................................................. 85 TABLE 7.6 2016 WSER MONITORING REPORT .................................................................................................. 86 TABLE 7.7 NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP – 2016 ROUTINE MONITORING RESULTS AND PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 88 TABLE 7.8 NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP – 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM INFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 90 TABLE 7.9 NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP – 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 91 TABLE 7.10 NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP – 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM LOADINGS SUMMARY .......... 92 TABLE 8.1 ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP BIOSOLIDS – ORGANIC MATTER RECYCLING REGULATION...................... 95 TABLE 8.2 LIONS GATE WWTP BIOSOLIDS – ORGANIC MATTER RECYCLING REGULATION .............................. 96 TABLE 8.3 LULU ISLAND BIOSOLIDS – ORGANIC MATTER RECYCLING REGULATION ........................................ 97 TABLE 10.1 2016 CSO MONITORING EFFORT AND STATUS .............................................................................. 107 TABLE 10.2 GVS&DD CSO DISCHARGE DURATION, EVENTS AND VOLUME, 2016 ............................................ 108 TABLE 10.3 WET WEATHER SSO CHARACTERIZATION SAMPLES COLLECTED AT SSO AUTOMATED SAMPLING

KIOSKS IN 2016 ............................................................................................................................... 111 TABLE 10.4 FINDINGS OF SCREENING LEVEL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR SSO MANAGEMENT SCENARIOS ........... 111 TABLE 12.1 RECREATIONAL-WATER MONITORING LOCATIONS AND RECORD OF GUIDELINE ATTAINMENT .. 136

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A CSO WATER QUALITY MONITORING RESULTS

APPENDIX B RECEIVING WATER BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY

1

PREFACE

The Environmental Management and Quality Control Division (Division) of the Liquid Waste Services

Department is responsible for monitoring and reporting on wastewater treatment plants influent, effluent

and process streams quality, operations of the collection system, and environmental health of the water

bodies that receive discharges from the liquid waste management system for the Greater Vancouver

Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD). The attached annual report summarizes the information

gathered through the various GVS&DD monitoring programs carried out by the Division in 2016, and

provides evaluation of the operational effectiveness of the wastewater treatment plants. Some of the

information in the report is the result of joint efforts of Environmental Management and Quality Control

Division and Operations and Maintenance Division. The report is posted on Metro Vancouver’s website

at the following location:

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/liquid-waste/treatment/environmental-monitoring/annual-

reports/Pages/default.aspx and a hard copy is available in the Metro Vancouver library.

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/liquid-waste/treatment/environmental-monitoring/annual-reports/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/liquid-waste/treatment/environmental-monitoring/annual-reports/Pages/default.aspx

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD or the District) operates five wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) in the region. Three of the five plants provide secondary treatment (Annacis Island, Lulu Island and Northwest Langley) and discharge treated effluent into the lower Fraser River. The remaining two wastewater treatment plants (Iona Island and Lions Gate) provide primary treatment and discharge treated effluent to Georgia Strait and First Narrows of Burrard Inlet, respectively.

Under the provisions of the Environmental Management Act, the Minister of Environment approved Metro Vancouver’s Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ILWRMP, or the Plan) in May 2011. The Plan has three goals: protect public health and the environment; use liquid waste as a resource; and effective, affordable and collaborative management. Metro Vancouver manages its liquid waste in accordance with the ILWRMP and WWTP specific operational certificates, issued by the Ministry of Environment in 2004. These certificates allow the GVS&DD to discharge treated effluent from its WWTPs to the receiving waters. The District’s objective is to maintain ongoing compliance with the operational certificates and by doing so to continue to protect human health and the environment.

The federal Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations (WSER) under the Fisheries Act came into effect on July 18, 2012. GVS&DD is required to monitor and report effluent monitoring data quarterly. The effluent quality standards as specified in WSER were in force throughout the year.

The purpose of this report is to document the performance of the WWTPs in 2016 with respect to effluent quality and protection of human health and the environment, and to demonstrate meeting the regulatory requirements as specified by the operational certificates and WSER.

Most of the monitoring, laboratory analytical services and data analyses upon which this report is based were provided by the Environmental Management & Quality Control Division of Liquid Waste Services.

Outlined below is an overview of the information collected as a result of Environmental Management & Quality Control’s monitoring programs for the wastewater treatment plants, including monitoring for effluent and biosolids quality, and receiving and ambient environment quality. Other programs and projects discussed in this report are in support of ongoing commitments under the ILWRMP or compliance with conditions of the plan approval by the Minister of Environment.

4

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS

Operational Certificates

The Operational Certificates (OCs) issued on April 23, 2004 by the Ministry of Environment under the provisions of the Environmental Management Act include daily compliance levels for flow and daily loadings for Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) (or Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (cBOD), where applicable) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS). The loading parameters listed as “maximum daily discharge loadings” are used to calculate the annual discharge authorization fees as required by the Permit Fees Regulation and are based on a calendar year.

Additional requirements were listed for disinfection of the effluent at all WWTPs except Iona Island, so that fecal coliform water quality objectives for the receiving water body are met at the edge of the initial dilution zone as defined by the Municipal Wastewater Regulation. When chlorine is used for disinfection during bathing season, it must be removed from the effluent before discharge to the receiving waters.

In 2016, about 438 billion litres of wastewater were treated at the GVS&DD’s five wastewater treatment plants. Of this total, over 227 billion litres received primary treatment (Iona Island and Lions Gate) with the remaining 210 billion litres treated at the three secondary wastewater plants (Annacis Island, Lulu Island and Northwest Langley). Individual treated effluent flows for each wastewater treatment plant and quantities of BOD and suspended solids removed in 2016 are summarized below:

5

Total for 2016 ANNACIS ISLAND

IONA ISLAND

LIONS GATE

LULU ISLAND

NW LANGLEY

TOTAL

Effluent Flow, ML 180,044 197,002 30,336 25,617 4,522 437,520

BOD,

Tonnes Removed

30,495 11,251 1,726 6,690 1,257 51,418

Suspended Solids, Tonnes Removed

29,574 14,804 3,256 5,394 1,172 54,200

Treatment Plant Performance and Compliance Review

The overall performance of the GVRD’s five wastewater treatment plants was good. BOD and total suspended solids operational certificate equirements were generally met throughout 2016. The following table summarizes the average reduction in BOD and total suspended solids loadings during 2016 for all the plants.

Wastewater Treatment Plant % BOD Reduction % TSS Reduction

Iona Island * 44 58

Lions Gate* 46 67

Annacis Island ** 95 94

Lulu Island ** 98 98

Northwest Langley** 95 93

* Reduction for primary plants expected to be about 30% for BOD and 60% for TSS.

** Reduction for secondary plants expected to be about 90% for both TSS and BOD.

6

In 2016, GVS&DD’s WWTPs met operational certificate requirements throughout the year except for 4 cases that can be grouped into 2 categories.

Category 1 (1 case) includes results of TSS and BOD concentrations above limits, and disinfection interruption. Probable causes and potential environmental effects were discussed in the table below.

Description Plant Date Quantity

Discharged

Duration Probable Cause*

Mitigation Measures*

Potential Environmental Effects

Disinfection Interruption

Annacis June 5 8.9 ML 26 minutes BC Hydro power interruption

Not Applicable

Based on dilution dispersion modelling of downstream concentrations: o The applicable Health Canada Recreational Water Quality Guidelines were

predicted to have been met at designated recreation areas. o The applicable BC MOE Water Quality Guidelines were predicted to have

been met at known registered water license diversion points.

Disinfection Interruption

Lions Gate September 17

0.708 ML 8.03 minutes BC Hydro power interruption

Not Applicable

Based on dilution dispersion modelling of downstream concentrations: o The applicable Health Canada Recreational Water Quality Guidelines were

predicted to have been met at designated recreation areas.

Category 2 (2 cases) were the results of daily discharge loadings for suspended solids above the maximum load limits. These exceptions typically have no significant environmental effect.

Description Plant Date Quantity

Discharged

Duration Probable Cause*

Mitigation Measures*

Potential Environmental Effects

TSS Loading Northwest Langley

January 27 0.517 tonnes/day

Not Applicable

High flow conditions and elevated Total Suspended Solids (TSS) concentration.

No remedial action required

o Impacts to water quality for recreation and irrigation were not expected. Impacts to aquatic life were not expected. The applicable BC Ministry of Environment TSS Water Quality Objectives for aquatic life protection were expected to have been met in the Fraser River.

TSS Loading Annacis November 2

28.9 tonnes/day

Not Applicable

High flow conditions and elevated Total Suspended Solids (TSS) concentration.

No remedial action required

o Based on dilution dispersion modelling of downstream concentrations the applicable BC MOE Water Quality Objective for TSS was expected to have been met in the Fraser River.

7

A summary of events when the parameters specified by the Operational Certificates for the District’s wastewater treatment plants were not met in the last six years is shown in the tables below. The number of events is shown against total number of tests or data collected during the period.

Iona Island WWTP Operational Certificate ME 00023 - April 23, 2004

Parameter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Max. Daily Discharge (Exceeded) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 3 (of 103) 0 0 0 2 (of 105) 0

Suspended Solids 0 0 0 0 0 0

BOD Daily Loading 1 (of 103) 0 0 0 0 0

Suspended Solids Daily Loading 2 (of 364) 0 0 0 0 0

Plant Bypass 1 (of 365) 0 0 1 (of 365) 0 0

Lions Gate WWTP Operational Certificate ME 00030 – April 23, 2004

Parameter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016


Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 0 2 (of 102) 1 (of 112) 0 0 0


BOD Daily Loading 0 0 0 0 0 0

Suspended Solids Daily Loading 0 0 0 0 1 (of 360) 0

Chlorine Residual* 0 0 0 0 0 0

Disinfection Interruption 0 1 (of 159) 0 0 0 1 (of 157)

Fecal Coliform 0 0 0 0 0 0

* measured during disinfection season only – after dechlorination.

8

Northwest Langley WWTP Operational Certificate ME 04339– April 23, 2004

Parameter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Max. Discharge Rate (Exceeded) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (cBOD)

0 0 0 0 0 0

Suspended Solids 0 0 0 0 1 (of 361) 0

cBOD Daily Loading 0 0 0 0 0 0

Suspended Solids Daily Loading 3 (of 364) 1 (of 362) 1 (of 365) 3 (of 364) 4 (of 361) 1 (of 366)

Chlorine Residual * 0 0 1 (of 154) n/a n/a 0

Disinfection Interruption 0 0 0 0 0 0


* measured during disinfection season only - after dechlorination.

Annacis Island WWTP Operational Certificate ME 00387 – April 23, 2004

Parameter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016



0 0 0 0 0 0


cBOD Daily Loading 0 0 0 1 (of 166) 0 0

Suspended Solids Daily Loading 0 0 0 1 (of 365) 0 1 (of 366)

Chlorine Residual* 1 (of 234) 0 0 0 0 0

Disinfection Interruption 0 1 (of 224) 0 0 0 1 (of 216)


Plant Bypass 0 0 0 0 0 0

Secondary Bypass 1 (of 365) 0 0 0 0 0

Primary Effluent During Secondary Bypass

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 0 0 0 0 0 0


* measured during disinfection season only – after dechlorination.

9

Lulu Island WWTP Operational Certificate ME 00233– April 23, 2004

Parameter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016



0 0 0 0 0 0


cBOD Daily Loading 0 0 0 0 0 0

Suspended Solids Daily Loading 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chlorine Residual * 0 0 0 0 0 0

Disinfection Interruption 0 0 1 (of 215) 1 (of 220) 1 (of 221) 0


Plant Bypass 3 (of 365) 1 (of 366) 0 0 0 0

Secondary Bypass 1 (of 365) 0 0 0 0 0

Primary Effluent During Secondary Bypass

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 0 0 0 0 0 0


* measured during disinfection season only - after dechlorination.

Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ILWRMP)

The ILWRMP also commits GVS&DD to operate the secondary wastewater treatment plants to meet the National Performance Standards for effluent specified by the Canada-wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent (CWS-MMWE):

Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen

Demand (cBOD)

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

Average Average

≤ 25 mg/L ≤ 25 mg/L

10

A summary of average cBOD and TSS concentrations with the averaging period of monthly for Annacis Island and Lulu Island WWTPs and quarterly for Northwest Langley WWTP is shown in the table below.

Secondary Plants ANNACIS ISLAND LULU ISLAND NORTHWEST LANGLEY

Parameters TSS cBOD TSS cBOD TSS cBOD

January 9 8 5 5

February 12 10 5 6

March 9 8 5 7 24 19

April 7 6 4 5

May 9 7 4 5

June 10 7 4 6 17 15

July 9 7 5 5

August 9 7 5 5

September 10 7 5 6 15 13

October 12 8 5 7

November 13 9 6 6

December 14 11 6 7 16 16

Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulation (WSER)

Quarterly monitoring reports were submitted through Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Effluent Regulatory Reporting Information System (ERRIS) in 2016. As required by WSER, the effluent monitoring data reported were: number of days that effluent was deposited; total volume of effluent deposited in m3; average cBOD in mg/L and the average concentration of suspended solids in mg/L. In addition, secondary treatment plants Annacis Island and Lulu Island were required to report Acute Lethality on a monthly basis and Northwest Langley was required to report Acute Lethality on a quarterly basis.

On April 14, 2016 Metro Vancouver received notification from Environment and Climate Change Canada that the treatment plants were eligible to reduce the acute lethality sampling frequency as follows:

Annacis Island and Lulu Island WWTPs: Quarterly

Northwest Langley WWTP: Annually

A summary of non-compliance with the parameters required by the WSER for the District’s secondary wastewater treatment plants in 2016 is shown the next table.

11

Parameter Annacis Island WWTP

Lulu Island WWTP

Northwest Langley WWTP

Suspended Solids 0 0 0


0 0 0

Un-ionized Ammonia 0 0 0

Total Residual Chlorine 0 0 0*

Acute Lethality 0 0 0

*Peracetic acid (PAA) was used as primary disinfectant during disinfection season for Northwest Langley WWTP

GVS&DD’s primary plants, Iona Island and Lions Gate WWTPs were issued transitional authorizations under WSER on September 5, 2014. A summary of non-compliance with the parameters required by the transitional authorizations for the District’s primary wastewater treatment plants is shown the next table.

Transitional Authorization – September 05, 2014

Parameter Iona

Island WWTP

Lions Gate

WWTP

Suspended Solids 0 0


0 0

Un-ionized Ammonia 0 0

BIOSOLIDS MONITORING PROGRAM

Process Requirements and Biosolids Management

The Organic Matter Recycling Regulation (OMRR) governs the management of biosolids and compost as soil amendments in the Province of British Columbia. Under this regulation, sampling frequencies and criteria values for fecal coliforms and metals as specified for Class A and Class B biosolids are based on several parameters including: type of treatment process (pathogen reduction requirements, vector attraction reduction), the amount of dry solids produced on a monthly basis and the intended use of the material. The GVS&DD’s biosolids management program ensures that any biosolids not meeting class specifications are identified, tracked and managed appropriately.

Thermophilic digesters at the Annacis Island WWTP consistently meet requirements for pathogen reduction and vector attraction reduction to produce Class A biosolids. The Lulu Island WWTP mesophilic digesters and Lions Gate WWTP thermophilic digesters are operated to produce Class B biosolids.

The Iona Island WWTP operates mesophilic digesters which produce digested sludge complying with Class B pathogen levels. At Iona Island WWTP discharges from the digesters are further processed via lagoon

12

stabilization and land-drying to produce a Class B biosolids product with soil-like consistency. These biosolids are currently stockpiled on site with anticipated use in future recycling projects. The Northwest Langley WWTP stopped operating aerobic digesters and continued to haul thickened wasted secondary sludge to Annacis Island WWTP.

Biosolids Quality

About 17,000 tests were performed on biosolids in 2016. The results showed that metals concentrations were generally well below the criteria value limits specified by OMRR.

Data values produced during 2016 for fecal coliforms in biosolids were within the Class A or Class B criteria for the Annacis Island, Lulu Island and Lions Gate WWTPs.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

Environmental monitoring programs form a major part of the Metro Vancouver’s integrated approach to managing liquid waste. The purpose of monitoring is to characterize the receiving and ambient environmental conditions of relevant water bodies in the region in order to understand the relative contribution and significance of discharges from our regional and municipal systems, determine if the applicable regulatory requirements are being met, and to warn of possible environmental issues.

Overflow Quality Monitoring and Risk Assessments

Combined Sewer Overflows

In 2016, the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Monitoring Program characterized the overflow water quality for five selected CSO locations: Chilco-Brockton, Macdonald, Manitoba, Heather, and Clark Drive. In addition, the field work for human health and ecological risk assessment with the Clark Drive CSO was completed.

Sanitary Sewer Overflows

Metro Vancouver maintained automated sampling stations at seven sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) locations in 2016: Cloverdale, Katzie, 225th Street, Braid Street, Lynn, MacKay and Bellevue. SSOs occurred at two of these stations: Braid, and 225th St. Samples were collected in order to characterize SSOs during wet weather events, with the goal to inform decisions on potential management options, including collection of data required for design of mitigation infrastructure, if required.

Based on monitoring data collected between October 2012 and November 2015, a screening level human health and ecological risk assessment for Braid Street, MacKay and Bellevue SSOs has been completed.

In addition, a program review to identify improvement opportunities to the sanitary sewer overflow and associated receiving environment monitoring programs was completed.

13

Whole Effluent Toxicity Monitoring

In 2016, all effluent samples from all wastewater treatment plants passed the required monthly acute toxicity test using Environment and Climate Change Canada test protocols except for four samples of Lions Gate effluent and six Iona Island effluent samples.

For the four samples from the Lions Gate plant, the observed toxicity in two samples was related to detergents. The remaining two Lions Gate samples and the six Iona Island samples required oxygen in excess of that specified by the Environment and Climate Change Canada method.

Periodically some chronic toxicity of effluent, as well as some background toxicity in the Fraser River away from the influence of the WWTP discharges was observed. Determining if there is a pattern to the observed variability, and subsequently identifying potential sources of apparent chronic toxicity will require further testing.

Ammonia in the effluent is also monitored to determine the potential for an acutely lethal concentration. Effluent ammonia concentrations in all wastewater treatment plants remained below the criteria of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) Threshold Curve and as a result are not expected to cause acute toxicity.

WWTP Receiving Environment Quality

Metro Vancouver conducted comprehensive monitoring of the receiving environment for its wastewater treatment plant outfalls. In 2016, the monitoring programs included monitoring the boundary of the initial dilution zone (IDZ), and sediment effects surveys.

Site specific water quality objectives and guidelines were met at the boundary of the initial dilution zone for all Metro Vancouver wastewater treatment plants, except for dissolved oxygen and boron. Water dissolved oxygen concentrations were slightly below the guideline at the IDZ boundary and reference area for both the Lions Gate and Iona Island outfalls and these concentrations may be related to regional changes. As well, water boron concentrations were above the corresponding guideline, but lower in the effluent than in the receiving environment where concentrations were consistent with those in Canadian coastal waters.

Monitoring results of the marine receiving environment for sediments effects around the two primary wastewater treatment plant outfalls were similar to prior years and indicated some changes. Further assessment is expected to clarify whether these changes may be outfall related, are due to regional long-term fluctuations in oceanographic conditions, or are due to a combination of these and other confounding factors.

Recreational Water Quality

Metro Vancouver monitored the bacteriological quality of recreational waters in the region at 115 sampling sites from 41 locations. Both bathing and non-bathing beaches were monitored. In 2016, the bacteriological water quality for primary-contact recreation was met at bathing beaches during the bathing beach season from May through September, except for Wreck Beach Trail #7 (Oasis). A swimming advisory was issued by the Health Authority for this beach in June. False Creek met the working guideline limit for secondary or incidental-contact activities throughout the 2016 season.

14

Ambient Environment Quality

Metro Vancouver conducted ambient monitoring for all of the major water bodies that receive discharges from point and non-point sources in the Metro Vancouver region. In 2016, ambient monitoring programs included assessment of the water quality for the Fraser River, Burrard Inlet, Strait of Georgia and Boundary Bay, assessment of sediments in the Fraser River and Boundary Bay. Work continued on a multiple year program to better understand the dispersal and removal of contaminants in the Strait of Georgia. In addition, a comprehensive review of all components of the ambient monitoring program for Burrard Inlet was completed.

In 2016, a long-term plan to monitor water column persistent organic substances in the Strait of Georgia was developed and field work to quantify their bioaccumulation across the food web was initiated.

Fraser River ambient monitoring program water quality results indicated that the applicable water quality objectives and guidelines were met. Sediment results mostly met the applicable sediment quality objectives and guidelines, with the exception of several total metals and several organic parameters.

The Burrard Inlet program review concluded that the objectives of the program are met; and identified elevated concentrations of several parameters in sediment and fish that may be attributable to MV operations.

The findings of the remaining monitoring programs are not yet available.

15

1.0 WASTEWATER TREATMENT MONITORING PROGRAM

1.1 LABORATORY PROGRAMS

In 2016, the Environmental Management & Quality Control Division carried out all routine monitoring

programs as required by the Ministry of Environment (MOE) and Environment and Climate Change Canada

relating to the discharge of primary and secondary treated effluent from the Greater Vancouver Sewerage

and Drainage District’s wastewater treatment plants.

As specified in the Operational Certificates issued by the MOE in April, 2004 for each treatment plant, the

GVS&DD is required to monitor and report data monthly for effluent quality, treated sludge, and receiving

waters.

The federal Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations (WSER) under the Fisheries Act came into effect on

July 18, 2012. GVS&DD is required to monitor and report effluent monitoring data quarterly. The effluent

quality standards and limits as specified in WSER for the three secondary plants and in the transitional

authorizations for the two primary plants were in force throughout the year.

Environmental Management & Quality Control (EMQC) Laboratory staff conducted analyses of samples

collected on various stages of treatment for process control at each wastewater treatment plant; they

also provided analytical services for Residuals Management and Regulation & Enforcement purposes.

EMQC laboratory maintained a high level of analytical and technical support for special projects at all

wastewater treatment plants.

The total number of analyses completed by the laboratory sections for all GVS&DD programs was over

195,000 analyses in 2016.

Monitoring programs carried out in 2016 provided a comprehensive set of influent and effluent

characteristics for each wastewater treatment plant and included all the monitoring requirements

specified in the Wastewater Treatment Plant Operational Certificates and WSER. The full set of

parameters for influent/effluent monitoring programs are presented in Table 1.1. Parameters indicated

with a “C” are the specific authorized discharge parameters listed in the operational certificate for each

treatment plant, whereas parameters indicated with an “M” are required for monitoring of effluent

characteristics. Parameters indicated with a “W” are required for WSER reporting. Parameters designated

“R” are monitored on a routine basis for wastewater characterization.

16

1.2 MONTHLY REPORTING FOR OPERATIONAL CERTIFICATES

In accordance with the Operational Certificate requirements, all routine data reports for each wastewater

treatment plant are posted on Metro Vancouver’s website and updated on a monthly basis at the

following location:

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/liquid-waste/treatment/environmental-

monitoring/operational-certificates/Pages/default.aspx

1.3 QUARTERLY REPORTING FOR WASTEWATER SYSTEMS EFFLUENT REGULATIONS (WSER)

As per the Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations (WSER) under the Fisheries Act, the monitoring

provisions were in effect throught the year. Quarterly monitoring reports were submitted to Environment

and Climate Change Canada through electronic Effluent Regulatory Reporting Information System (ERRIS)

within 45 days after the end of each quarter.

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/liquid-waste/treatment/environmental-monitoring/operational-certificates/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/liquid-waste/treatment/environmental-monitoring/operational-certificates/Pages/default.aspx

17

TABLE 1.1: WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT MONITORING PARAMETERS – INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT

Composite sample are collected over a 24 hour period

*During chlorination season only.

**COD is reported five times per week with BOD once per week

***Ammonia and pH are done on weekly grabs for all WWTP for CEPA monitoring

****Data used to calculate un-unionized ammonia

*****WSER Reporting requirements as of April 14, 2016

C = Operational Certificate Authorize Discharge parameter

W = Wastewater System Effluent Regulations (WSER)

M = Operational Certificate Effluent Monitor Requirement

R = Routine Monitoring, Influent and Effluent

() = Operational Certificate Reporting Requirements

Parameter Test Lab Sample Testing ANNACIS IONA LIONS GATE LULU NW Langley

Location Type Frequency OC ME-00387 OC ME-00023 OC ME-00030 OC ME-00233 OC ME-04339

TKN Chemistry Composite 1/mo R R R R R

NO3/N02 N " " Grab 1/mo R R R R R

Total Ammonia N*** " " Grab 1/wk M(1/wk) M(2/mo) M(2/mo) M(1/wk) M(1/mo)

Total Ammonia N**** " " Composite 3/wk W W W W W(1/wk)

Un-ionized Ammonia " " Composite 3/wk W W W W W(1/wk)

pH at 15oC**** WWTP Composite 3/wk W W W W W(1/wk)

MBAS Chemistry Grab 1/mo R R R R R

SO4 " " Composite 1/mo R R R M M

Alkalinity " " Composite 1/mo R R R R R

Hardness (Total) " " Composite 1/mo M M M M M

Total Phosphorous " " Composite 1/mo R R R R R

Dissolved Phosphorous " " Composite 1/mo R R R R R

LC50 (effluent)***** Grab 1/mo M(1/mo) M(1/mo) M(1/mo)

W(1/quarter) W(1/quarter) W(1/year)

Oil & Grease Chemistry Grab 1/mo R R R R R

Phenol " " Grab 1/mo M M R M M

Total Cyanide " " Grab 1/mo R R R R R

Total Aluminum " " Composite 1/mo M M M M M

Total Arsenic " " Composite 1/mo M M M R M

Total Barium " " Composite 1/mo M M M M M

Total Boron " " Composite 1/mo M M M M M

Total Cadmium " " Composite 1/mo M M M M R

Total Cobalt " " Composite 1/mo M R R R M

Total Chromium " " Composite 1/mo R R R R R

Total Copper " " Composite 1/mo M M M M M

Total Iron " " Composite 1/mo M M M M M

Total Lead " " Composite 1/mo M M M M M

Total Manganese " " Composite 1/mo M M R M M

Total Mercury " " Composite 1/mo M M R M M

Total Molybdenum " " Composite 1/mo M M M M M

Total Nickel " " Composite 1/mo M M M M M

Total Selenium " " Composite 1/mo M M M R R

Total Sliver " " Composite 1/mo M M M M M

Total Tin " " Composite 1/mo R R R R R

Total Zinc " " Composite 1/mo M R M M M

Dissolved Aluminum " " Composite 1/mo R R R R R

Dissolved Barium " " Composite 1/mo R R R R R

Dissolved Boron " " Composite 1/mo R R R R R

Dissolved Cadmium " " Composite 1/mo R R R R R

Dissolved Cobalt " " Composite 1/mo R R R R R

Dissolved Chromium " " Composite 1/mo R R R R R

Dissolved Copper " " Composite 1/mo R R R R R

Dissolved Iron " " Composite 1/mo R R R R R

Dissolved Lead " " Composite 1/mo R R R R R

Dissolved Manganese " " Composite 1/mo R R R R R

Dissolved Molybdenum " " Composite 1/mo R R R R R

Dissolved Nickel " " Composite 1/mo R R R R R

Dissolved Selenium " " Composite 1/mo R R R R R

Dissolved Silver " " Composite 1/mo R R R R R

Dissolved Tin " " Composite 1/mo R R R R R

Dissolved Zinc " " Composite 1/mo R R R R R

pH WWTP Grab 1 to 5/wk M M M M M

BOD** " " Composite 2 to 3/wk - C** C** - -

cBOD** " " Composite 3/wk C**/W W W C**/W C/W(1/wk)

Suspended Solids " " Composite Daily C(5/wk)/W(3/wk) C(5/wk)/W(3/wk) C(5/wk)/W(3/wk) C(5/wk)/W(3/wk) C/W(1/wk)

Volatile Suspended Solids " " Composite Daily R R R R R

COD** " " Composite 5 d/wk M** M** M** M** R

Conductivity " " Composite 5/wk to Daily R R R R R

Chloride " " Composite 1/wk R R R R R

Residual Chlorine* " " Grab Daily C/W - C/W C/W C/W

Dissolved Oxygen " " Grab 1/mo to 5/wk R R R R R

Temperature " " Grab 1/mo to 5/wk M M M M M

Fecal Coliform (effluent)* Microbiology Grab 1 to 5/wk M(1/wk) - M(1/wk) M(1/wk) M(1/mo)

Composite sample are collected over a 24 hour period C = Compliance parameter

* During chlorination season only. W = Wastewater System Effluent Regulations (WSER)

** COD is reported five times per week with BOD once per week M = Operational Certificate Monitoring (Effluent)

*** Ammonia and pH are done on weekly grabs for all WWTP for CEPA monitoring. R = Routine Monitoring, Influent and Effluent

****Data used to calculate un-ionized ammonia ( ) = Operational Certificate Reporting Requirements

***** WSER Reporting requirements as of April 14, 2016

Monitoring Requirements

M(1/mo) M(1/mo)Consultants

19

2.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC)

The mission of the Metro Vancouver Laboratory is to provide high quality analytical services to Metro

Vancouver and its member municipalities. Analytical services currently include chromatography,

spectroscopy, flow injection colorimetry, gravimetry, and titrimetry. The Metro Vancouver Laboratory

performs routine tests and quality control tests on a wide range of environmental samples, including

water, wastewater, receiving water and solid waste; and provides full analytical reporting for process

control.

To fulfill this commitment, the Metro Vancouver Laboratory is accredited by the Canadian Association for

Laboratory Accreditation (CALA). The International Standard to which the Metro Vancouver Laboratory is

accredited is ISO/IEC 17025:2005 (General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration

Laboratories). Accreditation under ISO/IEC 17025 is a demonstration of confidence in the laboratory’s

technical competence. Accreditation provides formal recognition of the competence of a laboratory to

manage and perform specific tests. Furthermore, the accreditation program is based on satisfactory

participation in a site assessment plus satisfactory compliance with the CALA Proficiency Testing

Requirements for accreditation.

The main facilities of the Metro Vancouver Laboratory are: the Chemistry Laboratory section, the

Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Process Control Laboratory section and Microbiology Laboratory

section. The Chemistry Laboratory section, located at the Annacis Island WWTP, performs chemical and

physical tests. The WWTP Process Control Laboratory section maintains a laboratory facility at each

Wastewater Treatment Plant. These laboratory facilities carry out analyses for regulatory and process

control requirements for the five wastewater treatment plants. The Microbiology Laboratory section,

located at Lake City Operations Centre, performs bacteriological testing on drinking water, receiving

water, wastewater and biosolids samples.

In 2016, over 195,000 analyses were performed by the Liquid Waste Services - Environmental

Management & Quality Control (LWS-EMQC) Laboratory. This number of analyses encompasses all

analytical programs, including Quality Assurance/Quality Control program, carried out by the Liquid Waste

Services laboratory sections. The laboratory conducted more than 65,700 tests on QA/QC samples. This

represents 28.6% of the total analytical workload. These analyses were part of an on-going QA/QC

program to fulfill MV commitment to quality and requirements for accreditation.

In order to maintain laboratory accreditation, Metro Vancouver Laboratory is required to undergo a site

reassessment every two years where conformance to the standard ISO/IEC 17025 is assessed. An

assessment based on ISO/IEC 17025 covers the overall Quality Management System of the laboratory and

assesses the technical competence of the laboratory to conduct specific tests. Following a successful site

audit, the CALA Accreditation Council grants accreditation to the laboratory. In September 2015, a team

of CALA auditors conducted a site assessment of the LWS-EMQC Laboratory. The auditors concluded that

the EMQC Laboratory has met the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025. As a result, a panel of the CALA

Accreditation Council has given approval to the LWS-EMQC Laboratory for the 2015 - 2017 maintenance

of accreditation.

20

During the year 2016, the Metro Vancouver Laboratory participated in the following inter-laboratory

analytical performance evaluation/certification programs:

The British Columbia Environmental Data Quality Assurance (BCEDQA) Program. Metro

Vancouver laboratory has been participating in this program since May 1991. The program has

been administered by CALA since January 1999.

The goal of external performance studies is to demonstrate technical competence. In 2016, the MV LWS

laboratory achieved an average PT score of 93, and 95% of the PT scores fell within the range of 78 – 99.

The PT score is normalized to a scale from 1 – 100. A PT score of 100 implies a perfect result. Acceptable

composite PT scores equal or exceed 70.

21

3.0 ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP

23

3.0 ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP

2016 ANNUAL SUMMARY

3.1 EFFLUENT QUALITY

The quality of effluent from Annacis Island WWTP in 2016 along with the authorized discharge compliance

parameters listed in the Operational Certificate is summarized in Table 3.1.

TABLE 3.1: ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP – 2016 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

Due to a disruption in the final effluent flow signal, secondary effluent flow readings are used for the

minimum, average and maximum flows on August 4, August 22 and August 23. Due to a malfunctioning

sampler, the secondary effluent composite results are reported as final effluent on December 7.

3.2 COMPLIANCE REVIEW (ME-00387) AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

The Ministry of Environment under the provisions of the Environmental Management Act and in

accordance with Metro Vancouver’s Liquid Waste Management Plan issued an Operational Certificate

ME-00387 on April 23, 2004. The operational certificate included the compliance levels shown in Table

3.2.

TABLE 3.2: OPERATIONAL CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE LEVELS

Daily authorized rate of discharge 1,050,000 cubic meters/day, maximum

5-day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (cBOD5) 45 mg/L, maximum

Total suspended solids (nonfilterable residue) (TSS) 45 mg/L, maximum

The maximum daily discharge loadings for cBOD and TSS are used for the calculation of the annual

operational certificate fees. For 2016, the maximum authorized daily loadings were 17.0 tonnes/day for

cBOD and 20.0 tonnes/day for TSS.

Discharge Monitoring

A total of 28 parameters and the two daily loading results for final effluent are posted on Metro

Vancouver’s website on a monthly basis. Specific compliance levels apply to six parameters: total daily

discharge flow, cBOD, TSS, chlorine residual and maximum daily loading for cBOD and TSS.

Operational Certificate Requirement - ME00387, April 23, 2004.

Compliance Parameters Testing

Frequency

Max. Value

for the Year

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Yr to Date

Total Flow (MLD) Daily 858 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

cBOD (mg/L)* 3/week 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Suspended Solids (mg/L) 5/week 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

cBOD (Tonnes/Day)* 3/week 8.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Susp. Solids (tonnes/Day) 5/week 28.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Chlorine Residual (mg/L) Daily <0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Disinfection Daily - 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Plant Bypass - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Secondary Bypass - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

* cBOD reported 1/week when COD are reported 5/week

17.0

No. of Times Criteria Not Met

OC Limits

1050

45

45

20.0

<0.1

-

-

2ADW

24

3.2.1 OPERATIONAL CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE REVIEW

In 2016, Annacis Island WWTP had two instances when it did not meet requirements of its Operational

Certificates, as shown in table 3.1.

The daily loadings for TSS on November 2 exceeded the Operational Certificate discharge limit due to high

flow conditions and elevated TSS concentrations.

Effluent bypasses

Operational Certificate ME-00387 Requirement:

“For flows less than two times dry weather flow, wastewater bypassing the designated

treatment works is prohibited unless the approval of the Regional Waste Manager is

obtained and confirmed in writing. Wastewater flows exceeding the capacity of the

secondary treatment works may bypass those works when flows are greater than two

times measured dry weather flow, provided that primary effluent standards are

maintained for the effluent not receiving secondary treatment.”

There was no bypassing of the secondary treatment process in 2016.

Plant bypasses

There were no plant bypass events in 2016.

Disinfection


“The effluent shall be disinfected between April 1 and October 31 so that the Fraser River

fecal coliform water quality objective is not exceeded at the edge of the initial dilution

zone as described in the Municipal Sewage Regulation.

If chlorine is used, the effluent shall be dechlorinated prior to discharge to reduce the

chlorine residual below the detection limit.”

The effluent was disinfected from March 30 to October 31 inclusive using sodium hypochlorite solution

(SHS) and dechlorinated using sodium bisulfite (SBS). The average SHS dosage as chlorine was 2.2 mg/L

and the average SBS dosage as SO2 was 2.0 mg/L.

25

Annacis Island WWTP had one instance of dechlorination interruption on June 5 due to loss of power. The

plant discharged total of 8.9 ML in 26 minutes. Based on dilution dispersion modelling of downstream

concentrations the applicable Health Canada Recreational Water Quality Guidelines and the BC MOE

Water Quality Guidelines were predicted to have been met.

The Fraser River fecal coliform Water Quality Objective (WQO) of 200 MPN/100 mL at the edge of the

Initial Dilution Zone (IDZ) was predicted to have been met from May through October as shown in Table

3.3.

TABLE 3.3: PREDICTED 30 DAY FECAL COLIFORM GEOMEAN AT THE ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP IDZ

Final Effluent April May June July August September October

Max 30 day Geomean* - 29 36 39 48 49 61

Dilution Factor** - 40 40 40 40 40 40

IDZ Result *** - 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.5

WQO (Met or Not Met) - Met Met Met Met Met Met * Geomean (MPN/100mL) over 30 day period (effluent).

** Dilution Factor - minimum dilution factor for IDZ at the Annacis Island WWTP outfall.

*** IDZ Result - determined by calculation of Geometric Mean of fecal coliform levels in the receiving water due to discharges of final effluent,

for 30 day periods at the edge of the IDZ.

3.2.2 PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

Annacis Island WWTP treated a total of 180,044 ML in 2016. The average effluent daily flow of 492 MLD

was 5.1% higher than in 2015. The highest daily flow of 858 MLD and the peak flow rate of 12.8 m3/sec

(1107 MLD) were recorded on February 16 and February 15, respectively (Figure 3.1).

FIGURE 3.1 2016 ANNACIS WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL DAILY FLOWS

26

Influent SS loading is higher than in 2015 and BOD loadings were 4.4% and 4.2% lower than in 2015 (Table

3.4). Influent SS concentrations ranged from 94 to 266 mg/L, and averaged 182 mg/L. Influent BOD

concentrations ranged from 90 to 256 mg/L, and averaged 190 mg/L.

The plant continued to produce good effluent quality in 2016 (Table 3.4). The final effluent SS ranged from

5 to 34 mg/L (Figure 3.2). The final effluent cBOD ranged from 5 to 12 mg/L (Figure 3.3). Effluent SS loading

of 1,897 tonnes/year was 34% higher and effluent cBOD loading of 1,437 tonnes/year was 15.9% higher

than in 2015.

27

FIGURE 3.2 2016 ANNACIS WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS

FIGURE 3.3 2016 ANNACIS WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL CBOD

28

In 2016, the average reduction of suspended solids was 94% and average reduction of BOD was 95%.

TABLE 3.4: 2007-2016 ANNUAL AVERAGE DATA FOR FLOW, SUSPENDED SOLIDS AND BOD

3.3 WASTEWATER SYSTEMS EFFLUENT REGULATIONS (WSER) AND COMPLIANCE REVIEW

The WSER specifies the limits for the deleterious substances that are authorized to be deposited by any

wastewater system. The effluent quality standards and limits for Annacis Island WWTP are shown in Table

3.5.

TABLE 3.5: WSER COMPLIANCE LEVELS

Monthly average carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (cBOD)

25 mg/L

Monthly average concentration of suspended solids (SS) 25 mg/L

Monthly average concentration of total residual chlorine 0.02 mg/L

Quarterly monitoring reports were submitted through Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Effluent

Regulatory Reporting Information System (ERRIS). The effluent monitoring data reported were: Number

of days that effluent was deposited; Total volume of effluent deposited in cubic meters; Average

concentration of cBOD in mg/L; Average concentration of SS in mg/L and Acute Lethality.

On April 14, 2016 Metro Vancouver received notification from Environment and Climate Change Canada

that the Annacis Island WWTP was eligible to reduce sampling for Acute Lethality from monthly to

quarterly.

3.3.1 WSER COMPLIANCE REVIEW

In 2016, Annacis Island WWTP met WSER effluent quality standards and limits on cBOD and suspended

solids as summarized in Table 3.6.

YEAR FLOWS Suspended Solids Suspended Solids BOD cBOD BOD cBOD

MLD mg/L Tonnes/year

INF EFF INF EFF INF EFF INF EFF

2007 510 164 13 29648 2522 176 9 31146 1719

2008 475 170 16 28921 2774 187 10 31719 1698

2009 487 174 14 30041 2514 190 9 32611 1687

2010 482 172 12 29684 2211 176 7 30453 1262

2011 483 176 12 30469 2196 182 8 31407 1396

2012 494 175 10 30873 1871 186 6 32480 1148

2013 470 189 10 31848 1683 197 7 32829 1107

2014 488 178 8 30557 1566 183 7 31503 1309

2015 468 190 8 31370 1414 198 7 32186 1240

2016 492 182 10 31552 1897 190 8 32016 1437

Tonnes/yearmg/L

29

TABLE 3.6: 2016 WSER MONITORING REPORT

Number of Days Total volume of Average Average Concentration

that effluent effluent deposited CBOD of Suspended Solids

was deposited (m3) (mg/L) (mg/L)

January 31 16,898,790 8 9

February 29 16,733,997 10 12

March 31 17,126,725 8 9

April 30 12,770,165 6 7 <0.02

May 31 12,626,279 7 9 <0.02

June 30 12,590,627 7 10 <0.02

July 31 12,626,779 7 9 <0.02

August 31 12,401,640 7 9 <0.02

September 30 12,633,559 7 10 <0.02

October 31 15,961,634 8 12 <0.02

November 30 19,182,885 9 13 <0.02

December 31 18,490,432 11 14

Acute Lethality Test Results

Sample Collection Date/Time EPS 1 / RM / 13 EPS 1 / RM / 50 Was Sample Acutely Lethal?

2/2/2016 8:30 Multi-Concentration Test Yes No




SAMPLING LOCATION: ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP EFFLUENT

January to December, 2016

GVS&DD MONITORING REPORT FOR WASTEWATER SYSTEMS EFFLUENT REGULATIONS

Average Concentration

of Total Residual

Chlorine (mg/L)

31

3.4 SECONDARY PROCESS

Annacis Island WWTP secondary process operated well with four trickling filters; three aeration tanks in

contact mode; one aeration tank in re-aeration mode and twelve secondary clarifiers. Waste secondary

solids are withdrawn from the re-aeration tank. Trickling filters achieved an average of soluble cBOD

(scBOD) removal of 71%. The remaining scBOD concentrations after the trickling effluent ranged from 8

to 27 mg/L. Average Mean Cell Residence Time (MCRT) for the solids in the aeration tanks was 1.7 days

and it was adjusted seasonally from 1.1 to 2.8 days. Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids (MLSS) concentrations

were between 852 and 1,640 mg/L with an average of 1,211 mg/L.

3.5 SOLIDS TREATMENT

Sludge from the primary sedimentation tanks was thickened using two gravity thickeners and screened

using inline sludge screens. The average Thickened Screened Primary Sludge (TSPS) total solids content

was 3.9%.

Waste secondary sludge from the re-aeration tank was thickened using two Dissolved Air Floatation

Thickeners (DAFTs). The average Thickened Waste Secondary Sludge (TWSS) total solids content was 5.5%

with subnatant suspended solids concentration of 18 mg/L and Thickened Bottom Sludge (TBS) suspended

solids concentration of 72 mg/L. The average DAFT polymer dosage was 3.9 kg/dry tonne.

Mixed sludge from the primary and secondary processes had an average total solids content of 4.2% and

volatile solids content of 88%. The average mixed sludge composition was 52% primary sludge and 48%

secondary sludge.

Sludge was digested in three thermophilic primary digesters and one secondary digester or Flow Through

Vessel (FTV). Annacis Island WWTP digesters processed about 99.7% mixed sludge and 0.3% Thickened

Waste Secondary Sludge (TWSS) from the Northwest Langley WWTP. Total annual TWSS volume from the

Northwest Langley WWTP was 12.3 ML.

The digestion operation was stable with an average hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 18 days for the

primary digesters and 2 days for the FTVs. The average volatile solids reduction was 63% and the average

organic loading rate was 2.08 kg/m3. Bicarbonate alkalinity concentrations ranged between 4,608 and

5,495 mg/L.

Biosolids dewatering achieved an average cake solids content of 27.6% and average centrate suspended

solids concentration of 1,621 mg/L with an average recovery of 91%. The average polymer usage was 9.8

kg/tonne.

A comprehensive summary of the Annacis Island WWTP performance and monitoring results is presented

in tables 3.7 to 3.10.

32

TABLE 3.7: ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP - 2016 ROUTINE MONITORING RESULTS AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

MONTH Max. Total Daily Grab NH3 Composite Unionized

Inst.Flow Effluent Flow Average NH3 Maximum

Rate (MLD) (mg/L) (mg/L)

(m3/sec) Max. Min. Ave. FINAL EFF FINAL EFF FINAL EFF FINAL EFF

JAN 11.5 805 432 545 7.1 27.7 >100 0.47

FEB 12.8 858 457 577 7.2 26.9 >100 0.56

MAR 11.2 801 461 552 7.1 28.8 >100 0.56

APR 7.4 494 402 426 7.4 36.2 >100 0.72

MAY 9.6 553 373 407 7.2 37.1 >100 0.81

JUN 7.4 454 404 420 7.3 34.4 >100 0.71

JUL 7.0 495 375 407 7.4 33.4 >100 0.79

AUG 6.8 421 385 400 7.3 35.1 >100 0.78

SEP 9.3 525 390 421 7.2 33.3 >100 0.78

OCT 9.8 637 405 515 7.3 32.0 >100 0.71

NOV 12.3 851 506 639 7.1 24.1 >100 0.52

DEC 11.5 743 462 596 6.9 26.8 >100 0.56

# Samples - - - 366 52 52 12 156

Maximum-Yr. 12.8 858 - - 7.6 42.1 >100 0.81

Minimum-Yr. - - 373 - 6.9 19.2 >100 0.14

Average-Yr. - - - 492 7.2 31.3 >100 0.49

MONTH SHS SBS Geomean Fecal Coliform

Dosage Dosage (MPN/100mL)

mg/L Cl2 mg/L SO2 AT EFFLUENT WEIR RAW INF

FINAL EFF FINAL EFF Before SO2 After SO2 FINAL EFF FINAL EFF Monthly Max. 30 d Geomean

JAN 14 - - - - - - -

FEB 14 - - - - - - -

MAR 15 1.4 0.63 <0.02 2.1 1.45 - -

APR 18 1.8 0.74 <0.02 2.0 1.32 23 23

MAY 20 2.2 0.59 <0.02 2.0 1.40 29 29

JUN 21 2.4 0.65 <0.02 2.0 1.43 26 36

JUL 22 2.3 0.62 <0.02 2.0 1.50 42 39

AUG 23 2.3 0.58 <0.02 2.0 1.45 44 48

SEP 22 2.4 0.69 <0.02 2.0 1.35 34 49

OCT 19 1.9 0.71 <0.02 1.9 1.29 61 61

NOV 16 - - - - - - -

DEC 14 - - - - - - -

# Samples 53 222 233 233 223 233 62 62

Maximum-Yr. 23 2.7 1.00 <0.02 2.5 2.07 210 61

Minimum-Yr. 13 1.2 0.30 <0.02 1.3 0.23 <18 18

Average-Yr. 18 2.2 0.65 <0.02 2.0 1.36 - 34

Geomean - - - - - - 35 -

Ave Temp.

(oC)

Ave. Residual Cl2SO2

mg/LFinal Effluent

(mg/L)

Grab pH

Average

(pH)

96 hr LC50

(%v/v)

(1) Temperature, Residual Chlorine (taken before dechlorination), 96 hour LC50 and Coliform are determined on grab samples; allother parameters are determined on 24 hr. flow proportioned composite samples.

(1) Percent reduction is calculated only for days when both influent and effluent tests were done

33

TABLE 3.7 CONT'D: ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP - 2016 ROUTINE MONITORING RESULTS AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

MONTH

RAW INF FINAL EFF

Max. Min. Ave. Max. Min. Ave. Primary Final RAW INF FINAL EFF RAW INF FINAL EFF

JAN 213 100 160 10 6 9 58 94 84.6 4.9 441 533

FEB 194 106 145 15 9 12 52 92 81.1 6.7 413 520

MAR 185 119 149 13 7 9 52 94 81.3 5.2 434 559

APR 258 157 206 9 5 7 63 97 87.3 3.0 540 701

MAY 266 175 222 13 6 9 66 96 90.2 3.6 532 679

JUN 238 181 213 13 7 10 67 95 89.3 4.1 499 631

JUL 243 186 214 11 7 9 67 96 87.4 3.7 477 603

AUG 241 182 215 13 7 9 68 96 86.2 3.8 483 599

SEP 222 175 204 13 6 10 65 95 85.9 4.4 477 587

OCT 225 142 172 18 8 12 63 93 88.0 6.0 438 541

NOV 174 94 135 34 7 13 56 90 84.9 8.6 395 477

DEC 191 113 150 18 10 14 60 91 88.3 8.2 617 673

# Samples - - 361 - - 366 358 361 361 366 360 365

Maximum-Yr. 266 - - 34 - - 77 98 108 28.9 1120 998

Minimum-Yr. - 94 - - 5 - 30 72 65.7 2.0 321 398

Average-Yr. - - 182 - - 10 61 94 86.2 5.2 479 592

Total to Date - Suspended Solids Loadings (Tonnes): 31552 1897

MONTH Average BOD Ave. BOD/cBOD Loadings

% Reduction (Tonnes/day)

RAW INF FINAL EFF BOD cBOD


JAN 222 90 163 9 6 8 28 94 88.8 4.3 382 62

FEB 185 100 147 12 7 10 29 93 84.2 5.6 349 69

MAR 188 102 159 10 6 8 31 94 83.9 4.3 363 65

APR 256 192 218 7 5 6 36 97 91.5 2.4 488 71

MAY 253 223 233 8 6 7 40 97 93.8 2.6 535 70

JUN 232 198 208 9 5 7 36 97 87.6 2.9 515 69

JUL 229 193 216 9 6 7 33 97 88.6 2.9 509 68

AUG 245 186 216 9 5 7 37 97 86.6 2.9 514 69

SEP 242 151 214 9 6 7 34 97 89.9 3.1 501 68

OCT 199 138 176 11 6 8 30 95 86.6 4.1 415 71

NOV 173 105 135 12 7 9 30 93 83.8 5.7 321 61

DEC 178 119 140 12 9 11 28 92 83.7 6.3 373 68

# Samples - - 98 - - 156 86 88 98 156 351 262

Maximum-Yr. 256 - - 12 - - 45 98 106 8.4 604 87

Minimum-Yr. - 90 - - 5 - 17 90 71.6 2.0 230 39

Average-Yr. - - 190 - - 8 33 95 87.5 3.9 439 67

Total to Date - Biochemical Oxygen Demand Loadings (Tonnes): 32016 1437

BOD cBODAverage COD

(mg/L)(mg/L) (mg/L)

Conductivity

(umhos/cm)(mg/L)

Total Suspended SolidsTotal Susp. Solids

Ave. % Reduction

Ave. Suspended Solids

Loadings (Tonnes/day)


34

TABLE 3.8: ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP – 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM INFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS SUMMARY

Parameter Sample Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Type Max. Min. Ave.

Fluoride mg/L Comp. <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.06 <0.05 <0.05 0.06 <0.05 <0.06

Hardness Total as CaCO3 mg/L Comp. 48.3 51.2 45.8 48.9 45.0 42.0 42.4 38.8 39.3 40.3 53.0 59.4 59.4 38.8 46.2

Kjeldahl Nitrogen Total mg/L Comp. 38 28 27 42 43 41 43 43 39 41 25 30 43 25 37

Nitrate as N mg/L Grab <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Nitrite as N mg/L Grab <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.02 <0.01 <0.02

Ammonia as N mg/L Comp. 25.2 20.1 18.4 27.4 28.3 25.8 27.5 26.9 26.9 26.4 15.9 20.4 28.3 15.9 24.1

Sulphate mg/L Comp. 11.8 15.4 12.9 11.2 11.6 10.7 10.0 10.3 9.9 11.2 14.5 14.5 15.4 9.9 12.0

Phosphorus Total as P µg/L Comp. 4420 3340 3140 4470 4950 5180 5410 4650 4580 4900 2900 3540 5410 2900 4290

Phosphorus Total Dissolved as P µg/L Comp. 2100 1180 1210 1590 2490 2290 2050 2200 2040 2050 1100 1430 2490 1100 1810

Methylene Blue Active Substances mg/L Grab 3.6 2.4 2.0 2.9 4.3 3.0 3.1 3.5 3.3 3.1 2.3 2.6 4.3 2.0 3.0

Oil & Grease mg/L Grab 160 39 26 35 41 33 45 29 31 32 26 25 160 25 44

Phenols mg/L Grab 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.04

Cyanide Total mg/L Grab <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Aluminium Total µg/L Comp. 563 320 364 323 370 353 434 370 538 397 350 436 563 320 402

Aluminium Dissolved µg/L Comp. 37 28 34 26 43 37 40 40 40 38 33 32 43 26 36

Arsenic Total µg/L Comp. 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.7 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.8

Barium Total µg/L Comp. 28.5 22.1 20.7 22.4 21.6 19.6 23.1 17.4 21.7 19.1 20.3 26.9 28.5 17.4 22.0

Barium Dissolved µg/L Comp. 9.9 8.1 8.9 6.4 7.4 5.9 7.4 6.1 6.5 5.6 10.6 13.2 13.2 5.6 8.0

Boron Total µg/L Comp. 137 120 104 146 128 105 127 108 103 104 90 135 146 90 117

Boron Dissolved µg/L Comp. 125 101 104 129 125 97 117 105 95 96 89 126 129 89 109

Calcium Total µg/L Comp. 13800 14900 13500 13800 12300 11500 11500 10700 11000 11200 15900 17500 17500 10700 13100

Cadmium Total µg/L Comp. <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.3 <0.2 <0.3

Cadmium Dissolved µg/L Comp. <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Chromium Total µg/L Comp. 2.9 3.2 2.9 2.5 4.7 3.9 4.5 3.6 3.4 3.2 2.8 2.3 4.7 2.3 3.3

Chromium Dissolved µg/L Comp. 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.6 1.3 1.3 1.4 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.0 0.6 1.4 0.6 1.0

Cobalt Total µg/L Comp. 0.6 0.6 0.6 <0.5 0.7 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 <0.5 0.5 1.1 <0.5 <0.7

Cobalt Dissolved µg/L Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Copper Total µg/L Comp. 73.0 57.8 59.8 64.7 76.3 78.0 108 64.8 63.1 68.4 44.9 53.2 108 44.9 67.7

Copper Dissolved µg/L Comp. 20.5 13.0 15.6 12.3 17.6 19.9 19.0 13.4 17.8 18.1 13.0 11.9 20.5 11.9 16.0

Iron Total µg/L Comp. 1800 2210 2030 4830 1910 2480 4570 1630 3600 3150 1500 2010 4830 1500 2640

Iron Dissolved µg/L Comp. 674 742 773 1900 719 981 1900 601 1540 1270 535 693 1900 535 1030

Lead Total µg/L Comp. 3.1 2.3 2.9 1.9 3.3 3.1 3.6 2.9 3.9 3.0 1.8 1.9 3.9 1.8 2.8

Lead Dissolved µg/L Comp. <0.5 <0.5 0.7 <0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 <0.5 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.7 <0.5 <0.6

Magnesium Total µg/L Comp. 3320 3420 2950 3520 3470 3220 3330 2950 2900 3010 3250 3810 3810 2900 3260

Manganese Total µg/L Comp. 81.5 84.7 76.6 99.9 77.9 78.8 97.0 68.2 82.0 88.9 77.8 93.8 100 68.2 83.9

Manganese Dissolved µg/L Comp. 55.3 56.3 57.1 66.8 51.7 52.6 58.8 46.0 51.6 56.1 62.9 68.9 68.9 46.0 57.0

Mercury Total µg/L Comp. 0.05 <0.05 0.18 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.18 <0.05 <0.10

Molybdenum Total µg/L Comp. 1.8 1.6 1.3 1.3 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.9 1.8 1.3 1.2 2.0 1.2 1.6

Molybdenum Dissolved µg/L Comp. 1.2 1.2 0.8 0.8 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.2 0.8 1.0

Nickel Total µg/L Comp. 2.7 3.9 2.4 2.3 2.7 3.3 3.1 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.0 2.3 3.9 2.0 2.7

Nickel Dissolved µg/L Comp. 1.2 2.4 1.6 1.0 1.3 3.3 1.5 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.2 3.3 1.0 1.6

Selenium Total µg/L Comp. <0.5 0.5 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.7 <0.5 <0.5 0.8 <0.5 <0.6

Silver Total µg/L Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.9 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.9 <0.5 <0.6

Silver Dissolved µg/L Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Zinc Total µg/L Comp. 101 73 84 97 102 105 129 99 108 105 64 79 129 64 96

Zinc Dissolved µg/L Comp. 22 20 23 14 18 15 16 17 14 14 17 18 23 14 17

YEARLY

35

TABLE 3.9: ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP – 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS SUMMARY


Type Max. Min. Ave.

Fluoride mg/L Comp. <0.05 0.05 <0.05 0.07 0.05 <0.05 0.06 <0.05 <0.05 0.09 0.05 <0.05 0.09 <0.05 <0.06

Hardness Total as CaCO3 mg/L* Comp. 46.7 55.1 48.4 45 41.4 41.3 40.7 36.8 36.8 35.7 52.3 56.4 56.4 35.7 44.7


Nitrate as N mg/L Grab 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.02 <0.01 <0.02

Nitrite as N mg/L Grab 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.1 0.08 0.1 0.04 0.04 0.05 <0.01 0.04 0.10 <0.01 <0.06






Oil & Grease mg/L* Grab <4 <4 <3 <3 <4 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 6 6 <3 <4

Phenols mg/L* Grab <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01


Aluminium Total µg/L* Comp. 40 61 50 33 48 51 42 41 33 43 45 83 83 33 48


Arsenic Total µg/L* Comp. 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.7

Barium Total µg/L* Comp. 5.7 8.2 6.3 4.1 3.3 4.5 3.8 2.7 3.0 3.5 6.1 9.1 9.1 2.7 5.0


Boron Total µg/L* Comp. 169 149 139 150 167 128 157 134 120 113 110 149 169 110 140



Cadmium Total µg/L* Comp. <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2


Chromium Total µg/L* Comp. 0.7 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.9 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.2 0.6 0.9

Chromium Dissolved µg/L Comp. 0.6 0.9 0.7 <0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 <0.5 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.9 <0.5 <0.7

Cobalt Total µg/L* Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 1.1 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 1.1 <0.5 <0.6

Cobalt Dissolved µg/L Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 1.0 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 1.0 <0.5 <0.6

Copper Total µg/L* Comp. 25.0 20.9 26.0 14.1 31.3 27.1 22.8 21.5 15.6 24.0 23.8 32.2 32.2 14.1 23.7


Iron Total µg/L* Comp. 283 454 407 395 495 819 703 416 696 592 477 703 819 283 537


Lead Total µg/L* Comp. <0.5 0.6 0.6 <0.5 0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 <0.5 0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.6

Lead Dissolved µg/L Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5


Manganese Total µg/L* Comp. 59.9 67.5 64.6 67.0 56.1 62.6 66.8 46.9 55.6 57.9 66.9 74.5 74.5 46.9 62.2


Mercury Total mg/L Comp. <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.06

Molybdenum Total µg/L* Comp. 0.9 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.8 1.3 0.8 1.0


Nickel Total µg/L* Comp. 1.8 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.8 2.3 2.0 2.3 2.0 1.5 1.8 2.8 1.5 2.1


Selenium Total µg/L* Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Silver Total µg/L* Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5


Zinc Total µg/L* Comp. 37 31 50 40 47 38 50 42 26 28 26 34 50 26 37


* Note: Operational Certificate monitoring parameters

YEARLY

36

TABLE 3.10: ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP – 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM LOADINGS SUMMARY

INFLUENT EFFLUENT INFLUENT

Max. Min. Ave. Max. Min. Ave.

Parameters

Fluoride 33 <20 <25 <9 39 <20 <27 <10

Hardness Total as CaCO3 37000 15400 22700 8320 35100 14600 22100 8100

Kjeldahl Nitrogen 18700 15200 17100 6270 20600 14600 16500 6040

N-Nitrate 6.7 <4.0 <4.9 <1.8 12 <4.0 <6.5 <2.4

N-Nitrite 12.5 <4.0 <5.4 <2.0 41 <6.7 <25 <8.9

N-Ammonia 12700 10600 11300 4130 19100 13800 15900 5800

Sulphate 9660 4060 5940 2170 11100 5720 7830 2870

Total Phosphorus 2210 1810 2010 734 1780 867 1400 511

Dissolved Phosphorus 1020 639 839 307 1630 781 1250 457

MBAS 1760 1150 1410 518 312 81 193 71

Oil & Grease 74000 11500 20500 7500 3740 <1190 <1720 <631

Phenols 24 12 17 6.1 <6.7 <4.0 <4.9 <1.8

Cyanide Total <14 <8.0 <9.7 <3.6 <14 <8.0 <9.7 <3.6

Aluminum Total 272 139 193 70.6 51.7 14.2 23.6 8.6

Aluminum Dissolved 22.0 11.2 17.0 6.2 10.0 4.3 7.1 2.6

Arsenic Total 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.1

Barium Total 16.8 6.9 10.7 3.9 5.7 1.1 2.6 0.9

Barium Dissolved 8.2 2.4 4.0 1.5 3.4 0.6 1.5 0.5

Boron Total 84 43 56 21 93 49 67 25

Boron Dissolved 79 41 52 19 88 48 64 24

Calcium Total 10900 4240 6500 2380 10200 3770 6140 2250

Cadmium Total 0.13 <0.08 <0.10 <0.04 <0.14 <0.08 <0.10 <0.04

Cadmium Dissolved <0.14 <0.08 <0.10 <0.04 <0.14 <0.08 <0.10 <0.04

Chromium Total 1.92 1.08 1.57 0.57 0.65 0.26 0.42 0.15

Chromium Dissolved 0.67 0.26 0.49 0.18 0.49 <0.20 <0.30 <0.11

Cobalt Total 0.5 <0.3 <0.4 <0.2 0.5 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1

Cobalt Dissolved 0.3 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1 0.4 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1

Copper Total 44 26 32 12 20 6.1 12 4.2

Copper Dissolved 9.5 5.3 7.6 2.8 7.4 3.5 5.6 2.1

Iron Total 2080 646 1230 451 438 131 258 94

Iron Dissolved 819 238 475 174 93 47 63 23

Lead Total 1.7 0.8 1.3 0.5 0.3 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1

Lead Dissolved 0.4 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1 <0.4 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1

Magnesium Total 2370 1170 1580 579 2400 1240 1650 603

Manganese Total 58.4 27.0 40.5 14.8 46.4 18.6 30.4 11.1

Manganese Dissolved 42.9 18.2 27.9 10.2 39.8 9.4 23.1 8.4

Mercury Total 0.10 <0.02 <0.04 <0.02 <0.04 <0.02 <0.03 <0.009

Molybdenum Total 0.87 0.56 0.76 0.28 0.65 0.38 0.49 0.18

Molybdenum Dissolved 0.65 0.34 0.48 0.18 0.58 0.32 0.42 0.16

Nickel Total 2.1 1.0 1.3 0.5 1.2 0.8 1.0 0.4

Nickel Dissolved 1.4 0.4 0.7 0.3 1.2 0.8 0.9 0.3

Selenium Total 0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.1 <0.4 <0.2 <0.3 <0.09

Silver Total 0.4 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1 <0.3 <0.2 <0.2 <0.09

Silver Dissolved <0.4 <0.2 <0.2 <0.1 <0.3 <0.2 <0.2 <0.09

Zinc Total 52.3 39.2 44.8 16.4 28.8 11.2 17.8 6.5

Zinc Dissolved 13.2 6.0 8.5 3.1 22.5 9.1 14.1 5.2

Method: Maximums, minimums and averages calculated from loadings obtained for each sampling date.

kg/day kg/day

Tonnes

per year

Tonnes per

year

37

4.0 IONA ISLAND WWTP

39

4.0 IONA ISLAND WWTP

2016 ANNUAL SUMMARY


The quality of effluent from Iona Island WWTP in 2016 along with the authorized discharge compliance parameters listed in the Operational Certificate is summarized in Table 4.1.

TABLE 4.1: IONA ISLAND WWTP – 2016 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY




ME-00023 on April 23, 2004. The operational certificate included the compliance levels shown in Table

4.2.


Daily authorized rate of discharge 1,530,000 cubic meters/day, maximum

5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 130 mg/L, maximum


The maximum daily discharge loadings for BOD and TSS are used for the calculation of the annual


BOD and 78.0 tonnes/day for TSS.

On May 17, the Effluent Composite sample was not representative due to a cracked sampling carboy.


A total of 24 parameters and the two daily loadings for final effluent are posted on Metro Vancouver’s

website on a monthly basis. Specific operational certificate limits apply to five parameters: total daily

discharge flow, BOD, TSS, and daily loadings for BOD and TSS.

4.2.1 COMPLIANCE REVIEW

In 2016, Iona Island WWTP had no instances of non-compliance as shown in Table 4.1.

Operational Certificate Requirements - ME-00023, April 23, 2004


Frequency

Max. Value for

the Year

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Yr to

Date

Total Flow (MLD) Daily 1,350 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B.O.D. (mg/L)* 3/week 126 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


BOD (Tonnes/Day)* 3/week 62.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Suspended Solids (Tonnes/Day) 5/week 67.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Plant Bypass - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

* BOD reported 1/week when COD are reported 5/week

84.0

No. of times Criteria Not Met

OC Limits

1,530

130

100

78.0

-

40

Plant bypasses


“The discharge of effluent which has bypassed the designated treatment works is

prohibited unless the approval of the Regional Waste Manager is obtained and

confirmed in writing.”

There were no plant bypass event in 2016.


Iona Island WWTP treated a total of 197,002 ML in 2016. The average daily flow of 538 MLD was 6.0%

higher than in 2015. The maximum daily flow of 1,350 MLD occurred on November 26 (Figure 4.1).

FIGURE 4.1 2016 IONA ISLAND WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL DAILY FLOWS

Influent SS loading of 25,212 tonnes/day was 2.2% higher than 2015 while BOD loading of 25,598

tonnes/day was 1.9% lower than in 2015. Influent SS concentrations were between 40 and 268 mg/L with

an average of 144 mg/L. Influent BOD concentrations were between 47 and 255 mg/L with an average of

153 mg/L (Table 4.3).

41

TABLE 4.3: 2007 - 2016 ANNUAL AVERAGE DATA FOR FLOW, SUSPENDED SOLIDS AND BOD

Effluent suspended solids concentrations were within the range of 35 to 91 mg/L with an average value

of 53 mg/L (Figure 4.2). Effluent BOD concentrations were within the range of 31 to 126 mg/L with an

average of 79 mg/L (Figure 4.3).

YEAR FLOWS Suspended Solids Suspended Solids BOD BOD

MLD mg/L Tonnes/year mg/L Tonnes/year


2007 603 126 53 25159 11441 132 83 25613 16772

2008 541 133 57 24516 11149 144 94 26179 17728

2009 550 139 58 25199 11397 144 90 25786 16764

2010 570 134 57 25766 11627 140 87 26431 16755

2011 548 136 55 25003 10954 144 91 26083 16743

2012 565 135 54 25135 10875 143 80 25865 15122

2013 500 149 53 25369 9604 151 84 25492 14482

2014 553 138 53 24904 10481 143 81 25523 14960

2015 507 150 54 24659 9758 166 87 26082 14473

2016 538 144 53 25212 10368 153 79 25598 14316

42

FIGURE 4.2 2016 IONA ISLAND WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS

FIGURE 4.3 2016 IONA ISLAND WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL BOD CONCENTRATIONS

43

Iona Island WWTP has a combined sanitary/storm water collection system. Variations in annual rainfall

influence average flow, SS and BOD loadings and plant removal efficiencies. During high flow events, BOD

and SS removal efficiencies are reduced. In 2016, the average reduction of suspended solids was 58% and

the average reduction of BOD was 44%.


Iona Island WWTP was issued a transitional authorization under WSER on September 5, 2014. The Iona

Island WWTP is authorized as of January 1, 2015 until December 31, 2030 to deposit effluent that has

characteristics shown in Table 4.4:

TABLE 4.4: TRANSITIONAL AUTHORIZATION COMPLIANCE LEVELS FOR IONA ISLAND WWTP

Monthly average carbonaceous biochemical oxygen

demand (cBOD)

105 mg/L






concentration of cBOD in mg/L; and Average concentration of SS in mg/L.


In 2016, Iona Island WWTP met all transitional authorization limits on cBOD, and suspended solids

summarized in Table 4.5.





January 31 19,674,993 51 54

February 29 19,403,603 54 52

March 31 19,140,174 57 54

April 30 11,397,223 77 60

May 31 11,864,061 80 56

June 30 12,724,875 71 56

July 31 12,187,155 72 56

August 31 11,265,566 77 56

September 30 12,429,745 72 51

October 31 19,852,212 58 49

November 30 23,768,273 51 48

December 31 23,293,669 58 51

45

4.4 CHEMICALLY ENHANCED PRIMARY TREATMENT

Chemically Enhanced Primary Treatment (CEPT) is operated at Iona Island WWTP for approximately 6-9

hours per day, but only if the COD trigger concentration of 235 mg/L is exceeded in a 12 hour composite

effluent sample. The chemical dosing system was set at 69 mg/L of alum and 0.57 mg/L of polymer with

about 6 to 8 hour run times.

In 2016, there were total of 117 CEPT treatment runs which occurred mostly from April to September.

The number of treatment days was higher than the 94 treatment days in 2015.

4.5 SLUDGE TREATMENT/DIGESTER OPERATIONS

Sludge from the primary sedimentation tanks was thickened using two gravity thickeners. The average

Thickened Primary Sludge (TPS) total solids content was 5.4%.

Sludge was digested in four mesophilic digesters. Digestion operation was stable with an average

hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 22 days. The average volatile solids reduction was 70% and the average

organic loading rate was 2.19 kg/m3day. Bicarbonate alkalinity concentrations ranged between 2,230 and

4,620 mg/L.

A comprehensive summary of the Iona Island WWTP performance and monitoring results is

presented in tables 4.6-4.9.

46

TABLE 4.6: IONA ISLAND WWTP - 2016 ROUTINE MONITORING RESULTS AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

MONTH Max. Inst. Total Daily Flow Grab Grab

Flow Rate pH Un-ionized NH3

(m3/sec) (MLD) mg/L as N

Max. Min. Average EFF EFF

JAN 17.2 1088 336 635 7.3 0.058

FEB 16.1 1034 372 669 7.1 0.034

MAR 16.1 971 371 617 7.1 0.008

APR 12.8 519 306 380 7.1 0.058

MAY 17.9 941 325 383 7.1 0.078

JUN 15.8 709 360 424 7.1 0.047

JUL 18.3 732 344 393 7.2 0.072

AUG 10.3 477 343 363 7.1 0.052

SEP 17.6 792 351 414 7.1 0.047

OCT 18.2 1076 361 640 7.1 0.040

NOV 18.2 1350 478 792 7.3 0.031

DEC 17.5 1243 446 751 7.3 0.045

# Samples - - - 366 55 12

Maximum-Yr. 18.3 1350 - - 7.4 0.078

Minimum-Yr. - - 306 - 6.8 0.008

Average-Yr. - - - 538 7.1 0.048

-

MONTH Ave. Ave. Average Average Effluent Comp. (Average)

Temp. D.O. Conductivity Chloride pH Un-ionized

(oC) (mg/L) (µmhos/cm) (mg/L) at 15 oC Ammonia

EFF EFF INF EFF INF EFF mg/L as N

JAN 12 5.3 739 735 160 148 7.2 0.06

FEB 13 8.3 513 513 94 96 7.3 0.06

MAR 12 9.5 458 451 60 59 7.3 0.07

APR 17 5.1 597 600 94 93 7.4 0.13

MAY 19 4.7 644 643 106 109 7.4 0.14

JUN 20 3.8 574 580 86 88 7.4 0.13

JUL 20 3.2 579 582 78 78 7.4 0.14

AUG 22 3.7 627 639 95 95 7.5 0.19

SEP 21 3.1 612 625 100 106 7.4 0.16

OCT 18 3.7 508 517 86 90 7.3 0.08

NOV 14 7.9 456 471 80 87 7.4 0.07

DEC 11 7.4 671 682 111 115 7.4 0.08

# Samples 54 12 252 248 54 54 156 156

Maximum-Yr. 22 9.5 1310 1380 250 200 7.7 0.29

Minimum-Yr. 8 3.1 221 233 37 34 7.1 0.01

Average-Yr. 17 5.5 581 586 96 97 7.4 0.11

- - - - - - - -

(1) Grab pH, Diss. Oxygen, Temperature, Ammonia and LC50 are determined on grab samples;

all other parameters are determined on 24 hr. flow proportioned composite samples.

42.3

>87

94.9

94.9

>100

>100

12

>100

78.4

96 hr

LC50

(%v/v)

EFF

>100

>100

>100

66.4

>100

42.3

64.8

47

TABLE 4.6 CONT'D: IONA ISLAND WWTP - 2016 ROUTINE MONITORING RESULTS AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

MONTH Total Suspended Solids Susp. Solids Total Suspended Solids Average VSS

(mg/L) % Average Loadings VSS %

INFLUENT EFFLUENT Average (Tonnes/day) (mg/L) Average

Max. Min. Ave. Max. Min. Ave. Reduction INF EFF INF EFF Reduction

JAN 189 51 112 91 39 54 48 65.0 33.4 102 47 50

FEB 170 59 108 63 35 52 49 66.6 33.9 98 45 50

MAR 160 63 111 71 42 54 48 66.1 33.7 101 48 49

APR 231 126 174 78 36 60 65 66.2 22.7 155 51 66

MAY 263 108 186 83 39 56 70 70.9 21.3 172 49 71

JUN 238 109 174 72 42 56 67 72.7 23.8 156 49 68

JUL 238 117 174 69 37 56 68 67.8 21.9 165 49 70

AUG 268 157 199 71 43 56 71 72.4 20.4 185 49 73

SEP 230 111 176 65 35 51 70 71.1 21.4 163 44 72

OCT 244 74 126 63 37 49 58 73.8 31.3 121 44 61

NOV 161 40 94 72 38 48 45 69.2 37.5 80 42 46

DEC 148 48 92 63 36 51 40 64.6 38.7 81 44 39

# Samples - - 365 - - 365 364 365 365 241 237 237

Maximum-Yr. 268 - - 91 - - 84 154 67.8 233 77 84

Minimum-Yr. - 40 - - 35 - -3 40.4 12.3 38 29 -3

Average-Yr. - - 144 - - 53 58 68.9 28.3 134 47 60

Total - Suspended Solids Loadings (Tonnes): 25212 10368

MONTH Biochemical Oxygen Demand BOD BOD Average COD

(mg/L) % Average Loadings COD %



JAN 197 48 99 126 31 65 33 60.3 40.0 245 157 33

FEB 185 58 111 90 38 65 41 68.2 39.6 233 147 35

MAR 170 63 118 99 45 72 35 63.1 40.6 250 154 37

APR 227 151 200 112 79 100 50 76.8 38.3 409 215 47

MAY 255 188 224 125 64 104 53 83.1 38.8 425 216 48

JUN 228 109 168 108 70 88 48 71.1 37.6 397 200 48

JUL 232 138 178 122 73 89 55 68.7 35.3 397 199 49

AUG 224 186 202 100 82 91 55 74.1 33.4 445 213 52

SEP 220 80 185 107 57 87 51 73.9 35.6 399 204 48

OCT 150 75 112 99 36 66 37 67.6 41.6 273 164 38

NOV 127 72 92 70 46 59 34 65.7 41.7 210 139 31

DEC 125 47 90 83 36 63 26 63.4 46.4 218 154 27

# Samples - - 98 - - 103 90 98 103 365 365 364

Maximum-Yr. 255 - - 126 - - 73 108 62.5 598 259 63

Minimum-Yr. - 47 - - 31 - 2 41.8 22.4 100 84 1

Average-Yr. - - 153 - - 79 44 69.9 39.1 326 180 41

Total - Biochemical Oxygen Demand Loadings (Tonnes): 25598 14316 - -


48

TABLE 4.7: IONA ISLAND WWTP – 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM INFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS SUMMARY


Type Max. Min. Ave.

Fluoride mg/L Comp. 0.08 0.08 <0.05 0.06 0.06 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.05 0.07 0.06 <0.05 0.08 <0.05 <0.06



Nitrate as N mg/L Grab 0.18 0.55 0.53 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 1.04 0.63 1.04 <0.01 <0.25

Nitrite as N mg/L Grab 0.07 0.10 0.04 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.08 0.10 0.10 <0.01 <0.04







Phenols mg/L Grab 0.02 0.03 <0.01 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.03 <0.02 <0.02










Cadmium Total µg/L Comp. <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.2 <0.2 1.7 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.2 1.7 <0.2 <0.4

Cadmium Dissolved µg/L Comp. <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.5 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.5 <0.2 <0.3


Chromium Dissolved µg/L Comp. 0.7 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.5 1.4 <0.5 <0.5 0.8 <0.5 <0.5 0.7 1.4 <0.5 <0.7

Cobalt Total µg/L Comp. 0.8 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.8 <0.5 <0.6

Cobalt Dissolved µg/L Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Copper Total µg/L Comp. 58.4 44.5 37.9 46.4 57.1 60.5 57.0 57.6 63.2 58.7 30.7 35.9 63.2 30.7 50.7







Manganese Total µg/L Comp. 63.6 51.1 38.5 48.3 48.8 46.0 43.5 40.5 52.5 66.1 38.1 50.8 66.1 38.1 49.0


Mercury Total µg/L Comp. 0.07 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.14 0.12 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.17 <0.05 <0.05 0.17 <0.05 <0.08





Selenium Total µg/L Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.8 <0.5 <0.5 0.8 <0.5 <0.6

Silver Total µg/L Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 <0.5 <0.5




YEARLY

49

TABLE 4.8: IONA ISLAND WWTP – 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS SUMMARY


Type Max. Min. Ave.

Fluoride mg/L Comp. 0.07 0.09 <0.05 0.15 0.12 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.07 0.08 <0.05 0.15 <0.05 <0.08

Hardness Total as CaCO3 mg/L* Comp. 103 93.5 43.8 70.4 55.0 67.1 64.5 57.5 70.3 70.0 71.6 64.8 103 43.8 69.3


Nitrate as N mg/L Grab 0.07 0.54 0.42 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 1.13 0.59 1.13 <0.01 <0.24

Nitrite as N mg/L Grab 0.04 0.10 0.04 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.06 0.10 0.10 <0.01 <0.04






Oil & Grease mg/L* Grab 11 4 9 11 9 13 11 10 11 10 <4 8 13 <4 <10

Phenols mg/L* Grab 0.02 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.02

Cyanide Total mg/L* Grab <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02



Arsenic Total µg/L* Comp. 2.0 0.6 1.9 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.6 1.0






Cadmium Total µg/L* Comp. <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 1.5 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 1.5 <0.2 <0.4

Cadmium Dissolved µg/L Comp. <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.5 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.5 <0.2 <0.3

Chromium Total µg/L* Comp. 2.3 0.6 1.3 1.2 0.7 6.2 0.6 <0.5 1.0 0.8 0.8 2.1 6.2 <0.5 <1.6

Chromium Dissolved µg/L Comp. 0.7 <0.5 0.7 <0.5 <0.5 1.3 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 1.3 <0.5 <0.7

Cobalt Total µg/L* Comp. 0.6 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.6


*Copper Total µg/L Comp. 46.7 31.6 26.2 38.2 41.5 31.5 35.6 33.7 32.6 31.1 25.4 31.9 46.7 25.4 33.8




Lead Total µg/L* Comp. 3.7 1.0 1.8 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.9 1.5 1.2 1.2 2.4 3.7 0.9 1.5





Mercury Total µg/L* Comp. <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05





Selenium Total µg/L* Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.7 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.7 <0.5 <0.6





* Note: Operational Certificate monitoring Parameters

YEARLY

50

TABLE 4.9: IONA ISLAND WWTP – 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM LOADINGS SUMMARY

Max. Min. Ave. Tonnes Max. Min. Ave. Tonnes

Parameters per year per year

Fluoride 50 <18 <30 <11 58 <18 <36 <13



N-Nitrate 751 <3.6 <182 <67 816 <3.6 <171 <63

N-Nitrite 85 <3.6 <26 <9.4 85 <3.6 <23 <8.4

N-Ammonia 8570 5910 7750 2830 8800 5910 7760 2830

Sulphate 19400 7550 11500 4220 21000 9160 14500 5290



MBAS 509 150 342 125 816 150 513 187

32` 9790 2990 5220 1910 6900 <2520 <4550 <1660

Phenols 19 <3.6 <7.4 <2.7 13 <3.6 <6.7 <2.5

Cyanide Total <18 <7.2 <11 <3.9 <18 <7.2 <11 <3.9

Aluminum Total 947 104 342 125 573 142 307 112

Aluminum Dissolved 19 7.9 12 4.3 23 11.9 17 6.4

Arsenic Total 1.6 0.3 0.7 0.2 1.4 0.2 0.6 0.2

Barium Total 31 5.8 12 4.4 27 3.5 8.7 3.2

Barium Dissolved 20 2.5 6.0 2.2 19 2.0 5.5 2.0

Boron Total 51 25 33 12 56 25 34 12

Boron Dissolved 50 24 32 12 56 24 33 12

Calcium Total 14900 4720 8020 2930 15300 4190 7750 2830

Cadmium Total 0.64 <0.08 <0.15 <0.06 0.57 <0.08 <0.15 <0.06

Cadmium Dissolved 0.19 <0.08 <0.12 <0.05 0.19 <0.08 <0.12 <0.05

Chromium Total 6.9 0.4 1.5 0.6 2.3 <0.2 <0.8 <0.3

Chromium Dissolved 0.6 <0.2 <0.4 <0.2 0.5 <0.2 <0.4 <0.2

Cobalt Total 0.5 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1 0.4 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1

Cobalt Dissolved <0.5 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1 <0.5 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1

Copper Total 36.6 16.8 24.3 8.9 29.3 11.9 16.8 6.1


Iron Total 1170 265 553 202 759 133 304 111

Iron Dissolved 98 65 80 29 95 43 64 23

Lead Total 3.9 0.7 1.7 0.6 2.3 0.3 0.8 0.3

Lead Dissolved <0.5 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1 <0.5 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1

Magnesium Total 8160 2180 3780 1380 9100 2080 3820 1390

Manganese Total 43 14 25 9.0 38 11 20 7.3

Manganese Dissolved 27 10 16 5.7 26 9 16 5.7

Mercury Total 0.07 <0.02 <0.04 <0.02 <0.05 <0.02 <0.03 <0.01



Nickel Total 2.0 0.8 1.3 0.5 1.9 0.7 1.0 0.4


Selenium Total 0.4 <0.3 <0.3 <0.2 0.4 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1

Silver Total 0.4 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1 <0.5 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1


Zinc Total 107 27 47 17 66 17 30 11

Zinc Dissolved 24 8.9 14 5.1 38 8.2 16 5.7

kg/day kg/day

INFLUENT EFFLUENT

51

5.0 LIONS GATE WWTP

53

5.0 LIONS GATE WWTP

2016 ANNUAL SUMMARY


The quality of effluent from Lions Gate WWTP in 2016 along with the authorized discharge compliance


TABLE 5.1: LIONS GATE WWTP – 2016 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY




ME-00030 on April 23, 2004. The operational certificate (OC) included the following compliance levels

shown in Table 5.2.


Daily authorized rate of discharge 318,000 cubic meters/day, maximum

5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 130 mg/L, maximum


The maximum daily discharge loadings for BOD and TSS are used for the calculation of the annual

operational certificate fees. For 2016, the maximum daily loadings were 13.5 tonnes/day for BOD and

14.5 tonnes/day for TSS.

Due to a malfunctioning sampler, no results for the final effluent composite results were reported on April

14.


A total of 25 parameters and the two daily loadings for final effluent are posted on Metro Vancouver’s

website on a monthly basis. Specific operational compliance levels apply to six parameters: total daily

discharge flow, BOD, TSS, chlorine residual and maximum authorized daily loadings for BOD and TSS.


In 2016, Lions Gate WWTP had no instances of non-compliance as shown in Table 5.1.

Operational Certificate Requirement- ME-00030, April 23,2004


Frequency

Max. Value for

the Year

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year

Total Plant Flow (MLD) Daily 184 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

BOD (mg/L) 3/Week 103 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Suspended Solids (mg/L) 5/Week 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

BOD (Tonnes/Day) 3/Week 8.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Suspended Solids (Tonnes/Day) 5/Week 8.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chlorine Residual (mg/L) Daily <0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Disinfection - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

14.5

<0.1

-

* April 23, 2004 Operational Certificate: Discharge limit based on total flow of 318,000 m3/day.

13.5


OC Limits

318*

130

130

54

Plant bypasses



prohibited unless the approval of the Regional Waste Manager is obtained and

confirmed in writing.”


Disinfection


“The effluent shall be disinfected between May 1 and September 30 so that the

Burrard Inlet fecal coliform water quality objective is not exceeded at the edge of

the initial dilution zone as described in the Municipal Sewage Regulation. If chlorine

is used, the effluent shall be dechlorinated prior to discharge to reduce the chlorine

residual below the detection limit.”

The plant continued to use sodium hypochlorite solution (SHS) for disinfection and sodium bisulphite

solution (SBS) for dechlorination of effluent prior to discharge to Burrard Inlet. The average SHS dosage

as chlorine was 7.5 mg/L and average SBS dosage as SO2 was 3.0 mg/L.

Lions Gate WWTP had one instance of dechlorination interruption on May 8 due to loss of power. The

plant discharged total of 0.012 ML in total of 18 seconds. At the time of the interruption, the amount of

available dechlorination substance (sodium bisulfite) was higher than the amount that would be required,

based on calculations, to dechlorinate the chlorine measured upstream of the point of dechlorination.

There was one instance of disinfection interruption on September 17 due to a loss of power. The plant

discharged 0.708 ML over a period of 8.03 minutes. At the time of interruption, the amount of available

de-chlorination substance (sodium bisulfite) was calculated to have been sufficient to fully de-chlorinate

prior to discharge.

The 30-day Geometric Means calculated for fecal coliform levels in final effluent and at the edge of the

initial dilution zone (IDZ) are summarized in Table 5.3. In 2016, the calculated results for fecal coliform

levels at the edge of the IDZ met the Burrard Inlet fecal coliforms water quality objective (WQO) of 200

MPN/100/mL from June through September.

55

TABLE 5.3: PREDICTED 30 DAY FECAL COLIFORM GEOMEAN AT THE LIONS GATE WWTP IDZ

Final Effluent May June July August September

Max 30 day Geomean* - 72 57 79 61

Dilution Factor** - 250 250 250 250

IDZ Result *** - 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2

WQO (Met or Not Met) - Met Met Met Met * Geomean (MPN/100mL) over 30 day period (effluent).

** Dilution Factor - minimum dilution factor for IDZ at the Lions Gate WWTP outfall.

*** IDZ Result (MPN/100mL) - determined by calculation of Geometric Mean of fecal coliforms levels in the receiving water due to discharges of final effluent, for

30 day periods at the edge of the IDZ.


Lions Gate WWTP treated a total of 30,336 ML in 2016. The average daily flow of 83 MLD was 4.2% higher

compared to the 2015 average of 80 MLD. The highest daily flow of 184 MLD and maximum peak of 3.1

m3/sec or 265 MLD was recorded on January 28 (Figure 5.1).

56

FIGURE 5.1 2016 LIONS GATE WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL DAILY FLOWS

The average influent SS and BOD concentrations were 7.0 % and 10.9% lower than in 2015. In 2016, the

influent SS and BOD loadings were 2.4% and 4.1% respectively lower than in 2015.

The plant’s overall performance was good. The effluent SS concentrations were within the range of 37

mg/L to 78 mg/L with an average value of 53 mg/L (Figure 5.2). Effluent total BOD concentrations were

within the range of 35 mg/L to 103 mg/L with an average value of 71 mg/L (Figure 5.3). Effluent SS loading

of 1,587 tonnes/year was 1.9% higher and effluent BOD loading of 2,066 tonnes/year was 2.6% lower than

the previous year. The average SS reduction was 67% and the average BOD reduction was 46% (Table 5.4).


YEAR FLOWS Suspended Solids Suspended Solids BOD BOD

MLD mg/L Tonnes/year mg/L Tonnes/year


2007 98 173 57 5848 2047 158 91 5278 3083

2008 90 169 61 5448 2012 154 95 4970 3074

2009 93 167 60 5435 2031 148 91 4814 2973

2010 95 166 58 5612 1999 142 90 4771 3035

2011 91 173 57 5590 1885 142 91 4591 2950

2012 88 167 54 5237 1731 146 90 4553 2818

2013 78 176 55 4857 1558 140 91 3825 2515

2014 83 169 52 4889 1561 133 81 3854 2358

2015 80 183 54 4974 1557 150 78 3956 2121

2016 83 170 53 4852 1587 134 71 3796 2066

57

FIGURE 5.2 2016 LIONS GATE WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS

FIGURE 5.3 2016 LIONS GATE WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL BOD CONCENTRATIONS

58


Lions Gate WWTP was issued a transitional authorization under WSER on September 5, 2014. Lions Gate

WWTP is authorized as of January 1, 2015 until December 31, 2020 to deposit effluent that contains

substances as shown in Table 5.5.

TABLE 5.5: TRANSITIONAL AUTHORIZATION COMPLIANCE LEVELS FOR LIONS GATE WWTP

Monthly average carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (cBOD)

115 mg/L






concentration of cBOD in mg/L; and Average concentration SS in mg/L.


In 2016, Lions Gate WWTP met all transitional authorization limits on cBOD and suspended solids as

summarized in Table 5.6.


5.4 CHEMICALLY ENHANCED PRIMARY TREATMENT

Chemically Enhanced Primary Treatment (CEPT) occurred from February 25 to November 4 with a total of

140 treatment runs. The two main triggers in starting the CEPT system are the previous day’s plant influent

flow less than 80 MLD and the current day’s raw influent TSS greater than 180 mg/L. The chemical dosing

system was set at 67 mg/L of alum and 0.50 mg/L of polymer with an average of 4 hour run times.

5.5 SLUDGE TREATMENT /DEWATERING

Sludge from the primary sedimentation tanks was thickened using a gravity thickener. The average

Thickened Screened Primary Sludge (TSPS) total solids content was 5.9%.




January 31 3,017,627 60 59

February 29 2,917,951 57 57

March 31 2,996,174 54 53

April 30 2,062,993 66 57 <0.02

May 31 2,033,539 79 51 <0.02

June 30 2,134,805 68 51 <0.02

July 31 2,051,286 70 51 <0.02

August 31 1,909,170 75 52 <0.02

September 30 2,008,940 76 50 <0.02

October 31 2,785,695 60 53

November 30 3,265,300 47 47

December 31 3,152,488 62 51


of Total Residual

Chlorine (mg/L)

59

Test results indicated that the operation of the two thermophilic digesters was stable. The average

hydraulic retention time (HRT) was 39 days with an average volatile reduction of 74% and the average

organic loading rate of 1.47 kg/m3day. Bicarbonate alkalinity concentrations ranged between 3,040 and

5,710 mg/L.

Sludge dewatering is provided by one of two centrifuges operated 6 to 7 days per week at an average of

5 hours per day. To reduce the ammonia peaks in the effluent due to the centrate stream, the plant

continued to implement the control strategy of storing the centrate in the centrate tank and slowly

returning it to the influent channel between 11 pm and 7 am.

The average total solids content in dewatered sludge (biosolids) was 30.2% and centrate suspended solids

concentration was 2,243 mg/L with an average recovery of 87%. The average polymer dosage was 6.1

kg/tonne, which was 14% lower than the 7.1 kg/tonne dosage in 2015.

A comprehensive summary of the Lions Gate WWTP performance and monitoring results is presented in

tables 5.7 to 5.10.

60

TABLE 5.7: LIONS GATE WWTP - 2016 ROUTINE MONITORING RESULTS AND PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

MONTH Max. Total Daily Composite Grab Grab

Inst.Flow Effluent Flow Average pH pH NH3

Rate (MLD) (mg/L)

(m3/sec) Max. Min. Ave. INF EFF EFF EFF

JAN 3.1 184 69.8 97.3 7.2 7.3 7.1 17.9

FEB 2.3 143 74.8 101 7.2 7.3 7.2 13.7

MAR 2.2 129 75.9 96.7 7.2 7.2 7.1 12.5

APR 1.3 76.9 64.0 68.8 7.2 7.3 7.1 22.6

MAY 1.7 99.1 57.9 65.6 7.1 7.3 7.2 24.4

JUN 1.5 85.2 64.7 71.2 7.1 7.3 7.1 22.6

JUL 1.5 92.4 58.4 66.2 7.1 7.3 7.1 22.5

AUG 1.5 64.3 60.3 61.6 7.1 7.4 7.1 23.2

SEP 1.8 80.9 61.9 67.0 7.1 7.4 7.1 21.9

OCT 2.0 131 63.2 89.9 7.1 7.2 7.1 18.1

NOV 2.5 162 85.8 109 7.2 7.2 7.1 9.7

DEC 2.4 150 77.3 102 7.2 7.3 7.1 13.9

# Samples - - - 366 244 246 55 54

Maximum-Yr. 3.1 184 - - 7.4 7.7 7.4 26.8

Minimum-Yr. - - 57.9 - 6.7 6.9 7.0 5.5

Average-Yr. - - - 82.9 7.1 7.3 7.1 18.7

MONTH Ave.

Chloride

Ave.

Temp.

Residual

SO2

(mg/L) (oC) (mg/L)

RAW FINAL FINAL FINAL FINAL Before After Effluent Monthly Max Geomean

INF EFF EFF EFF EFF SO2 SO2 Outfall Geomean in month

JAN 1288 1338 271 12 - - - - - -

FEB 965 996 194 12 - - - - - -

MAR 1042 1079 228 12 - - - - - -

APR 1273 1316 281 16 4.2 0.5 <0.02 2.3 - -

MAY 1487 1534 348 17 6.7 1.0 <0.02 1.8 66 77

JUN 1516 1585 449 18 6.4 1.0 <0.02 1.8 48 72

JUL 1553 1619 371 19 7.3 1.0 <0.02 1.7 40 57

AUG 1964 2053 523 20 9.2 0.8 <0.02 1.8 72 79

SEP 1777 1850 465 20 8.2 0.8 <0.02 1.7 39 61

OCT 1660 1699 416 18 - - - - - -

NOV 1116 1160 272 15 - - - - - -

DEC 1224 1247 283 12 - - - - - -

# Samples 244 246 57 55 157 157 157 171 43 43

Maximum-Yr. 3950 4130 1070 21 10.4 1.9 <0.02 4.1 330 79

Minimum-Yr. 573 598 150 11 0.7 0.3 <0.02 0.2 <18 20

Average-Yr. 1414 1467 347 16 7.5 0.9 <0.02 1.8 - 54

Geomean - - - - - - - - 52 -

(1) pH, ammonia, Temperature,Residual Chlorine, 96 hour LC50 and Coliform are determined

on grab samples; all other parameters are determined on 24 hr. flow proportioned composite samples.

(2) Residual Chlorine were taken before dechlorination.

80.2

>96

Average

Conductivity

Chlorine

Dosage

(mg/L)

Ave. Residual

Chlorine

Fec. Coliform (MPN/100mL)

Final Effluent

(µmhos/cm) (mg/L)

>100

>100

>100

92.2

94.9

>100

88.1

>100

>100

>100

>100

12

>100

96 hr

LC50

(%v/v)

EFF

80.2

61

TABLE 5.7: CONT'D: LIONS GATE WWTP - 2016 ROUTINE MONITORING RESULTS AND

PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

MONTH Total Suspended Solids Susp. Solids Total Susp. Solids Average VSS

(mg/L) % Average Loadings VSS %



JAN 210 74 145 75 43 59 58 13.3 5.6 141 53 61

FEB 200 100 138 67 47 57 57 13.3 5.6 130 51 60

MAR 187 95 136 61 40 53 60 12.9 5.1 129 48 62

APR 224 172 195 65 49 57 70 13.4 3.9 184 52 72

MAY 225 92 194 59 41 51 73 12.6 3.4 188 46 76

JUN 232 148 195 62 39 51 74 13.8 3.6 184 47 74

JUL 229 148 192 68 41 51 73 12.7 3.4 185 48 74

AUG 317 170 216 65 39 52 76 13.3 3.2 209 48 77

SEP 294 158 212 68 39 50 76 14.1 3.4 200 45 77

OCT 231 98 165 78 37 53 67 14.1 4.7 159 49 69

NOV 162 89 122 56 40 47 61 13.0 5.0 117 44 62

DEC 162 88 126 64 42 51 59 12.6 5.2 116 45 61

# Samples - - 361 - - 365 360 361 365 240 236 232

Maximum-Yr. 317 - - 78 - - 83 20.2 8.4 300 71 84

Minimum-Yr. - 74 - - 37 - 40 9.1 2.4 72 32 46

Average-Yr. - - 170 - - 53 67 13.3 4.3 163 48 69

Total - Suspended Solids Loadings (Tonnes): 4,852 1,587

MONTH Biochemical Oxygen Demand

(mg/L)

BOD BOD

Average

Average

COD

COD

(%) %



JAN 186 55 121 102 35 72 39 11.5 6.9 290 184 35

FEB 136 95 113 77 47 66 43 11.4 6.5 269 173 34

MAR 150 72 112 80 51 62 42 10.0 5.8 263 166 36

APR 172 127 148 95 52 74 52 10.0 5.0 370 206 44

MAY 175 144 156 103 71 89 43 10.0 5.7 382 229 40

JUN 171 121 145 94 52 77 50 10.2 5.4 370 206 44

JUL 169 123 145 96 54 75 49 9.5 4.9 364 214 41

AUG 195 132 159 96 56 78 51 9.8 4.8 411 232 43

SEP 219 131 161 97 68 80 49 10.7 5.4 392 227 42

OCT 154 109 129 85 37 62 52 10.4 5.3 319 188 40

NOV 132 90 103 59 40 52 47 11.0 5.4 247 148 40

DEC 126 79 100 77 55 65 34 10.2 6.7 262 173 34

# Samples - - 91 - - 103 90 91 103 361 365 360

Maximum-Yr. 219 - - 103 - - 67 14.0 8.8 587 273 63

Minimum-Yr. - 55 - - 35 - 22 8.0 3.4 144 110 14

Average-Yr. - - 134 - - 71 46 10.4 5.6 328 195 39

Total - Biochemical Oxygen Demand Loadings (Tonnes): 3,796 2,066


Loadings

62

TABLE 5.8: LIONS GATE WWTP – 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM INFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS SUMMARY


Type Max. Min. Ave.

Fluoride mg/L Comp. 0.08 0.09 <0.05 0.10 0.14 <0.05 0.07 <0.05 0.09 0.09 0.07 <0.05 0.14 <0.05 <0.08

Hardness Total as CaCO3 mg/L Comp. 138 77.8 88.2 103 118 156 134 134 184 185 116 92.4 185 78 127


Nitrate as N mg/L Grab 0.33 0.61 0.53 0.25 <0.01 <0.01 0.15 <0.01 0.09 0.07 0.76 0.59 0.76 <0.01 <0.29

Nitrite as N mg/L Grab 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.03 <0.01 0.04 0.05 <0.01 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.07 <0.01 <0.04






Oil & Grease mg/L Grab 14 6 6 13 13 8 25 7 <4 7 5 9 25 <4 <10

Phenols mg/L Grab 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.02




Arsenic Total µg/L Comp. 0.6 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.5 0.8 0.7 <0.5 <0.5 0.8 <0.5 <0.6






Cadmium Total µg/L Comp. <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.3 <0.2 <0.2 0.3 <0.2 <0.3



Chromium Dissolved µg/L Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Cobalt Total µg/L Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5


Copper Total µg/L Comp. 62.4 54.7 49.5 57.6 64.0 61.2 67.0 65.6 73.5 58.5 40.9 48.1 73.5 40.9 58.6









Mercury Total µg/L Comp. 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.18 0.12 0.05 0.14 0.06 0.18 0.08 <0.05 <0.05 0.18 <0.05 <0.09





Selenium Total µg/L Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 <0.5 <0.5 0.8 <0.5 <0.6

Silver Total µg/L Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 1.5 1.2 1.4 0.8 0.6 1.4 1.0 0.6 0.6 1.5 <0.5 <0.9




YEARLY

63

TABLE 5.9: LIONS GATE WWTP – 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS SUMMARY

Note: *Operational Certificate Monitoring Parameters


Type Max. Min. Ave.

Fluoride mg/L Comp. 0.12 0.12 <0.05 0.17 0.09 0.05 0.07 <0.05 0.07 0.14 0.10 0.06 0.17 <0.05 <0.10

Hardness Total as CaCO3 mg/L* Comp. 144 79.2 86.3 94.9 110 146 134 131 181 185 110 89.6 185 79.2 124


Nitrate as N mg/L Grab 0.02 0.47 0.41 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 0.69 0.44 0.69 <0.01 <0.18

Nitrite as N mg/L Grab 0.02 0.06 0.04 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.08 <0.01 <0.03



Phosphorus Total as P mg/L Comp. 4120 2730 2620 3180 3190 3610 3800 3650 3580 4360 2380 2600 4360 2380 3320

Phosphorus Total Dissolved as P mg/L Comp. 2230 1440 1140 1540 1740 2120 2130 2010 2120 2100 1180 1440 2230 1140 1770


Oil & Grease mg/L* Grab 18 7 5 14 18 14 11 13 11 8 <4 11 18 <4 <12

Phenols mg/L* Grab 0.02 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 <0.01

Cyanide Total mg/L* Grab <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02



Arsenic Total µg/L Comp. 0.5 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.6









Chromium Dissolved µg/L Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Cobalt Total µg/L* Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5











Mercury Total µg/L* Comp. <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05





Selenium Total µg/L* Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 0.6 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.6

Silver Total µg/L* Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.7 0.7 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.7 <0.5 <0.6




* Operational Certificate monitoring Parameters

YEARLY

64

TABLE 5.10: LIONS GATE WWTP - 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM LOADINGS SUMMARY


Max. Min. Ave. Tonnes Max. Min. Ave. Tonnes

Parameters per year per year

Fluoride 9 <4 <6 <3 12 <4 <8 <3



N-Nitrate 85 <0.7 <27 <9.9 77 <0.7 <22 <7.9

N-Nitrite 7.2 <0.7 <3.4 <1.3 8.3 <0.7 <2.5 <0.9

N-Ammonia 1360 1160 1280 467 1940 1560 1740 635

Sulphate 5970 2400 3900 1420 5300 2380 3840 1400



MBAS 80 33 59 21 211 64 148 54

Oil & Grease 1570 <270 <730 <270 1350 <450 <830 <310

Phenols 1.9 <0.7 <1.0 <0.4 2.0 <0.7 <1.1 <0.4

Cyanide Total <2.3 <1.3 <1.6 <0.6 <2.3 <1.3 <1.58 <0.6

Aluminum Total 226 28 84 31 60 23 44 16


Arsenic Total 0.06 <0.04 <0.05 <0.02 0.06 <0.04 <0.05 <0.02

Barium Total 2.3 1.2 1.7 0.6 1.9 0.8 1.3 0.5


Boron Total 12 9 11 3.9 12 9 11 3.9

Boron Dissolved 12 8 10 3.7 12 8 10 3.7

Calcium Total 2280 1100 1500 548 2140 995 1440 524

Cadmium Total 0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.006 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.006


Chromium Total 2.00 0.07 0.27 0.10 0.11 0.05 0.07 0.03

Chromium Dissolved <0.06 <0.04 <0.04 <0.02 0.06 <0.04 <0.04 <0.02

Cobalt Total <0.06 <0.04 <0.04 <0.02 <0.06 <0.04 <0.04 <0.02

Cobalt Dissolved <0.06 <0.04 <0.04 <0.02 <0.06 <0.04 <0.04 <0.02

Copper Total 5.3 3.9 4.5 1.6 3.9 2.6 3.1 1.1


Iron Total 133 56 84 31 110 33 62 23

Iron Dissolved 18 5 12 4.3 26 6 13 4.9

Lead Total 0.35 0.17 0.23 0.08 0.18 0.09 0.13 0.05

Lead Dissolved <0.06 <0.04 <0.04 <0.02 <0.06 <0.04 <0.04 <0.02

Magnesium Total 2070 839 1430 523 2070 853 1420 517

Manganese Total 6.9 2.9 4.6 1.7 6.3 2.6 4.3 1.6


Mercury Total 0.013 <0.004 <0.007 <0.003 <0.006 <0.004 <0.004 <0.002



Nickel Total 0.48 0.16 0.22 0.08 0.47 0.14 0.21 0.08


Selenium Total 0.06 <0.04 <0.05 <0.02 0.06 <0.04 <0.05 <0.02

Silver Total 0.11 <0.04 <0.07 <0.03 0.06 <0.04 <0.05 <0.02


Zinc Total 9.3 5.9 6.6 2.4 5.3 3.3 4.3 1.6

Zinc Dissolved 3.2 1.4 2.4 0.9 2.6 1.5 2.1 0.8

kg/day kg/day

65

6.0 LULU ISLAND WWTP

67

6.0 LULU ISLAND WWTP

2016 ANNUAL SUMMARY


The quality of effluent from Lulu Island WWTP in 2016 along with the authorized discharge compliance


TABLE 6.1: LULU ISLAND WWTP – 2016 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY TABLE

Due to a malfunctioning sampler, the secondary effluent composite results are reported as final effluent

on the following dates: February 17, March 31, April 3 and August 26, and no results are reported for the

final effluent composite on August 29.




ME-0023 on April 23, 2004. The operational certificate included the compliance levels shown in Table 6.2.











discharge flow, cBOD, TSS, chlorine residual and maximum authorized daily loading for cBOD and TSS.


Lulu Island WWTP had no instances of non-compliance in 2016 as shown in Table 6.1.

Operational Certificate Requirement - ME-00233, April 23, 2004


Frequency

Max. Value

for the Year


Total Flow (MLD) Daily 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

cBOD (mg/L)* 3/week 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


cBOD (Tonnes/Day)* 3/week 1.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Susp. Solids (Tonnes/Day) 5/week 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chlorine Residual (mg/L)** Daily <0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Disinfection - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Plant Bypass - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Secondary Bypass 2ADW - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


OC Limits

233

45

45

3.6

4.5

<0.1

-

-

-

* cBOD reported 1/week when COD are reported 5/week

** Chlorination Period is between March 26 and October 31, 2016

68

Effluent bypasses


“For flows less than two times dry weather flow, wastewater bypassing the designated

treatment works is prohibited unless the approval of the Regional Waste Manager is

obtained and confirmed in writing. Wastewater flows exceeding the capacity of the

secondary treatment works may bypass those works when flows are greater than two

times measured dry weather flow, provided that primary effluent standards are

maintained for the effluent not receiving secondary treatment.”

There was no bypassing of the secondary treatment process in 2016.

Plant bypasses


Disinfection




zone as described in the Municipal Sewage Regulation. If chlorine is used, the effluent

shall be dechlorinated prior to discharge to reduce the chlorine residual below the

detection limit.”

Final effluent was disinfected with sodium hypochlorite solution (SHS) and dechlorinated using sodium

bisulfite (SBS) solution before being discharged to the Fraser River. The average chlorine dosage was 2.1

mg/L, and the average SBS dosage as SO2 was 2.0 mg/L.

Lulu Island WWTP had two instances of disinfection interruption on August 8 due to power loss. The first

interruption occurred for 35 seconds with a discharge of 0.021 ML. The second interruption occurred for

11 seconds with a discharge of 0.004 ML. Based on dilution dispersion modelling of downstream

concentrations, the applicable Health Canada Recreational Water Quality Guidelines and the BC MOE

Water Quality Guidelines were predicted to have been met.

The 30-day Geometric Means calculated for fecal coliform levels in final effluent and at the edge of the

Initial Dilution Zone (IDZ) are summarized in Table 6.3. In 2016, the calculated results for fecal coliform

levels at the edge of the IDZ met the Fraser River fecal coliforms water quality objective (WQO) of 200

MPN/100 mL from May through October.

69

TABLE 6.3: PREDICTED 30 DAY FECAL COLIFORM GEOMEAN AT THE LULU ISLAND WWTP IDZ


Max 30 day Geomean* - 39 29 37 85 115 41

Dilution Factor** - 30 30 30 30 30 30

IDZ Result *** - 1.3 1.0 1.2 2.8 3.8 1.4

WQO (Met or Not Met) - Met Met Met Met Met Met * Geomean (MPN/100mL) over 30 day period (effluent).

** Dilution Factor - minimum dilution factor for IDZ at the Lulu Island WWTP outfall.

*** IDZ Result (MPN/100mL) - determined by calculation of Geometric Mean of fecal coliforms levels in the receiving water due to discharges of final effluent, for

30 day periods at the edge of the IDZ.


Lulu Island WWTP treated a total of 25,617 ML in 2016. The average flow of 70.0 MLD was 1.2 % higher

than the last year’s average of 69.2 MLD. The highest daily flow of 92.0 MLD and the maximum peak

flow of 1.78 m3/sec or 154 MLD were recorded on February 15 and November 27 respectively (Figure

6.1).

FIGURE 6.1 2016 LULU ISLAND WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL DAILY FLOWS

The influent BOD concentrations were between 190 and 340 mg/L with an average of 266 mg/L. The

influent SS concentrations were between 159 and 311 mg/L with an average of 217 mg/L. Influent SS

loading of 5,541 tonnes/year and BOD loading of 6,853 tonnes/year were 2.0% higher and 0.7% lower

than in 2015 (Table 6.4).

70


The plant’s overall performance was very good. The effluent suspended solids (SS) concentrations were

between 3 and 9 mg/L with an average of 5 mg/L (Figure 6.2).

FIGURE 6.2 2016 LULU ISLAND WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS

The effluent cBOD levels were between <4 and 19 mg/L with an average of 6 mg/L (Figure 6.3). The

effluent SS loading of 132 tonnes/year was 0.8% lower than 2015. The effluent cBOD loading of 6%

remained the same as in 2015.




2007 77.8 237 7 6718 187 221 <6 6232 159

2008 74.2 232 5 6261 147 225 <6 6180 131

2009 76.2 * 5 * 133 * <6 * 145

2010 73.5 176* 5 4661* 141 252* <5 6748* 126

2011 71.5 188 5 4907 143 254 <5 6652 129

2012 71.0 201 5 5210 142 263 <5 6856 126

2013 69.4 206 5 5205 134 263 5 6722 130

2014 70.7 205 5 5276 128 263 5 6813 139

2015 69.2 216 5 5431 133 273 6 6903 134

2016 70.0 217 5 5541 132 266 6 6853 149

*Annual data for 2009 and for the first quarter of 2010 for influent suspended solids and BOD were not reported due to data anomalies

associated with the location of the raw influent sampler. The raw influent sampler was relocated to the junction box at the north fence line on

M arch 29, 2010 and 2010 data reported is for the April through December period.

mg/L Tonnes/year

71

FIGURE 6.3 2016 LULU ISLAND WWTP EFFLUENT CBOD CONCENTRATIONS

In 2016, the average reduction of suspended solids and BOD were both at 98%.


The WSER specifies the limits for the substances that are authorized to be deposited by any wastewater

system. The effluent quality standards and limits for Lulu Island Wastewater Treatment Plant are shown

in Table 6.5.


Monthly average carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD)

25 mg/L






concentration of cBOD in mg/L; Average concentration of SS in mg/L; and Acute Lethality.


that the Lulu Island WWTP was eligible to reduce sampling for Acute Lethality from monthly to quarterly.

72


In 2016, Lulu Island WWTP met WSER effluent quality standards and limits on CBOD and suspended solids

as summarized in Table 6.6.



The secondary process continued to operate very well with three trickling filters (TF), three aeration tanks

in contact mode and four secondary clarifiers.

The soluble cBOD (scBOD) removal across the trickling filters was between 78 and 83% with an average

of 81%. The trickling effluent scBOD concentrations were in the range of 13 to 28 mg/L.

The mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) were in the range of 1,195 to 1,570 mg/L with an average of

1,391 mg/L. The average mean cell residence time (MCRT) was 1.5 days and it varied from 1.0 day to 2.6

days.

6.5 SOLIDS TREATMENT

Primary sludge from the primary sedimentation tanks was thickened in one gravity thickener and screened

in one sludge screen. The average Thickened Screened Primary Sludge (TSPS) total solids content was 4.0%

One Dissolved Air Flotation Thickener (DAFT) unit was used to thicken waste secondary sludge from the

mixed liquor channel. The average Thickened Waste Secondary Sludge (TWSS) total solids content was

4.8% with subnatant suspended solids concentration of 46 mg/L and Thickened Bottom Sludge (TBS)

suspended solids concentrated of 272 mg/L. The average polymer dosage was maintained at 3.7 kg/tonne.

Primary sludge and secondary sludge were mixed in a sludge blending tank. Treated mixed sludge

averaged approximately 78% primary sludge and 22% secondary sludge over the year with seasonal

variation to accommodate the changing biomass requirements for secondary treatment. The average

total and volatile solids content of the mixed sludge were 4.2% and 88%, respectively.




January 31 2,193,377 5 5

February 29 2,187,342 6 5

March 31 2,207,112 7 5

April 30 1,978,183 5 4 <0.02

May 31 2,067,189 5 4 <0.02

June 30 2,056,810 6 4 <0.02

July 31 2,138,489 5 5 <0.02

August 31 2,100,456 5 5 <0.02

September 30 2,034,026 6 5 <0.02

October 31 2,190,979 7 5 <0.02

November 30 2,244,491 6 6

December 31 2,218,617 7 6








of Total Residual

Chlorine (mg/L)

73

Digestion was very stable with two mesophilic digesters operating in parallel mode for the entire year.

The average hydraulic retention time was 30 days with volatile solids reduction of 62% and organic loading

rate of 1.25 kg/m3day. Bicarbonate alkalinity concentrations ranged between 3,903 and 5,308 mg/L.

6.6 DEWATERED SLUDGE

Digested sludge dewatering is via two centrifuges. The centrifuges are normally operated six times per

week on an alternating basis with an average run time of 11.6 hours. The average dewatered sludge

(biosolids) total solids content was 24.6%. Average solids recovery was 94% and average centrate

suspended solids concentration was 1,217 mg/L. The average polymer dosage was 11.2 kg/tonne which

was 4.5% lower than last year’s average of 11.7 kg/tonne.

A comprehensive summary of the Lulu Island WWTP performance and monitoring results is presented in

tables 6.7 to 6.10.

74

TABLE 6.7: LULU ISLAND WWTP – 2016 ROUTINE MONITORING RESULTS AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

MONTH Max. Total Daily Composite Un-ionized

Inst.Flow Effluent Flow NH3 Maximum

Rate (MLD) (mg/L)

(m3/sec) Max. Min. Ave. FINAL EFF FINAL EFF FIN EFF

JAN 1.40 81.6 62.7 70.8 7.0 0.39 29.6

FEB 1.65 91.6 69.2 75.4 7.1 0.41 27.9

MAR 1.52 82.9 62.3 71.2 7.1 0.40 27.9

APR 1.06 67.2 64.5 65.9 7.2 0.49 29.3

MAY 1.31 73.8 62.9 66.7 7.2 0.55 31.9

JUN 1.33 74.2 64.8 68.6 7.2 0.56 27.3

JUL 1.28 74.4 65.6 69.0 7.2 0.65 30.1

AUG 1.29 69.6 65.6 67.8 7.2 0.67 29.7

SEP 1.29 70.7 65.2 67.8 7.2 0.61 28.0

OCT 1.45 77.4 65.3 70.7 7.2 0.59 29.8

NOV 1.78 90.0 68.3 74.8 7.1 0.44 30.2

DEC 1.27 79.2 65.3 71.6 7.2 0.50 32.2

# Samples - - - 366 52 155 52

Maximum-Yr. 1.78 91.6 - - 7.3 0.67 39.7

Minimum-Yr. - - 62.3 - 6.9 0.18 22.4

Average-Yr. - - - 70.0 7.1 0.38 29.5

MONTH SHS SBS SO2 Geomean Fecal Coliform

Dosage Dosage Outfall (MPN/100mL)

mg/L Cl2 mg/L SO2 (mg/L) AT EFFLUENT WEIR

FINAL EFF FINAL EFF FINAL EFF Before SO2 After SO2 FINAL EFF FINAL EFF Monthly Max. 30 d Geomean

JAN 16 2.9 - - - - - - -

FEB 16 2.9 - - - - - - -

MAR 16 2.7 1.1 0.7 <0.02 1.5 1.6 - -

APR 18 2.7 1.6 0.6 <0.02 1.9 1.2 33 35

MAY 20 3.2 1.7 0.6 <0.02 2.0 1.2 26 39

JUN 21 2.8 2.2 0.7 <0.02 2.0 1.1 29 29

JUL 22 2.7 2.3 0.7 <0.02 2.0 1.1 36 37

AUG 22 2.9 2.2 0.7 <0.02 2.0 1.1 85 85

SEP 22 2.4 2.5 0.8 <0.02 2.1 1.1 46 115

OCT 19 2.4 2.4 0.8 <0.02 1.9 1.0 30 41

NOV 18 2.4 - - - - - - -

DEC 16 2.6 - - - - - - -

# Samples 52 12 215 218 218 216 224 61 60

Maximum-Yr. 23 3.2 3.8 1.2 <0.02 2.2 2.47 330 115

Minimum-Yr. 15 2.4 1.1 0.3 <0.02 1.5 0.41 <18 18

Average-Yr. 19 2.7 2.1 0.7 <0.02 2.0 1.15 - 42

Geomean - - - - - - - 38 -

>100

Grab pH

Average

(pH)

Grab NH3

Average

(mg/L)

96 hr LC50

(%v/v)

FIN EFF

>100

>100

>100

>100

>100

>100

>100

>100

>100

>100

>100

>100

12

>100

>100

Ave Temp.

(oC)

Ave D.O.

(mg/L)

Ave. Residual Cl2

Final Effluent

(mg/L)

(1) pH, Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature, Residual Chlorine, 96 hour LC50 and Coliform are determined on grab samples; all other parameters are determined on 24 hr. flow proportioned composite samples.(2) Residual Chlorine were taken before dechlorination.


75

TABLE 6.7 CONT'D: LULU ISLAND WWTP - 2016 ROUTINE MONITORING RESULTS AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

MONTH

RAW INF FINAL EFF


JAN 218 160 193 9 4 5 71 97 13.6 0.4 549 607

FEB 218 162 187 7 4 5 70 97 14.1 0.4 627 674

MAR 217 168 199 7 4 5 72 97 14.1 0.4 732 786

APR 265 182 225 6 3 4 75 98 14.8 0.3 704 764

MAY 311 184 232 6 3 4 74 98 15.5 0.3 625 698

JUN 274 202 234 6 3 4 74 98 16.1 0.3 588 658

JUL 267 203 236 6 4 5 76 98 16.3 0.3 588 660

AUG 274 198 229 7 4 5 74 98 15.5 0.4 573 645

SEP 272 204 231 6 4 5 74 98 15.6 0.4 576 651

OCT 261 202 229 7 3 5 76 98 16.2 0.4 596 668

NOV 251 159 206 9 4 6 76 97 15.4 0.5 587 638

DEC 233 172 201 9 4 6 75 97 14.4 0.4 605 660

# Samples - - 359 - - 365 359 359 359 365 358 364

Maximum-Yr. 311 - - 9 - - 83 99 20.7 0.7 1140 1180

Minimum-Yr. - 159 - - 3 - 61 96 11.1 0.2 501 514

Average-Yr. - - 217 - - 5 74 98 15.1 0.4 612 676

Total to Date - Suspended Solids Loadings (Tonnes): 5541 132.2

MONTH Average BOD Ave. BOD/cBOD Loadings

% Reduction (Tonnes/day)

RAW INF FINAL EFF BOD cBOD


JAN 263 190 233 6 <4 5 46 98 17.0 <0.4 520 54

FEB 267 202 231 9 4 6 46 97 17.6 0.4 513 55

MAR 289 211 261 16 5 7 47 97 18.6 0.5 549 57

APR 301 255 276 8 <4 5 44 98 18.3 <0.4 601 55

MAY 328 271 295 6 <4 5 47 98 19.8 <0.4 630 55

JUN 311 215 271 7 4 6 48 98 18.6 0.4 616 53

JUL 296 263 278 6 4 5 46 98 19.5 0.4 603 56

AUG 293 253 272 7 4 5 47 98 18.6 0.3 613 55

SEP 340 258 291 17 <4 6 46 97 20.0 <0.5 606 57

OCT 310 261 279 19 4 7 47 98 19.6 0.5 594 56

NOV 274 251 259 8 5 6 46 98 19.4 0.5 541 55

DEC 262 222 244 8 6 7 46 97 17.6 0.5 541 53

# Samples - - 89 - - 159 87 88 89 159 347 264

Maximum-Yr. 340 - - 19 - - 60 99 23.1 1.3 932 83

Minimum-Yr. - 190 - - <4 - 36 94 14.0 <0.3 453 42

Average-Yr. - - 266 - - 6 46 98 18.7 <0.5 577 55

Total to Date - Biochemical Oxygen Demand Loadings (Tonnes): 6853 149

Total Suspended SolidsConductivity

(umhos/cm)(mg/L)

Total Susp. Solids Ave.

% Reduction

Ave. Suspended Solids

Loadings (Tonnes/day)

BODAverage COD

(mg/L)(mg/L) (mg/L)

cBOD


76

TABLE 6.8: LULU ISLAND WWTP – 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM INFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS SUMMARY


Type Max. Min. Ave.

Fluoride mg/L Comp. <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.70 <0.05 <0.05 0.16 0.70 <0.05 <0.12

Hardness Total as CaCO3 mg/L Comp. 56.5 77.2 76.6 69.1 62.5 57.1 57.8 50.8 55 47.5 60.2 58.3 77.2 47.5 60.7


Nitrate as N mg/L Grab <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Nitrite as N mg/L Grab <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.02 <0.01 <0.02







Phenols mg/L Grab 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.04










Cadmium Total µg/L Comp. 0.3 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.4 <0.2 0.7 0.3 <0.2 0.3 0.2 0.7 <0.2 <0.3




Cobalt Total µg/L Comp. 1.2 0.9 1.3 1.0 1.2 1.0 0.9 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.6 1.6 1.6 0.9 1.2

Cobalt Dissolved µg/L Comp. 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.6 1.2 1.1 1.2 0.5 0.7

Copper Total µg/L Comp. 55.9 52.4 49.6 50.6 54.4 51.7 57.5 48 48.1 52.9 46.3 47.1 57.5 46.3 51.2




Lead Total µg/L Comp. 2.6 2.3 3.2 3 2.9 51.4 7.6 6.7 3.4 2.4 2.3 2.6 51.4 2.3 7.5

Lead Dissolved µg/L Comp. <0.5 <0.5 0.7 <0.5 <0.5 14.4 1.8 0.7 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 14.4 <0.5 <1.8


Manganese Total µg/L Comp. 88.3 166 166 145 118 102 109 88.2 89.9 84.2 95.5 95.9 166 84.2 112

Manganese Dissolved µg/L Comp. 59.4 130 117 107 84.9 75.1 75.8 61.1 64.1 56.1 72.5 69 130 56.1 81.0

Mercury Total µg/L Comp. 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.14 0.20 0.12 0.06 0.08 0.20 0.05 0.09





Selenium Total µg/L Comp. 0.6 0.6 <0.5 1.0 0.6 0.8 0.7 <0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.5 1.0 <0.5 <0.7

Silver Total µg/L Comp. 4.8 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0.9 0.8 0.6 4.8 <0.5 <1.0

Silver Dissolved µg/L Comp. 1.1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 1.1 <0.5 <0.6



YEARLY

77

TABLE 6.9: LULU ISLAND WWTP – 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM EFFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS SUMMARY


Type Max. Min. Ave.

Fluoride mg/L Comp. <0.05 0.06 <0.05 0.06 0.06 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.06 0.06 <0.05 0.06 <0.05 <0.06

Hardness Total as CaCO3 mg/L* Comp. 46.0 76.2 71.7 66.1 57.0 53.2 53.3 44.1 49.5 42.8 55.6 53.8 76.2 42.8 55.8


Nitrate as N mg/L Grab 0.07 0.10 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.10 <0.01 <0.03

Nitrite as N mg/L Grab 0.05 0.04 0.02 <0.01 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.05 <0.01 <0.03






Oil & Grease mg/L* Grab <4 <3 <3 <3 <4 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <4 <3 <4

Phenols mg/L* Grab <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01




Arsenic Total µg/L* Comp. <0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 <0.5 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7 <0.5 <0.6









Chromium Dissolved µg/L Comp. 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 <0.5 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 <0.5 <0.7

Cobalt Total µg/L* Comp. 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.8 <0.5 0.6 0.6 <0.5 0.6 0.6 0.9 1.0 1.0 <0.5 <0.7

Cobalt Dissolved µg/L Comp. <0.5 <0.5 0.8 0.7 <0.5 0.6 0.5 <0.5 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 <0.5 <0.7





Lead Total µg/L* Comp. <0.5 <0.5 0.8 <0.5 <0.5 2.4 0.5 0.7 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 2.4 <0.5 <0.7

Lead Dissolved µg/L Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 1.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 1.5 <0.5 <0.6










Silver Total µg/L* Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.8 <0.5 <0.5 0.8 <0.5 <0.6




* Note: Operational Certificate monitoring Parameters

YEARLY

78

TABLE 6.10: LULU ISLAND WWTP – 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM LOADINGS SUMMARY


Max. Min. Ave. Max. Min. Ave. Tonnes

Parameters per year

Fluoride 48 <3.3 <7.9 <2.9 4.4 <3.4 <3.8 <1.4



N-Nitrate 0.8 <0.7 <0.7 <0.3 7.3 <0.7 <1.6 <0.6

N-Nitrite 1.5 <0.7 <0.8 <0.3 3.4 <0.7 <2.0 <0.7

N-Ammonia 1930 1780 1860 681 2790 2050 2370 869

Sulphate 1600 852 1170 428 2010 1350 1620 592



MBAS 227 155 192 70 27 20 23 8.0

Oil & Grease 3780 888 2050 750 <272 <199 <221 <81

Phenols 3.4 2.0 2.6 1.0 <0.8 <0.7 <0.7 <0.3

Cyanide Total <1.6 <1.4 <1.4 <0.6 <1.6 <1.4 <1.4 <0.6

Aluminum Total 56 17 26 10 2.9 1.1 1.7 0.6


Arsenic Total 0.079 0.053 0.064 0.023 0.048 <0.034 <0.040 <0.015

Barium Total 2.72 1.12 1.59 0.58 0.33 0.21 0.28 0.10


Boron Total 19.6 5.4 8.9 3.2 18.1 5.7 8.4 3.1

Boron Dissolved 19.1 5.1 8.4 3.1 17.2 5.2 8.0 2.9

Calcium Total 1070 727 889 325 985 628 783 287

Cadmium Total 0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01


Chromium Total 0.22 0.14 0.17 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.02

Chromium Dissolved 0.10 0.05 0.07 0.02 0.06 <0.04 <0.05 <0.02

Cobalt Total 0.12 0.06 0.08 0.03 0.08 <0.04 <0.05 <0.02

Cobalt Dissolved 0.09 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.06 <0.04 <0.05 <0.02

Copper Total 3.9 3.3 3.6 1.3 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.3


Iron Total 242 109 155 57 22 14 17 6.0

Iron Dissolved 85 38 54 20 10 7.5 8.7 3.2

Lead Total 3.58 0.16 0.52 0.19 0.17 <0.04 <0.05 <0.02

Lead Dissolved 1.00 <0.03 <0.13 <0.05 0.10 <0.04 <0.04 <0.01

Magnesium Total 766 336 493 180 752 318 474 174

Manganese Total 12.3 5.7 7.9 2.9 5.9 0.7 3.2 1.2


Mercury Total 0.014 0.004 0.006 0.002 <0.010 <0.004 <0.004 <0.002



Nickel Total 0.47 0.21 0.31 0.11 0.28 0.12 0.17 0.06


Selenium Total 0.07 <0.04 <0.05 <0.02 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.02

Silver Total 0.33 <0.04 <0.07 <0.03 0.05 <0.04 <0.04 <0.02

Silver Dissolved 0.07 <0.04 <0.04 <0.02 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.02

Zinc Total 7.3 6.2 6.6 2.4 4.3 1.4 2.2 0.8

Zinc Dissolved 1.4 0.9 1.1 0.4 3.7 1.2 1.9 0.7

kg/day kg/day

Tonnes

per year

79

7.0 NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP

81

7.0 NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP

2016 ANNUAL SUMMARY


The quality of effluent from Northwest Langley WWTP in 2016 along with the authorized discharge

compliance parameters listed in the Operational Certificate is summarized in Table 7.1.

TABLE 7.1: NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP – 2016 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

On September 9, the secondary effluent composite results are reported as final effluent as algae was

found in the final effluent composite sample.




ME-04339 on April 23, 2004. The operational certificate included compliance levels shown in Table 7.2.











discharge flow, cBOD, suspended solids, chlorine residual and maximum daily loadings for cBOD and

suspended solids.

Operational Certificate Requirement - ME-04339, April 23, 2004


Frequency

Max. Value

for the Year


Total Flow (MLD) Daily 17.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

cBOD (mg/L) 1/week 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


cBOD (Tonnes/Day) 1/week 0.37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Susp. Solids (Tonnes/Day) 1/week 0.52 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Chlorine Residual (mg/L)* Daily <0.02 - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

Disinfection - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0


OC Limits

42

45

45

0.50

0.50

<0.1

-

* Peracetic Acid was used primary disinfectant during disinfection season.

82


In 2016, Northwest Langley WWTP had one instance when Operational Certificate requirements were not

fully met as shown in Table 7.1.

The daily loadings for TSS on January 27 was above the Operational Certificate discharge limit due to high flow conditions and elevated TSS concentrations.

Bypasses



prohibited unless the approval of the Regional Waste Manager is obtained and confirmed

in writing.”


Disinfection




zone as described in the Municipal Sewage Regulation.

If chlorine is used, the effluent shall be dechlorinated prior to discharge to reduce the

chlorine residual below the detection limit.”

From March 30 to October 23 inclusive, Northwest Langley WWTP disinfected the final effluent using

Peracetic Acid (PAA). The PAA dosage ranged from 1.1 to 2.5 mg/L with an average of 1.8 mg/L.

From October 24 to 31 inclusive, the final effluent was disinfected using sodium hypochlorite solution

(SHS) and dechlorinated using sodium bisulfite (SBS).

The calculated 30-day Geometric Means fecal coliform levels in final effluent and at the edge of the initial

dilution zone (IDZ) are summarized in Table 7.3. In 2016, the calculated results for fecal coliform levels at

the edge of the IDZ met the Fraser River fecal coliform water quality objective (WQO) of 200 MPN/100mL

from May through October.

83

TABLE 7.3: PREDICTED 30 DAY FECAL COLIFORM GEOMEAN AT THE NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP IDZ


Max 30 day Geomean* - 1314 1162 1598 2498 3274 2611

Dilution Factor** - 51 51 51 51 51 51

IDZ Result *** - 25.8 22.8 31.3 49.0 64.2 51.2

WQO (Met or Not Met) - Met Met Met Met Met Met

* Geomean (MPN/100mL) over 30 day period (effluent).

** Dilution Factor - minimum dilution factor for IDZ at the Northwest Langley WWTP outfall.

*** IDZ Result - determined by calculation of Geometric Mean of fecal coliform levels in the receiving water due to discharges of final efflue nt, for 30 day periods

at the edge of the IDZ.


Northwest Langley WWTP treated a total of 4,522 ML in 2016. The average daily flow of 12.4 MLD was

3.6% lower than in 2016. The highest daily flow of 17.0 MLD occurred on November 26 (Figure 7.1).

FIGURE 7.1 2016 NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL DAILY FLOWS

The influent suspended solids concentrations ranged from 167 to 594 mg/L with an average of 280 mg/L.

The influent BOD concentrations varied from 204 to 406 mg/L with an average of 292 mg/L. The influent

suspended solids loading of 1,258 tonnes/year the BOD loading of 1,330 tonnes/year were 3.3% and 7.1%

lower than in 2015 (Table 7.4).

84

TABLE 7.4: 2007 - 2016 ANNUAL DATA FOR FLOW, SUSPENDED SOLIDS AND BOD

The plant continued to produce effluent quality that met the requirements of the Operational Certificate.

The effluent suspended solids concentrations were between 9 and 36 mg/L with average of 18 mg/L

(Figure 7.2). The effluent cBOD concentrations were between 8 mg/L and 27 mg/L with an average of 15

mg/L (Figure 7.3). The average effluent suspended solids loading of 83 tonnes/year was 8.9% lower while

the cBOD loadings of 69 tonnes/year was 0.9% higher than last year. The plant attained average

reductions of 93% and 95% respectively for SS and BOD.

FIGURE 7.2 2016 NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS




2007 10.9 198 16 786 63 264 <10 1050 40

2008 11.0 207 16 831 65 295 <11 1173 43

2009 11.6 227 18 955 77 309 <12 1300 51

2010 11.9 251 19 1084 83 297 <10 1302 44

2011 12.0 217 22 952 96 285 11 1288 49

2012 12.2 236 21 1049 96 289 12 1290 55

2013 12.2 258 20 1142 88 319 15 1431 66

2014 12.8 260 17 1213 82 299 14 1397 66

2015 12.9 279 19 1301 91 310 15 1431 68

2016 12.4 280 18 1258 83 292 15 1330 69

Tonnes/yearmg/L

85

FIGURE 7.3 2016 NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP EFFLUENT CBOD CONCENTRATIONS


The WSER specifies the limits for the substances that are authorized to be deposited by any wastewater

system. The effluent quality standards and limits for the Northwest Langley WWTP shown in Table 7.5.


Quarterly average carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD)

25 mg/L

Quarterly average concentration of suspended solids (SS) 25 mg/L

Quarterly average concentration of total residual chlorine 0.02 mg/L




concentration of cBOD in mg/L; Average concentration of suspended solids in mg/L; and Acute Lethality.


that the Northwest Langley WWTP was eligible to reduce sampling for Acute Lethality from quarterly to

annually.

86


In 2016, Northwest Langley WWTP met WSER effluent quality standards and limits on cBOD and

suspended solids, as summarized in Table 7.6.





January-March 91 1,146,438 19 24

April-June 91 1,079,938 15 17

July-September 92 1,069,955 13 15

October-December 92 1,225,876 15 16




87


The secondary process operated with one trickling filter in part or full operation and two activated sludge

tanks (AST) that were commissioned in 2016. The new ASTs increased treatment capacity from 1,134 m3

to 1,800 m3.

Approximately 54% of plant flow passed through the plant equalization pond before discharging to the

trickling filter (TF). The remaining 46% of the raw influent flowed directly to the TF. The average soluble

cBOD removal across the trickling filters was 68%.

Three new clarifiers were commissioned in 2016 increasing the treatment capacity from 3,200 m3 to 8,700

m3.

As of 2012, a blend of raw influent and equalization pond effluent composite samples was used as the

trickling filter influent (TFI) sample. Return secondary sludge (RSS) concentration is a calculated value

using activated sludge (AS) and TF effluent concentrations.

7.5 SLUDGE TREATMENT

Undigested thickened waste secondary sludge was trucked to Annacis Island WWTP.

A comprehensive summary of the Northwest Langley WWTP performance and monitoring results is

presented in tables 7.7 to 7.10.

88

TABLE 7.7: NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP – 2016 ROUTINE MONITORING RESULTS AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

MONTH Max. Ave NH3 96 hr MONTH

Inst.Flow Grab LC50

Rate (mg/L) (%v/v)

(m3/sec) Max. Min. Ave. Q Ave FINAL EFF FINAL EFF FINAL EFF FINAL EFF FINAL EFF

JAN 0.4 14.3 8.9 11.8 11.7 3.2 0.127 27.8 >100 JAN

FEB 0.4 16.5 10.1 13.2 12.7 4.0 0.088 26.1 >100 FEB

MAR 0.3 15.3 11.1 12.9 12.6 14.2 3.8 0.164 27.4 >100 MAR

APR 0.3 13.7 10.7 11.9 15.8 4.3 0.128 26.9 >100 APR

MAY 0.3 14.9 10.0 11.8 17.6 5.0 0.100 23.1 >100 MAY

JUN 0.3 13.5 8.8 11.8 11.9 19.8 5.6 0.026 15.7 >100 JUN

JUL 0.3 13.6 9.5 11.5 20.3 5.0 0.012 6.0 >100 JUL

AUG 0.2 13.2 9.3 11.5 21.3 5.4 0.034 14.7 >100 AUG

SEP 0.3 13.5 9.4 11.9 11.6 20.2 4.8 0.075 20.6 >100 SEP

OCT 0.3 15.1 10.8 12.8 17.6 5.5 0.036 19.3 >100 OCT

NOV 0.3 17.0 11.9 14.2 16.0 5.4 0.036 17.0 >100 NOV

DEC 0.3 16.2 10.8 13.0 13.3 11.9 6.4 0.032 21.0 >100 DEC

# Samples - - - 366 - 58 47 12 52 12 # Samples

Maximum-Yr. 0.4 17.0 - - 13.3 22.0 6.9 0.164 30.7 >100 Maximum-Yr.

Minimum-Yr. - - 8.8 - - 10.0 2.5 0.012 3.9 >100 Minimum-Yr.

Average-Yr. - - - 12.4 - 16.3 4.9 0.072 20.6 >100 Average-Yr.

MONTH PAA MONTH

Dose

mg/L Morning

RAW INF FINAL EFF FINAL EFF At Injection Monthly Q Ave FINAL EFF FINAL EFF Monthly Max 30 d Geo

JAN 608 124 - - - - 28.4 0.30 - - JAN

FEB 568 125 - - - - 28.7 0.32 - - FEB

MAR 595 113 - 0.5 <0.4 <0.4 28.6 0.35 - - MAR

APR 650 115 2.0 <0.9 <0.4 27.9 0.34 929 929 APR

MAY 645 107 2.1 <0.9 <0.4 23.5 0.25 669 1,314 MAY

JUN 649 106 2.0 1.0 <0.4 <0.4 15.7 0.24 906 1,162 JUN

JUL 662 95 1.7 <0.7 <0.4 7.7 0.05 2,181 1,598 JUL

AUG 702 96 1.6 <0.6 <0.4 17.3 0.20 1,374 2,498 AUG

SEP 664 112 1.5 <0.6 <0.4 <0.4 20.6 0.24 3,241 3,274 SEP

OCT 641 96 1.3 0.6 <0.4 20.8 0.25 606 2,611 OCT

NOV 569 93 - - - 17.7 0.21 - - NOV

DEC 615 98 - - - <0.4 23.2 0.30 - - DEC

# Samples 366 365 207 207 207 - 125 52 37 14 # Samples

Maximum-Yr. 993 147 2.5 1.40 0.6 <0.4 34.4 0.35 33,000 3,274 Maximum-Yr.

Minimum-Yr. 284 74.0 0.0 <0.4 <0.4 - 5.6 0.02 68 262 Minimum-Yr.

Average-Yr. 631 107 1.8 <0.8 <0.5 - 20.7 0.20 - - Average-Yr.

Geomean - - - - - - 1089 -

Total DailyAve. Temp

(oC)

Ave. D.O.

(mg/L)

Un-ionized

NH3 Grab -

Max (mg/L)Effluent Flow

(MLD)

Average COD

(mg/L)

Residual Peracetic Acid (mg/L)Ave NH3

Comp

(mg/L)

Un-ionized

NH3 Comp -

Max (mg/L)

Geomean Fecal Coliform

(MPN/100mL)

Morning Final Effluent AT EFFLUENT WEIR

(1) pH, Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature, Residual PAA , 96 hour LC50 and Coliform are determined on grab samples; all other pa rameters are determined on 24 hr. flow proportioned composite samples.(2) Peracetic Acid (PAA) is used as primary disinfectant during disinfection season. Sodium hypochlorite (chlorine) is the b ackup

disinfectant. (3) Oct 24 - 31 the backup system using sodium hypochlorite solution (SHS) and sodium bisulfite solution (SBS) was used for dis infection.


89

TABLE 7.7 CONT’D: NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP - 2016 ROUTINE MONITORING RESULTS AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

MONTH AVE Total Susp. Solids

TSS Average Loadings

% (Tonnes/day)

Max. Min. Ave. Max. Min. Ave. Q Ave Reduct. RAW INF FINAL EFF

JAN 594 192 280 36 17 26 90 3.26 0.31

FEB 365 167 253 35 20 24 90 3.33 0.32

MAR 300 195 258 32 15 23 24 91 3.32 0.29

APR 358 236 296 24 15 19 93 3.53 0.23

MAY 363 218 277 22 10 15 95 3.26 0.18

JUN 344 220 276 28 12 17 17 94 3.27 0.20

JUL 397 240 309 23 10 17 94 3.56 0.20

AUG 498 237 318 16 11 13 96 3.68 0.15

SEP 374 236 290 22 11 15 15 95 3.45 0.18

OCT 512 203 301 19 9 13 95 3.85 0.17

NOV 337 189 243 21 13 17 93 3.43 0.24

DEC 349 211 254 24 15 19 16 92 3.30 0.25

# Samples - - 365 - - 366 - 365 365 366

Maximum-Yr. 594 - - 36 - - 24 98 6.73 0.52

Minimum-Yr. - 167 - - 9 - - 82 2.10 0.10

Average-Yr. - - 280 - - 18 - 93 3.44 0.23

Total to Date - Suspended Solids Loadings (Tonnes): 1257.8 82.86

MONTH AVE Average BOD/cBOD

BOD Loadings (Tonnes/day)

% BOD cBOD

Max. Min. Ave. Max. Min. Ave. Q Ave Reduct. RAW INF FINAL EFF

JAN 339 204 271 27 14 20 92 3.28 0.23

FEB 311 250 276 25 14 19 93 3.63 0.25

MAR 334 219 288 22 13 17 19 94 3.75 0.22

APR 361 290 313 21 13 17 94 3.76 0.20

MAY 322 261 292 18 9 15 95 3.57 0.17

JUN 299 247 276 18 10 14 15 95 3.34 0.16

JUL 328 277 298 15 10 12 96 3.46 0.14

AUG 406 301 328 15 8 11 97 3.69 0.13

SEP 370 282 321 18 11 15 13 95 3.84 0.18

OCT 361 249 285 16 9 13 95 3.81 0.17

NOV 286 237 267 20 11 14 95 3.75 0.20

DEC 297 223 267 20 13 16 15 94 3.59 0.22

# Samples - - 90 - - 156 - 89 90 156

Maximum-Yr. 406 - - 27 - - 19 98 4.74 0.37

Minimum-Yr. - 204 - - 8 - - 90 2.44 0.09

Average-Yr. - - 292 - - 15 - 95 3.63 0.19

Total to Date - Biochemical Oxygen Demand Loadings (Tonnes): 1329.6 69.09

Total Suspended Solids

(mg/L)

RAW INF FINAL EFF

cBOD

(mg/L) (mg/L)

RAW INF FINAL EFF

BOD


90

TABLE 7.8: NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP – 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM INFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS SUMMARY


Type Max. Min. Ave.

Fluoride mg/L Comp. 0.39 0.48 0.69 0.59 5.83 2.09 0.56 8.13 0.82 3.51 0.54 2.43 8.13 0.39 2.17



Nitrate as N mg/L Grab 0.05 0.25 0.06 0.27 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.17 <0.01 0.28 0.01 0.28 <0.01 <0.10

Nitrite as N mg/L Grab 0.08 0.08 0.55 0.12 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.08 <0.01 0.11 0.02 0.55 <0.01 <0.10


Sulphate mg/L Comp. 42.4 41.4 33 31.8 42.9 54.1 36.9 46.0 35.1 144 47.0 41.9 144 31.8 49.7





Phenols mg/L Grab 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.03





Barium Total µg/L Comp. 141 48.3 73.5 85.0 388 301 54.4 445 77.8 656 174 111 656 48.3 213





Cadmium Total µg/L Comp. 0.7 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.4 3.9 0.3 0.3 0.3 3.9 0.3 0.8

Cadmium Dissolved µg/L Comp. <0.2 0.3 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.2 <0.2 0.3 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.3 <0.2 <0.3



Cobalt Total µg/L Comp. 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.7 1.6 0.7 0.5 1.6 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.3 1.6 0.5 1.0

Cobalt Dissolved µg/L Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 1.0 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 1.0 <0.5 <0.6

Copper Total µg/L Comp. 103 136 150 200 169 160 173 214 155 159 115 130 214 103 155





Lead Dissolved µg/L Comp. 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.9 0.6 1.0 0.5 0.8




Mercury Total µg/L Comp. 0.05 <0.05 0.17 0.13 0.10 0.05 0.08 0.27 0.07 0.11 0.07 0.08 0.27 <0.05 <0.11





Selenium Total µg/L Comp. 0.7 0.9 0.5 1.1 0.6 1.1 0.9 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.8 1.1 0.5 0.8

Silver Total µg/L Comp. 0.5 0.6 <0.5 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.6 1.1 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 1.1 <0.5 <0.7




YEARLY

91

TABLE 7.9: NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP – 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS SUMMARY


Type Max. Min. Ave.

Fluoride mg/L Comp. 0.46 0.45 1.08 0.82 4.99 1.68 1.59 3.74 5.48 2.7 0.39 0.62 5.48 0.39 2.00

Hardness Total as CaCO3 mg/L* Comp. 38.8 55.2 62.2 62.3 59.0 52.4 67.5 56.7 54.9 65.8 62.3 60.3 67.5 38.8 58.1


Nitrate as N mg/L Grab 0.03 0.14 0.09 0.03 0.17 7.18 9.36 8.10 6.23 4.95 6.53 4.84 9.36 0.03 3.97

Nitrite as N mg/L Grab 0.10 0.13 0.18 0.22 0.67 1.69 2.33 1.21 1.30 2.85 0.74 0.44 2.85 0.10 0.99






Oil & Grease mg/L* Grab <3 <3 <3 <4 <3 <3 <3 <4 LA <4 <3 <3 <4 <3 <3

Phenols mg/L* Grab <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01




Arsenic Total µg/L* Comp. <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 <0.5 3.7 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 3.7 <0.5 <0.8






Cadmium Total µg/L* Comp. 0.2 0.5 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.5 <0.2 <0.3

Cadmium Dissolved µg/L Comp. <0.2 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.2 <0.2 <0.2



Cobalt Total µg/L* Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 0.9 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.9 <0.5 <0.6

Cobalt Dissolved µg/L Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0.9 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.9 <0.5 <0.6


Copper Dissolved µg/L Comp. 18.4 13.9 16.8 22.5 22.7 23.7 25 20.7 21.0 16.8 11.8 18.8 25.0 11.8 19.3




Lead Dissolved µg/L Comp. 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 <0.5 0.6 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.6


Manganese Total µg/L* Comp. 40.4 42.3 40 50.2 38.2 22.5 27 14.6 25.4 31.1 33.9 40.6 50.2 14.6 33.9












* Note: Operational Certificate monitoring parameters

YEARLY

92

TABLE 7.10: NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP – 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM LOADINGS SUMMARY


Max. Min. Ave. Max. Min. Ave. Tonnes

Parameters per year

Fluoride 97 4 27 10 67 5 25 9



N-Nitrate 3.7 <0.12 <1.2 <0.44 108 0.33 48.8 17.9

N-Nitrite 7.7 <0.12 <1.2 <0.44 35.8 1.1 12.1 4.4

N-Ammonia 452 319 387 142 408 103 276 101

Sulphate 1810 395 622 228 1240 375 580 212



MBAS 21.4 10.5 15.7 5.7 5.2 2.5 3.9 1.4

Oil & Grease 369 196 262 96 <51 <34 <42 <16

Phenols 0.78 0.25 0.42 0.15 <0.15 <0.12 <0.13 <0.05

Cyanide Total <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.1 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.1

Aluminum Total 418 13.5 59.0 21.6 4.7 1.9 3.3 1.2


Arsenic Total 0.176 0.007 0.025 0.009 0.045 <0.006 <0.010 <0.004

Barium Total 8.24 0.63 2.65 0.97 0.92 0.36 0.56 0.21


Boron Total 1.8 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.7 1.1 1.5 0.6

Boron Dissolved 1.7 0.9 1.3 0.5 1.7 1.1 1.4 0.5

Calcium Total 255 164 217 79 222 116 185 68

Cadmium Total 0.048 0.004 0.010 0.004 0.007 <0.003 <0.003 <0.002

Cadmium Dissolved 0.004 <0.003 <0.003 <0.001 0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.001

Chromium Total 0.30 0.14 0.21 0.08 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.02

Chromium Dissolved 0.11 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.01

Cobalt Total 0.021 0.006 0.013 0.005 0.012 <0.006 <0.007 <0.003

Cobalt Dissolved 0.013 <0.006 <0.007 <0.003 0.012 <0.006 <0.007 <0.003

Copper Total 2.54 1.13 1.94 0.71 0.56 0.37 0.46 0.17


Iron Total 19.4 8.47 13.3 4.87 2.84 1.68 2.15 0.79

Iron Dissolved 2.29 1.22 2.02 0.74 1.37 1.08 1.18 0.43

Lead Total 0.086 0.016 0.040 0.015 0.011 0.008 0.009 0.003

Lead Dissolved 0.012 0.006 0.009 0.003 0.008 <0.006 <0.007 <0.002

Magnesium Total 94 46 74 27 78 33 65 24

Manganese Total 1.27 0.70 0.91 0.33 0.62 0.17 0.43 0.16


Mercury Total 0.0032 <0.0006 <0.0010 <0.0005 <0.0100 <0.0006 <0.0010 <0.0003



Nickel Total 0.44 0.05 0.15 0.06 0.09 0.03 0.05 0.02


Selenium Total 0.014 0.007 0.010 0.004 <0.010 <0.006 <0.006 <0.003

Silver Total 0.013 <0.006 <0.008 <0.004 <0.010 <0.006 <0.006 <0.003


Zinc Total 3.08 1.85 2.24 0.82 0.90 0.67 0.80 0.29

Zinc Dissolved 1.14 0.58 0.81 0.30 0.85 0.56 0.73 0.27

kg/day kg/day

Tonnes

per year

93

8.0 BIOSOLIDS MONITORING

95

8.0 BIOSOLIDS MONITORING

8.1 ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP BIOSOLIDS MONITORING

Results of monthly testing programs for Biosolids and the criteria values required under the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation (OMRR) are shown in Table 8.1. TABLE 8.1: ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP BIOSOLIDS – ORGANIC MATTER RECYCLING REGULATION

*There are no limits for Chromium and Copper for Class A Biosolids ** Geomean for Year Class B Biosolids limits shown for reference

Criteria values for all metal parameters were met throughout 2016. The average concentrations of all regulated metals were below 75% of the OMRR limits. Data values produced during 2016 for fecal coliforms in biosolids were within the Class A criteria (Figure 8.1). Sample results were lower than the Class A limit of 1,000 MPN/g. The maximum value was 820 MPN/g and the geometric mean for all samples collected in the year was 120 MPN/g. Biosolids samples were collected approximately three times per week to meet the sampling frequency requirements for Class A biosolids.

FIGURE 8.1 ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP BIOSOLIDS – FECAL COLIFORMS 2016

Arsenic Cadmium Chromium

*

Cobalt Copper

*

Lead Mercury Moly Nickel Selenium Zinc Fecal

Coliform

(MPN/g)75 20 1060 150 2200 500 5 20 180 14 1850 1000

MAX 7.5 3.3 82.0 4.9 923 46.1 3.1 11.0 34.7 8.3 1490 820

MIN 3.9 2.3 48.2 3.7 700 32.0 1.0 9.0 20.8 5.8 1140 27

AVE 5.5 2.7 60.8 4.3 813 40.9 1.8 9.9 24.5 7.2 1282 120**

# Times

Exceeded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

* Class B Biosolids limits shown for reference ** Geomean for Year

There are no limits for Chromium and Copper for Class A Biosolids

Class A

Criteria

(mg/Kg)

96

8.2 LIONS GATE WWTP BIOSOLIDS MONITORING

Lions Gate WWTP produces Class B dewatered biosolids. In 2016, biosolids produced at Lions Gate WWTP achieved the Class B criteria for metals specified in the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation. Results of weekly testing programs for Biosolids and the criteria values required under the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation are shown in Table 8.2. TABLE 8.2: LIONS GATE WWTP BIOSOLIDS – ORGANIC MATTER RECYCLING REGULATION – REVISED

JULY 2019

The plant consistently achieved the Class B fecal coliform criteria (geomean of 2,000,000 MPN/g for seven consecutive samples). The highest geometric mean was 397,861 MPN/g and the geometric mean for all samples collected during the year was 78,510 MPN/g (Figure 8.2).

FIGURE 8.2 LIONS GATE WWTP BIOSOLIDS – FECAL COLIFORMS

Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Lead Mercury Moly Nickel Selenium Zinc Fecal Coliform

(MPN/g)

75 20 1060 150 2200 500 15 20 180 14 1850 2,000,000

MAX 4.1 3.8 47.7 3.8 888 89.9 3.0 12.8 35.4 7.3 1420 397,861*

MIN 2.9 2.0 34.1 2.8 623 49.3 1.4 7.5 22.8 5.1 905 12,988*

AVE 3.5 2.4 40.4 3.3 763 64.4 2.0 8.9 27.5 6.2 1196 78,510**

# Times

Exceeded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Class B

Criteria

* Geomean of 7 samples

** Geomean for Year

97

8.3 LULU ISLAND BIOSOLIDS MONITORING

Lulu Island WWTP produces a Class B dewatered biosolids product. In 2016, biosolids produced at Lulu Island WWTP consistently achieved the Class B criteria for fecal coliform and metals as stated in the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation. Results of weekly testing programs for Biosolids and the criteria values required under the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation are shown in Table 8.3. TABLE 8.3: LULU ISLAND BIOSOLIDS – ORGANIC MATTER RECYCLING REGULATION – REVISED JULY

2019

In 2016, criteria values for metals were met at all times during the year. Fecal coliform tests were conducted at least once per week. The plant consistently achieved the Class B fecal coliform criteria (geomean of 2,000,000 MPN/g for seven consecutive samples). In the final biosolids - the highest geometric mean was 611,733 MPN/g and the geometric mean for all samples collected during the year was 300,360 MPN/g (Figure 8.3).

FIGURE 8.3 LULU ISLAND WWTP BIOSOLIDS – FECAL COLIFORMS

Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Lead Mercury Moly Nickel Selenium Zinc Fecal Coliform

(MPN/g)

75 20 1060 150 2200 500 15 20 180 14 1850 2,000,000

MAX 7.0 6.8 36.0 8.9 713 159 2.2 9.3 34.3 7.2 1260 611,733*

MIN 5.1 2.4 27.0 4.6 532 30.9 1.0 7.4 22.9 4.7 965 133,014*

AVE 5.7 3.3 31.2 6.0 615 60.8 1.3 8.2 27.9 5.8 1133 300,360**

# Times

Exceeded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Class B

Criteria

* Geomean of 7 samples

** Geomean for Year

98

8.4 IONA ISLAND WWTP DIGESTED SLUDGE MONITORING

Iona Island WWTP operates mesophilic digesters which produced digested sludge that is further processed via lagoon stabilization and land-dried in a stockpile at the plant site.

8.5 NORTHWEST LANGLEY TRUCKED SLUDGE MONITORING

Undigested thickened waste secondary sludge from the Northwest Langley WWTP was trucked to Annacis Island WWTP.

99

9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

101

9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

In 2016, Metro Vancouver’s five WWTPs together collected and treated about 438 billion litres of

wastewater before discharging to the receiving environment. The location of Metro Vancouver’s WWTPs

is shown in Figure 9.1. The Iona Island and Lions Gate wastewater treatment plants discharge primary

treated wastewater into marine waters of the Strait of Georgia and Burrard Inlet, respectively. The Annacis

Island, Lulu Island and Northwest Langley wastewater treatment plants discharge secondary treated

wastewater into the Main Arm of the Fraser River. The dispersed treated wastewater in the receiving

environment must meet applicable water quality objectives.

Environmental monitoring and assessment programs form a major part of the Metro Vancouver’s

integrated approach to managing liquid waste. In addition, Metro Vancouver conducts special studies and

research projects.

The Environmental Monitoring Committee, a technical advisory committee to Metro Vancouver under

the ILWRMP, guides and reviews the monitoring programs and other environmental initiatives. The

committee is made up of representatives from the federal and provincial governments, member

municipalities, Metro Vancouver, universities and one public member.

FIGURE 9.1 LOCATION OF METRO VANCOUVER’S WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS

103

10.0 OVERFLOW MONITORING

Sewer systems are designed to collect domestic and industrial wastewater in the same pipe. Some older

systems known as combined sewer systems also collect surface water runoff. During periods of heavy

rain, snow melt or inflow and infiltration, the wastewater volume in the sewer system can exceed the

capacity of the sewer collection system or treatment plant. For this reason, sewer systems are designed

to overflow occasionally and discharge excess wastewater directly to nearby water bodies. These

discharges are monitored to determine potential effects on the water bodies.

10.1 COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW QUALITY MONITORING

Early in the twentieth century, before wastewater was treated, the accepted practice was to consolidate

sanitary and stormwater (surface water) flows into a single pipe. This type of collection system is known

as a combined sewer system. Although combined sewers are no longer being built, they are an extensive

part of the existing infrastructure throughout Metro Vancouver.

Wastewater treatment plants typically receive and treat all combined and sanitary sewer flows in dry or

moderate rainfall periods. During heavy rainfall events, the water levels in the combined sewer pipe

network and interceptors can rise beyond their conveyance capacity due to increased surface water

runoff. Therefore, to prevent sewer water backing up into homes and businesses, the combined sewer

systems were designed with relief points to discharge overflow wastewater and stormwater directly to

the receiving waters via Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), as illustrated in Figure 10.1.

FIGURE 10.1 TYPICAL COMBINED SEWER SYSTEM (FROM ADAMS, 2006)

Metro Vancouver’s ILWRMP states

that no new combined sewers will be

constructed within the Metro

Vancouver region, and that existing

combined sewers will be separated

into storm and sanitary sewers via

infrastructure replacement or sewer

capacity upgrading programs. As

CSOs continue to operate, the plan

also includes a commitment to

monitor and characterize the quality

of CSO discharges.

Substances in CSO discharges may

interfere with the attainment of water quality objectives. Currently, Metro Vancouver operates 20 CSOs

at 15 locations (Figure 10.2). These CSOs are in addition to those owned and operated by the Cities of

Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster.

104

FIGURE 10.2 METRO VANCOUVER COMBINED SEWER OUTFALL (CSO) LOCATIONS MONITORED IN 2016

105

10.1.1 CSO MONITORING PROGRAM

The purpose of the CSO Monitoring Program is to characterize the quality of CSO discharges by collecting

representative samples for the analysis of bacteriological and physico-chemical constituents and toxicity

testing. Targeted parameters include microbiological indicators, conventional parameters, metals, and

selected organics when sample volume permits. Due to infrastructure (and as a result volume) constraints

of the automated sampling system, toxicity testing is only conducted periodically when grab samples can

be collected. The original monitoring plan (once automated) was for Metro Vancouver’s 14 CSO locations

to be monitored over a five-year cycle at a rate of three locations per year with up to ten overflow events

sampled at each location over the five-year cycle of monitoring. As the sampling infrastructure is almost

complete, sampling efficiencies may be identified such that the overall monitoring program design will be

enhanced over time. Installation of autosampling infrastructure was initiated at the end of 2016 at a 15th

CSO location, New Westminster CSO.

Autosampler Infrastructure

Autosamplers are installed where technically feasible at CSO locations upstream of the outfalls. Most

sampling sites consist of prefabricated above ground metal kiosks or in-ground concrete vaults, while one

sampling site is located inside an existing pump station. The new infrastructure at the New Westminster

CSO Tank will consist of an above ground metal kiosk. The kiosks and vaults are secured structures that

house each autosampler, which is connected to sampling lines and associated electronics (Figure 10.3).

Each sampling site utilizes existing Metro Vancouver water-level monitoring electronics to communicate

with the autosampler. The autosampler is triggered to begin sampling when the water-level monitor

detects a pre-established level specific for each CSO location. When automatic triggering is not available,

samples can be collected manually.

FIGURE 10.3 CSO INFRASTRUCTURE: GLENBROOK CSO SAMPLING KIOSK (LEFT), WILLINGDON CSO

KIOSK WITH AUTOSAMPLER (CENTER), SAMPLER ELECTRONICS AT CLARK DRIVE #2 CSO (RIGHT)

CSO Monitoring Approach

Successful monitoring is still challenging even with the automated sampling system. Online forecasting

tools (e.g., weather networks and Global Forecast System) that track developing storms and information

from Metro Vancouver’s rain gauges are also needed to achieve sampling efficiency. The autosampler is

programmed prior to the storm onset for time-based interval sampling of the combined sewer discharge

during the CSO event. The objective was to sample a given CSO event with emphasis on collecting its “first

flush”. First flush occurs at the beginning of the overflow event and is characterized by the re-suspension

106

of accumulated solids in the sewer system as well as streets above. This is expected to result in higher

constituent concentrations during the initial discharge, which subsequently becomes diluted by incoming

stormwater. This first flush would represent the worst case scenario (i.e., highest loading) in the combined

discharge pipe. To help successfully capture that “first flush” of an overflow event, programming the

autosampler is specific to each CSO site, with aliquot volume and sampling frequency adjusted based on

the characteristics of the drainage area, and the nature of the forecasted rainfall event. Flow monitoring

status also provides information about any issues that may occur within system communications, as well

as how flows are directed within the sewer system itself.

Another challenge when it comes to successful sample collection is that each CSO behaves differently to

any given rainfall event. Figure 10.4 compares three CSO sites that are located in close proximity of each

other during the same rainfall period and demonstrates that overflow characteristics are drainage area

specific.

FIGURE 10.4 COMPARISON OF RAINFALL AND OVERFLOW EVENTS AT CHILCO-BROCKTON,

ENGLISH BAY AND BALACLAVA CSO LOCATIONS

Chilco-Brockton (left panel) did not approach the overflow level (and demonstrated a delayed response to the rain)

English Bay #1 (centre panel) overflowed (i.e., the water level crosses the red dashed line indicating an overflow) at peak rainfall

Balaclava (right panel) flows fluctuated near the overflow level, without ever actually overflowing

2016 CSO Monitoring Locations

Five GVS&DD CSO locations were scheduled for monitoring in 2016: Borden, Chilco-Brockton, Clark Dr.

#2, Heather, Macdonald, and Manitoba. A detailed description of the level of effort undertaken for the

active monitoring locations in 2016 is provided in Table 10.1.

107

TABLE 10.1 2016 CSO MONITORING EFFORT AND STATUS

CSO Location

2016 Monitoring

Borden St. Seven attempts were made from late March to mid-November. Four of these had enough volume required for all analyses, with only one representative of a “first flush”.

Chilco-Brockton

Five samples were collected but with only enough volume for partial analysis. The 17 August 2016 sample was a dry-weather event caused by a power outage in the area of the Chilco Wastewater Pump Station.

Clark Drive#2

Two grab samples were collected (November 30th and December 2nd) and tested. Only the November 30th sample was considered as a possible “first flush” and was submitted for toxicity testing.

Heather Sampling attempts were made from mid-January to early November with five “first flush” successful samples collected from early March to mid-June. Of those samples, four had enough volume for all analyses.

MacDonald Seven monitoring attempts were made at this site, of which four samples were consider representative of the “first flush” of an overflow. Of those four samples, three contained enough volume to complete all analyses and one grab sample was also tested for toxicity.

Manitoba Six attempts were made with three samples collected during the “first flush”. Two samples had enough volume for all analyses. One sample overflowed and another was triggered by a short event. A grab sample was successfully collected and submitted for toxicity testing.

CSO Monitoring Results

Table 10.2 summarizes estimates of CSO discharge duration, number of events and total discharge volume

for 2016. The total discharge volume for all of Metro Vancouver CSOs was on par with last year at

approximately 24 million cubic meters.

In 2016, the collected CSO samples from Chilco-Brockton, Clark Drive #2 and Heather CSOs were

submitted for microbiology, physico-chemical analyses and organics (pesticide scan analysis) with results

provided in Appendix A. The bulk of the sampling occurred during the rainfall periods of spring and winter

months. The CSO samples collected and tested for toxicity to rainbow trout (i.e., MacDonald, Clark Drive#2

and Manitoba) were not acutely toxic. In addition, one sample from Clark Drive #2 CSO was also tested

for chronic toxicity using 7-d Ceriodaphnia dubia toxicity test. Some inhibition of reproduction was

observed. However, the level of inhibition observed would not be expected to impair reproduction to

organisms at the initial dilution zone boundary of the outfall where longer-term exposure could occur

after initial dilution.

108

TABLE 10.2: GVS&DD CSO DISCHARGE DURATION, EVENTS AND VOLUME, 2016

10.1.2 CSO RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT MONITORING PROGRAM

The objective of this study is to assess the possible effects of the CSO discharges on the receiving

environment at selected CSO outfall locations. Previously collected CSO discharge characterization data

(physical, chemical, and bacteriological), information on the nature of the receiving environment, and

results of previously completed CSO receiving environment studies were used in a weight of evidence

approach to prioritize CSO sites for environmental effects surveys. The program includes a determination

of receiving environment water quality; sediment physical, chemistry and toxicity analyses; and benthic

invertebrate community structure assessments. A receiving environment effects survey was conducted in

the vicinity of the Clark Drive CSO in 2016.

Approach

Water

Since 1996, Metro Vancouver has undertaken an annual effluent quality monitoring program for CSOs

under its ownership. These CSO samples have been analyzed for microbiological indicators, conventional

parameters, metals, selected trace organics, as well as toxicity. Receiving environment water quality at

the edge of the initial dilution zone (IDZ) is evaluated based on the CSO effluent monitoring data (2005 –

2015) and the dilution factor at the edge of the IDZ.

Total Discharge Volume

(million m3)

Westridge 263 72 0.04

Willingdon 2,113 112 0.76

Cassiar 1,248 120 3.88

Clark/Vernon

(Clark #1, Clark #2, Vernon)

Brockton 35 20 0.09

Burrard Inlet - False Creek Heather 204 87 0.40

Burrard Inlet – Balaclava 100 57 0.78

Outer Harbour English Bay / Alma Discovery

(English Bay #1, English Bay #2)

Macdonald 6 9 0.02

Angus 236 107 1.17

Manitoba 186 81 0.63

South Hill 567 113 0.75

Borden 1,533 118 0.38

New Westminster CSO Tank 26 4 0.05

Total Discharge Volume 24.01

Receiving Water CSO OutfallTotal Duration of

Discharges (hours)

Number of

Discharge Events

1.97

Burrard Inlet - Second

Narrows to Roche point

Fraser River – Main Stem 1,042 118

0.28

2,567 294

Glenbrook

12.81

Fraser River – North Arm

223

Burrard Inlet - First to

Second Narrows

114

109

Sediment

The sediment monitoring program was designed using a gradient approach. The selection of

representative monitoring stations took into consideration site specific factors including the nature of the

receiving environment, harbour facility structures, past or current discharges, and activities on-shore and

in the water body. The sediment effects survey was timed to coincide with the wet season and before the

Fraser River freshet to capture sediment samples deposited from the CSO discharges into the receiving

environment. Sediments were monitored for physical parameters, total organic carbon and other

nutrients, bacteriology, metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), polybrominated diphenyl ethers

(PBDE), hormones and sterols, toxicity and benthic community structure.

Results

The sediment effects survey at the Clark Drive CSO was conducted in October 2016. The report is in

preparation.

Bibliography

Galambos, J. and Lewis, A. (2004). Inventory of Combined Sewer Overflows in Greater Vancouver. Prepared by Regional Utility Planning Division, Greater Vancouver Regional District, Burnaby, BC.

10.2 SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW MONITORING AND RISK ASSESSMENT

Wastewater treatment plants typically receive and treat all sanitary sewer flows in dry or moderate

rainfall periods. However, heavy rainfall events, power outages, instrumentation or mechanical issues

may cause water levels in the sanitary sewer pipe network and interceptors to rise beyond their

conveyance capacity. To prevent sewer backups into homes and businesses, the sanitary sewer systems

were designed with relief points to overflow untreated wastewater directly to receiving waters via

emergency outfalls.

Metro Vancouver’s ILWRMP states that “Metro Vancouver will monitor SSO effluents and receiving

environment to assess the fate and effects at significant SSO locations and requires prevention of wet

weather SSOs for 24 hour storm events of less than 1 in 5 years return period.” To fulfill this ILWRMP

requirement, Metro Vancouver conducts SSO characterization monitoring at significant SSO locations and

receiving environment water monitoring after each SSO event and is using the information collected to

conduct risk assessments for significant SSO locations.

Metro Vancouver maintains a sanitary sewer overflow database. Data collected after each overflow event

consists of event identification, overflow start and finish times and dates, causes, identification of

receiving environment, estimate of overflow volume, and commentary. Overflow events are correlated

to their respective rainfall Intensity‐Duration‐Frequency (IDF) curves to determine statistical return

frequency.

10.2.1 SSO CHARACTERIZATION MONITORING

An SSO monitoring program was initiated in 2009 in order to characterize sanitary sewer overflows during

wet weather events, with the goal of providing data required for design of SSO mitigation infrastructure

110

and to inform decisions on potential management options for sites where SSOs are occurring below the

24 hour, 5 year return period precipitation event. Automated sampling kiosks were installed at the

Cloverdale Pump Station, Katzie Pump Station, 225th Street Pump Station and Lynn Branch Siphon SSO

locations in 2010; at MacKay and Braid St SSO outfalls in 2012; and at the Bellevue and 15th SSO location

in 2014. Figure 10.5 shows the locations of the SSO automated sampling kiosks.

In order to obtain sanitary sewer characterization data at these locations, the trigger levels for automatic

sampling were set to capture wet weather events, but were below actual overflow levels for most

locations. Therefore, not all samples collected are associated with an actual SSO occurrence. Table 10.3

shows the number of samples collected in 2016 for each automated sampling kiosk and whether they

were associated with a sanitary sewer overflow event.

FIGURE 10.5 SSO MONITORING LOCATIONS

111

TABLE 10.3: WET WEATHER SSO CHARACTERIZATION SAMPLES COLLECTED AT SSO AUTOMATED SAMPLING KIOSKS IN 2016

Auto-sampler Location

Number of Samples Collected

Number of samples Associated with SSO Occurrence

2016 2016

Cloverdale SSO Tank Effluent 0 0

Katzie Pump Station 0 0

225th Street Pump Station 4 4

Lynn Branch Siphon 0 0

Mackay Avenue Outfall 0 0

Braid Street Outfall 2 2

Bellevue @ 15th 0 0

10.2.2 RISK ASSESSMENT

To inform management decisions a screening level human health and ecological risk assessment (HHERA)

of potential management options for SSOs at Braid Street Outfall, Mackay Avenue Outfall, and

Hollyburn/Bellevue at 15th Street, was completed in 2016 using data collected between October of 2012

and November of 2015.

SSO characterization data collected by the auto-sampling program, toxicity test results, background

ambient and receiving environment data, and modelled dilution factors were used to estimate

concentrations for substances of potential concern (SOPC) at the discharge point in the receiving water

body and at the edge of the initial dilution zone (IDZ) for each location. In addition, modelling was

completed to estimate the human health SOPC concentration at locations where water is likely to come

into contact with users. These estimated concentrations were compared with Environmental Quality

Objectives (EQOs) for protection of human health and aquatic life. Concentrations or toxicity results above

the EQO were regarded as posing a potential risk. Findings of the 2016 risk assessment are presented in

Table 10.4.

TABLE 10.4 FINDINGS OF SCREENING LEVEL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR SSO MANAGEMENT SCENARIOS

Concentrations or toxicity results above the EQO were regarded as posing a potential risk. Findings are outlined below:

SSO Outfall Scenario Human Health Ecological Health

Braid Street Outfall Current condition – Discharge to Fraser River through outfall 115 m from shore at 7 m depth

Potential risk to recreational, industrial and irrigation uses

Potential risk within 12 m of end of pipe

112

Braid Street Outfall Build 187,500 m3 storage tank

No risk identified No risk identified

Mackay Avenue Outfall Current condition – Discharge to Burrard Inlet through outfall 51 m from shore at 9.6 m depth

Potential risk to recreational uses – manageable through notification and monitoring

No risk identified

Hollyburn/Bellevue at 15th Street

Current condition- Manhole discharges to street, flows to storm sewer that discharges at shoreline of Burrard Inlet

Potential risk to recreational uses –manageable through notification and monitoring

Risk identified

Hollyburn/Bellevue at 15th Street

Discharge to Burrard Inlet through outfall 625 m from shore at 32 m depth

Potential risk to primary and secondary contact uses –manageable through notification and monitoring

No risk identified

Bibliography

Tetra Tech EBA Inc. Sanitary Sewer Overflows – Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for Braid

Street Outfall, Mackay Avenue Outfall, and Hollyburn/Bellevue at 15th. Commissioned by Metro

Vancouver. Burnaby BC: Metro Vancouver.

113

11.0 WHOLE EFFLUENT MONITORING

11.1 EFFLUENT TOXICITY TESTING

Chemical analysis of an effluent cannot predict toxicity by itself. Many chemical substances are either not

detectable by common methods of chemical analysis, or the methods for these substances have yet to be

developed. As well, when different substances are combined in a mixture such as effluent, the apparent

toxicity of the combined substances can be different from the toxicities of the individual substances.

Therefore, whole effluent toxicity monitoring is conducted to determine the potential total toxic effect of

an effluent when measured directly with an aquatic organism in a toxicity test.

11.1.1 ACUTE TOXICITY TESTING

Acute toxicity testing measures the survival of test organisms over a short exposure period to effluent.

The primary objective of the testing is to ensure that the treated wastewater is protective of aquatic life.

Testing of effluent is conducted on a monthly basis in accordance with each wastewater treatment plant’s

(WWTP’s) operational certificate. Samples of whole effluent are screened for acute toxicity using rainbow

trout following Environment and Climate Change Canada’s test protocols, and all conditions of the

protocols were met, so test results were valid.

The standard method for determining acute lethality of effluents to rainbow trout exposes test fish to a

series of effluent dilutions, and determines the fish survival rate at the end of a 96-h exposure period. The

final result is reported as the 96-h LC50 value (median lethal concentration), which is the percent (by

volume) of the original effluent sample that is estimated to be lethal to 50% of the test fish.

A test-pass for all municipal effluents requires that the LC50 value must be equal to or greater than 100%.

This means that 50% or more of the test fish must survive for 96 hours in the original undiluted sample of

effluent. If an effluent sample does not pass the toxicity test, a toxicity identification evaluation is

conducted with the objective to identify, and ultimately correct for, the probable cause of the observed

toxicity.

In 2008, Environment and Climate Change Canada published an add-on test procedure along with a

corresponding guidance document for pH stabilization during the testing of acute lethality that is

applicable to municipal effluents only. The purpose of pH stabilization is to replace the carbon dioxide lost

due to aeration in order to maintain the pH throughout the test at the same levels observed at the start

of the test. This add-on procedure recognizes that the toxicity observed in municipal wastewater effluents

may be an artifact of the standard reference method.

In June 2012, the Government of Canada introduced the Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations under

the Fisheries Act. Under these Regulations, toxicity testing of effluent can be conducted by one step or

test with or without the add-on pH stabilization procedure. Metro Vancouver WWTP effluent samples

met all three conditions of the add-on pH stabilization procedure, so in August 2012 Metro Vancouver

began conducting all acute toxicity tests on its effluent samples using the reference method with the add-

on pH stabilization procedure to prevent the generation of any false-positive results.

114

Results

For Metro Vancouver’s three secondary WWTPs (Annacis Island, Lulu Island and Northwest Langley), all

effluent samples passed the OC required monthly toxicity test in 2016.

For the Lions Gate WWTP, all but four effluent samples passed the required monthly toxicity test using

Environment and Climate Change Canada’s test protocols. Test results for two of the samples were

inconclusive; however, retesting was conducted and effluent toxicity was not confirmed. The observed

toxicity in the other two samples was undetermined, but the results were likely due to low dissolved

oxygen (high dissolved oxygen demand) in combination with an anionic surfactant, although individually

these levels were not expected to cause toxicity.

For the Iona Island Primary WWTP, six effluent samples passed the required monthly toxicity test in 2016.

The remaining six samples passed when more oxygen was added to these samples than is allowed by the

technical specifications of the standard Environment and Climate Change Canada method. Further studies

and ongoing monitoring carried out by Metro Vancouver have shown that the high initial dilution of the

Iona effluent in the marine environment will result in dissolved oxygen concentrations comparable to

background concentrations.

In addition to the rainbow trout acute toxicity testing, monthly (or quarterly for Northwest Langley WWTP

since 2015) testing of Daphnia magna acute toxicity, as recommended by the Canada-wide Strategy for

the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent has been conducted since 2009. All samples collected

from each of the five wastewater treatment plants passed the test in 2016.

11.1.2 CHRONIC TOXICITY TESTING Chronic toxicity testing measures the reproduction or growth of test organisms over a longer exposure

period to effluent. The primary objective of the testing is to ensure that the treated wastewater that is

diluted in the receiving environment is protective of aquatic life.

Testing is conducted on a monthly (or quarterly for Northwest Langley WWTP) basis following the Canada-

wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent. Samples of whole effluent undergo

chronic toxicity screening using Environment and Climate Change Canada’s biological 7-d test methods:

test of larval growth and survival using fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas); and test of reproduction

and survival using the water flea (Ceriodaphnia dubia). These tests are used to determine the potential

toxicity of effluent to different levels of organisms (i.e., fish and invertebrate) in the aquatic environment.

In addition to effluent sampling, a water sample is also collected from the Fraser River (quarterly) to

provide information on background environmental conditions. This water sample is collected at a

reference area located at Derby Reach Regional Park, which is upstream of Metro Vancouver’s secondary

wastewater treatment plants and beyond their zone of influence.

The fathead minnow test measures whether an effluent sample affects the growth and survival of very young (larval) minnows. Similarly, the water flea test measures whether the sample affects the reproduction and survival of the water flea. Test results are typically reported as IC25, which is the percent by volume (of the original effluent sample) at which there is a 25% inhibition effect in a given test endpoint such as reproduction or growth.

115

Results

Test results varied by test organism, plant effluent and the sampling period examined. Periodically some

toxicity was observed at an effluent concentration that may predict it to persist at the IDZ boundary,

especially considering that some toxicity has also been observed in the Fraser River. Determining if there

is a pattern to the observed variability, and subsequently identifying potential sources of apparent chronic

toxicity will require further investigation.

11.1.3 AMMONIA AS A POTENTIAL TOXICANT Ammonia in wastewater effluent can be toxic and harmful to aquatic life, especially fish. Ammonia

dissolved in water is a substance specified on the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1 of the Canadian

Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). Sources of ammonia in the environment include municipal and

industrial wastewater, as well as agricultural runoff and natural processes.

In keeping with the national strategy for the management of municipal wastewater, Environment and

Climate Change Canada developed a CEPA Guideline for Ammonia. The objective of this guideline is to

achieve and maintain a concentration of ammonia in effluent that is not acutely lethal to fish, and does

not induce chronic toxicity in the receiving waters.

The CEPA threshold toxicity curve can be used to determine the potential for acute ammonia toxicity. The

pH of the effluent is a factor in ammonia toxicity, and the CEPA curve takes this into account. Metro

Vancouver monitors the quality of the final effluent for the ammonia concentration and pH level on a

weekly basis at each of its wastewater treatment plants.

If the data point for ammonia and pH falls below the CEPA curve, the effluent would be predicted to not

contain an acutely lethal concentration of ammonia. Conversely, if the data point falls on or above the

curve, the effluent would be predicted to contain an acutely lethal concentration of ammonia.

In conjunction with the CEPA curve, Figure 11.1 shows the 2016 monitoring results for ammonia in the

final effluent for each of Metro Vancouver’s wastewater treatment plants plotted on one graph. All

effluent results for all of the treatment plants were below the threshold acute concentration curve for

ammonia at the measured pH value of the effluent. This predicts that the effluent did not contain an

acutely lethal concentration of ammonia.

Potential for chronic toxicity due to ammonia is also a consideration. There is either a provincial water

quality objective or guideline for total ammonia that is applicable in the receiving waters for each WWTP.

Previous studies by Metro Vancouver in the vicinity of the wastewater discharges have shown that the

water quality objective or guideline (as applicable) for total ammonia was met in the aquatic environment.

116

FIGURE 11.1 COMPARISON OF 2016 WWTP EFFLUENT QUALITY WITH THE ACUTE AMMONIA

TOXICITY CURVE

11.2 SPECIAL CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION

Although chemical characterization can be challenging, it is included by the CCME Canada-wide Strategy

for the Management of Municipal Wastewater (i.e., the Strategy). In 2014, the characterization of

wastewater from all five WWTPs for the trace organics listed in the strategy was started and continued

through 2016. The trace organic substances required to be analyzed by the Strategy include:

organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),

volatile organic compounds, phenolic compounds, surfactants. Although the Strategy indicates “other

substances specifically associated with industrial or commercial activities that discharge into the sewer

system”, there are other types of trace organics that are also of concern and not necessarily specific to

industrial or commercial activities such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), hormones and sterols,

and pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs), as well as other types of pesticides. These

substances are also being analyzed.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0

Tota

l Am

mo

nia

exp

ress

ed

as

Nit

roge

n (

mg/

L)

pH (pH units)

NH3 Acute Threshold conc.

Annacis Effluent Grab

Iona Effluent Grab

Lions Gate Effluent Grab

Lulu Effluent Grab

North West Langley Effluent Grab

Total Ammonia = 306132466.34 x (2.7183^(-2.0437 x pH))

117

12.0 RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT MONITORING PROGRAMS

A key component of Metro Vancouver’s ILWRMP involves monitoring, assessment and forecasting to

evaluate potential effects of wastewater discharges, such as wastewater treatment plant effluents into

the receiving water bodies. Monitoring determines if the discharges meet water quality objectives and

guidelines. As well, monitoring characterizes the receiving environment, provides background data,

develops indicators of environmental change, and assesses long-term trends.

12.1 IONA DEEP-SEA OUTFALL RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT MONITORING PROGRAM

The Iona Deep-Sea Outfall Receiving Environment Monitoring (REM) Program has occurred annually since

1986, including two years of baseline monitoring prior to the operation of the deep-sea discharge in 1988.

Prior to 1988, wastewater was discharged directly to the intertidal region of Iona Beach. The Iona deep-

sea outfall discharges primary-treated effluent from the Iona Island Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)

at an average depth of about 90 metres (m), through a diffuser system into the Strait of Georgia, some

seven kilometers (km) west of the Iona Island shoreline.

The overall objective of the Iona Deep-Sea Outfall REM Program is to determine possible short and

longterm effects of the discharge to the receiving environment. Annual monitoring reports that

incorporate results and provide assessments of the monitoring work are produced. Depending on the type

of study and corresponding analyses undertaken, these annual reports may be offset by one year to allow

for completion of data analysis and interpretation, as well as report production and review.

The work conducted under the monitoring program has included assessments of effluent quality, plume

dispersion modeling, receiving water quality, sediment quality, composition and structure of the

organisms that dwell in and on the sediments, and contaminant uptake and overall health of fish and crab.

The 2016 program included an annual sediment effects survey and water column monitoring at the Initial

Dilution Zone (IDZ) boundary.

12.1.1 2016 SEDIMENT EFFECTS SURVEY

The Iona Sediment Effects Survey included monitoring of sediment and bottom-water chemistry and

bacteriology, and benthic infaunal community structure. These components have been monitored

annually since 2000, allowing for the evaluation of potential long-term effects on the receiving

environment.

In order to prevent interference from newly deposited sediments, the monitoring program is designed to

sample prior to freshet. In 2016, field work was conducted between April 3rd and 10th. It was noted that

the Fraser River freshet did commence earlier than usual in 2016, officially starting on April 1. However,

because sampling was completed in the initial stages of the freshet, it is not anticipated to have affected

data quality. The survey included 16 core monitoring stations for benthic invertebrates, bacteriology and

chemistry (Figure 12.1). Two new stations (A-25 and A-26) were surveyed, following the same methods as

for the core program, to provide data for the Strait of Georgia Ambient Environment Monitoring (AEM)

Program, but were not included in the annual Iona effects analysis.

Bottom water and sediment samples were collected at each of the 16 core sampling stations located on

a north-south transect on the 80-m depth contour in the Iona outfall study area, and the new locations

(A-25 and A-26), which occur at greater depths (i.e., ~200-m). In addition, Stations 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15,

118

and 16 were also sampled for water chemistry and bacteriology at 55-m water depth (the effluent

trapping depth). Water samples were analyzed for physical parameters, nutrients, and bacteriology.

Sediment samples collected from all stations were analyzed for metals and organic compounds including

alkylphenols, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), hormones and sterols, and polybrominated

diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). Additionally, analyses at select stations also included: pesticides, perfluorinated

organic compounds; and pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs).

FIGURE 12.1 IONA DEEP-SEA OUTFALL SEDIMENT EFFECTS MONITORING

Preliminary Results

As in previous years, results indicate water quality results were within the ranges expected for coastal

urban system with no noted exceedances of water quality guidelines. Water bacteriology levels (E. coli,

fecal coliform, and enterococci) were closely associated with proximity to the outfall.

In 2016, compounds that were associated with the Iona discharge included: fecal coliforms, E. coli,

enterococci, cadmium, bismuth, titanium, lead, mercury, silver, zinc, thallium, copper, several sterols

(coprostanol, epicoprostanol, cholesterol, cholestanol), PBDEs (PBDE-209 and total PBDEs), and

alkylphenols (4-nonylphenol, NP1EO, and NP2EO). Of these substances listed above several have

established sediment quality guidelines. Arsenic, copper and nickel were above guidelines throughout

the study area, including reference locations and historical data; the pattern has been reported in previous

years. None of these metalloids/metals were above upper bound guidelines, indicating a lower probability

of environmental effects. Several PAHs (acenapthylene, acenapthene, fluorene, phenanthrene,

anthracene, naphthalene, benz[a]anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene, and dibenz[a,h]anthracene) were

119

elevated compared with guidelines at one or more stations. However, the distributions of those

substances were not generally associated with the Iona discharge. Concentrations of decaBDE (PBDE-209)

were above the sediment quality guideline at one station, with concentrations that appeared generally

related to distance and direction from the plume. Overall based on spatial patterns and comparison to

guidelines the potential environmental hazard measured in the study area was deemed to be low and

there has been little or no change in sediment quality over time for most analytes.

Additional analysis conducted at selected stations (i.e., Stations 4, 6, 8, 10, 16, 18 [duplicate of 8], A-25

and A-26) for pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs), selected pesticides and perfluorinated

compounds (PFCs). The total number of compounds detected in one or more samples ranged from about

7% to 24% depending on the class of compound. This information will be used to guide future analysis.

Sediments adjacent to the deep-sea outfall continue to show evidence of wastewater influence and

organic enrichment, including elevated bacterial counts. As in previous years, these changes were most

prevalent between 4 km south and 5 km north of the outfall. However, when the benthic infaunal

community structure and composition are considered, outfall influence was predominantly limited, and

observed from the outfall to 3 km north. These stations also had lower abundance and taxonomic richness

compared to sampling stations farther away from the diffuser. As in previous years, the changes in the

benthic infaunal community were predominantly driven by the prevalence of opportunistic polychaetes

and the absence of one organism sensitive to disturbance. Overall, there is no indication of increasing

impacts to the benthic infaunal community within the Iona study area. Furthermore, there is no evidence

of the impact zone increasing in size over past years.

12.1.2 2016 INITIAL DILUTION ZONE BOUNDARY MONITORING

A monitoring program for the edge of the initial dilution zone (IDZ) was included in the overall REM

program for the Iona WWTP developed in 2000. The objective of this component of the overall REM

program is to establish compliance with water quality guidelines at the boundary of the IDZ, as currently,

there are no site-specific water quality objectives available for the Strait of Georgia. IDZ boundary

monitoring was included as an annual component of the monitoring program in 2010, after earlier surveys

in 1989 and 1996. The ILWRMP was approved by the BC Ministry of Environment with the condition that

“monitoring near the outfalls for all five wastewater treatment plants” is undertaken (i.e., Ministerial

Condition #6).

The IDZ is defined as the zone extending up to 100 m horizontally in any direction from a discharge, but

not to exceed more than 25% of the width of the water body at the discharge point. The boundary of the

IDZ is the regulatory and compliance boundary where water quality objectives and guidelines apply.

Water samples were collected from within the effluent plume at the boundary of the IDZ (Figure 12.2) as

well as at a reference area located approximately 8.3 km south of the Iona Deep Sea Outfall,

corresponding with Site 15 for the Iona sediment effects monitoring program (Figure 12.1). To increase

the likelihood of successfully sampling from the effluent plume, the sampling program was conducted

during the summer when stratification is strongest, making the plume easier to identify.

120

FIGURE 12.2 IONA WWTP DEEP-SEA OUTFALL INITIAL DILUTION ZONE BOUNDARY STUDY AREA

Approach

The Iona IDZ boundary monitoring program was conducted between July 19 and August 24, 2016. Typically

the monitoring program includes five sampling periods over a 30 day period to meet the criteria for

comparison with British Columbia’s long-term average guidelines. However, in 2016, an additional

sampling event was conducted on August 24 to investigate possible incursion of the Iona effluent plume

at the reference location.

Sampling times were selected to reflect specific tidal conditions (ebb, flood and slack) and/or a

combination of tides at the edge of the IDZ boundary. Samples were collected from a depth of about 55

m within the effluent plume at the edge of the IDZ boundary and at the reference area. These samples

were subject to laboratory analysis, as well as field water quality measurements. In addition, depth

profiles for temperature, pH, conductivity, salinity and dissolved oxygen were measured during each

sampling event at one reference site and one IDZ boundary site.

The location of the plume was determined in the field using an onboard colour video-sounder (Figure

12.3) and in the absence of a plume signal, samples were collected at the pre-determined sampling points

(Figure 12.2). Confirmation that samples had been collected from the plume was based on bacteriological

results.

Based on fecal coliform concentrations ≥1000 MPN/100 mL or enterococci counts of ≥420 MPN/100mL,

56% of all samples collected during the 2016 survey successfully captured the Iona WWTP effluent plume.

All reference area samples and within-plume IDZ boundary samples were analyzed for conventional

121

variables, nutrients, total and dissolved organic carbon and low-level total metals. The shorter holding

time parameters (e.g., pH, total ammonia, nitrite, nitrate) were analyzed for all samples. Selected within-

plume, IDZ boundary and reference samples were also analyzed for nonlyphenols (including its mono- and

di-ethoxylates, and octylphenol), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), selected hormones and

steroids, sucralose and various pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs).

FIGURE 12.3 COLOUR VIDEO SOUNDER SHOWING A STRONG PLUME AT 50 M (ENKON, 2016)

Preliminary Results

All parameters with applicable water quality guidelines were met with the exception of dissolved oxygen

and total boron.

Since water weekly samples were collected over a six week period, 30-day average (long term average)

concentrations were calculated based on the results from week 1 to 5 (July 29 to August 16) and weeks 2

to 6 (July 26 to August 24).

The 30-day average dissolved oxygen concentrations calculated at both the reference area and IDZ

boundary were below the minimum long-term average guideline of 8 mg/L, which is a reflection of lower

oxygen concentrations in deep water rather than a result of the Iona effluent discharge. In addition,

dissolved oxygen concentrations were below the minimum guideline of 5 mg/L in two of five samples

collected at the IDZ boundary during week 6.

Total boron concentrations in all samples at both the IDZ boundary and the reference area were greater

than the guideline, whereas the concentration was less than the guideline in the corresponding effluent

discharge. The observed boron concentrations are a result of natural background conditions in the marine

environment.

12.1.3 2016 OUTFALL BIOTA SURVEY

Outfall Inspections were conducted along the entire length of the Iona diffuser pipe between September

24th and 26th, 2016. The work was conducted using a Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV), operated and

owned by Ocean Dynamics (Courtenay, BC). In addition to the survey of the entire diffuser length, eight

biota-specific transects, 200 m in length, were conducted to document the presence and abundance of

122

fish and macro invertebrates. Six transects were oriented perpendicular from the diffuser in a north and

south direction along three depth contours: 60 m, 80 m, and 100 m. An additional 200 m transect was

conducted off the end of the diffuser pipe (as a continuation of the pipe, perpendicular to the slope) as

well as a 200 m transect along the deepest portion of the diffuser. The video footage from the outfall

inspection, along with eight additional 200 m transects, were reviewed to provide information on the

associated fish and invertebrate communities.

Results

The seafloor was noted to have high abundance of demersal flatfishes (predominantly English sole

[Parophrys vetulus] and slender sole [Lyopsetta exilis]), blackbelly eelpouts (Lycodes pacificus), and

plainfin midshipmen (Porichthys notatus). Observations of Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) were also

noted. The highest fish densities occurred along the 80 m contour while the lowest fish densities occurred

along the 100 m contour and the deep seafloor transect. No changes in demersal fish density with distance

from the diffuser were noted.

In terms of macro invertebrates, Dungeness crab (Metacarcinus magister), unidentified benthic worms,

and shrimp were most prevalent along the seafloor. The greatest densities of macros invertebrates

occurred along the 100 m contour, due to a high abundance of shrimp.

Along the diffuser pipe itself, giant plumose anemones (Metridium farcimen) accounted for 99% of the

observed biota. Other observed invertebrates included crimson anemone (Cribrinopsis fernaldi),

unidentified anemones, Dungeness crab, and red rock crabs (Cancer productus). In terms of the fish

community, the hard substrates, and subsequent colonization by sessile invertebrates resulted in a

presence of reef-associated species. These were predominantly quillback rockfish (Sebastes maliger) and

copper rockfish (S. caurinus). Other observations of note during the diffuser inspection included Irish lord

(Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus), yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrimus), and one Pacific octopus (Enteroctopus

dofleini) (Figure 12.4).

FIGURE 12.4 ROV FOOTAGE OF A PACIFIC OCTOPUS AT THE IONA DIFFUSER (OCEAN DYNAMICS,

2016)

123

Bibliography

Ellis, D.V., C. Gobeil, K.J. Hall, L.L Johnson, T.G. Milligan and T.B. Reynoldson. (2006). Peer Review of Cycle

3 of the Iona Deep-Sea Outfall Environmental Monitoring Program. Report prepared for the

Greater Vancouver Regional District, Burnaby, BC. Project Coordinated by 2WE Associates

Consulting Ltd., Victoria, BC. 65 pp. + Appendices.

ENKON Environmental Limited. (2016). Iona Deep-Sea Outfall Receiving Environment Monitoring

Program: 2015 Initial Dilution Zone Boundary Monitoring. Final Report Prepared for Metro

Vancouver Regional District (GVRD), Burnaby, BC by ENKON Environmental Limited, Surrey, BC.

IRC Integrated Resource Consultants Inc. (IRC) and Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD). (1997).

Combined Report on Iona Deep Sea Outfall 1996 Environmental Monitoring Program, Receiving

Water Quality. Prepared by IRC, Richmond, BC and Quality Control Division, Operations and

Maintenance, GVRD, Burnaby, BC. June 1997.

Hodgins, D.O. and S.L.M. Hodgins. (1999). Iona Deep-Sea Outfall, 1999 Environmental Monitoring

Program: Effluent Dispersion and Solids Deposition Modelling Study. Report prepared for the

Greater Vancouver Regional District, Burnaby, BC by Seaconsult Marine Research Ltd., Vancouver,

BC.

Ocean Dynamics. (2016). Iona Island Waste Water Treatment Plan Deep Water Outfall Inspection

(Submarine Section), Vancouver, BC. Final Report prepared for Terra Remote Sensing, Sidney, BC,

by Ocean Dynamics Inc., Courtenay, BC.

Seguin, S.R., G.S. Lawrence, B.J. Burd, M.L. Fanning, G. Brooks, L. Currie, and S. Worku. (2016). Iona Deep-

Sea Outfall Receiving Environment Monitoring Program, 2015 Sediment Effects Survey. Report

prepared for Metro Vancouver, Burnaby, BC by Golder Associates Ltd., Burnaby, BC. 218 pp. +

Appendices.

Wilson, R. C. H., J. A. J. Thompson, M. B. Yunker, B. J. Burd, J. F. Garrett, and D. G. Brand. (1999). Iona

Deep-Sea Outfall Environmental Monitoring Program, Post-Discharge Review. Prepared for the

Greater Vancouver Regional District by 2WE Associates Consultants Ltd., Salt Spring Island, BC.

12.2 LIONS GATE OUTFALL RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT MONITORING PROGRAM

The Lions Gate Outfall Receiving Environment Monitoring (REM) Program has been conducted annually

since 2003, beginning with sediment effects survey that included chemistry and benthic community

analyses. Since that time the overall program has been enhanced to include additional chemical analyses

and water column monitoring. The program was founded by an initial workshop that proposed a set of 15

monitoring and investigative activities designed to allow Metro Vancouver to meet its objectives for a

REM program. Based on these recommendations, results of effluent dispersion and solids deposition

modeling, seabed imaging techniques and sediment sampling undertaken in 2001/2002, the framework

for a REM program for the Lions Gate WWTP was developed.

Since the annual sediment effects survey was initiated, it has undergone various iterations and

modifications that have included: increasing the number of benthos sampling stations from 10 to 17 (with

changes or decreases in chemistry only stations), adding or replacing original stations to provide reference

124

areas and more closely follow the predicted path of the wastewater plume, and expansion of the types of

chemical analyses to include emerging contaminants of concern.

The REM program has also evolved to include water column monitoring. Initial Dilution Zone (IDZ)

boundary monitoring program was recommended in the “Development of a Receiving Environment

Monitoring Approach to Liquid Waste Management” for the Lions Gate WWTP receiving environment. It

was adopted as an annual component of the monitoring program in 2009, after earlier surveys in 2001

and 2006.

The Lions Gate outfall discharges primary treated effluent into the turbulent First Narrows area of Burrard

Inlet through an outfall and diffuser located just to the west of the Lions Gate Bridge in West Vancouver.

The average diffuser depth is about 20 m, and discharges about 184 m offshore. The effluent is dispersed

initially throughout the inner and outer Burrard Inlet before entering the Strait of Georgia. Between May

and September 30 the effluent is disinfected.

Annual monitoring reports that incorporate the results and provide assessments of the monitoring work

are produced. Depending on the type of study, time of year, and corresponding analyses undertaken,

these annual reports may be offset by about one year to allow for completion of data analysis and

interpretation, as well as report production and review.

12.2.1 2016 SEDIMENT EFFECTS SURVEY

The 2016 Sediment Effects Survey included water quality monitoring, sediment quality characterization

and an evaluation of infaunal community structure (Figure 12.5). Surface sediment and bottom- and

trapping depth-water samples were collected from 17 stations located in inner and outer Burrard Inlet

and west of Burrard Inlet (Figure 12.6) between April 11th and 18th, 2016.

FIGURE 12.5 LIONS GATE WWTP MONITORING OF OUTER BURRARD INLET

125

FIGURE 12.6 LIONS GATE SEDIMENT EFFECTS SURVEY AREA, 2016 (RED STATIONS WERE ACTIVE IN

2016)

As in previous years, preliminary results from 2016 indicate that water quality within the Lions Gate study

area was within the range expected for urban coastal marine environments.

Sediment quality data showed exceedances of several provincial/federal guidelines. Although variable

among sites, three metals (Copper, Arsenic and Nickel) were in exceedance at most of the sampling

stations. Several Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) were elevated compared with guidelines

including acenaphthylene, dibenz[a,h]anthracene, and 2-methylnaphthalene. The elevated concentration

throughout the study area, including at reference stations outside Burrard Inlet, indicates the measured

exceedances are not directly attributable to Lions Gate effluent. Indicators of organic enrichment (acid

volatile solids, total volatile solids, and nutrients) were noted to be elevated at Stations 1, 46, 47, 6 and 8.

Additional analysis was conducted at selected stations (i.e., Stations 1, 6, 18, 45, 46B, 70, 51 [duplicate of

1], and A-24) for PPCPs, selected pesticides and PFCs. The total number of compounds detected in one or

more sample was about 30% for each class of compounds. This information will be used to guide future

analysis.

Spatial patterns for effluent indicators and other substances were not clearly linked to changes in benthic

infaunal community structure. However, the Lions Gate receiving environment is confounded by multiple

anthropogenic sources, and the complex hydrographic mixing and currents in the area have made it

difficult to confirm the zone of influence of the outfall. Although benthic infaunal communities differed

among stations, there was no overall indication of serious impoverishment. “Pollution-tolerant” taxa were

rarely found and are not increasing in abundance.

Similar to findings observed in the Iona monitoring area, sediment biotic indicators of organic enrichment

have shown some changes. Further monitoring of the study area will provide additional information to

help determine their significance and if they are outfall related, associated with long-term fluctuations in

oceanographic conditions, or if they are due to a combination of these and/or confounding factors present

in Burrard Inlet.

126

12.2.2 2016 INITIAL DILUTION ZONE BOUNDARY MONITORING

The objective of this initial dilution zone (IDZ) boundary monitoring program is to determine whether

monitoring results at the boundary of the Lions Gate WWTP IDZ meet applicable Burrard Inlet Water

Quality Objectives and guidelines. IDZ boundary monitoring was adopted as an annual component of the

monitoring program in 2009.

The Lions Gate IDZ Monitoring Program occurs in autumn (typically October through December) during

the plant non-disinfection period. This also coincides with higher WWTP discharges, resulting in lower

dilutions and representing a worst-case scenario for water quality. Water samples were collected from

within the effluent plume at the boundary of the IDZ (Figure 12.7), as well as at two reference locations

in inner (IBI) and outer (OBI) Burrard Inlet. Samples were collected over 5 weeks (30-day period) to allow

for comparison with 30-day (long term average) objective or guidelines.

FIGURE 12.7 LIONS GATE INITIAL DILUTION ZONE BOUNDARY MONITORING STUDY AREA, 2016

127

Results of this program are reported annually, but in the year after monitoring so data analysis and

reporting can be completed. Therefore, only preliminary results are summarized below.

Approach

The 2016 IDZ boundary monitoring program took place over a six-week period between October 25 and

November 29. The weekly sampling dates and times were selected to reflect specific tide conditions (ebb,

flood and slack) at the IDZ boundary.

During each survey, four to seven samples at the IDZ boundary plus one or two samples at each of two

reference sites located in inner Burrard Inlet (IBI) and outer Burrard Inlet (OBI) were collected. An onboard

colour video sounder was used to determine the location, depth and extent of the effluent plume (Figure

12.8). Confirmation that samples had been collected from the plume was based on the results of

bacteriological analyses.

FIGURE 12.8 MONITORING VESSEL AND COLOUR VIDEO SOUNDER FOR LIONS GATE INITIAL

DILUTION ZONE BOUNDARY MONITORING PROGRAM

Samples were collected from

a depth of about 15 m within

the effluent plume at the

edge of the IDZ boundary and

at the reference area, and

under slack tide near surface

samples were also collected.

Samples were subject to

laboratory analysis, as well as

field water quality

measurements. In addition,

depth profiles for

temperature, pH,

conductivity, and dissolved

oxygen were measured

during each sampling event

at one reference site and one

IDZ boundary site.

All reference area samples and IDZ boundary samples confirmed to have been collected from within the

effluent plume (based on bacteriological analyses1), were analyzed for conventional variables, nutrients,

total metals, as well as the shorter holding time parameters (e.g., pH, total ammonia, nitrite, nitrate). In

addition, selected samples from within the plume and the reference area were analyzed for nonlyphenols

(including its mono- and di-ethoxylates, and octylphenol), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),

selected hormones and sterols, pyrethroid pesticides (pyrethroids, carbamates and a multi residue

pesticide scan), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), chlorophenols, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and

1 That is, fecal coliform concentration ≥ 1000 MPN/100 mL or in one instance, enterococci concentration of 197

MPN/100 mL.

Sampling

Vessel

Plume

128

polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). Preliminary results from the within plume samples for the five

surveys were compared with 30-day average water quality objectives.

Preliminary Results

Based on fecal coliform or enterococci concentrations, 46% of the samples collected at the IDZ boundary

successfully captured the effluent plume.

Since the monitoring program was conducted over a six week period, 30-day average concentrations were

calculated for weeks 1 to 5 (October 25 to November 22) and weeks 2 to 6 (November 1 to November

29). The preliminary water quality and chemistry results for the 2016 Lions Gate IDZ samples were

compared with applicable water quality objectives.

All physical and inorganic parameters met the applicable Burrard Inlet objectives and guidelines with the

exception of dissolved oxygen, temperature, and total boron. Dissolved oxygen concentrations were

below the minimum 6.5 mg/L objective for Burrard Inlet in most samples at the IDZ boundary and

reference areas. Further, all IDZ and reference locations had average dissolved oxygen concentrations

below the 8.0-mg/L minimum 30-day average (long-term average) provincial guideline for the periods of

October 25 to November 22 and November 1 to November 29.

The temperature of grab samples collected at the IDZ boundary slightly exceeded the maximum guideline

in two of six sampling weeks based on comparison of temperatures at the IDZ boundary with the reference

areas; however, corresponding depth profiles at the IDZ boundary showed little change in temperature

with depth. There was <0.1°C difference in water temperature at the depth of the plume compared to

both above and below the plume, which suggests that the Lions Gate discharge did not cause a significant

temperature change from background.

Total boron at the both reference areas and IDZ boundary exceeded the 30-day average guideline.

However, the concentration of boron in effluent samples were well below the guidelines. Total boron

concentrations in the receiving environment were similar to typical boron concentrations in Canadian

coastal waters and are not of concern.

All organic analytes that were quantifiable and could be validly compared to guidelines met applicable

provincial and federal guidelines.

Bibliography

Coastal and Ocean Resources Incorporated (CORI). (2002). Lions Gate ROV Far-Field Imaging Survey.

Prepared for the GVRD, Burnaby, BC by Coastal and Ocean Resources Incorporated, Sidney, BC,

February 2002.

ENKON Environmental Limited (ENKON). (2016). Lions Gate Receiving Environment Monitoring Program,

2015 Initial Dilution Zone Boundary Monitoring. Final Report prepared for Metro Vancouver,

Burnaby, BC by ENKON Environmental Limited, Surrey, BC. 77 pp + appendices.

Hodgins, D.O. and S.L.M. Hodgins. (2000). Lions Gate Wastewater Treatment Plant Monitoring Program:

Effluent Solids Deposition Modelling Study. Prepared for the Greater Vancouver Regional District,

Burnaby, BC by Seaconsult Marine Research Ltd., Vancouver, BC

129

Metro Vancouver. (2010). Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management, A Liquid Waste

Management Plan for the Greater Vancouver Sewerage & Drainage District and Member

Municipalities, May 2010. Metro Vancouver, Burnaby, BC. 32 pp. + Addendum: Ministerial

Conditions dated May 30, 2011.

Seguin, S.R., G.S. Lawrence, B.J. Burd, M.L. Fanning, L. Chow, K. Pillay and S. Worku (2017). Lions Gate

Outfall Receiving Environment Monitoring Program, 2014 Sediment Effects Survey. Report

prepared for Metro Vancouver, Burnaby, BC by Golder Associates Ltd., Burnaby, BC, 201 pp. +

Appendices.

12.3 FRASER RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OUTFALLS RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT QUALITY

Metro Vancouver owns and operates three secondary wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) that

discharge treated effluent into the Main Arm of the Fraser River. The largest of these plants is the Annacis

Island WWTP, which discharges into the Fraser River immediately downstream of the Alex Fraser Bridge.

Followed by the discharges into the Fraser River from the Lulu Island WWTP at the foot of Gilbert Street

in Richmond, and Northwest Langley WWTP downstream of the 201st Street in Langley.

The Fraser River receiving environment monitoring (REM) program for Metro Vancouver’s three

secondary wastewater treatment plants was designed on a five-year cycle to include the following

program components: annual initial dilution zone (IDZ) boundary monitoring; bi-annual chronic effluent

toxicity testing; and sediment quality monitoring conducted once during the five-year cycle (Gartner-Lee,

2003).

Chronic effluent toxicity testing program results are discussed above in Section 11.1.2.

Water column monitoring at the IDZ boundary is the primary receiving environment monitoring program

and is focused at the Annacis Island WWTP outfall. The effluent plume at the Annacis WWTP outfall can

be sampled with a high success rate, compared to the highly transient plumes located at Lulu Island and

Northwest Langley WWTP outfalls. The Annacis effluent discharge rate is substantially greater than at

either the Lulu Island or North West Langley WWTPs. Consequently, indicators of potential effects, if

present, would likely be detected in the Annacis Island WWTP receiving environment first. As a result,

monitoring has been focussed at Annacis since 2003.

The ILWRMP was approved by the BC Ministry of Environment with the condition that “monitoring near

the outfalls for all five wastewater treatment plants” is undertaken (i.e., Ministerial Condition #6). As a

result, Metro Vancouver is reviewing the feasibility of monitoring for the more transient plumes at Lulu

and Northwest Langley WWTPs. A pilot study at Lulu Island WWTP was initiated in 2014 and continued in

2015.

12.3.1 2016 ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP INITIAL DILUTION ZONE (IDZ) BOUNDARY MONITORING

The objective of the Annacis IDZ monitoring program is to assess whether site-specific water quality

objectives and guidelines are being met at the IDZ boundary for Metro Vancouver’s Fraser River WWTP

discharges.

The Annacis Island WWTP IDZ monitoring program included annual winter IDZ monitoring that occurs in

February/early March during typically low river flows to reflect the worst-case water quality or lowest

130

dilution. In 2016, late summer, low-river flow monitoring was also conducted. Sample locations for both

periods include a reference area upstream of the Fraser River Trifurcation near the SkyTrain Bridge in New

Westminster, and from within the plume at the edge of the IDZ at the Annacis Island WWTP. The study

area for the IDZ boundary monitoring program at the Annacis Island WWTP is shown in Figure 12.9.

FIGURE 12.9 ANNACIS INITIAL DILUTION ZONE BOUNDARY MONITORING STUDY AREA, 2016

Annacis IDZ Study Area (left), and Sampling

Vessel at the Annacis Outfall (above) MV

Photo.

Approach

Winter and late summer monitoring was conducted weekly (five events each) between February 10 and

March 9, and September 8 and October 4, 2016, respectively, to allow for comparison with 30-day average

water quality objectives. During each of the five monitoring events, three samples were collected from

the reference area (at 5 m depth) and five samples were collected from within the effluent plume (depth

3 to 8 m) at the edge of the IDZ boundary. These samples were subject to laboratory analysis, as well as

field water quality measurements. In addition, depth profiles for temperature, pH, conductivity, and

dissolved oxygen were measured at one reference and one IDZ boundary site.

Confirmation of sampling from the plume was based on: bacteriological analyses for the winter

monitoring period; and ammonia concentrations for the late summer monitoring period when the Annacis

effluent was being disinfected.

All reference area samples and IDZ boundary samples confirmed to have been collected from the effluent

plume2 were also analyzed for conventional variables, nutrients, low-level total and dissolved metals, total

2 Dilution calculations of fecal coliforms showed that concentrations as low as 220 MPN/100 mL were associated with dilutions typical of the effluent plume (compared with ≥1000 MPN/100 mL in prior years when effluent concentrations were higher). In the current winter survey, fecal coliform concentration ≥220 MPN/100 mL, enterococci concentrations ≥134 MPN/100 mL, or ammonia concentrations >0.250 mg/L were deemed to have captured the plume. Based on these criteria, 92% of the winter samples successfully captured the plume. In the summer monitoring survey, 96% of the samples successfully captured the plume based on ammonia concentrations ≥0.200 mg/L as N.

131

and dissolved organic carbon (TOC and DOC) as well as shorter holding time parameters (e.g., pH, total

ammonia, nitrite, nitrate).

Additional analysis was conducted on selected samples including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH),

hormones and sterols, pesticides (pyrethroids, carbamates, and a multi-residue scan), polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCBs) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). In addition, in the winter sampling period,

selected samples from within the plume and the reference area were analyzed for nonylphenols (including

its mono- and di-ethoxylates, and octylphenol), and during the summer, volatile organic compounds,

analine, alkanolamines, chlorophenols, resins and fatty acids and organotins.

Results of this program are reported annually, but due to the late summer survey and additional selected

organic analysis, the report is in preparation. Therefore, only preliminary results are summarized below.

Preliminary Results

In the winter and summer, all parameters except total suspended solids (TSS) met the applicable Fraser

River Water Quality Objectives at the Annacis IDZ boundary. On February 24th, the maximum TSS was >10

mg/L above the reference area; however, concentration in the effluent was lower than in the river

indicating that the Annacis WWTP effluent discharge does not appear to be responsible for the elevated

TSS at the IDZ boundary.

In addition, in the summer, un-ionized ammonia concentrations exceeded the CCME guideline in one to

three IDZ samples during the first two of the five weekly events; however, the corresponding Fraser River

Water Quality Objective for total ammonia was met for all samples in each weekly event.

Bibliography

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). (2009). Canada-wide Strategy for the

Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent. Endorsed by CCME Council of Ministers,

February 17, 2009, Whitehorse, Yukon.

McCallum, D., D. Hodgins, B. Burd and L. Hewitt. (2003). Proposed Receiving Environment Monitoring

Programs for the Annacis Island, Lulu Island and Northwest Langley Wastewater Treatment

Plants. Prepared for the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD), Burnaby, BC by Gartner Lee

Limited, Burnaby, BC, in association with Seaconsult Marine Research Ltd., Salt Spring Island, BC

and Ecostat Research, North Saanich, BC.



Municipalities, May 2010. Metro Vancouver, Burnaby, BC. Ministerial Conditions dated May 30,

2011.

Smith, A. (2016). Receiving Environment Monitoring Program for Metro Vancouver’s Fraser River

Wastewater Treatment Plants: 2015 Initial Dilution Zone Boundary Monitoring. Final Report

Prepared for Metro Vancouver, Burnaby, BC by ENKON Environmental Limited, Surrey, BC, August

2016. 126 pp + Appendices.

Swain, L.G., D.G. Walton, B. Phippen, H. Lewis, S. Brown, G. Bamford, D. Newsom and I. Lundman. (1998).

Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for the Fraser River from Hope to Sturgeon and Roberts

Banks. First Update. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC.

132

12.4 RECREATIONAL WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM

Metro Vancouver monitors the bacteriological quality of local recreational waters on a weekly basis

throughout the beach season from May to September (Figure 12.10). Sampling outside of the beach

season may also be conducted, but at a lower frequency. Both bathing (swimming) and non-bathing

beaches are monitored.

FIGURE 12.10 COLLECTING RECREATIONAL-WATER SAMPLES

The Recreational Water Quality Monitoring Program has

been in place for more than 50 years. During this time,

many monitoring sites have been added to the program.

The 2016 program included monitoring of 115 sites at 41

locations (Figure 12.11). A minimum of five samples are

collected from each site within a 30-day period.

FIGURE 12.11 RECREATIONAL WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM BEACH LOCATIONS

E. coli bacteria are used by Metro Vancouver as an indicator of fecal contamination to determine the

safety of waters for recreational activities such as swimming, windsurfing, waterskiing, boating and

fishing. E. coli are found in the intestinal tract of warm-blooded animals such as mammals and birds and

133

lead to fecal contamination, which can increase the risk of gastrointestinal illnesses for recreational water

users.

Common sources of fecal contamination in recreational waters may include the following:

feces from humans, pets and birds

agricultural and stormwater runoff

combined and sanitary sewer overflows

malfunctions in wastewater collection or treatment systems

improperly maintained septic tanks

release of raw sewage from boat holding tanks

12.4.1 TESTING

Metro Vancouver measures E. coli abundance using the Colilert-18® system which uses the Quanti-Tray /

2000™ manufactured by IDEXX® (Figure 12.12). This system is recognized by the International

Organization for Standardization (ISO 9308-2:2012) as the standard for water and wastewater (IDEXX,

2012). It is also approved by United State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and is included in the

Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, Section 9223 (SMWW, 22nd Edition,

2012).

FIGURE 12.12 QUANTI-TRAYTM TESTING METHOD

In the photo panel, from left to right, the pictures show the following:

(i) packet of Colilert-18® reagent being added to a diluted sample; (ii) sample being poured into the sterile Quanti-Tray ™ that will be sealed

before incubation; (iii) post-incubated tray showing yellow colouring in wells. E. coli levels,

are then determined when placing these wells under UV light (not shown).

12.4.2 REPORTING

Metro Vancouver reports test results to both the local health authorities (Vancouver Coastal Health and

Fraser Health) and the beach operators (member municipalities and Metro Vancouver Parks). Metro

Vancouver, on a weekly basis, calculates and reports the 30-day running geometric mean concentration

of E. coli for each beach location so compliance with appropriate guidelines can be determined. This

(i)

(ii) (iii)

134

results in a new geometric mean being calculated every time a beach is sampled. Notifications of any

elevated counts is also given at the time of reporting (i.e., when a beach geometric mean is approaching

the guideline or the guideline is exceeded).

12.4.3 GUIDELINES

The local health authorities set the monitoring requirements, and have the overall responsibility to

determine whether recreational water is safe for public use. Guidelines for recreational waters are

outlined in a Health Canada document titled “Guidelines for Canadian Recreational Water Quality” (2012),

and in a summary document “Water Quality Criteria for Microbiological Indicators” by the Ministry of

Environment and Parks, now the BC Ministry of Environment (1988). The primary objective of these

guidelines is the protection of public health and safety.

Health Canada defines primary contact as a recreational activity in which there is the intentional or

incidental immersion of the whole body or the face and trunk, and where it is likely some water will be

swallowed. Primary contact activities include swimming, windsurfing and waterskiing.

For primary or whole body contact activities, the guidelines establish a maximum concentration limit for

the geometric mean of less than or equal to 200 E. coli bacteria per 100 mL of recreational water. This

concentration is based on at least five samples taken during a period not to exceed 30 days.

A working guideline is also available for secondary (incidental) contact activities, such as boating and

fishing, in which substantial contact (as described above) with water is rare. The working guideline is set

at 1,000 E. coli bacteria per 100 mL of recreational water. This is equivalent to five times the guideline

value for the geometric-mean concentration for primary-contact recreation.

The local health authorities are responsible for making an assessment of the recreational water quality

results, to determine the possible health risks and the most effective approach to protecting the health

of recreational water users. The health authorities may require the beach operator to post a warning sign

indicating that the water is unsafe for swimming or wading. These swimming advisory signs are left in

place for as long as necessary and removed once the health authority determines that the health hazard

no longer exists.

12.4.4 RESULTS

Primary Contact Beaches

In 2016, the bacteriological water quality for primary-contact recreation was met for most of the bathing

beaches during the beach season from May 1 to September 30. The one exception was Wreck Beach -

Trail 7 (also known as the Oasis) where the 30-day geometric mean guideline was exceeded and swimming

advisories were posted for seven days from June 23 to June 29.

Secondary Contact Beaches

For non-bathing beach areas, the monitoring data indicated that all of False Creek (i.e., West, Central and

East basins) met the working guideline limit for secondary or incidental contact activities for the entire

135

season. Furthermore, the bacteriological water quality was exceptionally good in West and Central False

Creek where the water quality did not exceed the guideline limit for primary contact activities.

Comparison to Guidelines

Table 12.1 provides a listing of the monitoring areas and locations for recreational waters along with a

record of attainment of the guideline for primary contact recreation during the beach season for the past

ten years. If the guideline at a given location was not met, then the number of days that the guideline was

above the limit for a given year is shown. In addition, if a given location was posted due to possible fecal

contamination, then the number of days a swimming advisory was posted is given (note that the number

of days a beach is posted is obtained from information made available to Metro Vancouver from Beach

Operators and Health Authority Websites, and Metro Vancouver cannot warrant its accuracy). This record

does not include any advisories and postings for other types of biological or chemical hazards, if any.

Figure 12.13 shows the number of days between May 1 and September 30 that bacterial counts at the

primary-contact recreational waters were above the guideline and posted for the past ten years (from

2007 - 2016). False Creek has been excluded from this chart as it is not classified as a primary-contact

recreational water body.

136

TABLE 12.1: RECREATIONAL-WATER MONITORING LOCATIONS AND RECORD OF GUIDELINE ATTAINMENT

Area Location Recreational Water Quality Guideline Met Since 2007

If no, then number of days Geometric Mean was over guideline If no, then number of days posted

Outer Harbour Whytecliff Park No: 2014 (27 days); 2015 (14 day) No: 2014 (27 days); 2015 (12 days)

Eagle Harbour No: 2007 (2 days); 2013 (2 days); 2014 (39 days)

No: 2007 (6 days); 2013 (3 days); 2014 (39 days)

***Sandy Cove No: 2014 (21 days) No: 2014 (27 days)

Dundarave No: 2014 (21 days) No: 2014 (27 days)

Ambleside No: 2014 (24 days) No: 2014 (27 days)

Third Beach Yes Yes

Second Beach No: 2013 (3 days) No: 2013 (4 days)

English Bay Beach Yes Yes

Sunset Beach No: 2013 (5 days); 2014 (37 days) No: 2013 (6 days); 2014 (63 days)

Kitsilano Point Yes Yes

Kitsilano Beach Yes Yes

Jericho Beach Yes Yes

Locarno Beach No: 2007 (2 days) No: 2007 (3 days)

Spanish Banks Yes Yes

*False Creek West False Creek No: 2014 (20 days) Yes

Central False Creek No: 2014 (33 days) Yes

East False Creek No: 2008 (25 days); 2014 (64 days); 2015 (52 days) No: 2008 (26 days)

Indian Arm, Port Moody Arm & Inner Harbour

Cates Park Yes Yes

Deep Cove Yes Yes

Bedwell Bay Yes No: 2014 (7 days)

Belcarra Park - Picnic Area Yes Yes

Old Orchard Park No: 2014 (1 day) No: 2011 (3 days); 2014 (15 days)

Barnet Marine Park Yes No: 2014 (7 days)

***Crab Park Yes Yes

Brockton Point Yes Yes

Wreck Beach Foreshore East Yes Yes

Foreshore West (Acadia Beach) Yes Yes

Trail 4 (Towers Beach) Yes Yes

Trail 6 (North-Arm Breakwater) Yes Yes

Trail 7 (Oasis) No: 2016 (8 days) No: 2016 (7 days)

Sturgeon Bank Iona Beach Yes Yes

Garry Point No: 2009 (5 days); 2010 (2 day) No: 2009 (6 days); 2010 (2 days); 2011 (3 days)

137

TABLE 12.1: CONT’D RECREATIONAL-WATER MONITORING LOCATIONS AND RECORD OF GUIDELINE

ATTAINMENT

Area Location Recreational Water Quality Guideline Met Since 2007

If no, then number of days Geometric Mean was over guideline If no, then number of days posted

Boundary Bay Centennial Beach Yes Yes

Crescent Beach North Yes Yes

Crescent Beach Yes Yes

****White Rock Beach (East and West) Yes No: 2011 (4 days)

Sasamat Lake **Sasamat Lake - Float Walk Yes Yes

**Sasamat Lake - Outdoor Centre Yes Yes

Sasamat Lake - White Pine Beach North No: 2009 (2 days) No: 2009 (2 days)

***Sasamat Lake - White Pine Beach South Yes Yes

* False Creek is not classified as primary-contact recreational water body (i.e., not a swimming or bathing beach). A working guideline limit

of 1,000 MPN/100mL for secondary-contact recreation is used to indicate the number of days that this guideline was over the limit during

May 1st to September 30th.

** Recreational water quality monitoring started at Sasamat Lake – Float Walk and Sasamat Lake – Outdoor Centre in 2009.

*** Recreational water quality monitoring started at Sandy Cove, Crab Park and Sasamat Lake – White Pine Beach South in 2014.

**** White Rock Beach was split into White Rock Beach West and White Rock Beach East in 2015.

Between 2007 and 2016, the primary-contact recreational water quality throughout Greater Vancouver

has been excellent, particularly in 2008 and 2012 when the guidelines were not exceeded and no

swimming advisories were posted. However, the one exception was for the beach season of 2014, when

guidelines were exceeded frequently and swimming advisories were posted for several areas. Since 2007,

the cumulative number of beach days for all individual beach locations that exceeded the guideline ranged

from two days (2010) to 170 days (2014), while the total cumulative number of days the beaches were

posted ranged from 2 days (2010) to 239 days (2014) 3.

Overall, the percentage of time that primary-contact recreational waters met the guideline for primary-

contact recreation ranged from 100% (2008 and 2012) to 97.0% (2014). The percentage of time that these

beaches were open for primary-contact recreation ranged from 100% (2008 and 2012) to 95.8% (in 2014).

3 The total number of days is calculated as the days each beach location exceeds the guideline/is posted. As a result, the total number of days may exceed the number of days in the beach season, because the days at each beach location are summed (e.g., in 2014 several beaches were above the guideline for a total of 170 days)

138

FIGURE 12.13 PRIMARY-CONTACT RECREATIONAL WATER STATUS (2007-2016):

(A) NUMBER OF DAYS THE BEACHES WERE POSTED FOR THE PARTICULAR WATER BODY, AND (B) PERCENTAGE OF TIME THE GUIDELINE WAS MET AND BEACHES WERE OPEN FOR RECREATION

139

12.4.5 STATUS AND TRENDS

E. coli and fecal coliform geometric means are useful in assessing the bacteriological quality of recreational

waters over time. Graphs of the 30-day geometric means of E. coli results for the 2016 beach season are

provided in Appendix A. Included with the 2016 results are the geometric means of E. coli for the years

2013 to 2016 and the geometric means of fecal coliforms for the year 2012.

Bibliography

IDEXX Laboratories. (2012). IDEXX Colilert®-18/Quanti-Tray® Test Becomes the New ISO

Standard 9308-2:2012 [Trade]. Retrieved from https://www.idexx.com/corporate/news/press-

releases/20120808pr.html

Ministry of Environment and Parks. (1988). Water Quality Criteria for Microbiological Indicators: Overview

Report. Resource Quality Section, Water Management Branch, Victoria, BC.

Health Canada. (2012). Guidelines for Canadian Recreational Water Quality, Third Edition. Ottawa, ON.



Municipalities, May 2010. Metro Vancouver, Burnaby, BC. 32 pp. + Addendum: Ministerial

Conditions dated May 30, 2011.

Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (SMWW) (2012). 22nd Ed., Method 9223.

APHA, AWWA and WPCF, Washington, DC. 2012. p9-93 to 9-95.

https://www.idexx.com/corporate/news/press-releases/20120808pr.html

https://www.idexx.com/corporate/news/press-releases/20120808pr.html

140

13.0 AMBIENT ENVIRONMENT MONITORING PROGRAMS

The Minister’s Approval for the ILWRMP includes a requirement to continue the ambient monitoring

programs specified in the approved 2001 Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP). Specific monitoring

programs include ambient receiving environment monitoring in areas where water quality (as indicated

by water quality objective criteria) is potentially affected by wastewater and/or stormwater.

Metro Vancouver has established ambient monitoring programs in the southern portion of the Strait of

Georgia, the lower Fraser River, Burrard Inlet and Boundary Bay. The objectives of these programs are to

provide baseline environmental quality data, develop indicators of environmental change, assess the

overall environmental health of the water bodies that receive Metro Vancouver wastewater and

stormwater discharges, and to evaluate trends within the monitoring areas over time. The data collected

is valuable for interpretation of findings of the receiving environment monitoring programs, and necessary

for effective management of liquid waste discharges. The results of the ambient monitoring programs are

used in assessing the need and priority for facility upgrades.

Each of Metro Vancouver’s ambient monitoring programs operates on a five year cycle, with data

summary and interpretation reports completed annually and a program review report completed once

every five years. The annual reports may require a year or more to complete depending on the type of

study, time of year field work was completed, turnaround time for analytical results, and time needed for

data analysis, interpretation, reporting and review.

13.1 STRAIT OF GEORGIA AMBIENT MONITORING PROGRAM

The Strait of Georgia ambient monitoring program was initiated in 2004. Due to the program’s vast scope

and complexity, in the first ten years the program was conducted in partnership with the Department of

Fisheries and Oceans’ Institute of Ocean Sciences (IOS). Upon conclusion of the collaboration with IOS, in

2013, Metro Vancouver has continued the monitoring program with the UBC Department of Earth, Ocean

and Atmospheric Sciences (EOAS). UBC and Metro Vancouver were awarded a five-year Natural Science

and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Collaborative Research and Development (CRD)

grant in the summer of 2016.

The program’s overall objective is to understand the pathways, cycling, fate and variability of organic

material and contaminants in the Strait of Georgia.

The components of the monitoring program include determining any long-term trends in the Strait of

Georgia water properties (temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen), characterizing processes in the

water column (circulation, mixing, biological productivity, turbidity) and monitoring of water quality,

sediments and biota (phytoplankton, zooplankton, fish and benthic organisms that dwell in sediments).

13.1.1 APPROACH

With the continued operation of Ocean Networks Canada/Victoria Experimental Network Under the Sea

(ONC/VENUS) coastal observatory, it is possible to monitor the state of the Strait, and to provide a context

for more efficient examination of circulation and mixing processes in the Strait. The 2016 investigation

included field sampling through dedicated ship time and analysis of data archives from various existing

monitoring initiatives, such as VENUS’ seabed monitoring nodes, the Ferry Monitoring System, Coastal

Ocean Dynamics Applications Radar (CODAR), Moderate-Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS)

141

images from Aqua satellite, and IOS quarterly water quality survey cruises (Figure 13.1). The dispersion of

Fraser River fresh water has been investigated using GPS-tracked surface drifters and Fraser River salt

wedge has been studied using Conductivity-Temperature-Depth (CTD) profiler, Acoustic Doppler Current

Profiler (ACDP), and echo sounder.

A long-term plan to monitor water column persistent organic substances (Polychlorinated biphenyls

(PCBs) and Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs)) has been developed.

FIGURE 13.1 OTHER MONITORING INITIATIVES AND DATA SOURCES FOR LONG-TERM WATER PROPERTY TREND ANALYSIS AND WATER COLUMN MONITORING LOCATIONS FOR DISSOLVED AND PARTICULATE PCB, PBDE, BIOTA, AND TRACE METALS.

With additional funding from NSERC’s CRD program, the scope of the program has been broadened to

include quantification of contaminant bioaccumulation across the food web to determine their fate and

ecological impact. The phytoplankton biomass was determined, primary productivity rates at five depths

were measured, and zooplankton samples from the entire water column were collected.

142

13.1.2 RESULTS

In 2016, monitoring results for 2015 were compiled and reported. The section below provides an

overview.

2015 Ambient Program Results

The fate and transport of critical contaminants in the Strait of Georgia is largely controlled by water

column conditions (circulation, mixing, biological productivity, turbidity). Continued effort has been

devoted to qualify the underlying circulation and mixing in the Strait. The hypothetical boundary of

surface layer, suggested to occur at around 50 m depth on the basis of hydrographic data, is generally

confirmed by Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) data. The mean estuarine circulation in the upper

50 m is southward. The intermediate layer (50 – 200 m depth) transport on the other hand is northward

along the Fraser fore slope, but southward at the Central VENUS node, which suggests there may be a

recirculating spiral in the Strait. On a smaller scale, reversing current near headlands or islands tend to

cause eddies which can be effective transport and mixing mechanisms.

The surface and near surface water properties (temperature, salinity, chlorophyll) in the southern Strait

of Georgia are strongly influenced by the Fraser River plume. Both in and out of plume water properties

and timing of the spring bloom have been established since 2003. Long term trends of intermediate and

deep water properties (temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen) of the Strait of Georgia have been

extended using the latest archival data. In general observed long term changes are small compared to

seasonal and inter-annual variability. Conditions in 2015 were somewhat anomalous in comparison with

those observed in previous years. Mean temperature rose considerably in 2015 at both intermediate and

deep waters. In addition, the winter inflowing Pacific water was noticeably fresher (i.e. with lower salinity)

and had significantly lower dissolved oxygen (DO) in early 2015.

The PCB seawater concentration data collected so far indicated that dissolved PCB concentrations in the

Strait of Georgia are significantly higher than particulate PCB concentrations, suggesting that they are

mainly added in dissolved form from localized sites or from the atmosphere. PCB concentrations in

seawater appear to have stabilized (dissolved) or decreased (particulate) since 2005. The dissolved PBDE

concentrations are fairly uniform and are higher comparing to measurements a decade ago, likely due to

their increased usage mainly as flame-retardants. The particulate PBDE concentrations are highly variable.

In contrast to previous surface sediment core and seawater samples which show comparable PCB and

PBDE concentrations, the latest measurements confirm the shift from a higher presence of PCBs to a

higher presence of PBDEs in the Strait of Georgia.

Weekly effluent samples from Iona Island WWTP have been analysed for cadmium and silver

concentrations from September 2014 to December 2015. The total cadmium concentration in effluent is

found to be similar to the dissolved cadmium concentration in the incoming Pacific water, therefore Iona

Island WWTP outfall is unlikely to have an impact on cadmium level of the Strait of Georgia seawater. The

total silver concentration in effluent is about two orders of magnitude higher than the silver concentration

in the incoming Pacific water. An analytical method has also been developed to determine the organic

complexation of copper, to assess its potential toxicity.

143

The zooplankton samples were size-fractioned and were used to develop and test various analytical

methods. Testing methods for measuring lipid content in zooplankton and fish and trace metals in organic

samples have been implemented in the EOAS laboratory.

Bibliography

Frouin, H., N. Dangerfield, R. W. Macdonald, M. Galbraith, N. Crewe, P. Shaw, D. Mackas, and P. S. Ross

2013. Partitioning and bioaccumulation of PCBs and PBDEs in marine plankton from the Strait of

Georgia, British Columbia, Canada. Prog. Oceanogr. 115, 65-75.

Johannessen, S.C., R. M. Macdonald, C. A. Wright, B. Burd, D. P. Shaw, and A. van Roodselaar. 2008.

Joined by geochemistry, divided by history: PCBs and PBDEs in Strait of Georgia sediments. Mar. Env.

Res. 66, S112-S120.

Pawlowicz, R. and Francois R. 2016. Contaminant Dispersion and Removal in the Strait of Georgia (2015).

Commissioned by Metro Vancouver. Burnaby, BC: Metro Vancouver.

13.2 FRASER RIVER AMBIENT MONITORING PROGRAM

The Fraser River ambient monitoring program was initiated in 2003. Three of Metro Vancouver's

secondary WWTPs discharge to the Fraser River: Northwest Langley WWTP, Annacis Island WWTP, and

Lulu Island WWTP. Ambient water quality is monitored yearly, while sediment, and fish tissues and health

are monitored once every five years. The program includes seven monitoring sites for water, eight for

sediment, and three sampling areas for fish (Figure 13.2). This program covers the Fraser River within the

geographic area of Metro Vancouver, including the Main Stem, Main Arm and North Arm.

13.2.1 APPROACH

Water

The water monitoring program was designed to be completed during the annual low flow period in the

river and to coincide with the highest period of rainfall to capture worse case conditions of minimum

dilution and high probability of sanitary and combined sewer overflows (SSOs and CSOs) and rainfall

runoff. Because the lower Fraser River is influenced by tides, a salt water wedge originating from the Strait

of Georgia can travel as far upstream as Annacis Island. Although there is mixing, the freshwater of the

river and from runoff, SSOs and CSOs tends to float on top of the salt water wedge. To ensure that samples

are representative of river water, sample collection is done within one metre of the surface at the end of

an ebb (outgoing) tide to avoid the salt water wedge. Water quality has been monitored annually since

2003, for physical parameters, bacteriology, nutrients, dissolved oxygen, metals and surfactants.

Sediment

Sediment monitoring is timed to target the highest levels of accumulated contaminants in the river

sediments. Sediment deposition occurs during the winter low flow period, however during freshet (spring

melt) deposited sediments are likely to be re‐suspended or moved due to high river flows. Thus, the

highest levels of accumulated contaminants coincide with the pre‐freshet period in late February through

March. Sediment sampling was conducted in March of 2006 and 2011, and in April of 2016. Sediments are

144

monitored for physical parameters, total organic carbon, bacteriology, nutrients, metals, organic

contaminants, hormones and surfactants.

Fish

Fish are collected from three areas representing the Main Stem, Main Arm and North Arm of the Fraser

River. Two species of fish were surveyed; Peamouth chub (Mylocheilus caurinus) and Large Scale Sucker

(Catostomus macrocheilus). Fish sampling is conducted in September, to allow for gonad growth after

spring spawning. The first ambient fish survey was conducted in 2003‐2004; however insufficient fish were

captured, so a second survey was completed in 2007 during the first monitoring cycle. Another fish survey

was completed in 2012 during the second monitoring cycle. Fish are surveyed for health indicators,

metals, organic contaminants and biochemical markers of exposure to contaminants. In 2012, monitoring

also included stable carbon and nitrogen isotope signatures to assess if the fish move from one area to

another (site fidelity).

13.2.2 RESULTS

2016 Water Monitoring Results: The analytical results were compared with Fraser River Water Quality Objectives, BC Water Quality

Guidelines, or Canadian Council of the Ministers of Environment (CCME) Canadian Environmental Quality

Guidelines. All measured parameters met the applicable objectives or guidelines. Total copper

concentrations were equal to the objectives (maximum in one sample and 30-day average) within the

limits of analytical precision near McDonald Slough. Concentrations of total metals did not show a strong

association to total suspended solids, but were generally higher at the river mouth.

In 2016, the Fraser River Ambient Water Monitoring Program included consideration of the City of Surrey

Fraser River tributary monitoring from 2014 to 2016. Monitoring results from four tributaries (Manson

Canal, Bolivar Creek, Bonaccord Creek, and 196 Street Outfall) were compared with BC Water Quality

Guidelines. Concentrations of dissolved oxygen, E. Coli., enterococci, iron, copper, and zinc periodically

did not meet BC guidelines.

Spatial patterns have been relatively consistent over the 14-year period of the program. Average

concentrations for specific conductance, ammonia, nitrate, fecal coliforms, total suspended solids, total

phosphorus and total metals (copper, iron, zinc) increased from upstream to downstream.

No statistically significant temporal trends in ambient water quality were observed over the 14 years of

ambient water quality monitoring, with the exception of the 2016 analyses which identified significantly

decreasing concentrations of total phosphorus at the river’s mouth, but not at the other five monitoring

stations. This suggests that the observed decreases might have been influenced by phosphorus

concentrations in the Strait of Georgia.

2016 Sediment Monitoring Results In 2016, the third cycle of sediment monitoring was conducted at eight Fraser River sites. The program

also included stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes analyses and toxicity testing using the amphipod

Hyalella azteca.

A total of 51 measured substances have Fraser River Water Quality Objectives (for sediment), BC Water

Quality Guidelines (for sediment), Federal Environmental Quality Guidelines (FEQG), or Canadian Council

145

of Ministers of the Environment Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines. Of these, 43 (84%) had

concentrations below the locally applicable limit at all sites. All sites had 4 to 7 parameters that did not

meet objectives or guidelines, but many were equal to the benchmarks within the limits of analytical

precision. Substances not consistently meeting objectives or guidelines included arsenic, chromium,

copper, nickel, total low molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (LPAH), naphthalene, pyrene,

and dioxin and furans toxicity equivalents (TEQs). The highest arsenic and copper concentrations were

measured near Ewen Slough, while the highest PAHs and carbon-normalized PCBs and dioxin-furans

toxicity equivalents (TEQs) were measured near MacDonald Slough.

Toxicity testing with the amphipod Hyalella azteca showed significantly reduced survival in sediment from

the two estuarine locations (Ewen Slough and McDonald Slough). However, depending upon the salinity

sensitivity of the strain of Hyalella used for this study, salinity might have contributed to low survival. Only

freshwater controls were used, therefore it was not possible to confirm if salinity was a contributing

factor. Stable carbon and nitrogen isotope results in sediment were consistent with observations from the

2012 ambient fish survey. Similar stable carbon isotope signatures were identified in Peamouth chub from

the Main Stem and North Arm and they differed from signatures in Peamouth chub from the Main Arm.

Although the number of data points is limited, arsenic concentrations appear to be increasing in the Main

Stem at Barnston Island and Sapperton Bar.

FIGURE 13.2 FRASER RIVER AMBIENT WATER, SEDIMENT AND FISH MONITORING SITES

146

Bibliography ENKON Environmental Limited. 2002. GVRD Fraser River Ambient Monitoring Program. Commissioned by

Greater Vancouver Regional District. Burnaby, BC: Greater Vancouver Regional District. ENKON Environmental Limited. 2016. Fraser River Ambient Monitoring Program 2016 Water Column

Monitoring. Commissioned by Metro Vancouver. Burnaby, BC: Metro Vancouver.

ENKON Environmental Limited. 2016 Fraser River Ambient Monitoring Program 2016 Sediment Monitoring. Commissioned by Metro Vancouver. Burnaby, BC: Metro Vancouver.

13.3 BURRARD INLET AMBIENT MONITORING PROGRAM

2016 Burrard Inlet Sediment Monitoring Results

13.3.1 APPROACH

Water

The annual water column monitoring for Burrard Inlet is conducted during November and December to

coincide with the anticipated high stormwater runoff period and peak combined and sanitary sewer

overflows. Samples are collected within one metre of the surface to capture stormwater runoff effects

and three metres from the bottom to capture mixing and marine water effects. Water quality has been

monitored annually since 2007, for physical parameters, bacteriology, nutrients, dissolved oxygen,

phytoplankton, metals and surfactants. Monitoring locations are shown in Figure 13.3.

Sediment

Sediment monitoring for Burrard Inlet has been timed to capture sediment samples deposited from

wastewater system discharges and stormwater runoff into Burrard Inlet. In the program design, it was

recommended to collect sediment samples in late spring before the Fraser River freshet, which deposits

large volumes of sediment from the Fraser River into Burrard Inlet. Sediment monitoring was conducted

in April 2008, January and April 2011, December 2013, and April 2015. Monitoring was done twice in 2011

to determine whether there are measurable temporal differences between late winter and early spring.

Sediments are monitored for physical parameters, total organic carbon, bacteriology, nutrients, metals,

organic contaminants, hormones and surfactants.

Fish

English sole is monitored as an environmental health indicator for this program because it is prevalent on

soft bottom sediments that occur throughout Burrard Inlet and it feeds on benthic organisms. Therefore,

this species is exposed to substances that may be present in water and sediments. English Sole also have

a tendency to bio-accumulate some organic compounds, thus they have an increased potential for

exhibiting adverse effects over time. Fish monitoring is conducted in the late fall to allow for gonad growth

after spawning. Fish sampling was conducted in 2007 and 2012. Fish were analyzed for health indicators,

metals, organic contaminants and biochemical markers of exposure to contaminants.

147

13.3.2 RESULTS

In 2016, the 2014 and 2015 water column monitoring reports, 2015 sediment monitoring report, and the

2014 program assessment report were completed. Water column monitoring field work was completed

in December of 2016 and the report is in preparation.

2014 and 2015 Water Column Monitoring Results:

The chemistry results for the Burrard Inlet water column samples collected in 2014 and 2015 were

compared with applicable Burrard Inlet Water Quality Objectives, BC Water Quality Guidelines, or

Canadian Council of the Ministers of Environment Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines. Results

mostly met the 23 applicable receiving water quality objectives or guidelines, with the exceptions of

dissolved oxygen (in most bottom water samples), copper, boron, and mercury.

Dissolved oxygen concentrations did not meet the minimum Burrard Inlet water quality objective in

80% to 100% of the near-bottom samples each year, but met the objective in all near-surface

samples. In 2015, dissolved oxygen concentrations at all near-bottom locations and the near-surface

locations in the Inner Harbour, Central Harbour and Port Moody Arm did not meet the 30-day

average BC guideline.

Boron exceeded the applicable BC guideline at all sites each year; however, concentrations measured

are typical for coastal marine waters.

In 2014, total copper concentrations were occasionally above the maximum objective at two sites

(Central Harbour and Port Moody Arm), and above the 30-day average objective at Port Moody Arm.

Measured copper concentrations were below the objectives in 2015.

In 2014 mercury concentrations were below the applicable objectives and guidelines. The 2015

results were inconclusive due to incomplete analyses.

The total phenol objective is applicable only to the Central Harbour and Port Moody Arm. In the

previous monitoring studies total phenol exceeded the Burrard Inlet Water Quality Objectives.

However, the analytical method used for total phenol analysis measures both naturally-occurring

and anthropogenic phenol. The levels measured are consistent throughout Burrard Inlet including

Indian Arm North, indicating that measured levels are likely associated with naturally occurring

phenol. In 2014 and 2015, the analytical program included phenol, plus 26 anthropogenic phenolic

compounds (chlorophenols, nitrophenols and methylphenols). In 2014, pentachlorophenol was

detected in one sample at three different sites; and in 2015 in one sample. Concentrations were well

below the pentachlorophenol BC guideline, and no other anthropogenic phenols were detected.

Consistent with historical results, spatial patterns indicate that average bacteria concentrations were

highest in the Outer and Inner Harbours, and dissolved oxygen was lower in bottom water samples than

surface water samples in bottom waters and was lowest at the North Indian Arm site. The low dissolved

oxygen concentrations are largely a natural phenomenon that results from poor circulation and only

occasional renewal of the deeper water.

2015 Sediment Monitoring Results:

The chemistry results for the Burrard Inlet sediment samples collected in 2015 were compared with

applicable Burrard Inlet Water Quality Objectives (for sediment), BC Water Quality Guidelines (for

148

sediment), Federal Environmental Quality Guidelines (FEQG), or Canadian Council of Ministers of the

Environment Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines. There are a total of 46 measured parameters

that have an applicable objective or guideline. Of these, 34 (74%) had concentrations below the locally

applicable limit at all sites. The remaining parameters had concentrations above the objective or guideline

in at least one sample from one or more sites. These parameters included arsenic, chromium, copper,

lead, mercury, nickel, zinc, and acenaphthylene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, dioxins and furans,

Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (total) and Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (total). Inner Harbour and

Central Harbour sites had the fewest parameters above the applicable guidelines, while Indian Arm South

had the most.

The 2015 Burrard Inlet Sediment Monitoring Program results revealed some relatively consistent patterns

in the distributions of monitored substances: fecal coliforms, coprostanol and cholesterol were measured

in highest concentrations at the Inner Harbour. Generally, the highest concentrations of copper, lead,

mercury, silver and zinc were present at Port Moody Arm and Indian Arm South. The highest

concentrations of PAHs occurred at Central Harbour and Port Moody Arm. The highest concentrations of

carbon-normalized PCBs were present in the Central Harbour. Dioxins and furans concentrations were

relatively similar at all locations, although the lowest concentrations were observed at Indian Arm North.

Concentrations of substances above the applicable objectives or guidelines raise the question of possible

adverse effects on sediment-dwelling marine organisms. The study shows that the sediment metals have

low bioavailability; therefore, adverse effects due to elevated metals concentrations are unlikely.

However, the elevated concentrations of certain PAHs, dioxins and furans, PBDEs and organochlorine

pesticides may be bioavailable.

Comparison of the 2015 sediment monitoring results with historical data indicated generally decreasing

concentrations of copper, lead, mercury, and zinc. Total PAHs concentrations appear to have been

decreasing steadily at all locations since 1995 or 2002 (the earliest available data depending on location).

Burrard Inlet Ambient Monitoring Program Assessment An overall review of the monitoring results generated between 2007 and 2013 indicates that the

environmental health of Burrard Inlet is good to fair (based on the CCME Water Quality Index (WQI)

calculations). Concentrations of copper, lead, mercury, silver, zinc and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

(PAHs) have declined since the mid-1980s, as have liver lesions in English Sole. However, the presence of

vitellogenin in male fish throughout the inlet in 2012, indicate exposure to endocrine disrupting

compounds. Elevated PBDE concentrations in sediments have been observed in the Outer Harbour and in

fish in the Inner Harbour and elevated bacteria levels have been observed in the Inner Harbour. It was

recommended to continue the program so that changes from the implementation of secondary treatment

at Lion’s Gate wastewater treatment plant in 2020 and any other improvements, can be documented.

149

FIGURE 13.3 BURRARD INLET AMBIENT WATER, SEDIMENT AND FISH MONITORING SITES

Bibliography

Nautilus Environmental. 2006. Ambient Monitoring Program for Burrard Inlet. Commissioned by Greater

Vancouver Regional District. Burnaby, BC: Greater Vancouver Regional District.

ENKON Environmental Limited. 2016. Burrard Inlet Ambient Monitoring Program - 2014 Water Column

Monitoring. Commissioned by Metro Vancouver. Burnaby, BC: Metro Vancouver

ENKON Environmental Limited. 2016. Burrard Inlet Ambient Monitoring Program - 2015 Water Column


ENKON Environmental Limited. 2016. Burrard Inlet Ambient Monitoring Program: 2015 Sediment


13.4 BOUNDARY BAY AMBIENT MONITORING PROGRAM

The Boundary Bay Ambient Monitoring Program was initiated in 2009, in partnership with the BC Ministry

of Environment, and the municipalities of Surrey, Delta, and White Rock. Metro Vancouver monitors sites

in the marine environment of Boundary Bay and the municipalities monitor the major streams that flow

into Boundary Bay through their jurisdictions. Although no Metro Vancouver wastewater treatment plants

discharge to Boundary Bay, there are Metro Vancouver storm water and sanitary sewer (SSO) discharges

in the Boundary Bay watershed. Water quality is monitored annually during two time periods (dry season

150

and wet season), sediment twice in five years and biota (mussels and benthic invertebrates) once every

five years. Monitoring site locations are distributed throughout Boundary Bay and are shown in figure

13.4.

13.4.1 APPROACH

Water

Water quality is monitored two times per year, once during the summer dry season to capture agricultural

runoff and once during the fall wet season to capture the highest period of storm water runoff and

combined and sanitary sewer overflows, all of which are potential sources of bacterial contamination,

which can impact shellfish harvesting areas in Boundary Bay. Water quality has been monitored annually

since 2009, for physical parameters, bacteriology, nutrients, dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll-a, and metals.

Sediment

Sediment is monitored twice every five years, in winter or early spring during the period of highest

stormwater runoff and SSOs. This period constitutes a time of potential maximum exposure to bacteria

and compounds of concern, either waterborne or bound to particulate matter deposited into the bay.

Sediments are monitored for physical parameters, total organic carbon, bacteriology, metals, and organic

contaminants. Sediment monitoring was conducted in 2010, in 2014 in conjunction with the biota

program, and in 2016.

Biota

Biota monitoring was completed in 2014. A caged mussel study was conducted at 11 sites (6 subtidal and

5 intertidal). Farm raised blue mussels were deployed in cages and exposed to ambient conditions for

approximately 60 days (March 2014 - May 2014). There were 150 mussels deployed per site in three cages

of 50 mussels each.

The program aimed to assess chemical uptake and bacteria levels of the mussels and the potential sub-

lethal effect of these chemicals and bacteria on growth. Survival, total length and weight, tissue and shell

weight, and bacteria and chemical concentrations were assessed and/or compared between baseline (t=0

days) and exposed mussels (t=60 days).

Cage retrieval, benthic invertebrate sampling and sediment sampling (mentioned above) occurred at the

same time. Mussels were analyzed for health indicators, bacteriology, metals, and organic substances.

Benthic invertebrates were assessed for community structure and biodiversity and results will be used to

monitor changes in benthic invertebrate communities over time.

13.4.2 RESULTS

In 2016, the 2014 and 2015 water column monitoring reports were completed, 2016 water column

fieldwork was completed for the dry and wet seasons and sediment monitoring field work was done in

December of 2016. The 2016 water column and sediment monitoring program reports are under

preparation. The findings of the 2014 biota and sediment monitoring program are under review.

151

2014 and 2015 Water Column Monitoring Results:

The analytical results for the 2014 and 2015 Boundary Bay marine water column samples were compared

with the Boundary Bay Water Quality Objectives and BC Water Quality Guidelines. Results generally met

the applicable objectives or guidelines, for most parameters. The main exception was boron that

exceeded the BC guidelines, as has been the case in all previous years of this study. All boron results were

consistent with typical boron concentrations in Canadian coastal marine waters. In addition, in 2014 and

2015, measured levels of cadmium, copper, chromium (VI), zinc, pH, and dissolved oxygen in marine

waters, on at least one occasion at one site, did not meet the applicable guidelines or objectives.

FIGURE 13.4 BOUNDARY BAY AMBIENT WATER, SEDIMENT AND BIOTA MONITORING SITES

Bibliography

G3 Consulting Ltd. 2013. Boundary Bay Ambient Biota Monitoring Program: Conceptual Design Study.

Commissioned by Metro Vancouver. Burnaby, BC: Metro Vancouver.

Tri-Star Environmental Consulting. 2017. 2014 Boundary Bay Ambient Monitoring Program Water Column

Monitoring Report. Commissioned by Metro Vancouver. Burnaby, BC: Metro Vancouver.

Tri-Star Environmental Consulting. 2017. 2015 Boundary Bay Ambient Monitoring Program Water Column

Monitoring Report. Commissioned by Metro Vancouver. Burnaby, BC: Metro Vancouver.

152

14.0 KEY MANHOLE MONITORING PROGRAM

A key manhole monitoring program was initiated in 2013 with the following objectives:

• Characterize and provide a baseline for the quality of raw municipal wastewater in the Metro

Vancouver region

• Make comparisons to the key manhole monitoring program results previously completed in the

1990s

• Provide the data required to evaluate biosolids compliance issues and determine the need for

source control strategies in the future.

In 2016, the scope of the key manhole monitoring program consisted of sampling the sanitary sewers in

the Vancouver Sewerage Area (VSA) and the Fraser Sewerage Area (FSA). The wastewater from the VSA

is treated at the Iona Island WWTP and accounts for 45% of the overall wastewater flow in the region,

while the wastewater from the FSA is treated at the Annacis Island WWTP and accounts for 41% of the

overall wastewater flow in the region.

Approach

The monitoring program included the following features/characteristics:

Deployment of portable auto-samplers placed in cages at each monitoring location

(manhole or pump station), programmed to collect time proportional composite samples

(75 mL samples collected every 15 minutes during a 24 hour period and composited prior

to laboratory analysis);

Simultaneous sampling from each of the monitoring sites as well as the WWTP influents

and effluents during 24 hour periods scheduled from midnight to midnight;

Sampling for a minimum of ten sampling days representing both weekdays and weekends;

Analysis of the composite samples at the Metro Vancouver chemistry and process

laboratories for the parameters: total metals, pH, conductivity, BOD, COD, TSS, and

ammonia;

During this study, 11 monitoring sites within the VSA (June 17 to July 18) and 15 monitoring sites within

the FSA (August 1 to August 23) were sampled during dry weather. A minimum of ten composite samples

were collected at each site. The sampling locations are shown in Figures 14.1 and 14.2 respectively.

153

FIGURE 14.1 VANCOUVER SEWERAGE AREA 2016 KEY MANHOLE MONITORING PROGRAM SAMPLING LOCATIONS

FIGURE 14.2 FRASER SEWERAGE AREA 2016 KEY MANHOLE MONITORING PROGRAM SAMPLING LOCATIONS

For each monitoring site, flow monitoring data and analytical results were used to calculate the loadings

contribution of the measured parameters to the WWTP.

The results of the 2016 VSA and FSA Key Manhole Monitoring program are under review.

154

15.0 LWS ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

15.1 OVERVIEW

Metro Vancouver is developing an Environmental Management System (EMS) for its Liquid Waste utility.

An EMS is a management framework for identifying and addressing how a business interacts with the

environment, complying with environmental regulations, ensuring due diligence, and continuously

improving environmental performance in operations. It is a systematic and iterative approach to plan, do,

review and take preventative and corrective action. It involves evaluation of environmental risks and

defining policies, programs, procedures, protocols, training, communications, performance measures,

and review and decision processes around those environmental risks. These essential components are

defined by international standards (the most widely followed is ISO - International Organization for

Standardization), giving state of the art specifications for good practice in order to help businesses become

more efficient and effective.

The EMS will incorporate the principles of the standard ISO EMS 14001:2015 into Metro Vancouver LWS

practices. The Environmental Management System will include:

1. Measurable targets that motivate continuous improvement and are consistent with other

departmental and corporate objectives;

2. Regular monitoring and reporting on progress toward meeting these targets;

3. Procedures and processes that continuously improve environmental performance in

operating the wastewater utility; and,

4. Access to environmental information and training for staff.

15.2 EMS WORK – 2016

In 2016 work continued in the following areas:

Documentation of the current environmental management processes in place in the Liquid Waste

Services Department; and,

Improvement of EMS tools for addressing performance of the liquid waste utility under normal

and upset operating conditions.

Work on these fronts is ongoing with annual review and iterative modifications providing opportunity for

continuous improvement and alignment with other related objectives, processes and systems for Liquid

Waste Services (e.g., environmental monitoring and risk assessments, and management systems for

safety, assets, knowledge, energy, and performance).

A - 1

APPENDIX A CSO Water Quality Monitoring Results

A - 2

BORDEN ST CSO QUALITY MONITORING, 2016 – MICROBIOLOGY, GENERAL CHEMISTRY AND METALS

The Borden CSO sampling vault is located at 1565 Kent Ave North East in Vancouver at the roadway entrance to an industrial complex immediately east of Knight Street Bridge.

Descriptive Statistics (1) Decriptive Statistics (1)

Total(4)

Range Mean Stdev N %ND (2) StDev N %ND (2)

MICROBIOLOGY (3, 4) TOTAL METALS

E.coli 160,000,000 MPN/100mL 470,000 - 2,900,000 850,000 1,200,000 4 0% Aluminum 5 µg/L 840 - 3000 1960 1100 4 0%

Enterococci 24,000,000 MPN/100mL 46,000 - 200,000 100,000 100,000 3 0% Arsenic 0.5 µg/L 1.3 - 2.0 1.7 0.3 4 0%

Fecal Coliform 160,000,000 MPN/100mL 660,000 - 2,900,000 1,040,000 1,100,000 4 0% Barium 0.5 µg/L 22 - 60 40 21 4 0%

INORGANIC CHEMISTRY and PHYSICAL Boron 1 µg/L 15 - 29 21 6 4 0%

Biochemical Oxygen Demand 10 mg/L 24 - 69 45 45 3 0% Cadmium 0.2 µg/L < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 0 4 100%

Chemical Oxygen Demand 10 mg/L 84 - 270 159 159 4 0% Calcium 2 µg/L 7100 - 16000 11350 3940 4 0%

Conductivity 1 µmhos/cm 75 - 140 106 106 4 0% Chromium 0.5 µg/L 2 - 5 4 2 4 0%

Hardness as CACO3 0.07 mg/L 22 - 49 35 35 4 0% Cobalt 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 1.3 < 0.9 0.5 4 50%

Nitrogen - Ammonia as N 0.2 mg/L 0.9 - 2.3 1.4 1.4 4 0% Copper 0.5 µg/L 22 - 43 35 10 4 0%

Nitrogen - Nitrate as N 0.01 mg/L 0.4 - 1.0 0.6 0.6 4 0% Iron 5 µg/L 970 - 3000 2070 1090 4 0%

Nitrogen - Nitrite as N 0.01 mg/L 0.02 - 0.06 0.04 0.04 4 0% Lead 0.5 µg/L 4 - 13 8.3 4.4 4 0%

pH NA pH units 7 - 7.2 7.1 7.1 4 0% Magnesium 1 µg/L 1000 - 2500 1730 695 4 0%

Total Suspended Solids 1 mg/L 45 - 210 128 128 4 0% Manganese 0.5 µg/L 29 - 89 61 30 4 0%

Turbidity 0.1 NTU 27 - 73 47 47 3 0% Mercury 0.5 µg/L < 0.1 - < 0.1 < 0.1 0.02 4 75%

Volatile Suspended Solids 1 mg/L 28 - 130 79 79 4 0% Molybdenum 0.5 µg/L 0.7 - 2.1 1.3 0.6 4 0%

Nickel 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - 4 < 2.4 1.7 4 25%

** Not Applicable Phosphorus 15 µg/L 530 - 1400 970 356 4 0%

Selenium 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 4 100%

Silver 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - 3.7 < 1.3 1.6 4 75%

Sodium 5 µg/L 5100 - 7700 6480 1130 4 0%

Zinc 1 µg/L 49 - 130 86 40 4 0%

DISSOLVED METALS

Aluminium 5 µg/L 23 - 30 27 4 4 0%

Arsenic 0.5 µg/L 0.9 - 1.3 1.1 0.2 4 0%

Barium 0.5 µg/L 8.4 - 18 12.8 5.0 4 0%

Boron 1 µg/L 14 - 27 19 6 4 0%

Cadmium 0.2 µg/L < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 0 4 100%

Calcium 2 µg/L 6200 - 13000 9550 3030 4 0%

Chromium 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - 0.9 < 0.7 0.2 4 0%

Cobalt 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 4 100%

Copper 0.5 µg/L 7.3 - 10 8.4 1.3 4 0%

Iron 5 µg/L 41 - 58 51 7 4 0%

Lead 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 4 100%

Magnesium 1 µg/L 710 - 1500 1100 336 4 0%

Manganese 0.5 µg/L 9 - 23 17 6 4 0%

Molybdenum 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - 1.3 < 0.8 0.4 4 25%

Nickel 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - 1.0 < 0.6 0.3 4 50%

Phosphorus 15 µg/L 190 - 400 270 93 4 0%

Selenium 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 4 100%

Silver 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 4 100%

Sodium 5 µg/L 4800 - 7100 6130 1080 4 0%

Zinc 1 µg/L 13 - 21 17 3 4 0%

Detection Limit (1) Units Total (Composite)

Range Mean

(5) All samples collected at this site were composite samples

< Indicates results reported were less than detection limit.

(1) Range, mean (geomean for microbiology), standard deviation and number of samples (N) are provided. When results are less than detection limit, the

detection limit was used to calculate each statistic. When result was above the maximum reportable l imit, the maximum reportable l imit was used to

calculate each statistic.

(2) Percent of samples where result was less than the detection limit. For microbiology, this refers to the percent of samples where the result was less than

detection limit of above reportable l imit. Enterococci results for March 20, 2016 were reported as "LA" - "Results not read".

AnalyteAnalyte Detection Limit (1) Units

(3) For E. coli and fecal coliform - the maximum reportable result is 16,000,000 MPN/100ml. For Enterococci, the maximum reportable result is 2,100,000

MPN/100ml.

(4) All samples collected for microbiology were done in duplicate. So the result reported is a geomean between the duplicates.

A - 3

CHILCO-BROCKTON CSO QUALITY MONITORING, 2016 – MICROBIOLOGY, GENERAL CHEMISTRY AND METALS

The sampling location for the Chilco-Brockton CSO is located inside the Chilco Pump Station near the seawall entrance to Stanley Park in

Vancouver. This CSO discharges into Burrard Inlet.

Descriptive Statistics (1) Decriptive Statistics (1)

Total(4) Total(4)

Range Mean Stdev N %ND (2) StDev N %ND (2)


E.coli 160,000,000 MPN/100mL 120 - 490,000 1,800 200,000 5 0% Aluminum 5 µg/L 120 - 3000 846 1213 5 0%

Enterococci 24,000,000 MPN/100mL 130 - > 240,000 1,400 100,000 5 20% Arsenic 0.5 µg/L 0.8 - 2 1.3 0.4 5 0%

Fecal Coliform 160,000,000 MPN/100mL 210 - 2,400,000 3,400 1,100,000 5 0% Barium 0.5 µg/L 13 - 56 29 17 5 0%

INORAGNIC CHEMISTRY and PHYSICAL Boron 1 µg/L 18 - 540 133 228 5 0%

Biochemical Oxygen Demand 10 mg/L < 10 - 78 < 24 30 5 80% Cadmium 0.2 µg/L < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 0 5 100%

Chemical Oxygen Demand 10 mg/L < 20 - 210 < 70 82 5 60% Calcium 2 µg/L 10000 - 66000 25000 23000 5 0%

Conductivity 1 µmhos/cm 200 - 7,300 1740 3117 5 0% Chromium 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - 4.9 < 1.8 1.8 5 20%


Nitrogen - Ammonia as N 0.2 mg/L < 0.2 - 6.8 < 1.5 3 5 80% Copper 0.5 µg/L 11 - 43 24 16 5 0%


Nitrogen - Nitrite as N 0.01 mg/L < 0.01 - 0.04 < 0.02 0.01 5 60% Lead 0.5 µg/L 0.9 - 13 4.3 5 5 0%

pH NA pH units 6.8 - 7.4 7.1 0.2 5 0% Magnesium 1 µg/L 1700 - 160000 36000 70000 5 0%


Turbidity 0.1 NTU 3.11 - 56 17.3 25.8 4 0% Mercury 0.5 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.092 < 0.06 0.02 5 100%


Nickel 0.5 µg/L 1 - < 3.5 1.8 1.0 5 20%

Phosphorus 15 µg/L 49 - 2200 680 929 5 0%

< Indicates results reported were less than detection limit. Selenium 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 5 100%Silver 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - 0.5 < 0.5 0 5 80%

Sodium 5 µg/L 6100 - 1400000 310000 610000 5 0%

Zinc 1 µg/L 20 - 110 59 43 5 0%

DISSOLVED METALS

Aluminium 5 µg/L 18 - 38 28 8 5 0%

Arsenic 0.5 µg/L 0.7 - 1.1 0.9 0.1 5 0%

Barium 0.5 µg/L 6 - 32 19 10 5 0%

Boron 1 µg/L 16 - 510 127 215 5 0%

Cadmium 0.2 µg/L < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 0 5 100%

Calcium 2 µg/L 9000 - 63000 24000 22000 5 0%

Chromium 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - 0.5 < 0.5 0 5 100%

Cobalt 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 5 100%

Copper 0.5 µg/L 2.7 - 14 7.4 4.1 5 0%

Iron 5 µg/L 82 - 220 140 51 5 0%

Lead 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 5 100%

Magnesium 1 µg/L 1600 - 160000 36000 70000 5 0%

Manganese 0.5 µg/L 12 - 24 19 5 5 0%

Molybdenum 0.5 µg/L 0.5 - 1.7 1.0 0.6 5 0%

Nickel 0.5 µg/L 0.7 - 1.2 0.9 0.2 5 0%

Phosphorus 15 µg/L 34 - 1300 293 563 5 0%

Selenium 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 5 100%

Silver 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 5 100%

Sodium 5 µg/L 20000 - 1300000 300000 560000 5 0%

Zinc 1 µg/L 16 - 48 25 13 5 0%

Mean

(1) Range, mean (geomean for microbiology), standard deviation and number of samples (N) are provided. When results are less than detection limit, the detection limit

was used to calculate each statistic. When result was above the maximum reportable l imit, the maximum reportable l imit was used to calculate each statistic.

(2) Percent of samples where result was less than the detection limit. For microbiology, this refers to the percent of samples where the result was less than detection limit

of above reportable l imit. There were no non-detects for microbiology.

(3) For E. coli and fecal coliform - the maximum reportable result is 16,000,000 MPN/100ml. For Enterococci, the maximum reportable result is 2,100,000 MPN/100ml.


Analyte Detection Limit (1) UnitsAnalyte Detection Limit (1) Units

Range

A - 4

CLARK DRIVE #2 CSO QUALITY MONITORING, 2016 – MICROBIOLOGY, GENERAL CHEMISTRY, METALS & TOXICITY

The Clark Drive #2 CSO sampling kiosk is located inside the Harbour Pump Station compound in Vancouver. The CSO discharges into Burrard

Inlet.

Descriptive Statistics(1) Descriptive Statistics (1)

Total(5) Total(5)

Range Mean Stdev N %ND (2) Range Mean StDev N %ND (2)

MICROBIOLOGY (2, 3, 4) TOTAL METALS

E.coli 160,000,000 MPN/100mL 1,400,000 - 3,500,000 2,210,000 1,500,000 2 0% Aluminum 5 µg/L 450 - 640 545 134 2 0%

Enterococci 24,000,000 MPN/100mL 230,000 - 390,000 300,000 100,000 2 0% Arsenic 0.5 µg/L 0.8 - 0.8 0.8 0 2 0%

Fecal Coliform 160,000,000 MPN/100mL 1,700,000 - 3,500,000 2,440,000 1,300,000 2 0% Barium 0.5 µg/L 16 - 19 18 2.1 2 0%

INORAGNIC CHEMISTRY and PHYSICAL Boron 1 µg/L 18 - 20 19 1.4 2 0%

Biochemical Oxygen Demand 10 mg/L 43 - 49 46 4 2 0% Cadmium 0.2 µg/L < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 0.0 2 100%


Conductivity 1 µmhos/cm 180 - 180 180 0 2 0% Chromium 0.5 µg/L 1.1 - 1.4 1.3 0.2 2 0%




Nitrogen - Nitrite as N 0.01 mg/L 0.05 - 0.05 0.05 0.0 2 0% Lead 0.5 µg/L 1.9 - 3.1 2.5 0.8 2 0%



Volatile Suspended Solids 1 mg/L 37 - 74 56 26 2 0% Mercury 0.5 µg/L < 0.1 - < 0.1 < 0.1 0 2 100%

TOXICITY Molybdenum 0.5 µg/L 0.7 - 0.9 0.8 0.1 2 0%

LC50 Rainbow Trout 96-h(6) ** %vol/ vol > 100 - > 100 > 100 ** 1 100% Nickel 0.5 µg/L 1.1 - 1.4 1.3 0.2 2 0%

LT50 Ceriodaphnia dubia LC50(7) ** %vol/ vol > 100 - > 100 > 100 ** 1 100% Phosphorus 15 µg/L 1400 - 1600 1500 141 2 0%

NOEL (Survival)(8) ** %vol/ vol 100 - 100 100 ** 1 0% Selenium 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 100%

LOEL (Survival)(9) ** %vol/ vol > 100 - > 100 > 100 ** 1 100% Silver 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 100%

Ceriodaphnia dubia IC25(10) ** %vol/ vol 55.36 - 55.36 55.36 11.79 - 63.84 1 0% Sodium 5 µg/L 13000 - 16000 14500 2,121 2 0%

Ceriodanphnia IC50(11) ** %vol/ vol 97.57 - 97.57 97.57 79.10 - N/A 1 0% Zinc 1 µg/L 41 - 59 50 13 2 0%

NOEL (Reproduction)(8) ** %vol/ vol 50 - 50 50 ** 1 0% DISSOLVED METALS

LOEL (Reproduction)(9)** %vol/ vol 100 - 100 100 ** 1 0% Aluminium 5 µg/L 27 - 30 29 2 2 0%

Arsenic 0.5 µg/L 0.6 - 0.6 0.6 0 2 0%

Barium 0.5 µg/L 9.5 - 11 10.3 1.1 2 0%

Boron 1 µg/L 19 - 19 19 0 2 0%

Cadmium 0.2 µg/L < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 0 2 100%

Calcium 2 µg/L 9900 - 10000 9950 71 2 0%

Chromium 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 100%

Cobalt 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 100%

(4) December 2, 2016 samples collected for microbiology were done in duplicate. So the result reported is a geomean between the duplicates. Copper 0.5 µg/L 5.9 - 9.1 7.5 2.3 2 0%

Iron 5 µg/L 74 - 88 81 10 2 0%

Lead 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 100%

Magnesium 1 µg/L 1700 - 2000 1850 212 2 0%

(8) NOEL = No Observed Effects Level. Manganese 0.5 µg/L 16 - 17 17 1 2 0%

(9) LOEL = Lowest Observed Effects Level. Molybdenum 0.5 µg/L 0.5 - 0.7 0.6 0.1 2 0%

(10) IC25 = Concentration which would cause a 25% inhibition in reproduction or growth. Nickel 0.5 µg/L 0.5 - 0.8 0.7 0.2 2 0%

(11) IC50 = Concentration which would cause a 50 % inhibition in reproduction or growth. Phosphorus 15 µg/L 940 - 1000 970 42 2 0%

Selenium 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 100%

Silver 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 100%

Sodium 5 µg/L 12000 - 15000 13500 2120 2 0%

Zinc 1 µg/L 16 - 19 18 2 2 0%

(6) LT50 results represent % survival therefore 0% mortality was observed in 100% concentration during the test.

(7) LC50 = Concentration which would cause a 50% mortality.

Units

(2) Percent of samples where result was less than the detection limit. For microbiology, this refers to the percent of samples where the result was

less than detection limit of above reportable limit. There were no non-detects for microbiology.

(3) For E. coli and fecal coliform - the maximum reportable result is 16,000,000 MPN/100ml. For Enterococci, the maximum reportable result is

2,100,000 MPN/100ml.

(5) All samples collected were grab samples.

Analyte Detection Limit (1)Detection Limit (1) UnitsAnalyte


(1) Range, mean (geomean for microbiology), standard deviation and number of samples (N) are provided. When results are less than detection

limit, the detection limit was used to calculate each statistic. When result was above the maximum reportable limit, the maximum reportable limit

A - 5

CLARK DRIVE #2 CSO QUALITY MONITORING, 2016 – ORGANICS

Descriptive Statistics (1)

Total (Grab) (10)

Range Mean Stdev N %ND (2)

EXTRACTABLE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS

HEPH (C19-C32 less PAH) (3) 0.20 mg/L 1.30 - 1.30 1.30 ** 1 0%

LEPH (C10-C19 less PAH) (4) 0.20 mg/L < 0.20 - < 0.20 < 0.20 ** 1 100%

POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAH)

2-Methylnaphthalene(5) 0.10 µg/L < 0.10 - < 0.10 < 0.10 ** 1 100%

Acenaphthene 0.050 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Acenaphthylene 0.050 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Acridine (6) 0.050 µg/L < 0.01 - < 0.01 < 0.01 ** 1 100%

Anthracene 0.010 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Fluorene 0.050 µg/L < 0.10 - < 0.10 < 0.10 ** 1 100%

Naphthalene 0.10 µg/L < 0.24 - < 0.24 < 0.24 ** 1 100%

Phenanthrene 0.050 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Quinoline (6) 0.50 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Low Molecular Weight PAHs 0.50 µg/L < 0.24 - < 0.24 < 0.24 ** 1 100%

Benzo(a)anthracene 0.010 µg/L 0.02 - 0.02 0.02 ** 1 0%

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0090 - 0.041 µg/L 0.01 - 0.01 0.01 ** 1 0%

Benzo(b&j)fluoranthene 0.050 - 0.070 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.050 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.050 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Chrysene 0.050 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.050 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Fluoranthene 0.020 µg/L 0.04 - 0.04 0.04 ** 1 0%

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.050 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Pyrene 0.020 µg/L 0.04 - 0.04 0.04 ** 1 0%

High Molecular Weight PAHs 0.050 µg/L 0.11 - 0.11 0.11 ** 1 0%

Total PAH = LPAH + HPAH 0.50 µg/L < 0.24 - < 0.24 < 0.24 ** 1 100%

MONOCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (MAH)

Benzene 0.40 µg/L < 0.40 - < 0.40 < 0.40 ** 1 100%

Ethylbenzene 0.40 µg/L < 0.40 - < 0.40 < 0.40 ** 1 100%

m & p-Xylene 0.40 µg/L < 0.40 - < 0.40 < 0.40 ** 1 100%

o-Xylene 0.40 µg/L < 0.40 - < 0.40 < 0.40 ** 1 100%

Toluene 0.40 µg/L < 0.40 - < 0.40 < 0.40 ** 1 100%

Xylenes (Total) 0.40 µg/L < 0.40 - < 0.40 < 0.40 ** 1 100%

Methyl-tert-butylether (MTBE) 4.0 µg/L < 4.00 - < 4.00 < 4.00 ** 1 100%

Styrene 0.4 µg/L < 0.40 - < 0.40 < 0.40 ** 1 100%

VH C6-C10 (7) 300 µg/L < 300.00 - < 300.00 < 300.00 ** 1 100%

VPH (VHW6 to 10 - BTEX) (8) 300 µg/L < 300.00 - < 300.00 < 300.00 ** 1 100%

** Not Applicable


(3) HEPH = Heavy Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons

(4) LEPH = Light Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons

(5) Alkylated Low Molecular Weight PAHs

(6) N-Heterocycle Low Molecular Weight PAHs

(7) Volatile Hydrocarbons contains all petroleum hydrocarbons in the carbon range of C6-10, including BTEX and Styrene

(8) Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons contains all petroleum hydrocabons in the carbon range of C6-10 minus BTEX

(1) Range, mean, standard deviation (not applicable for a single sample) and number of samples (N) are provided. When results are less than detection limit,

the detection limit was used to calculate each statistic. When result was above the maximum reportable l imit, the maximum reportable l imit was used to


(2) Percent of samples where result was less than the detection limit.

BTE

X

Analyte Detection Limit (9) Units

Low

Mo

lecu

lar

We

igh

t P

AH

s

(LP

AH

)

Hig

h M

ole

cula

r W

eig

ht

PA

Hs

(HP

AH

)

A - 6

HEATHER CSO QUALITY MONITORING, 2016 – MICROBIOLOGY, GENERAL CHEMISTRY AND METALS

The Heather CSO is located on the West 6th Avenue merge onto Cambie Street in Vancouver, directly north of a building at 2211 Cambie Street.

The CSO discharges into False Creek.

Descriptive Statistics (1) Descriptive Statistics(1)

Total(5) Total(5)

Range Mean Stdev N %ND (2) Range Mean Stdev N %ND (2)

MICROBIOLOGY (3) TOTAL METALS

E.coli 160,000,000 MPN/100mL 70,000 - 410,000 140,000 100,000 5 0% Aluminum 5 µg/L 828 - 9300 5050 3640 5 0%

Enterococci 24,000,000 MPN/100mL 50,000 - 490,000 140,000 200,000 4 0% Arsenic 0.5 µg/L 1 - 11 5 4 5 0%

Fecal Coliform 160,000,000 MPN/100mL 120,000 - 730,000 250,000 200,000 5 0% Barium 0.5 µg/L 19 - 160 81 57 5 0%

INORGANIC CHEMISTRY and PHYSICAL Boron 1 µg/L 12 - 50 22 16 5 0%

Biochemical Oxygen Demand 10 mg/L 27 - 320 104 144 4 0% Cadmium 0.2 µg/L < 0.2 - 1 < 0.5 0.3 5 40%


Conductivity 1 µmhos/cm 41 - 200 101 60 5 0% Chromium 0.5 µg/L 2.3 - 19 11.3 8 5 0%

Hardness as CACO3 0.07 mg/L 28 - 73 42 19 5 0% Cobalt 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - 4.9 < 2.7 2 5 20%



Nitrogen - Nitrite as N 0.01 mg/L 0.01 - 0.1 0.03 0.02 5 0% Lead 0.5 µg/L 5 - 65 32 25 5 0%



Turbidity 0.1 NTU 35 - 350 156 150 4 0% Mercury 0.5 µg/L < 0.05 - 0.16 < 0.10 0.05 5 40%


Nickel 0.5 µg/L 1.6 - 14 7.2 5.2 5 0%

Phosphorus 15 µg/L 502 - 3600 1440 1260 5 0%

Selenium 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - 1.3 < 0.9 0.4 5 40%

Silver 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - 0.8 < 0.6 0.1 5 80%

Sodium 5 µg/L 2900 - 16000 7720 4970 5 0%

Zinc 1 µg/L 68 - 650 264 236 5 0%

DISSOLVED METALS

Aluminium 5 µg/L 21 - 95 43 30 5 0%

Arsenic 0.5 µg/L 0.8 - 3.6 2 1.2 5 0%

Barium 0.5 µg/L 6.3 - 26 12.6 7.9 5 0%

Boron 1 µg/L < 10 - 34 < 16 10 5 40%

Cadmium 0.2 µg/L < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 0 5 100%

Calcium 2 µg/L 3700 - 12000 7550 3140 5 0%

Chromium 0.5 µg/L 0.5 - 1.8 1.2 0.6 5 0%

Cobalt 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - 0.9 < 0.6 0.2 5 80%

Copper 0.5 µg/L 5.7 - 30 12.4 10 5 0%

Iron 5 µg/L 35 - 280 96 104 5 0%

Lead 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - 1.1 < 0.6 0.3 5 80%

Magnesium 1 µg/L 390 - 1800 1150 583 5 0%

Manganese 0.5 µg/L 7 - 120 36 48 5 0%

Molybdenum 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - 1.9 < 0.8 0.6 5 20%

Nickel 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - 2.9 < 1.0 1.1 5 60%

Phosphorus 15 µg/L 78 - 720 254 265 5 0%

Selenium 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 5 100%

Silver 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 5 100%

Sodium 5 µg/L 1900 - 13000 6520 4200 5 0%

Zinc 1 µg/L 12 - 64 28 21 5 0%

(5) All samples collected were composite samples.







detection limit of above reportable l imit. There were no non-detects for microbiology.


MPN/100ml.

UnitsAnalyte Detection Limit (1) Units Analyte Detection Limit (1)

A - 7

MACDONALD CSO QUALITY MONITORING, 2016 – MICROBIOLOGY, GENERAL CHEMISTRY AND METALS

Located across from 6633 Macdonald Street in Vancouver and along the North-West corner of the MacLeery Golf Course. This CSO discharges

into the North Arm of the Fraser River.

Descriptive Statistics(1) Descriptive Statistics (1)

Total(5) Total (Composite) (5)

Range Mean Stdev N %ND (2) Range Mean Stdev N %ND (2)


E.coli 160,000,000 MPN/100mL 20,000 - 210,000 70,000 100,000 3 0% Aluminum 5 µg/L 2700 - 5900 4030 1510 4 0%

Enterococci 24,000,000 MPN/100mL 10,000 - 340,000 30,000 200,000 4 0% Arsenic 0.5 µg/L 4 - 12 8 4 4 0%

Fecal Coliform 160,000,000 MPN/100mL 120,000 - 370,000 220,000 100,000 4 0% Barium 0.5 µg/L 31 - 60 44 15 4 0%

INORGANIC CHEMISTRY and PHYSICAL Boron 1 µg/L < 10 - 10 < 10 0 4 75%

Biochemical Oxygen Demand 10 mg/L < 10 - 25 < 19 7 4 25% Cadmium 0.2 µg/L < 0.2 - 0.3 < 0.2 0.1 4 50%


Conductivity 1 µmhos/cm 33 - 48 40 8 4 0% Chromium 0.5 µg/L 4.7 - 17 10.1 5.9 4 0%

Hardness as CACO3 0.07 mg/L 22 - 27 25 2 4 0% Cobalt 0.5 µg/L 1.1 - 2.9 1.8 0.8 4 0%

Nitrogen - Ammonia as N 0.2 mg/L < 0.2 - 0.8 < 0.4 0.3 4 50% Copper 0.5 µg/L 25 - 79 47 26 4 0%


Nitrogen - Nitrite as N 0.01 mg/L 0.01 - 0.02 0.02 0.003 4 0% Lead 0.5 µg/L 11 - 26 17 7 4 0%



Turbidity 0.1 NTU 49 - 83 64 17 3 0% Mercury 0.5 µg/L < 0.05 - 0.10 < 0.08 0.02 4 50%


Nickel 0.5 µg/L 3 - 6 4 2 4 0%

Phosphorus 15 µg/L 370 - 850 608 221 4 0%

Selenium 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - 0.9 < 0.6 0.2 4 75%

Silver 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0.0 4 100%

Sodium 5 µg/L 2100 - 3100 2530 465 4 0%

Zinc 1 µg/L 55 - 150 99 48 4 0%

DISSOLVED METALS

Aluminium 5 µg/L 18 - 60 36 18 4 0%

Arsenic 0.5 µg/L 2.2 - 6.6 5 2 4 0%

Barium 0.5 µg/L 3.8 - 13 7 4 4 0%

Boron 1 µg/L < 10 - < 10 < 10 0 4 100%

Cadmium 0.2 µg/L < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 0 4 100%

Calcium 2 µg/L 3500 - 5900 4700 1330 4 0%

Chromium 0.5 µg/L 0.7 - 3.5 2.6 1.3 4 0%

Cobalt 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - 0.81 < 0.58 0.16 4 100%

Copper 0.5 µg/L 3.3 - 8.9 6.2 2.4 4 0%

Iron 5 µg/L 18 - 280 103 120 4 0%

Lead 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - 2.5 < 1.0 1.0 4 100%

Magnesium 1 µg/L 300 - 800 530 257 4 0%

Manganese 0.5 µg/L 4.2 - 17 8.7 5.8 4 0%

Molybdenum 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.55 < 0.51 0.03 4 100%

Nickel 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 1.2 < 0.7 0.4 4 100%

Phosphorus 15 µg/L 72 - 180 120 54 4 0%

Selenium 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 4 100%

Silver 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 4 100%

Sodium 5 µg/L 1300 - 2700 2050 705 4 0%

Zinc 1 µg/L 8 - 21 12 6 4 0%

(5) All samples collected at this site were composite samples






detection limit of above reportable l imit. There were no non-detects for microbiology.


MPN/100ml (24,000,000 MPN/100mL).

(4) All samples collected for microbiology were done in duplicate. So the result reported is a geomean between the duplicates. No E.coli reported on

September 19, 2016 due to "No fluorescence on EC+MUG tubes. Result inconclusive".

UnitsAnalyte Detection Limit (1) Units Analyte Detection Limit (1)

A - 8

MANITOBA CSO QUALITY MONITORING, 2016 – MICROBIOLOGY, GENERAL CHEMISTRY & TOXICOLOGY

Located on the North-East corner of Columbia Street and 63rd street. This CSO discharges into the North Arm of the Fraser River just up-river of

the Knight Street Bridge.


Grab Composite Total

Range Mean Stdev N Range Mean Stdev N Range Mean Stdev N %ND (2)

MICROBIOLOGY (3, 4)

E.coli 160,000,000 MPN/100mL 830,000 - 830,000 830,000 ** 1 200,000 - 770,000 390,000 400,000 2 200,000 - 830,000 500,000 400,000 3 0%

Enterococci 24,000,000 MPN/100mL 20,000 - 20,000 20,000 ** 1 4,600 - 30,000 10,000 20,000 2 4,600 - 30,000 10,000 20,000 3 0%

Fecal Coliform 160,000,000 MPN/100mL 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 1,000,000 ** 1 200,000 - 770,000 390,000 400,000 2 200,000 - 1,000,000 540,000 500,000 3 0%

INORGANIC CHEMISTRY and PHYSICAL

Biochemical Oxygen Demand 10 mg/L 11 - 11 11 ** 1 17 - 17 17 ** 1 11 - 17 14 4 2 0%

Chemical Oxygen Demand 10 mg/L 55 - 55 55 ** 1 97 - 97 97 ** 1 55 - 97 76 30 2 0%

Conductivity 1 µmhos/cm 87 - 87 87 ** 1 83 - 83 83 ** 1 83 - 87 85 3 2 0%

Hardness as CACO3 0.07 mg/L 18 - 18 18 ** 1 17 - 17 17 ** 1 17 - 18 18 1 2 0%

Nitrogen - Ammonia as N 0.2 mg/L 0.3 - 0.3 0.3 ** 1 0.6 - 0.6 0.6 ** 1 0.3 - 0.6 0.5 0.2 2 0%

Nitrogen - Nitrate as N 0.01 mg/L 0.27 - 0.27 0.27 ** 1 0.23 - 0.23 0.23 ** 1 0.23 - 0.27 0.25 0.03 2 0%

Nitrogen - Nitrite as N 0.01 mg/L 0.02 - 0.02 0.02 ** 1 < 0.01 - < 0.01 < 0.01 ** 1 < 0.01 - 0.02 < 0.02 0.01 2 50%

pH NA pH units 7 - 7 7 ** 1 7 - 7 7 ** 1 6.7 - 7 6.9 0.2 2 0%

Total Suspended Solids 1 mg/L 63 - 63 63 ** 1 61 - 61 61 ** 1 61 - 63 62 1 2 0%

Turbidity 0.1 NTU 31.4 - 31.4 31.4 ** 1 17.1 - 21.5 19 3 2 17.1 - 31.4 23.3 7.3 3 0%

Volatile Suspended Solids 1 mg/L 30 - 30 30 ** 1 33 - 33 33 ** 1 30 - 33 32 2 2 0%

Rainbow Trout 96-h LC50 ** %vol/ vol > 100 - > 100 > 100 ** 1

(2) Percent of samples where result was less than the detection limit. For microbiology, this refers to the percent of samples where the result was less than detection

limit of above reportable limit. There were no non-detects for microbiology.

(3) For E. coli and fecal coliform - the maximum reportable result is 160,000,000 MPN/100ml. For Enterococci, the maximum reportable result is 24,192,000 MPN/100ml

(24,000,000 MPN/100mL).


Analyte Detection Limit (1) Units


(1) Range, mean (geomean for microbiology), standard deviation and number of samples (N) are provided. When results are less than detection limit, the detection

limit was used to calculate each statistic. When result was above the maximum reportable limit, the maximum reportable limit was used to calculate each statistic.

A - 9

MANITOBA CSO QUALITY MONITORING, 2016 – METALS

Decriptive Statistics (1)

Grab Composite

Range Mean StDev N Range Mean StDev N StDev N %ND (2)

TOTAL METALS

Aluminum 5 µg/L 1400 - 1400 1400 ** 1 1300 - 1300 1300 ** 1 1300 - 1400 1350 71 2 0%

Arsenic 0.5 µg/L 3.6 - 3.6 3.6 ** 1 4.5 - 4.5 4.5 ** 1 4 - 5 4 1 2 0%

Barium 0.5 µg/L 23 - 23 23 ** 1 22 - 22 22 ** 1 22 - 23 23 1 2 0%

Boron 1 µg/L < 10 - < 10 < 10 ** 1 < 10 - < 10 < 10 ** 1 < 10 - < 10 < 10 0 2 100%

Cadmium 0.2 µg/L < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 ** 1 < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 ** 1 < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 0 2 100%

Calcium 2 µg/L 5400 - 5400 5400 ** 1 5400 - 5400 5400 ** 1 5400 - 5400 5400 0 2 0%

Chromium 0.5 µg/L 3.2 - 3.2 3.2 ** 1 3.4 - 3.4 3.4 ** 1 3.2 - 3.4 3 0.1 2 0%

Cobalt 0.5 µg/L 0.7 - 0.7 0.7 ** 1 0.6 - 0.6 0.6 ** 1 0.6 - 0.7 1 0.1 2 0%

Copper 0.5 µg/L 27 - 27 27 ** 1 34 - 34 34 ** 1 27 - 34 31 5 2 0%

Iron 5 µg/L 1500 - 1500 1500 ** 1 1300 - 1300 1300 ** 1 1300 - 1500 1400 141 2 0%

Lead 0.5 µg/L 7.2 - 7.2 7.2 ** 1 8 - 8 8 ** 1 7.2 - 8 8 1 2 0%

Magnesium 1 µg/L 1000 - 1000 1000 ** 1 970 - 970 970 ** 1 970 - 1000 985 21 2 0%

Manganese 0.5 µg/L 51 - 51 51 ** 1 43 - 43 43 ** 1 43 - 51 47 6 2 0%

Mercury 0.5 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 0.12 - 0.12 0.12 ** 1 < 0.05 - 0.12 < 0.09 0.05 2 50%

Molybdenum 0.5 µg/L 0.6 - 0.6 0.6 ** 1 0.8 - 0.8 0.8 ** 1 0.6 - 0.8 0.7 0.1 2 0%

Nickel 0.5 µg/L 1.8 - 1.8 1.8 ** 1 1.8 - 1.8 1.8 ** 1 1.8 - 1.8 1.8 0.0 2 0%

Phosphorus 15 µg/L 310 - 310 310 ** 1 470 - 470 470 ** 1 310 - 470 390 113 2 0%

Selenium 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 100%

Silver 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 100%

Sodium 5 µg/L 11000 - 11000 11000 ** 1 9900 - 9900 9900 ** 1 9900 - 11000 10450 778 2 0%

Zinc 1 µg/L 47 - 47 47 ** 1 53 - 53 53 ** 1 47 - 53 50 4 2 0%

DISSOLVED METALS

Aluminium 5 µg/L 43 - 43 43 ** 1 28 - 28 28 ** 1 28 - 43 36 11 2 0%

Arsenic 0.5 µg/L 2.9 - 2.9 3 ** 1 3.8 - 3.8 3.8 ** 1 2.9 - 3.8 3.4 0.6 2 0%

Barium 0.5 µg/L 6.5 - 6.5 7 ** 1 6.5 - 6.5 6.5 ** 1 6.5 - 6.5 6.5 0 2 0%

Boron 1 µg/L < 10 - < 10 < 10 ** 1 < 10 - < 10 < 10 ** 1 < 10 - < 10 < 10 0 2 100%

Cadmium 0.2 µg/L < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 ** 1 < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 ** 1 < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 0 2 100%

Calcium 2 µg/L 4500 - 4500 4500 ** 1 4400 - 4400 4400 ** 1 4400 - 4500 4450 71 2 0%

Chromium 0.5 µg/L 1.1 - 1.1 1.1 ** 1 1.4 - 1.4 1.4 ** 1 1.1 - 1.4 1.3 0.2 2 0%

Cobalt 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 100%

Copper 0.5 µg/L 7 - 7 7.0 ** 1 8.8 - 8.8 8.8 ** 1 7 - 8.8 7.9 1.3 2 0%

Iron 5 µg/L 53 - 53 53 ** 1 38 - 38 38 ** 1 38 - 53 46 11 2 0%

Lead 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 100%

Magnesium 1 µg/L 670 - 670 670 ** 1 610 - 610 610 ** 1 610 - 670 640 42 2 0%

Manganese 0.5 µg/L 9.7 - 9.7 10 ** 1 9.3 - 9.3 9.3 ** 1 9.3 - 9.7 9.5 0.3 2 0%

Molybdenum 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 100%

Nickel 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 100%

Phosphorus 15 µg/L 100 - 100 100 ** 1 120 - 120 120 ** 1 100 - 120 110 14 2 0%

Selenium 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 100%

Silver 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 100%

Sodium 5 µg/L 11000 - 11000 11000 ** 1 9800 - 9800 9800 ** 1 9800 - 11000 10400 849 2 0%

Zinc 1 µg/L 13 - 13 13 ** 1 14 - 14 14 ** 1 13 - 14 14 1 2 0%

** Not Applicable


(2) Percent of samples where result was less than the detection limit.

(1) Range, mean, standard deviation and number of samples (N) are provided. When results are less than detection limit, the detection limit was used to calculate each statistic. When result was above the maximum

reportable l imit, the maximum reportable l imit was used to calculate each statistic.

Analyte Detection Limit (1) Units Total

Range Mean

A - 10

MANITOBA CSO QUALITY MONITORING, 2016 – ORGANICS


Total(10)

Range Mean Stdev N %ND (2)

EXTRACTABLE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS

HEPH (C19-C32 less PAH) (3) 0.20 mg/L 0.27 - 0.27 0.27 ** 1 0%

LEPH (C10-C19 less PAH) (4) 0.20 mg/L < 0.20 - < 0.20 < 0.20 ** 1 100%

POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAH)

2-Methylnaphthalene (5) 0.10 µg/L < 0.10 - < 0.10 < 0.10 ** 1 100%

Acenaphthene 0.050 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Acenaphthylene 0.050 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Acridine (6) 0.050 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Anthracene 0.010 µg/L < 0.01 - < 0.01 < 0.01 ** 1 100%

Fluorene 0.050 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Naphthalene 0.10 µg/L < 0.10 - < 0.10 < 0.10 ** 1 100%

Phenanthrene 0.050 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Quinoline 0.50 µg/L < 0.24 - < 0.24 < 0.24 ** 1 100%

Low Molecular Weight PAHs 0.50 µg/L < 0.24 - < 0.24 < 0.24 ** 1 100%

Benzo(a)anthracene 0.010 µg/L 0.01 - 0.01 0.01 ** 1 0%

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0090 - 0.041 µg/L 0.03 - 0.03 0.03 ** 1 0%

Benzo(b&j)fluoranthene 0.050 - 0.070 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.050 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.050 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Chrysene 0.050 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.050 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Fluoranthene 0.020 µg/L 0.09 - 0.09 0.09 ** 1 100%

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.050 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Pyrene 0.020 µg/L 0.09 - 0.09 0.09 ** 1 0%

High Molecular Weight PAHs 0.050 µg/L 0.22 - 0.22 0.22 ** 1 0%

Total PAH = LPAH + HPAH 0.50 µg/L < 0.24 - < 0.24 < 0.24 ** 1 100%

MONOCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (MAH)

Benzene 0.40 µg/L < 0.40 - < 0.40 < 0.40 ** 1 100%

Ethylbenzene 0.40 µg/L < 0.40 - < 0.40 < 0.40 ** 1 100%

m & p-Xylene 0.40 µg/L < 0.40 - < 0.40 < 0.40 ** 1 100%

o-Xylene 0.40 µg/L < 0.40 - < 0.40 < 0.40 ** 1 100%

Toluene 0.40 µg/L < 0.40 - < 0.40 < 0.40 ** 1 100%

Xylenes (Total) 0.40 µg/L < 0.40 - < 0.40 < 0.40 ** 1 100%

Methyl-tert-butylether (MTBE) 0.40 µg/L < 4.00 - < 4.00 < 4.00 ** 1 100%

Styrene 4.0 µg/L < 0.40 - < 0.40 < 0.40 ** 1 100%

VH C6-C10 (7) 300 µg/L < 300 - < 300 < 300 ** 1 100%

VPH (VHW6 to 10 - BTEX) (8)300 µg/L < 300 - < 300 < 300 ** 1 100%

** Not Applicable


(10) These analyses completed on grab samples only

(6) N-Heterocycle Low Molecular Weight PAHs

(7) Volatile Hydrocarbons contains all petroleum hydrocarbons in the carbon range of C6-10, including BTEX and Styrene

(8) Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons contains all petroleum hydrocabons in the carbon range of C6-10 minus BTEX

(9) For some parameters, the detection limits are sometimes raised due to matrix interference.

(1) Range, mean, standard deviation and number of samples (N) are provided. When results are less than detection limit, the detection limit

was used to calculate each statistic. When result was above the maximum reportable limit, the maximum reportable limit was used to calculate

each statistic.

(2) Percent of samples where result was less than detection limit

(3) HEPH = Heavy Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons

(4) LEPH = Light Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons

(5) Alkylated Low Molecular Weight PAHs

Analyte Detection Limit (1,9) Units

Low

Mo

lecu

lar

We

igh

t P

AH

s

(LP

AH

)

Hig

h M

ole

cula

r W

eig

ht

PA

Hs

(HP

AH

) B

TEX

B – 1

Appendix B Recreational Water Bacteriological Quality

30-Day Geometric Means of E. coli Bacteria Levels

Special Considerations

As directed by Vancouver Coast Health, E. coli was used as the indicator for the years 2013 – 2016, while

fecal coliforms was used for 2012.

New sample locations for the year of 2014 include Crab Park, Sandy Cove and Sasamat Lake, White Pine

Beach South.

New beach locations for the year of 2015 include White Rock Beach West and White Rock Beach East.

These beaches are shown with data from White Rock for the years 2012 – 2014

Location Page Ambleside……………………….…………………………… A-3 Barnet Marine Park……………………….………………… A-6 Bedwell Bay……………………….…………………………. A-4 Belcarra Park (Picnic Area) ……………………….……….. A-5 Brockton Point……………………….………………………. A-7 Cates Park……………………….……………………….….. A-3 Centennial Beach……………………….…………………... A-17 Crab Park……………………….……………………….…… A-6 Crescent Beach……………………….…………………….. A-18 Crescent Beach North……………………….……………… A-17 Deep Cove……………………….……………………….…. A-4 Dundarave……………………….……………………….….. A-2 Eagle Harbour……………………….………………………. A-1 English Bay Beach……………………….…………………. A-8 False Creek, Central……………………….……………….. A-10 False Creek, East……………………….…………………... A-10 False Creek, West……………………….………………….. A-9 Garry Point……………………….………………..…….…... A-16 Iona Beach……………………….……………………….…. A-16 Jericho Beach……………………….………………………. A-12 Kitsilano Beach……………………….……………………... A-11 Kitsilano Point……………………….………………………. A-11 Locarno Beach……………………….……………………… A-12 Old Orchard Park……………………….…………………… A-5 Sandy Cove……………………….……………………….… A-2 Sasamat Lake – Float Walk……………………….……….. A-20 Sasamat Lake – Outdoor Centre………………………….. A-21 Sasamat Lake – White Pine Beach North………………… A-19 Sasamat Lake – White Pine Beach South………………… A-20 Second Beach……………………….………………………. A-8 Spanish Banks……………………….……………………… A-13 Sunset Beach……………………….………………………. A-9 Third Beach……………………….…………………………. A-7 White Rock Beach East..….…….………………………….. A-19 White Rock Beach West…….…………….……………….. A-18 Whytecliff Park……………………….……………………… A-1 Wreck Beach, Foreshore East……………………….……. A-13 Wreck Beach, Foreshore West (Acadia Beach) ………… A-14 Wreck Beach, Trail 4 (Tower Beach) …………………….. A-14 Wreck Beach, Trail 6 (North Arm Breakwater) ………….. A-15 Wreck Beach, Trail 7 (Oasis) ……………………….……… A-15

Beaches According to

Sewerage Area

NSSA VSA FSA LIWSA Belcarra

B – 2

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1-May 16-May 31-May 15-Jun 30-Jun 15-Jul 30-Jul 14-Aug 29-Aug 13-Sep 28-Sep

Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Whytecliff, 2012 - 2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Eagle Harbour, 2012 - 2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

B – 3

0

100

200

300

400

500

600


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Sandy Cove, 2014 - 2016

2014 2015 2016

0

100

200

300

400

500

600


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. C

oli B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Dundarave, 2012 - 2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

B – 4

0

100

200

300

400

500

600


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

LReceiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Ambleside Beach, 2012 -

2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Cates Park, 2012 - 2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

B – 5

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Deep Cove, 2012 - 2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Bedwell Bay, 2012 - 2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

B – 6

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

LReceiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Belcarra Park - Picnic Area,

2012 - 2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Old Orchard Park, 2012 -2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

B – 7

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

LReceiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Barnet Marine Park, 2012 -

2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Crab Park, 2014 - 2016

2014 2015 2016

B – 8

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Brockton, 2012 - 2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Third Beach, 2012 - 2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

B – 9

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Second Beach, 2012 - 2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - English Bay, 2012 - 2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

B – 10

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Sunset Beach, 2012 - 2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - West False Creek, 2012 -2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

B – 11

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

LReceiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Central False Creek, 2012 -

2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - East False Creek, 2012 -2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

B – 12

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Kitsilano Point, 2012 - 2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Kitsilano Beach, 2012 - 2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

B – 13

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Jericho Beach, 2012 - 2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Locarno Beach, 2012 - 2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

B – 14

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Spanish Banks, 2012 - 2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Wreck Beach - Foreshore East, 2012 - 2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

B – 15

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

LReceiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Wreck Beach - Foreshore

West (Acadia Beach), 2012 - 2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Wreck Beach - Trail 4, 2012 -2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

B – 16

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

LReceiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Wreck Beach - Breakwater -

Trail 6, 2012 - 2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Wreck Beach - Trail 7, 2012 -2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

B – 17

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Iona Beach, 2012 - 2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Garry Point, 2012 - 2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

B – 18

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

LReceiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Centennial Beach, 2012 -

2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Crescent Beach North, 2012 - 2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

B – 19

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Crescent Beach, 2012 - 2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - White Rock Beach West, 2012 - 2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

B – 20

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

LReceiving Water Bacteriological Quality - White Rock Beach East,

2012 - 2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Sasamat Lake, White Pine Beach North, 2012 - 2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

B – 21

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

LReceiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Sasamat Lake, White Pine

Beach South, 2014 - 2016

2014 2015 2016

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Sasamat Lake, Float Walk, 2012 - 2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

B – 22

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

LReceiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Sasamat Lake, Outdoor

Centre, 2012 - 2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

2016 gvs&dd emqc annual report - metro vancouver › ... › 2016gvsdd-emqcannualreport.pdf ·...

Documents