new greater vancouver regional district utilities … · 2014. 8. 22. · july 4, 2014 greater...

July 4, 2014

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT

UTILITIES COMMITTEE

REGULAR MEETING

Thursday, July 10, 2014 9:00 am

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

A G E N D A1 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting Agenda That the Utilities Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for July 10, 2014 as circulated.

2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

2.1 May 13, 2014 Regular Meeting Minutes

That the Utilities Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held May 13, 2014 as circulated.

3. DELEGATIONS

No items presented. 4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS

No items presented. 5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 Metro Vancouver Sewer Heat Policy - Presentation Designated Speaker: Jeff Carmichael That the GVS&DD Board endorse the Sewer Heat Policy as presented.

5.2 Greater Vancouver Sewerage & Drainage District Sewer Use Amending Bylaw No. 285, 2014 Designated Speaker: Fred Nenninger That the GVS&DD Board: a) introduce and give first, second and third reading to “Greater Vancouver

Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Amending Bylaw No. 285, 2014”; b) reconsider, pass and finally adopt “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage

District Sewer Use Amending Bylaw No. 285, 2014”; and

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

UC-1

Utilities Committee Regular Agenda July 10, 2014

Agenda of 3

c) direct staff to begin consultation with stakeholders to incorporate pollution prevention planning into sector-specific bylaws.

5.3 GVS&DD Development Cost Charge Amending Bylaw No. 286, 2014 Designated Speaker: Phil Trotzuk That the GVS&DD Board give first, second and third readings to GVS&DD Development Cost Charge Amending Bylaw No. 286, 2014 as presented, and forward to the Inspector of Municipalities for approval.

5.4 Regulatory Bylaw for Fermentation Operations

Designated Speaker: Fred Nenninger That the GVS&DD Board direct staff to begin consultation on the development of a regulatory bylaw for fermentation operations.

5.5 2013 Environmental Management & Quality Control Annual Report for GVS&DD -

Presentation Designated Speaker: Andjela Knezevic-Stevanovic That the GVS&DD Board receive for information the report titled 2013 Environmental Management & Quality Control Annual Report for GVS&DD dated June 11, 2014.

5.6 Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant – Quarterly Update

Designated Speaker: Fred Nenninger That the GVS&DD Board receive for information the report titled Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant – Quarterly Update dated June 10, 2014.

5.7 Water Sustainability Act - Pricing B.C’s Water Designated Speaker: Inder Singh That the GVWD Board receive for information the report titled Water Sustainability Act - Pricing B.C’s Water, dated June 30, 2014.

5.8 Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures to April 30, 2014 - Presentation Designated Speakers: Frank Huber and Mark Ferguson That the Utilities Committee receive for information the report titled Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures to April 30, 2014, dated June 13, 2014.

5.9 Managers’ Report

Designated Speakers: Tim Jervis and Simon So That the Utilities Committee receive for information the Managers’ Report dated July 2, 2014.

UC-2

Utilities Committee Regular Agenda July 10, 2014

Agenda of 3

6. INFORMATION ITEMS

6.1 Letter from the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs to Metro Vancouver Board dated May 9, 2014

7. OTHER BUSINESS

No items presented. 8. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS 9. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

That the Utilities Committee close its regular meeting scheduled for July 10, 2014 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1)(d), (g), (i) and (2)(b) as follows: “90 (1) A part of a meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being

considered relates to or is one or more of the following: (d) the security of the property of the regional district; (g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the regional district; and (i) the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including

communications necessary for that purpose.”

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

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

10. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION

That the Utilities Committee adjourn/conclude its regular meeting July 10, 2014.

Membership: Mussatto, Darrell (C) – North Vancouver City Stewart, Richard (VC) – Coquitlam Baldwin, Wayne – White Rock Brodie, Malcolm – Richmond Corrigan, Derek – Burnaby

Daykin, Ernie – Maple Ridge Froese, Jack – Langley Township Harris, Maria – Electoral Area A Hepner, Linda – Surrey

Hicks, Robin – North Vancouver District Panz, Trish – West Vancouver Puchmayr, Charles – New Westminster Stevenson, Tim – Vancouver

UC-3

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Utilities Committee held on Tuesday, May 13, 2014 Page 1 of 7

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT UTILITIES COMMITTEE

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Utilities Committee held at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, May 13, 2014 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia. PRESENT: Chair, Director Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City Vice Chair, Director Richard Stewart, Coquitlam Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Director Derek Corrigan, Burnaby Director Ernie Daykin, Maple Ridge Director Linda Hepner, Surrey Councillor Robin Hicks, North Vancouver District Councillor Trish Panz, West Vancouver Councillor Chuck Puchmayr, New Westminster (arrived at 9:10 a.m.) Director Tim Stevenson, Vancouver (arrived at 9:19 a.m.) ABSENT: Director Wayne Baldwin, White Rock Director Jack Froese, Langley Township Director Maria Harris, Electoral Area A STAFF: Tim Jervis, General Manager, Water Services Simon So, General Manager, Liquid Waste Services Carol Mason, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Janis Knaupp, Assistant to Regional Committees, Board and Information Services,

Legal and Legislative Services 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 May 13, 2014 Regular Meeting Agenda It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for May 13, 2014 as circulated.

CARRIED

2.1

UC-4


2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

2.1 April 15, 2014 Regular Meeting Minutes It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held April 15, 2014 as circulated.

CARRIED

3. DELEGATIONS No items presented.

The Committee was requested to authorize Alternate Director Bill Holmes, Electoral Area A, to participate in the regular meeting. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Committee authorize Alternate Director Bill Holmes, Electoral Area A, to participate in the Utilities Committee regular meeting of May 13, 2014.

CARRIED

4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS 4.1 Kim Stephens, Partnership for Water Sustainability in BC regarding Inter-

Regional Collaboration Progress Report Members were provided a presentation about progress on the Inter-Regional Collaboration related to the Partnership for Water Sustainability in BC highlighting goal, initiatives, vision, key messages in the progress report, geographic scope, the 2014 Inter-Regional Collaboration Series, why watershed health should be a priority, next step, funding leveraged through Metro Vancouver’s financial support, and rain gardens.

9:10 a.m. Councillor Puchmayr arrived at the meeting.

Comments were offered about benefits of public signage related to municipal rain gardens. In response to questions, members were informed that each municipality should identify what watershed-based approach works best for their individual community. Presentation material titled “Inter-Regional Collaboration for Watershed Sustainability” is retained with the May 13, 2014 Utilities Committee agenda.

9:19 a.m. Director Stevenson arrived at the meeting.

UC-5


5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF 5.1 Kiwanis of West Vancouver Appeal to Refund Regional DCCs

Report dated March 4, 2014 from Margaret Eberle, Senior Housing Planner, Regional Housing, Planning, Policy and Environment, for the Finance, Housing and Utilities Committees to consider a request by Kiwanis Seniors Housing and Community Services Society of West Vancouver for a refund of $80,700 in Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Development Cost Charges previously paid on an affordable seniors rental housing development.

Members were informed that the report would be considered by the Finance Committee at its June meeting prior to being forwarded to the Board.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board advise the Kiwanis Seniors Housing and Community Services Society of West Vancouver that it has denied the Society’s application for a refund of GVS&DD Development Cost Charges of $80,700 for Kiwanis Garden Village as the project is ineligible according to the current bylaw.

CARRIED

5.2 Village of Anmore’s Request for Sewer Service for Eagle Mountain Middle School Report dated May 2, 2014 from Fred Nenninger, Manager Policy Planning Analysis and Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade, Liquid Waste Services, seeking Board consideration of the request by the Village of Anmore to obtain regional sewerage services for the new Eagle Mountain Middle School pursuant to a Service Agreement rather than by way of membership within the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD). Members were provided a presentation on the Village of Anmore’s request for sewer service highlighting background, GVS&DD conditions for sewer connection, maps of the Sewer Area and development, construction photographs, Anmore’s Official Community Plan as it relates to the regional growth strategy, GVS&DD cost apportionment projections and financial implications of membership, proposed terms for a GVS&DD service agreement; and alternatives.

Concerns were expressed about Anmore proceeding with construction in the absence of a sewer service plan and potential implications for approving service exceptions for GVS&DD non-members.

Presentation material titled “Anmore’s Request for Sewer Service” is retained with the May 13, 2014 Utilities Committee agenda.

UC-6


It was MOVED and SECONDED That: a) Notwithstanding the GVS&DD Board’s November 26, 2010 resolution that

required the Village of Anmore to become a member of the GVS&DD in order to receive regional sewerage services for the Eagle Mountain Middle School, in recognition of the unique present circumstances the GVS&DD Board approves regional sewerage services for the Eagle Mountain Middle School even though the Village of Anmore is not a member of the GVS&DD;

b) The GVS&DD Board approves an amendment to the Fraser Sewerage Area boundary so that the building footprint only of the Eagle Mountain Middle School is located within the Fraser Sewerage Area; and

c) The GVS&DD Board directs staff to negotiate and enter into a 25 year Service Agreement with the Village of Anmore and the City of Port Moody under which GVS&DD will provide regional sewerage services to Eagle Mountain Middle School by way of Port Moody’s municipal sewer system, on terms that will include a 20% surcharge for service to a non-member municipality.

CARRIED Request of Staff

Staff was requested to correct the May 2, 2014 report titled “Village of Anmore’s Request for Sewer Service for Eagle Mountain Middle School”, prior to being forwarded to the Board, as follows: • On page UC-46: deleting reference to attachment 5; in attachment 2

replacing “November 10, 2010” with “October 28, 2010” and renaming attachment 3 to reflect the appropriate policy

• In the Board recommendation and in the body of the report (page UC-41 and UC-44), correcting the date of the Board’s resolution from “November 10, 2010” to “November 26, 2010”

5.3 Cost Sharing Agreement for the Replacement of Langley Connector No. 1

Report dated April 7, 2014 from Paul Wilting, Manager of Collection Systems Engineering, Liquid Waste Services, seeking Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Board approval of a negotiated cost sharing agreement with the Township of Langley for the replacement of the Langley Sewerage Connector No. 1.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board approve the cost sharing agreement between the GVS&DD and the Township of Langley (ToL) in which ToL will contribute $720,000 (plus tax) on the replacement of the Langley Sewerage Connector No. 1.

CARRIED

UC-7


5.4 Water Supply Forecast and Consumption/Conservation Update for Summer 2014 Report dated May 5, 2014 from Stan Woods, Senior Engineer, Policy, Planning and Analysis, and Dan Donnelly, Division Manager, Water Treatment and Systems Control, Water Services, providing the annual update on the current water supply, water consumption and water conservation situation in consideration of the approaching summer peak demand period.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVWD Board receive for information the report titled “Water Supply Forecast and Water Consumption/Conservation Update for Summer 2014”, dated May 5, 2014.

CARRIED 5.5 Tap Water Campaign – 2014 Water Wagon Program

Report dated April 25, 2014 from David Hocking, Corporate Communications Division Manager, External Relations, providing the Utilities Committee with an overview of Metro Vancouver’s 2014 Tap Water Campaign, the tap water outreach team and water wagon.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee receive for information the report titled “Tap Water Campaign – 2014 Water Wagon Program”, dated April 25, 2014.

CARRIED 5.6 2013 GVWD Quality Control Annual Report - Presentation

Report dated April 1, 2014 from Larry Chow, Program Manager-Quality Control, Water Services, providing the Board with a summary of the 2013 Greater Vancouver Water District Quality Control Annual Report on drinking water quality. Members were provided a presentation on the 2013 GVWD Quality Control Annual Report highlighting source water quality, average daily turbidity for Capilano, Seymour and Coquitlam sources, water treatment, guideline for Canadian drinking water quality related to filtered water, monthly filter effluent turbidity, distribution water quality, disinfection by-products, pre and post filtration comparison for both Trihalomethanes (THM) and Haloacedic Acid (HAA), and conclusions.

Presentation material titled “2013 GVWD Quality Control Annual Report” is retained with the May 13, 2014 Utilities Committee agenda. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVWD Board receive for information the report titled “2013 GVWD Quality Control Annual Report”, dated April 1, 2014.

CARRIED

UC-8


5.7 Seymour-Capilano Filtration Project – Project Status Report dated May 2, 2014 from Goran Oljaca, Manager, Engineering and Construction, Water Services, informing the Utilities Committee and the Board on the status of the Seymour-Capilano Filtration Project to March 31, 2014.

Members were provided a presentation on the status of the Seymour-Capilano Filtration Project highlighting the 2014 summary schedule, tunnel progress, and photographs related to: Seymour end pipe installation, Seymour annulus backfilling with grout, concrete backfilling Seymour chamber, and crew performing fit up (assembly) at the surface of the RWT Seymour Tee. Members were also updated on the 2014 scheduled activities at the Capilano Energy Recovery Facility.

Members were informed that staff will report back with further updates on commissioning program the at the September 11, 2014 meeting. Presentation titled “Seymour-Capilano Twin Tunnels Project” is retained with the May 13, 2014 Utilities Committee agenda. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVWD Board receive for information the report titled “Seymour-Capilano Filtration Project – Project Status”, dated May 2, 2014.

CARRIED 5.8 Manager’s Report

Report dated May 2, 2014 from Tim Jervis, General Manager, Water Services, updating the Utilities Committee on the Utilities Committee 2014 Work Plan and lightning strike in the Capilano Watershed. Members were informed about staff efforts to extinguish the Capilano Watershed fire. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee receive for information the “Manager’s Report”, dated May 2, 2014.

CARRIED 6. INFORMATION ITEMS

No items presented. 7. OTHER BUSINESS

No items presented.

UC-9


8. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Utilities Committee close its regular meeting scheduled for May 13, 2014 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1) (g) and (i) as follows: “90 (1) A part of a committee meeting may be closed to the public if the subject

matter being considered relates to or is one or more of the following: (g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the regional district; and (g) the receipt of advise that is subject to solicitor-client privilege,

including communications necessary for that purpose.” CARRIED

9. ADJOURNMENT/TERMINATION

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee adjourn its regular meeting of May 13, 2014.

CARRIED (Time: 10:17 a.m.)

________________________________ ________________________________ Janis Knaupp, Darrell Mussatto, Chair Assistant to Regional Committees 9429177 FINAL

UC-10

1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Board of Directors held on Friday, February 29, 2008. The Board endorsed, in support of provincial objectives and a basis for development of regional and corporate plans, regional GHG reduction targets of 33% below 2007 levels by the years 2020 and 80% below 2050.

To: Utilities Committee From: Jeff Carmichael, Division Manager, Utility Research and Innovation, Liquid Waste

Services Date: June 16, 2014 Meeting Date: July 10, 2014 Subject: Metro Vancouver Sewer Heat Policy RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board endorse the Sewer Heat Policy as presented. PURPOSE To approve the Sewer Heat Policy as presented in Attachment 1 to this report. BACKGROUND On July 27, 2012, the GVS&DD Board approved the Interim Sewer Heat Strategy (“Interim Strategy”) (Attachment 2) and directed staff to develop a longer-term Sewer Heat Policy. The objectives of the Sewer Heat Policy are to enable expedient access to sewer for heat recovery where technically and financially feasible which will contribute to reductions in regional greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to Goal 2 of the Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan of using liquid waste as a resource, while maintaining Metro Vancouver’s ability to convey and treat wastewater. Using results from technical studies and consultation with member municipal staff, a Sewer Heat Policy has been developed for the GVS&DD Board’s consideration. The Policy is the first of its kind in North America and will enable implementation of viable sewer heat projects in the region. DISCUSSION Sewer heat is a viable, low-carbon source of energy that can be used to provide hot water heating, space heating and cooling in buildings, help reduce GHG emissions, and contribute to GVRD Board policy directives1. In addition to the benefits achieved in support of GVRD policy, there are technical and environmental benefits of sewer heat recovery to the GVS&DD. The potential benefits include reduced effluent temperatures to better match receiving water body environment and decreased formation of hydrogen sulfide (which contributes to corrosion and odour in the conveyance system). Recovering or adding heat from/to sewers may change downstream sewer temperatures. Therefore, Metro Vancouver staff completed a technical review of the implications of changing sewer temperatures on the conveyance and treatment systems. Technical Review The technical review showed that there is a significant amount of recoverable heat from Metro Vancouver’s sewer collection systems; enough to heat approximately 700 high rise buildings without negatively impacting treatment processes at the wastewater treatment plants. Thus, the

5.1

UC-11

technical risks of extracting heat to supply 700 high rise buildings to wastewater conveyance and treatment processes are low. Furthermore, sewer heat is unevenly distributed throughout each sewerage area with the highest concentrations of heat generally located close to WWTPs where sewer flow rates are the highest. The full technical review included producing a literature review, Technical Reference Document, WWTP Sewage Heat Balance, Sewer Heat Model, and accompanying Heat Capacity Report. The Sewer Heat Model project titled Heat-Seeking Sewer Model – Find Waste Heat in Sewers and Match it to Opportunities, Now and in the Future was awarded this year’s Association of Consulting Engineering Companies BC Award of Excellence in the Software Engineering category. In addition to this work, a two-year sewage temperature monitoring program was completed which collected baseline sewage temperature data at 20 sewage pump stations from across the region. Municipal Consultation Municipalities were consulted throughout the process of developing both the GVS&DD Board-approved Interim Strategy in 2012 and the new Sewer Heat Policy. Using results from the technical review and the Interim Strategy, a new set of proposed policy issues was presented to municipal staff for feedback at a half day workshop in October 2013. Key input from municipalities included suggestions such as private applications for sewer heat projects (beyond just municipally owned sewer heat projects) be considered for the Policy, as well as ensuring that rates agreed to in contracts be secured for the full length of the contract, and not be affected by rate changes that may or may not occur with policy revisions over time. With these input, the Policy was re-drafted and circulated to municipal staff for final input in January 2014. Both the Regional Engineering Advisory Climate Protection and Liquid Waste Sub-Committees were also consulted during the process of developing the Policy. Overall, municipal staff are in general agreement with policy issues and the proposed direction. The Sewer Heat Policy was reviewed and endorsed by the Regional Engineering Advisory Committee at their June 13, 2014 meeting. The proposed Sewer Heat Policy includes seven policy issues which for the most part mirror the Board-approved Interim Strategy. Metro Vancouver will only be involved with allocating access to sewage from its own infrastructure. In these cases, sewer heat recovery project requests must be approved by Metro Vancouver. Heat capacity is more than sufficient to meet expected demand for many years to come. Therefore, the Sewer Heat Policy uses a first-come, first-served approach rather than a complex allocation process for heat. The Sewer Heat Policy will be reviewed and potentially revised every three to five years in consultation with member municipalities, to respond to changing market or other conditions. Public and private entities can apply for access to sewer heat from Metro Vancouver. In the case of a private application, competitive processes will be followed to ensure fairness and transparency, and support from the host municipality will be required. Metro Vancouver will charge sewer heat project owners for the cost recovery of Metro Vancouver infrastructure. No charge will be assessed in the near-term for sewage flows used, reflecting current market conditions. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVS&DD Board endorse the Sewer Heat Policy as presented.

2. That the GVS&DD Board receive the report for information and take no further action.

UC-12

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If the GVS&DD Board approves Alternative 1, there will be no direct cost implications to the GVS&DD associated with enabling sewer heat projects. The costs associated with constructing the tie-in to the Metro Vancouver sewer will be entirely recovered from the sewer heat project owner. Indirect costs will include GVS&DD staff resources used to evaluate the feasibility and administer the implementation of each project, subject to GVS&DD Board approval. The rates for use of sewer heat and the need for cost recovery of indirect costs will be re-evaluated as part of the overall policy review to be undertaken every three to five years in consultation with member municipalities. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Sewer heat is a viable, low-carbon source of energy that can be used to provide hot water heating, space heating and cooling in buildings, help reduce GHG emissions, and contribute to GVRD Board policy directives. A technical review completed by staff indicated that there is sufficient amount of recoverable heat from Metro Vancouver’s sewer collection systems to heat approximately 700 high rise buildings without negatively impacting treatment processes at the wastewater treatment plants. The proposed Sewer Heat Policy provides clear direction on managing the technical and governance implications of sewer heat recovery projects and will facilitate the introduction of worthwhile projects while not compromising on the delivery of high quality and dependable liquid waste management in the region. Staff recommend that the GVS&DD Board approve Alternative 1. Attachments: 1. Board Policy - Sewer Heat Policy 2. Utilities Committee report dated June 28, 2012 titled Interim Strategy for Addressing Sewage

Heat Opportunities 9263834

UC-13

9440741 X.XX – Sewer Heat Policy Page 1 of 4

Policy Title: SEWER HEAT POLICY PURPOSE

The purpose of the policy is to enable technically and financially viable sewer heat projects while not compromising on the delivery of core liquid waste service objectives. Policy objectives are to:

1. Contribute to reduction in regional greenhouse gas emissions. Using sewer heat as a source of energy avoids greenhouse emissions associated with burning natural gas therefore contributing to regional and corporate climate change objectives. The Greater Vancouver Regional District Board has adopted the target of reducing regional greenhouse gas emissions by 15 % by 2015 and 30 % by 2030 from 2010 levels, and of achieving corporate carbon neutrality by 2015.

2. Contribute to the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD) Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan goal of using waste as a resource. Sewer heat is a viable, low-carbon energy source that can be recovered and used to provide domestic hot water heating, space heating, and cooling to buildings.

3. Maintain GVS&DD’s ability to convey and treat wastewater and meet related core service objectives. Recovering heat from sewage could have technical implications on the wastewater conveyance and treatment systems. The Sewer Heat Policy mitigates potential problems and ensures that sewer heat recovery projects do not impair GVS&DD’s ability to convey and treat wastewater and meet requirements under provincially issued Operating Certificates at the wastewater treatment plants.

4. Enable expedient access to sewer for heat recovery where technically and financially feasible. The Sewer Heat Policy provides clear and simple guidelines to assist project proponents in evaluating and obtaining approval for viable sewer heat recovery projects.

APPLICATION

This policy applies to parties interested in accessing sewage from GVS&DD sewers for heat recovery purposes as well as to Metro Vancouver staff involved in reviewing technical and financial implications of such projects. DEFINITIONS Sewer Heat Project

A sewer heat project diverts sewage from GVS&DD sewer system to a project site for heat recovery by a project owner, then returns the sewage to GVS&DD’s sewer system. The recovered heat is

BOARD POLICY

Attachment 1

UC-14


typically used in a district energy system to heat nearby buildings instead of using other sources of heat, such as natural gas. POLICY

1. GVS&DD’s Role GVS&DD will only be involved with allocating access to sewage from its own infrastructure and in these cases, sewer heat recovery project requests must be approved by GVS&DD. Projects that access heat from municipal sewers will not require approval from GVS&DD because municipalities are best suited to work with developers on opportunities to access heat from the municipality’s infrastructure. GVS&DD will use existing municipal coordination bodies (such as Regional Engineers Advisory Committees) to provide updates and information on upcoming sewer heat projects biannually, and will continue to play a lead role in mapping energy capacity in each sewerage area. To keep this information current, municipalities will need to inform GVS&DD of projects under development and of any expansion of existing projects.

2. Allocation of heat Sewer heat in the GVS&DD system is available on a first-come first-served basis subject to acceptable levels of impacts to the region’s wastewater treatment plants and on immediate neighbours. Acceptability will be evaluated by GVS&DD upon receipt of project application. If there is an established sewer heat recovery system already in place or in development that could be impacted by the new project proposal, the existing project’s heating and/or cooling requirements will have priority. This policy supports the rapid implementation of viable sewer heat recovery projects and the realization of the financial and environmental benefits of these systems.

3. Sewer heat users Agreements must be negotiated between GVS&DD and the project owner. Member municipalities and other public entities can apply directly to GVS&DD for access to sewage for heat recovery purposes. In the case of a private entity applicant, a letter of support from the host municipality must be provided indicating support and cooperation with allowance for works within municipal rights of way. In addition, competitive processes will be followed to ensure fairness and transparency for other potentially interested private or public entities.

4. Rate setting GVS&DD will charge sewer heat project owners for the cost recovery of the tie-in and diversion structures plus a nominal rate for “sewage flows used” based on the near-term value of sewage. On-going operations and maintenance costs associated with the tie-in, which are expected to be small, will be recovered via the current sewer levy process for each sewerage area. In the current proposed policy, the near-term value of sewage is $0 per unit of sewage. The value of sewage will be re-evaluated each time the Policy is reviewed.

5. Boundaries of responsibility The boundaries of responsibility are tied primarily to property. In the case where GVS&DD owns the sewer heat recovery system, GVS&DD’s responsibilities are more extensive than when

UC-15


GVS&DD’s property is the tie-in to the regional sewer. The boundary of responsibility between GVS&DD and the sewer heat recovery project owner will be clearly defined in a contract and arrangements will be between GVS&DD and the sewer heat project owner. GVS&DD will be responsible for a portion of the tie-in up to and including a shut-off valve on both the diversion and return lines for a tie-in arrangement. GVS&DD will consider in-line heat recovery systems built directly in GVS&DD’s sewer so long as GVS&DD’s access and operations are not impaired.

6. Project Approval Criteria GVS&DD will only allocate heat to projects that meet technical project requirements and have acceptable impacts on neighbouring sewer heat recovery systems. Examples of technical project requirements include odour control, grit removal and management plans, approval of design for tie-in and sewage diversion, routing, maintenance and access plan, and decommissioning plan. Additional technical requirements may be needed on a case-by-case basis depending on the involved parties, project type, scale and location. For district cooling applications (where returned sewage is warmer than diverted sewage) maximum return temperatures will be determined using the GVS&DD Sewer Use Bylaw as a guideline. A requirement also exists to inform GVS&DD of financial viability by providing copies of financial business case analysis performed on the project.

7. Greenhouse Gas Benefits and Costs Greenhouse gas benefits and costs will be allocated on a case-by-case basis to determine if benefits and costs will be fully allocated to the sewer heat recovery project owner, fully allocated to GVS&DD, or split.

The Sewer Heat Policy will be reviewed and potentially revised every three to five years, in consultation with member municipalities. Existing agreement contracts with sewer heat project owners will continue. When agreement contracts come up for renewal, terms of the new agreement contracts will reflect the current Sewer Heat Policy. Sewage will be diverted to sewer heat project owners without guarantees to its condition: GVS&DD cannot provide guarantees of temperature, flow rates, or other sewage characteristics such as grit or fats, oils, and greases concentrations. If flows are disrupted due to temporary maintenance, operational requirements, or changes in upstream loadings, sewer heat project owners are responsible for having a back-up energy supply (typically, natural gas fired boilers). GVS&DD can attempt to coordinate maintenance and access with project owners to avoid and manage unexpected disruptions to flow.

PROCEDURE

Interested parties will work directly with Metro Vancouver staff on requests for access to sewer heat. Technical and financial criteria must be met in order to establish any agreements for sewer heat projects.

UC-16


APPROVALS

Potential sewer heat projects that use sewage taken from and returned to the GVS&DD sewer system and that meet technical and financial criteria must also receive GVS&DD Board approval to proceed. FEES

GVS&DD will charge sewer heat project owners for the cost recovery of the tie-in and diversion structures plus a nominal rate for “sewage flows used” based on the near-term value of sewage. On-going operations and maintenance costs associated with the tie-in, which are expected to be small, will be recovered via the current sewer levy process for each sewerage area. In the current proposed policy, the near-term value of sewage is $0 per unit of sewage. The value of sewage will be re-evaluated each time the Policy is reviewed.

UC-17

Attachment 2

UC-18

Section E 1.1 Greater Vancouver Regional District • Greater Vancouver Water Dfstrlct

···························································································-· ..................................... ·········-·········· GreatetVaocouver Sewerage and Drainage Of.stJ'I<t • Metro VancouvCt Housing Corporation

4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada VSH 4GB 604·432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org

Utilities Committee Meeting Date July 11 . 2 01 2

To: Utilities Committee

From: Jeff Carmichael, Division Manager, Utility Research & Innovation Genevieve Tokgoz, Project Engineer, Utility Research & Innovation

Date June 28, 2012

Subject: Interim Strategy for Addressing Sewage Heat Opportunities

Recommendal ion:

That the GVS&DD Board approve the Interim Strategy and direct staff to develop a long-term sewage heat policy lrameVIIDrk, as outlined in the report dated June 28. 2012, titled "Interim Strategy for Addressing Sewage Heat Opportunities".

1. PURPOSE

To request that the Board direct staff to deve Ia p a I ong-term sewage he at poI icy framework in consultation with municipalities, and to seek approval to use the Interim Strategy, as described in this report, to prevent near-term opportunities from being missed while the long-term policy frameVIIDrk is developed. The Interim Strategy will enable implementation of demonstration sewage heat recovery p raj ects. It has be en endorsed by the Reg io na I Engineers Advisory Committee (REAC).

2. CONTEXT

Over the past few years and with increasing frequency, member municipalities and the private sector have expressed interest in using sewage heat from Metro Vancouver sewers for district energy systems (DES). Although Europe and Asia have been using sewage heat as a source for DES, the only known system currently in operation in North America is the Neighbourhood Energy Utility in Southeast False Creek in the City of Vancouver. Although local understanding of technical and gave rn ance issues associated with sewer heat extraction is limited, project results and preliminary eva lu at ion indicate that sewage he at recovery can be both financially and technically viable. A limited number of demonstration p raj ects will assist in un de rstan ding the system better while not adversely affecting the Metro Vancouver sewer system (see Attachment 1 ) .

Tech ni ca I issues that need be further exp Ia red include the cap ab il iti es and limitations of sewage he at recovery techn ol og ies, assessment of the seaso na I variability of energy content of sewage, and the imp acts of multiple sewage heat extraction projects on wastewater treatment pIa nt pro ce sse s. Govern an ce-re Ia ted issues include ownership and transfer of he at rights and the need for cooperative rules for coordinating requests for use of sewage for such projects.

It is expected that interest in sewage heat recovery projects will continue to grow in the region and that, as potential projects emerge, these impacts will need to be tully identified and

Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District - 7

UC-19

evaluated in order to confirm viability and to allow project implementation. The proposed longterm approach to examine these impacts is to complete research, modeling and analysis and to w:>rk with internal and external groups to create a long-term policy framemrk.

In the short-term, however, a strategy to address current sewage heat opportunities is needed to enable near-term viable opportunities. The proposed Interim Strategy, which has been endorsed by REAC, enables sewage heat recovery projects that do not impair sewage operations by allowing access to sewage at a nominal charge so that heat can be recovered. The Interim Strategy does not propose that Metro Vancouver seek out opportunities to own and operate sewage heat recovery systems, rather it is a responsive approach that authorizes sewage diversion for such opportunities as they are presented. Each interim opportunity would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis while a long-term sewage heat policy framework is developed.

Why is an Interim Strategy necessary?

);> Growing interest in sewage heat projects Interest in using heat extracted from raw sewage in Metro Vancouver is growing rapidly, driven by interest in environmental improvements assoC'iated with green energy. Interest ranges from general inquiries regarding Metro Vancouver's intent to enable access to sewage for sewage heat recovery to formal requests from municipalities and developers interested in tying into Metro Vancouver's sewer mains to access sewage flow in DES projects. Currently, no policy framework or approval criteria exist for allocating sewage heat for such projects.

);> To support viable current opportunities Metro Vancouver is aware of four proposed developments in the region where DES using sewage heat is currently being considered. Pre-feasibility studies initiated by member municipalities and developers have identified sewage heat as a potentially viable source of energy. Metro Vancouver's involvement to date has been primarily as the source of data on sewage flows and temperature (both parameters are needed to evaluate energy capacity of sewage). Implementation of any of these projects will require support and approval from Metro Vancouver. The Interim Strategy, outlined below, can be used to evaluate the feasibility of enabling access to sewage at these sites.

);> Avoid missing more viable opportunities Some developers have indicated that although their DES pre-feasibility studies have concluded that sewage heat is a financially viable option, concerns that Metro Vancouver lacks a process to enable access has resulted in elimination of sewage heat as an option. The proposed Interim Strategy intends to provide clear messaging on Metro Vancouver's intent to work to enable access to sewage for heat recovery purposes, as long as criteria are met.

);> There is municipal support for the Interim Strategy and long-term sewage heat policy Consultation with Municipal staff, Metro Vancouver staff and with REAC and the REAC Liquid Waste and Climate Change Committees has taken place. All parties have endorsed the Interim Strategy, and have expressed interest in a long-term policy framework to address further technical implications and to set up governance and process frameworks.

);> Sewage heat recovery aligns with Metro Vancouver and municipal goals The implementation of sewage heat systems to supply energy could significantly contribute to Metro Vancouver's SRI Framework energy and greenhouse gas reduction targets. Sewage heat recovery contributes to meeting Goal 2 of the Integrated Liquid Waste and

6280871 Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District - 8

UC-20

Resource management Plan of using liquid waste as a resource and also supports municipal district energy goals and strategies such as the City of Richmond's Climate Prepared City 2020 Goal and the City of Vancouver's Greenhouse Gas Reduction targets in the Greenest City Action Plan.

Proposed Interim Strategy

The Interim Strategy provides clear direction on Metro Vancouver's intent to enable access to sewage heat while a long-term policy framework is developed. Metro Vancouver \>Viii support and enable requests for access to sewage for demonstration sewage heat recovery projects on a case-by-case basis evaluation, using the following requirements for approval:

• Any agreement allowing access to sewage for heat recovery must be set up directly between Metro Vancouver and the municipality

• Economic and technical viability must be proven by a feasibility study • Approval for tie-ins only: Metro Vancouver will not consider owning sewage heat

recovery systems until a long-term policy framework has been developed and ownership models have been fully evaluated.

• Financial arrangement \>Viii be based on benefits, value and cost recovery for the tie-in • Ovvners/operators of sewage heat recovery system \>Viii incur most of the costs • Metro Vancouver \>Viii retain greenhouse gas offsets for projects as determined on a

case-by-case basis • System operations and wastewater treatment plant requirements are met and risks are

managed

Each contract between Metro Vancouver and a member municipality \>Viii address issues including sewage flow.;, state of sewage and cost recovery plus nominal charges based on the near-term value of sewage. Agreement terms \>Viii be set to ensure financial viability of projects. Agreement renewals will take place according to the terms of the long-term policy framework.

Long-term Sewage Heat Policy Framework

A long-term policy framework is needed to address further technical implications and to set up governance and process frameworks. While some technical analysis has already taken place, more is needed. Sewage management is shared between Metro Vancouver and its municipalities, but ownership and transfer of heat rights and associated greenhouse gas reductions are currently unclear. These and other issues, such as liabilities and rate setting, must be resolved . This will require input from Metro's municipal Sewerage and Drainage District members.

3. ALTERNATIVES

The Board may:

a) approve the Interim Strategy for Addressing Sewage Heat Opportunities and direct staff to develop a long-term sewage heat policy framework, or

b) direct staff to develop a long-term sewage heat policy framework, -..vithout approval of the Interim Strategy, or

c) provide an alternative recommendation.

Alternative a) is recommended.


UC-21

4. CONCLUSION

The Interim Strategy is needed to allow Metro Vancouver to enable sewage heat opportunities while a long-term policy framework is being developed. The Interim Strategy has been endorsed by REAC and will prevent missing near-term opportunities that comply with Metro Vancouver criteria. The long-term policy framework will be developed in consultation with Metro Vancouver's municipal Sewerage and Drainage District members.

ATTACHMENT: Preliminary Heat Capacity Analysis Using Sewage Heat Model (6283232)

6280874 Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District- 10

UC-22

ATTACHMENT

Preliminary Heat Capacity Analysis Using Sewage Heat Model

The proposed Interim Strategy is based on preliminary heat capacity analysis that indicates that sewage heat is likely not a scarce resource in the Metro Vancouver system and that cumulative impacts on future downstream projects and the impact at Wastewater Treatment Plants t;NWTP) need not be significant, especially in the near-term. In fact there appears to be significant excess sewage heat, enough to supply tens of thousands of homes with heating in the region.

Preliminary review

Preliminary review of energy capacity using the sewage heat model indicates that there is enough energy available to provide heating, cooling, and domestic hot water to thousands of homes without changing the influent temperatures at WWTPs by more than 1 or 2 degrees Celsius. Figure 1 below illustrates the marginal impact from extracting heat upstream of Annacis Island WWTP. The graph depicts the impact of extracting 9 MW of heat (equivalent of approximately three South East False Creek sewage heat recovery plants) on Annacis Island WWTP influent temperature. On average, the change in influent temperature from extracting 9 MW of heat upstream is 0.3 degrees Celsius. This small change in

temperature can be managed by WWTPs which currently handle temperature swings of more than 10 degrees Celsius between winter and summer seasons. Note that flow characteristics and volumes for each WWTP catchment differ. The full energy capacity study w ill take this into consideration.

Figure 1. Annacis Island WWTP Modeled Influent Temperature

fjj 20

.2 C/1 Qj 0 Cl Ql 15 ~ Ql .... ::J 1ii ...

10 Ql c. E Ql 1--1: Ql

5 ::J ;;:: E

0

D A 0

---·With upstream 9MW sewage heat extracted

--With no upstream sewage heat extracted

- - Assumed minimum business-as-usual influent temperature

6283232

Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District- 11

UC-23

Sewage Heat Model

Over the past few years, Metro Vancouver has received requests for information from external parties interested in install ing sewage heat recovery (SHR) systems in Metro Vancouver's sewage collection system. To date a system-wide analysis of heat availability in the sewage collection system has not been undertaken; thus, the heat available for extraction and the downstream impacts from additional heat loads are not fully understood. Work on developing a sewage heat model was initiated in 2011. The model will help evaluate the impacts of potential SHR projects on the sewage collection and treatment system.

Model function

The platform for the sewage heat model is Microsoft Excel and uses Visual Basic programming. The model inputs sewage flow and temperature data and will be capable of:

• Assessing cumulative impacts of multiple SHR projects in each of the five sewage collection catchments on downstream sewage temperatures (temperature is related to energy) Showing seasonal variation in energy capacity Identifying areas in the sewage collection system with highest energy capacity (based on current and future flow projections)

• Providing outputs that can be used in pre-feasibility and seeping of SHR projects

The model includes all of Metro Vancouver's sewer lines, pump stations and WWTPs. Control buttons, placed over pump stations and WWTPs will prompt the user to input hypothetical loads (representing future district energy systems and SHR projects). The model will compute downstream changes in sewage temperature based on the load. As the model is developed further, capabilities such as adding municipal trunk lines can be considered. Since the accuracy of the model is based on the quality of input data, collect ion of real sewage temperature data was identified as a key next step in improving the model. The model is still in the development phase and next phases of development will include calibration.

Data collection program

Sewage flow data was compiled by the Utility Analysis Division in Uti lity Planning and the Flow Monitoring Division in Operations & Maintenance. The model uses measured average dry weather flow in the calculat ion of energy capacity.

Some sewage temperature data was available from one-off studies and the WWTPs. However, to complete a system-wide energy capacity study, a full year's worth of temperature data that captures the seasonal variation in f low and temperatures is required. To address this data gap a temperature sensor

installat ion program was implemented in the summer of 2011 to collect sewage temperature data over a full year at approximately 20 locat ions throughout the sewage collection system.

6283232


To: Utilities Committee From: Fred Nenninger, Director, Utility Planning and WWTP Upgrades, Liquid Waste Services Date: June 10, 2014 Meeting Date: July 10, 2014 Subject: Greater Vancouver Sewerage & Drainage District Sewer Use Amending Bylaw No.

285, 2014 RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board:

a) introduce and give first, second and third reading to “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Amending Bylaw No. 285, 2014”;

b) reconsider, pass and finally adopt “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Amending Bylaw No. 285, 2014”; and

c) direct staff to begin consultation with stakeholders to incorporate pollution prevention planning into sector-specific bylaws.

PURPOSE To authorize an amendment to the “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007” (the “Bylaw”). The amendment consists of new provisions for Pollution Prevention Plans to authorize discharges to sewer. BACKGROUND Through the GVS&DD Sewer Use Bylaw, Metro Vancouver regulates the discharge of non-domestic liquid waste from industrial, commercial and institutional sources to sewer, primarily through the issuance of waste discharge permits and codes of practice. Metro Vancouver’s Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan committed Metro Vancouver to develop new regulatory instruments such as Pollution Prevention Plans to complement existing regulations. The Metro Vancouver Board Strategic Plan 2014 includes a liquid waste strategic direction to “…reduce contaminant loadings through a stronger and expanded source control program. This could include: initiating source control bylaw changes to reduce contaminants from industrial and commercial sources.” To meet this commitment, staff is proposing an amendment to the Sewer Use Bylaw to allow the use of Pollution Prevention Plans to authorize the discharge to sewer from some of the region’s commercial and institutional sources. The amendment focuses on the requirements of a Pollution Prevention Plan and what is included in the plan. DISCUSSION In 2009, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment created a Model Sewer Use Bylaw as a tool to assist Canadian municipalities and communities in implementing source controls for contaminants discharged to municipal sewer systems. The Model Sewer Use Bylaw was developed

5.2

UC-24

as part of the Canada-wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent to harmonize the management approach for municipal wastewater in Canadian provinces, territories and on federal and Aboriginal lands. One of the recommendations was the inclusion of Pollution Prevention Plans within a community’s Sewer Use Bylaw. Pollution prevention planning, often used as part of an Environmental Management System, has been employed in the medical services sector in several jurisdictions. Pollution prevention planning incorporates proactive analysis and planning and also allows flexibility to manage discharges from complex operations. Pollution prevention planning is considered a suitable alternative strategy to manage potentially complex discharges to sewer and allows for creative solutions to problems. In addition, pollution prevention planning is generally applicable to dischargers who have access to qualified professionals that are capable of developing and implementing the plan. In addition, pollution prevention planning is a tool that looks beyond compliance as compared to traditional waste discharge permits which require dischargers to comply with permit limits. This bylaw amendment is the first stage of this initiative. This first stage consists of adopting pollution prevention plans as a regulatory tool within the Sewer Use Bylaw. Future stages will include working with specific sectors to implement pollution prevention plans to regulate their discharges. The sectors being considered include:

• hospitals and health care facilities; • post secondary and research laboratories; • medical laboratories

These sectors are being contemplated given the multitude of potentially harmful substances that may be handled at these facilities. These factors combined with a substantial variability in the day to day and even hour to hour operations at these facilities makes it impractical to control sewer discharges from these facilities by code of practice (intended for large numbers of similar facilities) or permit (issued for individual facilities). ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVS&DD Board:

a) introduce and give first, second and third reading to “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Amending Bylaw No. 285, 2014”;

b) reconsider, pass and finally adopt “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Amending Bylaw No. 285, 2014”;

c) direct staff to begin consultation with stakeholders to incorporate pollution prevention planning into sector-specific bylaws;

2. That the GVS&DD Board provide alternative direction to staff. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If the Board approves Alternative 1, the amending bylaw will have no specific financial implication for the GVS&DD. The amendment is only incorporating pollution prevention plans as a regulatory tool to authorize the discharge to sewer from non-domestic dischargers. As sector-specific bylaws incorporating pollution prevention plans are developed, there will be costs to the discharger associated with developing the plans as well as costs to Metro Vancouver for review of these plans, which must be recovered from the discharger. Metro Vancouver is proposing to recover these

UC-25

costs as part of future sector-specific bylaws. These bylaws will be developed in consultation with stakeholders and brought forward to the Board for consideration. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Pollution prevention planning is considered a suitable alternative strategy to manage potentially complex discharges to sewer such as the medical services sector and allows for creative solutions to problems. Staff are recommending amendments to the Sewer Use Bylaw to allow the use of pollution prevention plans to authorize discharge to sanitary sewer from sector-specific industrial, commercial and institutional dischargers. The amendment satisfies a key source control task identified in the Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan and is also in line with Federal Model Sewer Use Bylaw guidelines. This is the first stage of an approach to managing wastewater discharges from complex commercial and institutional sources and subsequent work will be to develop the sector-specific bylaws for hospitals and care facilities, post-secondary and research laboratories, and medical laboratories. As such, staff recommend that the Board approve Alternative 1 and approve the GVS&DD Sewer Use Amending Bylaw No. 285, 2014 as presented.

Attachment: 1. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Amending Bylaw No. 285, 2014 9452598

UC-26

ATTACHMENT 1

GREATER VANCOUVER SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT SEWER USE AMENDING BYLAW NO. 285, 2014

A Bylaw to Amend “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District

Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007” WHEREAS the Board of Directors of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District has adopted “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007”, to manage the direct or indirect discharge of non-domestic waste to any sewers and drains connected to a Sewage Facility operated by the District; AND WHEREAS the Board of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District wishes to amend “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007”; NOW THEREFORE the Board of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows:

1. “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007” is hereby amended as follows:

(a) adding the following definitions to section 2.1 in their respective alphabetical order:

“Pollution Prevention Measure” means a process, practice, device, product, or other method or work that avoids, minimizes, or prevents the discharge of Non-Domestic Waste to a Sewer or Sewage Facility; “Pollution Prevention Plan” means a plan that complies with the requirements prescribed by this Bylaw;

(b) deleting and replacing the heading of section 5 with the following:

WASTE DISCHARGE PERMITS, TRUCKED WASTE AUTHORIZATIONS, ORDERS, CODES OF PRACTICE, AND POLLUTION PREVENTION PLANS

(c) deleting and replacing section 5.2 with the following: 5.2 Nothing prohibits the discharge of Waste specified in Section 5.1 provided that

the person who discharges, or allows or causes the discharge, is in compliance with this Bylaw, the Grease Interceptor Bylaw, a valid and subsisting Waste Discharge Permit, a Trucked Waste Authorization, an Order, a Code of Practice, or an approved Pollution Prevention Plan.

(d) deleting and replacing section 5.10 with the following:

UC-27

5.10 A Waste Discharge Permit, Trucked Waste Authorization, Order, or approved Pollution Prevention Plan may not be transferred or assigned without a Sewage Control Manager’s consent in writing.

(e) adding the following sections immediately after section 5.10:

5.11 A person may apply to a Sewage Control Manager for approval of a Pollution

Prevention Plan. The Pollution Prevention Plan shall be in such form, and shall include such information, drawings, and specifications, as a Sewage Control Manager may prescribe from time to time.

5.12 A Sewage Control Manager may approve a Pollution Prevention Plan to allow

the discharge of Non-Domestic Waste into a Sewer upon such terms and conditions as the Sewage Control Manager considers appropriate, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, requiring:

a) any Pollution Prevention Measure to be included in a Pollution Prevention

Plan;

b) a Pollution Prevention Plan to be implemented within the time period the Sewage Control Manager directs;

c) studies, sampling, monitoring, analyses or other procedures to be conducted, at the expense of the person who submitted the Pollution Prevention Plan, and the results reported to a Sewage Control Manager; and

d) information to be reported to a Sewage Control Manager concerning any activities or operations at the facility.

5.13 A person who owns, operates, or controls more than one facility where similar activities or operations are conducted, or where similar Wastes are caused or produced, may submit one Pollution Prevention Plan for all such facility locations, provided that the Pollution Prevention Plan complies with the requirements prescribed by this Bylaw in respect of each facility location.

5.14 A Pollution Prevention Plan is not valid unless a Sewage Control Manager issues

an approval in writing of the Pollution Prevention Plan. 5.15 A Sewage Control Manager may, upon application by the person who submitted

the Pollution Prevention Plan or upon a Sewage Control Manager’s own initiative, amend the terms and conditions of an approved Pollution Prevention Plan.

5.16 Without limiting any other provision of this Bylaw, a Sewage Control Manager

may:

a) suspend, cancel, or reinstate an approved Pollution Prevention Plan; and

UC-28

b) provide that an approved Pollution Prevention Plan expires on a specified date or upon the occurrence of a specified event.

5.17 Every person must keep a copy of the approved Pollution Prevention Plan at the

facility to which the Pollution Prevention Plan relates, and where an approved Pollution Prevention Plan relates to more than one facility location, then a copy must be kept at each facility location.

5.18 Every person shall, upon request, make the approved Pollution Prevention Plan

available for inspection by an Officer or a Sewage Control Manager at each facility to which the Pollution Prevention Plan relates.

(f) deleting and replacing section 6.1 with the following:

6.1 Whether or not a person holds and is in compliance with the Grease Interceptor

Bylaw, a Waste Discharge Permit, Trucked Waste Authorization, Order, Code of Practice, or an approved Pollution Prevention Plan, a Sewage Control Manager may, for any of the purposes set out in section 1, issue a Discharge Abatement Order.

(g) deleting and replacing section 10.1 with the following:

10.1 The Board may from time to time establish fees to be charged for the

application for and administration of a Waste Discharge Permit, a Trucked Waste Authorization or a Pollution Prevention Plan.

(h) deleting and replacing section 10.2 with the following:

10.2 Any person who contravenes any provision of this Bylaw, the Grease Interceptor Bylaw, a Waste Discharge Permit, Trucked Waste Authorization, Order, Code of Practice, or approved Pollution Prevention Plan shall be liable to the District for and shall indemnify the District from all costs, expenses, damages and injuries resulting from the contravention. This section does not limit any other remedies or actions the District may have under this Bylaw or otherwise at law.

(i) deleting and replacing section 13.1 with the following:

13.1 Any person who contravenes this Bylaw, a Waste Discharge Permit, Trucked

Waste Authorization, Order, Code of Practice, or an approved Pollution Prevention Plan commits an offence and is liable to a fine not exceeding $10,000.

(j) replacing all uses of the capitalized term “Person” or “Persons” with the term “person” or

“persons”, respectively, without capitalization.

2. This Bylaw shall be cited as “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Amending Bylaw No. 285, 2014”.

UC-29

READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME this _______ day of ____________________ 2014. PASSED AND FINALLY ADOPTED this _______ day of ____________________ 2014. Greg Moore, Chair

Chris Plagnol, Acting Corporate Officer

UC-30

To: Utilities Committee From: Phil Trotzuk, Chief Financial Officer Date: June 5, 2014 Meeting Date: July 10, 2014 Subject: GVS&DD Development Cost Charge Amending Bylaw No. 286, 2014 RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board give first, second and third readings to GVS&DD Development Cost Charge Amending Bylaw No. 286, 2014 as presented, and forward to the Inspector of Municipalities for approval. PURPOSE To provide the GVS&DD Board with a summary of housekeeping amendments to the GVS&DD Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 254, 2010 (the “GVS&DD DCC Bylaw”). BACKGROUND GVS&DD is authorized, by bylaw, to impose development cost charges (“DCC’s”) pursuant to section 58.1 of the Act to incorporate the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act (the “GVS&DD Act”). GVS&DD first adopted a DCC bylaw in 1996, and adopted the current GVS&DD DCC Bylaw in 2010. All forms of new development have an impact on the sewerage system capacity and the need for future expansion and DCC’s are necessary to fund capital projects in relation to sewerage facilities and infrastructure. GVS&DD does not collect DCC’s directly from individuals, and relies upon its member municipalities to collect GVS&DD DCC’s at the same time as the collection of municipal DCC’s. Due to legislative amendments that were made to the GVS&DD Act and to the Local Government Act, the proposed housekeeping amendments ensure that the GVS&DD DCC Bylaw is read and applied consistently across the member municipalities. DISCUSSION Under the Local Government Act for municipalities, and under the GVS&DD Act for GVS&DD, every person who obtains approval of a subdivision or a building permit authorizing the construction, alteration or extension of a building or structure must pay DCC’s. Both the Local Government Act and GVS&DD Act include exemptions from the payment of DCC’s in specific circumstances, such as when the value of the work is less than $50,000.

In 2004, the Province of British Columbia amended the Local Government Act to remove the statutory exemption that applied if the development involved the issuance of a building permit for the construction, alteration or extension of a residential building containing fewer than four self-contained dwelling units. Similarly, the Province amended the GVS&DD Act in 2006.

5.3

UC-31

Since 2004, some member municipalities have amended or adopted new DCC bylaws to remove the exemption as it pertains to municipal DCCs. To update the GVS&DD DCC Bylaw, amendments have been made to be consistent with that direction and deleting the exemption concerning building permits issued for the construction of fewer than 4 dwelling units from the GVS&DD DCC Bylaw.

Amendments have also been made to certain defined terms in the GVS&DD DCC Bylaw. The main changes are to the definitions of “Apartment Residential Use”, “Townhouse Residential Use”, and “Single Family Residential Use” (this term now proposed to be called “Dwelling Residential Use”) to facilitate the collection of DCC’s for all types of developments and numbers of dwelling units.

ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVS&DD Board give first, second and third readings to GVS&DD Development Cost

Charge Amending Bylaw No. 286, 2014 as presented, and forward to the Inspector of Municipalities for approval.

2. That the Utilities Committee recommend changes as appropriate and direct staff to bring an updated report and bylaw to the next Utilities Committee.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Development cost charges pay for growth-related GVS&DD capital projects. The current GVS&DD DCC Bylaw sets out rates for both residential and commercial developments in each sewerage area. The amendments to the existing bylaw will ensure that the DCC’s are collected as the program intends. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The approval of the Amending Bylaw, as recommended under alternative one, addresses required housekeeping amendments to the GVS&DD Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 254, 2014. Attachments and References: GVS&DD Development Cost Charge Amending Bylaw No. 286, 2014 9552377

UC-32

Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Development Cost Charge Amending Bylaw No. 286, 2014

Page 1 of 3

GREATER VANCOUVER SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT AMENDING BYLAW NO. 286, 2014

A Bylaw to Amend “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 254, 2010”.

WHEREAS:

A. The Board of Directors of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District has adopted “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 254, 2010”, a bylaw imposing development cost charges on every person who obtains approval of a subdivision or a building permit authorizing the construction, alteration or extension of a building or structure from a Member Municipality; and

B. The Board of Directors of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District wishes to amend the “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 254, 2010”.

NOW THEREFORE the Board of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows:

1. The “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 254, 2010” is amended by:

(a) deleting the definitions of “Apartment Residential Use”, “Single Family Residential Use”, and “Townhouse Residential Use” in their entirety from section 3.1, inserting the following definitions each in their correct alphabetical order, and re-lettering the definitions in section 3.1 accordingly:

“Apartment Dwelling Unit” means a Dwelling Unit in a building or structure that consists or may consist of two or more storeys and contains or may contain four or more Dwelling Units, whereby the building or structure has a principal exterior entrance used in common for access to the Dwelling Units. Apartment Dwelling Unit does not include Dwelling Units that are Townhouse Dwelling Units;

“Residential Dwelling Unit” means a Dwelling Unit in a building or structure that contains or may contain up to three Dwelling Units; “Townhouse Dwelling Unit” means a Dwelling Unit in a building or structure that contains or may contain four or more Dwelling Units, whereby each Dwelling Unit has a direct exterior entrance;

(b) deleting the definitions of the following terms in section 3.1 in their entirety and replacing them with the following definitions:

“Dwelling Unit” means one or more rooms comprising a self-contained unit that is used or intended to be used for living and sleeping purposes and for which are provided cooking facilities, or the facilities for installation of

UC-33


Page 2 of 3

cooking facilities, and one or more bathrooms having a sink or wash-basin, a water closet, and a shower or bath;

“Subdivision” includes a division of land into two or more Parcels, whether by plan, apt descriptive words or otherwise under the Land Title Act or the Strata Property Act, the consolidation of two or more Parcels of land, and phased strata plans;

(c) deleting the terms “Apartment Residential Use”, “Single Family Residential Use”, and “Townhouse Residential Use”, and replacing them with the terms “Apartment Dwelling Unit”, “Residential Dwelling Unit”, and “Townhouse Dwelling Unit”, respectively, in the definition of “Combination Development” in subsection 3.1(c);

(d) deleting the terms “Apartment Residential Use”, “Single Family Residential Use”, and “Townhouse Residential Use”, and replacing them with the terms “Apartment Dwelling Unit”, “Residential Dwelling Unit”, and “Townhouse Dwelling Unit”, respectively, in the definition of “Non-Residential Use” in subsection 3.1(u);

(e) deleting the terms “Apartment Residential Use”, “Single Family Residential Use”, and “Townhouse Residential Use”, and replacing them with the terms “Apartment Dwelling Unit”, “Residential Dwelling Unit”, and “Townhouse Dwelling Unit”, respectively, in the definition of “Residential Use” in subsection 3.1(cc) as renumbered;

(f) adding the following as section 4.1.1 immediately after section 4.1:

No Exemption. Without limiting the generality of section 4.1, a Building Permit in section 4.1(b) includes a permit authorizing the construction, alteration or extension of any building or structure that will, after the construction, alteration, or extension, contain one or more Dwelling Units and be put to no other use than the Residential Use in those Dwelling Units.

(g) deleting subsection 4.2(e) in its entirety;

(h) deleting the terms “Apartment Residential Use”, “Single Family Residential Use”, and “Townhouse Residential Use”, and replacing them with the terms “Apartment Dwelling Unit”, “Residential Dwelling Unit”, and “Townhouse Dwelling Unit”, respectively, in section 4.5; and

(i) deleting the terms “Single Family Residential Use”, “Townhouse Residential Use”, and “Apartment Residential Use”, and replacing them with the terms “Residential Dwelling Unit”, “Townhouse Dwelling Unit”, and “Apartment Dwelling Unit”, respectively, under the heading “Description” in section 1 of each of Schedule A, B, C, and D attached to the “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 254, 2010”.

UC-34


Page 3 of 3

2. This bylaw shall be cited as "Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Development Cost Charge Amending Bylaw No. 286, 2014”.

READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME this _____ day of ________ 2014. APPROVED BY THE INSPECTOR OF MUNICIPALITIES this _____ day of ________ 2014. PASSED AND FINALLY ADOPTED this _____ day of ________ 2014. Greg Moore, Chair Chris Plagnol, Acting Corporate Officer

UC-35

To: Utilities Committee From: Fred Nenninger, Director, Utility Planning and WWTP Upgrades,

Liquid Waste Services Date: June 11, 2014 Meeting Date: July 10, 2014 Subject: Regulatory Bylaw for Fermentation Operations RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board direct staff to begin consultation on the development of a regulatory bylaw for fermentation operations. PURPOSE To advise the GVS&DD Board of efforts to regulate fermentation operations and to receive direction from the Board to begin consultation on this regulation. BACKGROUND Metro Vancouver collects, treats and discharges domestic and non-domestic liquid wastes in accordance with the Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan authorized by the Provincial Minister of Environment. The management of non-domestic liquid waste is governed by Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299 (the “Bylaw”). The Bylaw establishes a regulatory framework to allow non-domestic liquid waste from industrial, commercial and institutional sources to be discharged to the sewer. The Metro Vancouver Board Strategic Plan 2014 includes a liquid waste strategic direction to “…reduce contaminant loadings through a stronger and expanded source control program. This could include: initiating source control bylaw changes to reduce contaminants from industrial and commercial sources.” Metro Vancouver is proposing a regulatory bylaw that would impose treatment and management practices for fermentation operations which include brew pubs, cottage breweries, micro breweries, vint-on-premises, wineries and distilleries. The proposed bylaw would ensure a consistent approach for this sector to manage their wastewater quality and to protect municipal and regional infrastructure and the environment. DISCUSSION In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the number of operations that ferment fruits, grains and other material to produce alcoholic beverages. Fermentation operations generate high concentrations of total suspended solids (TSS) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Inspections of some of these facilities have indicated that either minimal or no treatment works are used to remove these solids before being discharged to sewer. High concentrations of BOD and TSS increase loadings in the plant influent therefore further reducing available treatment capacity at already constrained wastewater treatment plants. In addition, high TSS and BOD loadings may contribute to the generation of odours in the sewer system and the corrosion of sewer pipes. As well, the low pH discharges from these operations also has corrosive effects on the sewer collection and treatment systems.

5.4

UC-36

Random sampling results from these operations are indicating that the amount of TSS and BOD in their discharges exceeds the restricted waste criteria specified in the Sewer Use Bylaw. Since the discharge from these operations exceed the restricted waste criteria, these operations need to be further regulated either through a site-specific waste discharge permit or through a sector specific bylaw that prescribes minimum control works and practices to minimize the discharge of contaminants to the sanitary sewer system. While Metro Vancouver will still use site-specific permits for the larger facilities, a sector-specific bylaw is required for the smaller operations to ensure a consistent approach to source control. The proposed bylaw would prescribe minimum requirements for the removal of solids from their discharge as well as the monitoring and treatment of their discharge pH to comply with the Bylaw limits. Metro Vancouver is also proposing a requirement for a sampling site as well provisions for cost recovery for regulatory and treatment costs. ALTERNATIVES

1. That the GVS&DD Board direct staff to begin consultation on the development of a

regulatory bylaw for fermentation operations.

2. That the Board provide alternate direction to staff. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS As this is the start of the consultation process for this regulatory bylaw, there are no specific financial implications identified at this time. These will be determined through the consultation process as part of the development of a sector – specific bylaw. Cost for consultation will be accommodated in the 2014 GVS&DD budget. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The discharge from fermentation operations can negatively impact Metro Vancouver and municipal infrastructure. In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the number of operations that ferment fruits, grains and other materials to produce alcoholic beverages. To adequately regulate this industry, Metro Vancouver is proposing to begin consultation on a sector-specific bylaw that would require minimum treatment works and management practices to reduce the impact on the wastewater collection and treatment system of discharges from fermentation operations. Staff recommend that the Board approve Alternative 1. Attachment: Attachment 1: Issue Paper Proposing a Regulatory Bylaw for Fermentation Operations 9499468

UC-37

UC-38

Attachment 1

GVS&DD Sewer Use Bylaw Review

Issue Paper Proposing a Regulatory Bylaw for Fermentation Operations

Metro Vancouver is considering changes to the Greater Vancouver Sewerage & Drainage District {GVS&DD)

Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007 (the "Bylaw"), which governs the discharge of non-domestic wastes to the

sanitary sewer.

This Issue Paper provides notice of intent to consider a regulatory bylaw to authorize the discharge of non

domestic waste to sanitary sewers from fermentation operations including breweries, wineries and distilleries in

support of Metro Vancouver's Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan goals.

Who Should Read This?

This Issue Paper will be of interest to:

• Commercial fermentation operations within Metro Vancouver including, but not limited to, brew pubs,

cottage breweries, micro breweries, vint-on-premises, wineries and distilleries

• Other interested parties that may be affected by the proposed regulation.

What Will the Regulation Do?

The regulation, as proposed, will require:

• removal of solids from the discharge;

• monitoring of the discharge pH and treatment if required;

• installation of a sampling tee to monitor the discharge of the non-domestic waste; and

• maintaining records of the treatment and disposal of the wastewater and the collected residuals.

Metro Vancouver Would Like Your Feedback

A response form for providing comments to Metro Vancouver, as well as further information on updates to the

Bylaw and links to related legislation, will be posted on the Metro Vancouver website at

www.metrovancouver.org/sewerage/bylaw.htm. In addition, Metro Vancouver is proposing to meet with

affected stakeholders to receive informed comments on the proposed regulations. Based on feedback received

during this consultation, staff will prepare a draft Bylaw for consideration by the GVS&DD Board. To ensure that

your comments are taken into consideration during this first phase, please provide your response by

December 1, 2014.

------- metrovancouver ~ .. SERVICES AND SO LUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION ~

UC-39

1. Background

Metro Vancouver collects, treats and discharges domestic and non-domestic liquid wastes in accordance with the

Integrated liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan authorized by the Minister of Environment. The

management of non-domestic liquid waste is governed by Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299 (the "Bylaw"). The Bylaw

establishes a regulatory framework to allow non-domestic liquid waste from industrial, commercial and

institutional sources to be discharged to the sewer.

The liquid Waste Regulatory Program is responsible for the cont rol of discharges to sewer from industrial,

commercial and institutional sources. The main objectives of the program are to:

• protect the public, sewer workers, municipal and District infrastructure, and wastewater treatment

processes and

• protect the environment by improving the quality of biosolids and wastewater treatment plant effluents.

The policy and regulatory tools employed by Metro Vancouver have been developed to be fair, effective and

efficient.

In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the number of operations that ferment fruits, grains and

other material to produce alcoholic beverages. Preliminary inspections of some of these facil it ies indicate that

there are no control works being used to remove excess solids from the discharge. Monitoring results indicate

that the amount of total suspended solids, biochemical oxygen demand exceeds the restricted waste criteria

specified in the Bylaw. As well, the discharge pH from these operations is outside the range specified in the

Bylaw.

Since the discharge from these operations exceed the restricted waste criteria, these operations need to be

further regulated either through a site-specific waste discharge permit or through a sector specific bylaw that

prescribes minimum control works and practices to reduce the discharge of contaminants to the sanitary sewer.

Metro Vancouver is proposing to regulate these operations through a sector-specific bylaw.

2. Proposed Requirements

2.1. Removal of Solids

Issue

Fermentation operations generate high concentrations of suspended solids in the production of beer, wine

or spirits. Inspections of some of these facilities have indicated that either minimal or no treatment works

are used to remove these solids before being discharged to sewer. High concentrations of suspended

solids may contribute significantly to the biochemical oxygen demand loading in municipal sewage

therefore reducing available treatment capacity at already constrained wastewater treatment plants. In

addition, suspended solids loadings may contribute to the generation of odours in the sewer system and

the corrosion of sewer pipes.

UC-40

Proposal

Solids from a mash tun, mash tun washing, brewing kettle, brewing kettle washing, or backflushing mash

tun strainers or filters or trub filters, as well as residue containing yeast must be removed from the

wastewater prior to the discharge to sewer. The method to remove the solids could include:

• the use of a strainer or fi lter with a sieve size no greater than 1000 microns; or

• solids settling in a separate vessel and discharging the decant water; and

• For yeast containing effluent, the use of a filter with a sieve size no greater than 10 microns;

2.2. pH Monitoring and Treatment

Issue

Variable pH, as a result of caustic and acid cleaners, and acidic waste beer or wine, is also of concern.

Caustics and acids are corrosives that may cause damage to sewer collection and t reatment works and

shorten the lifespan of sewer infrastructure.

Proposal

liquid waste from cleaning and sterilizing activities must be tested for pH and adjusted to a pH between

5.5 and 10.5 prior to discharge to sewer.

2.3. M onitoring Site

~ A proper monitoring site is required to confirm compliance with the proposed requirements of this sector

specific bylaw as well as the Sewer Use Bylaw. Access to the process wastewater prior to mixing with

domestic waste is required.

Proposal

Fermentation operations must install one or more sampling tees downstream of all process waste prior to

the discharge of sanitary sewage.

2.4. Record Keeping

~ The operator of the fermentation operation needs to keep written records to show due diligence regarding

site activities and to demonstrate that requirements of the proposed bylaw have been met.

Proposal

Fermentation operations must keep accurate and up-to-date records of treatment methods and

procedures that include:

• method of removing solids from the mash tun and mash tun wash water;

• method of treatment of kettle wastewater and kettle wash water;

• method(s) of solids removal from wastewater generated by backflushing mash tun strainers or

filters, and backflushing trub filters;

UC-41

• method of treatment to remove yeast residue;

• location of sampling tee; and

• method of pH measurement and pH adjustment for wastewater containing acid and caustic

cleaners, and results and dates of pH testing.

Records must be available for inspection for up to two years.

2.5. Regulatory Fees

Issue

There is a cost to regulate this sector as well as to convey and treat their waste. Existing charges to the

municipality do not adequately recover these costs.

Proposal

Metro Vancouver is proposing a fee structure that wi ll be based on the volume of product produced.

Detailed discussions on the fee structure will take place during upcoming consultation in the Fall.

Financial Impact

There will be a cost to comply with this regulation based on the screening and pH adjustment methods employed

by the operation. However, the organic solids removed by the screening may have some economic benefit. In

addition, there may be ongoing regulatory costs associated with this regulation.

Next Steps

Comments regarding the proposed intentions of Metro Vancouver are being solicited and will be considered in

development of the proposed sector-specific bylaw. Metro Vancouver welcomes suggestions with respect to any

or a II of the proposed changes.

Following receipt of comments on this issue paper, Metro Vancouver staff w ill prepare a draft Bylaw and provide

an opportunity for further input. It is anticipated that the draft Bylaw will be before the GVS&DD Board in the

Spring of 2015, together with the input from consultation.

Response forms for providing comments to Metro Vancouver, as wel l as further information on updates to the

Bylaw, are posted on the Metro Vancouver website. This information can be accessed at

www.metrovancouver.org/sewerage/bylaw.htm.

All submissions will be reviewed for inclusion in a consultation summary report. Comments received are subject

to provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. If you have any questions or

comments regarding the consultation process, please review the information posted on the Metro Vancouver

website or contact Metro Vancouver at [email protected] or 604-432-6200.

Comments on this Issue Paper should be submitted to Metro Vancouver on or before December 1, 2014.

To: Utilities Committee From: Andjela Knezevic-Stevanovic, Director LWS – Environmental Management and Quality Control Date: June 11, 2014 Meeting Date: July 10, 2014 Subject: 2013 Environmental Management & Quality Control Annual Report for GVS&DD -

Presentation RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board receive for information the report titled 2013 Environmental Management & Quality Control Annual Report for GVS&DD dated June 11, 2014. PURPOSE To provide the GVS&DD Board with a summary of the 2013 Environmental Management & Quality Control Annual Report for the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD). BACKGROUND Reporting out in the Environmental Management & Quality Control Annual Report for GVS&DD is a requirement under the Ministerial conditions of approval of Metro Vancouver’s Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ILWRMP). The Executive Summary of the 2013 Environmental Management & Quality Control Annual Report for GVS&DD (Attachment 1) summarizes the regulatory and process monitoring information gathered through the various monitoring programs that are in place to meet GVS&DD’s commitments under the ILWRMP, including those for: wastewater treatment plant influent, effluent and process streams; effluent toxicity testing; receiving and ambient environment quality; and biosolids quality as required by the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation (OMRR). The 2013 Environmental Management & Quality Control Annual Report will be submitted to the Ministry of Environment. Additionally, it will be made available to the public through Metro Vancouver’s web site and through the Metro Vancouver Library. DISCUSSION In order to assess wastewater treatment system performance and reliability, its impact on human health and the environment, and perform biosolids and environmental quality monitoring, in 2013, Environmental Management & Quality Control collected well over 45,000 samples and performed over 210,000 analyses. Major conclusions are as follows:

a) The GVS&DD wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) treated over 412 billion litres of wastewater in 2013. The quantities of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) removed were about 51,995 tonnes and 55,358 tonnes, respectively.

5.5

UC-42

b) The overall performance of the GVS&DD’s five wastewater treatment plants easily met over 99.8 % of the Operational Certificate requirements.

c) In 2013, the WWTPs consistently complied with Operational Certificate requirements except in four minor instances as detailed in the Executive Summary.

Annacis Island and Iona Island WWTPs, that account for over 85% of the total wastewater treated by Metro Vancouver, operated efficiently and were 100% in compliance with Operational Certificate requirements throughout last year.

d) Metal concentrations in weekly composite samples and fecal coliform counts in biosolids

were generally well below the regulatory limits outlined in the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation (OMRR) except in few instances. Zinc concentrations in Lions Gate WWTP biosolids were above the OMRR limit from June to September, and the potential sources were identified through investigation. On two occasions fecal coliform results at Annacis Island WWTP were higher than the Class A limit. The possible cause of the unusual high fecal coliform result could be associated with sample collection. Subsequent sampling and review of the plant operation showed that these were isolated cases with no major impact on biosolids quality.

e) Ammonia effluent concentrations for all WWTP discharges were well below the federal

guideline for acute effluent toxicity as defined by the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

f) All effluent samples from all WWTPs easily passed the required monthly acute toxicity test

using Environment Canada test protocols, except for three samples of Lions Gate effluent and five Iona Island effluent samples. The observed toxicity in one Lions Gate sample was related to detergents, and for the remaining two samples the cause of toxicity could not be determined. Repeat Lions Gate samples, however, passed the required toxicity test. As in previous years, the Iona Island samples required oxygen level in excess of that specified by the Environment Canada testing method, but comparable to background dissolved oxygen concentrations present in the receiving marine waters.

g) The bacteriological quality for primary-contact recreation was consistently met for all

bathing beaches during the bathing season from May through September, except for a few days at Eagle Harbour, Second Beach and Sunset Beach. Swimming advisories were posted by Vancouver Coastal Health Authority at the affected swimming areas for a few days in early August. The advisories could be attributed to warm temperature and high level of human and boating activities at these swimming areas. For non-bathing beach areas, the monitoring data indicated that False Creek consistently met the working guideline limit for secondary or incidental-contact activities.

h) Site-specific water quality objectives and guidelines were consistently met at the boundary

of the initial dilution zones (IDZ) for 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 consistent with concentrations in Canadian coastal waters.

UC-43

i) Monitoring of the marine receiving environment for sediment effects around the two

primary wastewater treatment plant outfalls in Burrard Inlet and Strait of Georgia indicated some small and subtle changes. Further monitoring will help determine if these changes maybe outfall related, due to regional long-term fluctuations in oceanographic conditions, or due to a combination of factors.

j) Ambient environment monitoring of Burrard Inlet, Fraser River and Boundary Bay waters

indicated that applicable water quality objectives and guidelines were largely met. The environmental health of major regional water bodies continues to be good and protective of aquatic life.

ALTERNATIVES This is an information report; no alternatives are presented.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Ongoing environmental management, monitoring and quality control works are proceeding according to budget. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION As illustrated by the 2013 Environmental Management & Quality Control Annual Report for the GVS&DD, Metro Vancouver’s wastewater treatment plants continue to exceed performance expectations with respect to reduction of contaminant loadings to the receiving environment and are consistently providing ongoing benefits to the region. Various monitoring programs continue to fulfill their role of confirming that the wastewater treatment plants are operating efficiently and with no adverse effects on human health or the environment. Findings of the receiving environment and ambient monitoring programs confirm that regional liquid waste discharges continue to be effectively managed in a manner that is protective of aquatic life Attachments: 1. Executive Summary of the 2013 Environmental Management & Quality Control Annual Report

for Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (9627245) 9628174

UC-44

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD) 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 into the lower Fraser River. The remaining two wastewater treatment plants (Iona Island and Lions Gate) provide primary treatment and discharge to Georgia Strait and First Narrows, 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 facility 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 continue to protect human health and the receiving environment. The federal Wastewater System Effluent Regulations (WSER) under the Fisheries Act came into effect on July 18, 2012. The monitoring provisions are in effect from January 01, 2013 to December 31, 2014. GVS&DD is required to monitor and report effluent monitoring data quarterly. The purpose of this report is to document the performance of the WWTPs in 2013 with respect to effluent quality and protection of human health and the environment, and to demonstrate meeting the regulatory requirements as specified by the Ministry of Environment. 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 quality and toxicity, biosolids, and receiving 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.

ATTACHMENT 1

UC-45

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 suspended solids. The loadings parameters listed as “maximum daily 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 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 water. In 2013, over 412 billion litres of wastewater were treated at the GVS&DD’s five wastewater treatment plants. Of this total, 211 billion litres received primary treatment (Iona Island and Lions Gate) with the remaining 201 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 2013 are summarized below:

UC-46

5

Total for 2013 ANNACIS ISLAND

IONA ISLAND

LIONS GATE

LULU ISLAND

NW LANGLEY

TOTAL

Effluent Flow, ML 171,617 182,547 28,513 25,343 4,440 412,459

BOD,

Tonnes Removed

31,723 11,010 1,310 6,588 1,365 51,995

Suspended Solids, Tonnes Removed

30,165 15,765 3,299 5,074 1,054 55,358

Influent and Effluent BOD loadings and total suspended solids over a ten year period are shown on the following charts.

UC-47

6

Treatment Plant Performance and Compliance Review

The overall performance of the GVRD’s five wastewater treatment plants was good and operational objectives for removing BOD and total suspended solids were generally met throughout 2013. System maintenance and high flows at times contributed to slighly lower reductions of BOD and suspended solids. BOD reduction at Iona Island WWTP was temporarily aided by using alum and an anionic polymer as part of the enhanced primary treatment process during periods of low flow and high influent BOD concentrations to maintain regulatory compliance. The following table summarizes the average reduction in BOD and total suspended solids loadings during 2013 for all the plants.

*Annual data for 2009 influent BOD and total suspended solids does not include data from the Lulu Island WWTP due to anomalies associated with the raw influent sampler at this plant at the time.

UC-48

7

Wastewater Treatment Plant % BOD Reduction % TSS Reduction

Iona Island * 43 62

Lions Gate* 35 68

Annacis Island ** 97 95

Lulu Island ** 98 97

Northwest Langley** 95 92

* 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.

UC-49

8

In 2013, GVS&DD’s WWTPs met operational certificate requirements throughout the year with four (4) exceptions. The table below includes description, probable cause, mitigation measures and potential environmental effects for each event.

Description Plant Date Quantity Discharged

Duration Probable Cause*

Mitigation Measures* Potential Environmental Effects*

Suspended Solids Loading

Northwest Langley

March 1 Not Applicable

Not Applicable

High flow conditions, elevated suspended solids

No remedial action required

o Impacts to water quality for recreation and irrigation were not expected.

o Impacts to aquatic life were not expected.

o The applicable BC MOE TSS Water Quality Objectives for aquatic life protection were expected to have been met in the Fraser River.

Disinfection (chlorine residual)

Northwest Langley

March 27

0.04 ML 15 minutes

BC Hydro power interruption (substation failure)

Not Applicable o Impacts to recreation and irrigation were not expected.


o The applicable BC MOE Chlorine Water Quality Guidelines for aquatic life protection were expected to have been met in the Fraser River.

BOD Concentration

Lions Gate May 7 Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Sampler contamination

Sampler cleaning procedures were reviewed with implemented with operations and laboratory staff at all Metro Vancouver WWTPs

o There is no BC MOE Water Quality Guideline for BOD.

o Impacts to recreation were not expected.

o Impacts to aquatic life and Burrard Inlet water quality were not expected.

* Source: Liquid Waste Services - Operations and Maintenance - Wastewater Treatment Division.

UC-50

9

Description Plant Date Quantity Duration Probable Cause*

Mitigation Measures* Potential Environmental Effects*

Disinfection (unchlorinated effluent)

Lulu Island

August 23 1.2 ML 22 minutes Incorrect set point levels

o Set point levels have been re-adjusted

o Disinfection equipment maintenance priority increased

o Impacts to recreation and irrigation were not expected.


o The applicable BC MOE and Health Canada Bacteriological Water Quality Guidelines for recreation and irrigation protection were expected to have been met in the Fraser River.

* Source: Liquid Waste Services - Operations and Maintenance - Wastewater Treatment Division.

UC-51

10

A summary of non-compliance with the parameters required by the Operational Certificates for the District’s wastewater treatment plants for the last six (6) years is shown in the tables below. The number of non-compliance 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 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

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

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 0 1 (of 103) 0 3 (of 103) 0 0

Suspended Solids 0 0 0 0 0 0

BOD Daily Loading 1 (of 106) 0 0 1 (of 103) 0 0

Suspended Solids Daily Loading 1 (of 366) 0 0 2 (of 364) 0 0

Plant Bypass 0 2 (of 365) 1 (of 365) 1 (of 365) 0 0

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

Parameter 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 4 (of 106) 1 (of 103) 0 0 2 (of 102) 1 (of 112)


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

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

Chlorine Residual* 1 (of 170) 2 (of 156) 0 0 0 0

Disinfection Failure 1 (of 170) 3 (of 156) 0 0 1 (of 159) 0

Fecal Coliform 0 0 0 0 0 0

* measured during disinfection season only – after dechlorination.

UC-52

11

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

Parameter 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Maximum Discharge Rate (Exceeded)

0 0 0 0 0 0

Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (cBOD)

0 0 0 0 0 0

Suspended Solids 1 (of 366) 0 0 0 0 0

cBOD Daily Loading 0 0 0 0 0 0

Suspended Solids Daily Loading 1 (of 366) 3 (of 365) 1 (of 363) 3 (of 364) 1 (of 362) 1 (of 365)

Chlorine Residual * 1 (of 214) 1 (of 215) 0 0 0 1 (of 154)

Disinfection Failure 0 0 0 0 0 0


* measured during disinfection season only - after dechlorination.

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

Parameter 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Max. Daily Discharge (exceeded) 0 0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0 0


cBOD Daily Loading 1 (of 105) 0 0 0 0 0

Suspended Solids Daily Loading 3 (of 360) 1 (of 356) 3 (of 363) 0 0 0

Chlorine Residual* 0 0 1 (of 222) 1 (of 234) 0 0

Disinfection Failure 0 0 1 (of 222) 0 1 (of 224) 0


Plant Bypass 2 (of 366) 0 3 (of 365) 0 0 0

Secondary Bypass 2 (of 366) 0 4 (of 365) 1 (of 365) 0 0

Primary Effluent During Secondary Bypass

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 0 0 1 (of 4) 0 0 0


* measured during disinfection season only – after dechlorination.

UC-53

12

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

Parameter 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013



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 * 1 (of 222) 0 0 0 0 0

Disinfection Failure 0 1(of 221) 0 0 0 1 (of 215)


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

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

Primary Effluent During Secondary Bypass

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 0 1 (of 1) 0 0** 0 0

Suspended Solids 0 0 0 0** 0 0

* measured during disinfection season only - after dechlorination. ** Sample was not available during the bypass event.

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 wastewater effluent requirements specified by the Canada-wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent (CWS-MMWE):

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen

demand (cBOD)

Suspended solids (SS)

Average Average

≤ 25 mg/L ≤ 25 mg/L

UC-54

13

A summary of average cBOD and SS concentrations with the averaging period of monthly for Annacis Island and Lulu Island WWTPs and quarterly for Northwest Langley WWTP.

Secondary Plants ANNACIS ISLAND LULU ISLAND NORTHWEST LANGLEY

Parameters SS cBOD SS cBOD SS cBOD

January 10 6 5 4

February 9 5 6 5

March 9 5 5 4 23 17

April 10 6 5 4

May 11 6 5 4

June 10 5 5 4 21 14

July 8 7 5 5

August 10 8 5 5

September 10 7 5 5 16 12

October 9 7 6 5

November 12 9 6 6

December 8 7 6 5 19 16

Wastewaters Systems Effluent Regulations (WSER)

Quarterly monitoring reports were submitted through Environment Canada’s Effluent Regulatory Reporting Information System (ERRIS) in 2013. 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; average concentration of suspended solids in mg/L; and maximum concentration of un-ionized ammonia in mg/L.

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

UC-55

14

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 a Class A. 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. The Northwest Langley WWTP stopped operating aerobic digesters and started hauling thickened wasted secondary sludge to Annacis Island WWTP. At both the Iona Island and Northwest Langley WWTPs, discharges from the digesters are further processed via lagoon 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.

Biosolids Quality

In 2013, the results of the testing programs showed that metals concentrations, except for zinc in Lions Gate, in biosolids were generally well below the criteria value limits specified by OMRR. Zinc concentration in Lions Gate biosolids was exceeding the OMRR Class B criteria from June to September and was investigated.

Data values produced during 2013 for fecal coliforms in biosolids were within the Class A or Class B criteria except for two instances where samples collected at Annacis Island WWTP exceed the criteria. The maximum value was 1200 MPN/g and the geometric mean for all samples collected in the year was 129 MPN/gram. Biosolids samples were collected approximately three times per week to meet the sample frequency requirements for Class A biosolids. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 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 to show how well environmental quality objectives are being met, and to warn of possible environmental issues. Whole Effluent Toxicity Monitoring

In 2013, all effluent samples from all wastewater treatment plants passed the required monthly acute toxicity test using Environment Canada test protocols except for three samples of Lions Gate effluent and five Iona Island effluent samples.

UC-56

15

For the three samples from the Lions Gate Plant, the observed toxicity in one sample was related to detergents, and for the remaining two samples the cause of toxicity could not be determined. Repeat samples, however, passed the required toxicity test. The five Iona Island samples required oxygen in excess of that specified by the Environment Canada method, but comparable to background dissolved oxygen concentrations present in the receiving marine waters. Ammonia in the effluent is also monitored to determine the potential for an acutely lethal concentration. Effluent ammonia levels in all wastewater treatment plants met the criteria of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) Threshold Curve. It has also been demonstrated that the chronic toxicity level of 0.019 mg/L of unionized ammonia is not exceeded at the edge of the initial dilution zone for any of the treatment plants.

Overflow Quality Monitoring

Combined Sewer Overflow Monitoring

In 2013, the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Monitoring Program included wastewater characterization studies relative to chemistry, bacteriology and toxicity. The purpose of monitoring was to characterize overflow samples from the eight CSO locations: Glenbrook, Westridge, Chilco-Brockton, English Bay, Macdonald, Manitoba, Clark Drive and Willingdon.

Sanitary Sewer Overflow Monitoring

Metro Vancouver maintained automated sampling stations at six sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) locations in 2013: Cloverdale, Katzie, 225th Street, Braid Street, MacKay and Lynn. SSOs occurred at three of these stations: Braid, Katzie 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.

In late 2013, a screening level human health and ecological risk assessment of potential management options for Cloverdale, Katzie, 225th and Lynn SSOs, was completed using data collected between September of 2010 and January of 2012.

WWTP Receiving Environment Quality

Metro Vancouver conducted comprehensive monitoring of the receiving environment for its wastewater treatment plant outfalls. In 2013, the monitoring program comprised annual sediment effects surveys and water sampling at the boundary of the initial dilution zones (IDZ). Site specific water quality objectives and guidelines were met at the boundary of the initial dilution zones for 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

UC-57

16

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 consistent with concentrations in Canadian coastal waters. Monitoring of the marine receiving environment for sediments effects around the two primary wastewater treatment plant outfalls indicated some small and subtle changes. Further monitoring is expected to clarify whether these changes maybe outfall related, are due to regional long-term fluctuations in oceanographic conditions, or are due to a combination of factors. Currently, the wastewater treatment plants are operating with no adverse affects on the environment. Recreational Water Quality

Metro Vancouver monitored the bacteriological quality of recreational waters in the region at 98 sampling sites from 38 locations. Both bathing and non-bathing beaches were monitored. In 2013, the bacteriological water quality for primary-contact recreation was met for all bathing beaches during the bathing beach season from May through September, except for a few days at Eagle Harbour, Second Beach and Sunset Beach. Swimming advisories were posted at the affected swimming areas for a few days in early August. Metro Vancouver conducted additional sampling and testing to determine the probable cause of the elevated bacterial counts at the affected areas. The sewage collection and treatment systems were eliminated as likely sources of the elevated counts. For non-bathing beach areas, the monitoring data indicated that False Creek met the working guideline limit for secondary or incidental-contact activities. East and Central False Creek, however, had several occasions with high individual bacterial counts. The probable causes of the elevated counts may include combined sewer overflows and urban stormwater runoff. Ambient Monitoring

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 2013 ambient water monitoring programs were carried out for Fraser River, Burrard Inlet, Strait of Georgia and Boundary Bay. In 2013, the focus of the Strait of Georgia Ambient Monitoring Program has been to better understand conditions in the water column of the Strait of Georgia and their effect on dispersal and removal of critical contaminants, as well as spatial patterns and temporal variations of the underlying circulation in the Strait. Long term trends in water properties (temperature, salinity,

UC-58

17

dissolved oxygen) of the Strait of Georgia have been established using archival data. Observed long term changes are small compared to seasonal and inter-annual variability.

Fraser River ambient water quality for all measured parameters met the site specific water quality objectives and guidelines. With the exception of boron, Boundary Bay water quality also met all applicable guidelines. Water boron concentrations were measured at levels typical of Canadian coastal waters. Due to the timing of Burrard Inlet Ambient Water and Sediment Monitoring Programs (November and December 2013, respectively), findings of these studies are not yet available.

9627245

UC-59

To: Utilities Committee From: Fred Nenninger, Director, Utility Planning and WWTP Upgrades Date: June 10, 2014 Meeting Date: July 10, 2014 Subject: Lions Gate Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade – Quarterly Report RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board receive for information the report titled Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant – Quarterly Report dated June 10, 2014. PURPOSE To update the Board on the work underway for the Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant (LGSWWTP) project. BACKGROUND In accordance with the Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan approved by the BC Minister of Environment in 2011, the Lions Gate Plant requires upgrading to secondary level treatment by 2020. The Board authorized funds in the 2011 and subsequent budgets to proceed with the initial work. DISCUSSION Technical Work The Project Definition Report for the Lions Gate Secondary Treatment Plant has been completed by the technical team. The report defines the requirements and scope for the project based on the Indicative Design that was endorsed by the Board in November 2013. The Project Definition Report together with the Value-for-Money analysis provides the details and basis needed for the funding application to be made under the new Building Canada Plan. Of the estimated $700 million project budget approximately $637 million has been identified as eligible for application under the new Building Canada Plan. Working with Squamish Nation, a Request for Proposal has been issued to commence a ground investigation program that will determine geotechnical and environmental conditions related to the existing treatment plant to be returned to Squamish Nation after the commissioning of the new plant, as well as conditions along a proposed corridor to convey Squamish Nation and West Vancouver wastewater to the new treatment plant site.

5.6

UC-60

Financial Status

Funding Metro Vancouver has been working closely with both the federal and provincial governments to confirm the protocols and timing for completing the required P3 screen and submitting a formal Building Canada Fund application ever since the program was “opened for business” by federal Minister of Infrastructure and Communities Denis Lebel on March 28. Metro Vancouver is currently seeking meetings with the BC Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development to formally present the funding application for the project and reiterate that the Metro Vancouver Board has identified the Lions Gate project as its single priority project for grant funding under the Building Canada Plan. At the staff level, Metro Vancouver staff met with senior officials from PPP Canada (Director of Project Development) and Infrastructure Canada (Assistant Deputy Minister of Policy and Communications) during the FCM Conference in Niagara Falls in May to discuss Building Canada Fund support for the Lions Gate project. Provincially, staff have received confirmation that Partnerships BC will soon be formally requesting Metro Vancouver’s participation in a one-day workshop on the value-for-money analysis that was completed by KPMG for the Lions Gate project. The workshop will also be attended by representatives from the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and KPMG. This exercise will be a precursor to the completion of the P3 screen that is mandated under Building Canada guidelines. Engagement and Consultation Program This section provides an update on key engagement activities since April 2014; an overview of the Engagement and Consultation Framework for the Design and Construction phase; and an update on the Lions Gate Public Advisory Committee (LGPAC). The Consultation and Engagement Framework for the Design and Construction phase has been reviewed by the Lions Gate Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (LGIAC). The focus areas for the first two years of the Design and Construction phase are: addressing ongoing Project Definition Report issues, community integration, mitigation planning, and education and awareness opportunities. Recruitment of LGPAC members will take place over the summer. The Public MV staff will continue to update the public on the project process through the Lions Gate project website, attendance at community events, and periodic emails to the Lions Gate public database. MV staff will provide a project update at the Norgate Park Community Association Annual General Meeting on June 18.

Budget Approved

to Date

Project Definition Phase

Initial Budget

Expenditure to Date

Committed to Date

Projected Cost

As of May 31, 2014

$20,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,856,020

$53,980 $7,910,000

UC-61

Lions Gate Public Advisory Committee The LGPAC Terms of Reference has been updated and membership will be sought reflecting the engagement and consultation focus areas for Phase 2 of the project. LGPAC members are to include Norgate residents, local businesses (including representation from the port area), North Shore representatives at-large, and members with an interest and expertise in education and awareness. The LGPAC will provide focused input into the Design and Construction phase including input into project Request for Proposals (RFP) specifications related to community integration and mitigation planning that will be developed in 2015 MV staff have reviewed the updated LGPAC Terms of Reference and proposed types of membership with North Shore municipalities through the LGIAC. Recruitment for LGPAC representatives will take place over the summer and early fall through an application process. Applications will be reviewed by MV staff in consultation with LGIAC and the finalized LGPAC membership will be provided to the Utilities Committee for information in the fall of 2014. First Nations Ongoing engagement meetings have continued with Squamish Nation to discuss shared interests within the project area and to advise them of the project milestones and engagement opportunities. Support letters for the project from Squamish Nation have been sent to the Premier and the Prime Minister. ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The LGSWWTP project is proceeding according to budget and schedule. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The Project Definition Report has been completed and the project is ready to move to the design and construction phase. Of the estimated $700 million project budget approximately $637 million has been identified as eligible cost for application under the new Building Canada Plan. Metro Vancouver continues to work to arrange meetings with Provincial ministers and with senior Provincial staff to commence the application for funding under the new Building Canada Plan. The engagement and consultation program will continue in 2014 and regular updates will be provided to the Utilities Committee and Board. 9558614

UC-62

9608404

To: Utilities Committee From: Inder Singh, Director - Policy, Planning and Analysis, Water Services Date: June 30, 2014 Meeting Date: July 10, 2014 Subject: Water Sustainability Act - Pricing B.C’s Water RECOMMENDATION That the GVWD Board receive for information the report titled Water Sustainability Act - Pricing B.C’s Water, dated June 30, 2014. PURPOSE To inform the Committee and Board that the Province is contemplating changes to water pricing and to outline the potential impacts to the GVWD. BACKGROUND The Province has been in the process of modernizing the 1909 Water Act since 2009. The new Water Sustainability Act received Royal Assent on May 20, 2014; however, the current Water Act will remain in effect over the next year in order to maintain business continuity. The earliest date for bringing the Water Sustainability Act into effect is expected to be spring 2015, once the regulations supporting the new Act are completed. The Province has proposed a phased approach to implementing the new Act, starting with regulations related to groundwater and water fees and water rentals. DISCUSSION On March 11, 2014, the Province released a four-page document titled Pricing B.C.’s Water (Attachment 1) and asked for comments by April 8, 2014. The Province suggests that new pricing will likely mean increased costs for surface water users and new fees and water rentals for large groundwater users and these pricing changes are likely to occur in spring 2015, or later. As noted in Attachment 1, annual rental fees in BC currently vary by sector and typically range from $0.065 to $1.10 per thousand cubic meters. The highest fees are charged for certain industrial purposes and all municipal waterworks. Attachment 2 provides the staff comments on Pricing B.C.’s Water that were submitted on-line at the Water Sustainability Act Blog on April 8, 2014. Staff suggested that all sectors using the Provincial water resource should pay the same unit rate ($/1000m3) for water rental and that the Province should examine the reasons for the current differences in the rental rates paid by different sectors. In the water supply industry, the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and the BC Water and Waste Association (BCWWA) both recommend that rates be based on cost of service and that differential rates for the same service be avoided.

5.7

UC-63

9608404

The Pricing B.C.’s Water document includes a flowchart that outlines the Province’s process for the water pricing review. The Province indicates they have received over 130 comments on the pricing document from the public and a wide range of sectors and they are currently reviewing these submissions to develop a “Pricing Model” that they will then review with “Key User Groups”. Staff have indicated they are keen to be an active participant in any future Provincial review processes and would expect to be consulted. The review of the “Pricing Model” with “Key User Groups” is expected to be the last opportunity for Metro Vancouver to comment on water pricing before it is approved by the Province in spring 2015. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVWD Board receive for information the report titled Water Sustainability Act - Pricing

B.C’s Water, dated June 30, 2014. 2. That the GVWD Board Chair write to the Province requesting them to consider having all sectors

pay the same water rental rate ($/1000m3) for using the Provincial water resource. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Based on the current water rental rate of $1.10 per 1000 cubic meters for “municipal waterworks”, $430,000 has been included in the 2014 GVWD budget for bulk water diverted from its three sources. The Province indicates they will be developing a “Pricing Model” that they will then review with “Key User Groups” prior to approving new water pricing in spring 2015. Staff will report back at a future date as more information on financial implications becomes available. CONCLUSIONS Under the new Water Sustainability Act, the B.C. Government is contemplating changes to water pricing in spring 2015. This could mean increased costs for surface water users such as the GVWD and new fees and water rentals for large groundwater users. Staff have suggested to the Province that all sectors using the Provincial water resource should pay the same water rental rate ($/1000m3) and have requested to be consulted as the Province develops a new “Pricing Model” in the coming months. As the Province’s intentions are still evolving, staff recommend that the Board receive this report for information (Alternative 1). Staff will report back at a future date as more information on Provincial water pricing becomes available. Attachments: 1. Province of British Columbia Pricing BC’s Water – March 2014 2. Staff Comments on Pricing B.C’s Water submitted April 8, 2014 (9609505)

UC-64

Pricing B.C.’s Water

March 2014

British Columbians consistently rank water as one of the prov-ince’s most valuable natural assets. This has been a consistent message since 2009 when government began engaging with the public on new water legislation. B.C.’s new Water Sustain-ability Act will bring in a more comprehensive approach to managing water now and into the future.

To implement the new Act and fully realize its benefits, the B.C. Government is contemplating changes to water pricing. This will likely mean increased costs for surface water users and new fees and rentals for large groundwater users. While pricing changes will help improve services, support sustain-able water management, improve program cost recovery and enable new programs and initiatives, any new pricing model must be easy to understand and implement. It must also take into account the implications for water users and the overall benefits to British Columbians.

The government is taking a transparent approach to making changes to water pricing. Before these changes are made, we are seeking public feedback on the principles that will shape how government develops options for water pricing to sup-port sustainable water management in B.C. Water rentals as-sociated with major hydroelectric power generation are linked to B.C.’s energy policy and are not part of this water pricing review.

Current approach to pricing water in B.C.The current pricing structure and rates for water are laid out in B.C.’s Water Regulation. There are two components to water pricing: a one-time application fee and an annual rental pay-ment. Water users currently pay fees for a new surface water licence application, an amendment to an existing licence, a short-term use approval, and an approval to make changes inand about a stream. Fees and rentals are not currently assessed for using groundwater.

On March 11, 2014 the British Columbia Govern-ment introduced, the Water Sustainability Act into the Leg-islature. The proposed new Act will update and replace the exist-ing Water Act, and respond to current and future pressures on water including a growing population, a changing cli-mate and expanding resource development.

Water Sustainability Act

UC-65

2

3

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Total Licensed Volume (millions of cubic metres/year)Total Rental ($ thousands/year)

Application fees are typically based on the quantity of water in the licence application

and the specific purpose of its use. Fees are not generally applied to provincial or federal ministries, or First Nations on Reserve land. Short-term water use approvals administered by the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission are also current-ly exempt. Application fees are

specified in the Water Regulation.Annual rentals are payments for the use of

the resource. Licensees typically pay based on their allocated volume rather than how much they use. Like application fees, annual rentals are set in the Water Regulation.

Currently in B.C., annual rentals vary by water use purpose and typically range from $0.01 to $1.10 per thousand cubic metres. The highest fees and rentals are charged for in-dustrial purposes (e.g., water power, mining, pulp mills) and waterworks. Lower fees and

rentals are charged for uses such as do-mestic, agriculture and conservation, e.g., wetland creation. B.C.’s highest annual rental rates are lower than most other Ca-nadian jurisdictions. Most British Colum-bians are connected to a municipal water system and pay a utility bill to their mu-nicipality, which holds the water licence. The portion of the utility bill that reflects the municipality’s rental payment works out to about $1 per year per household.

“In principle water is “priceless” but in reality we all consume water, we waste water and we take it for granted.” Citizen

PRICING BRITISH COLUMBIA’S WATER

Annual revenue and licensed volume by sector

1 Figures are for surface water and exclude water power, storage and conservation purposes. 2 Revenue based on actual water use (about 43% of licensed annual volume).3 Most domestic licensees pay a minimum annual rental of $25.

How much is 1000 cubic metres?

n 1,000,000 litres

n 50,000 five-gallon jugs

n Enough for 15,000 showers

n Fills a 25m swimming pool

Typical use and costs for selected surface water users

Purpose Volume AnnualFee (1000m3) Costs ($)Individual domestic 0.7/year 25Small irrigator 24/year 25Large municipality 23,000/year 25,000Natural gas 800/pad 900Mining 1,200/year 1,300Water bottling 200/year 200

5

4 Refers to individual licensed users not those connected to a municipal system. 5 Based on population of 87,000.

1

4

UC-66

Pricing water is complex and involves many considerations. Government is taking a prin-ciple-based approach to developing fees and rentals. The principles laid out in gov-ernment’s Water Sustainablity Act Legislative Proposal (October 2013) have been refined below based on public feedback.

Simplicity: The approach and ratio-nale for water pricing should be easy

to understand and predictable. Individuals and businesses should also know how and when pricing could change so they can plan and budget their costs accordingly.

Fairness and equity: Fairness is re-flected in surface and groundwater

being treated as one resource and subject to the same pricing structure. In addition, similar uses of water should be subject to similar pricing. Equitable pricing should re-

flect differences in the value of water based on the type of right granted, intended use, location or scarcity of the resource.

Implications for water users: All Brit-ish Columbians benefit directly and in-

directly from B.C.’s water resources. Pricing of water should distribute the costs of wa-ter management across users so that the effect on licensees and citizens is reason-able and manageable and enables busi-ness competitiveness.

Impact on the water resource: Wa-ter pricing should reflect the impact

of the intended purpose or activity on the resource. For example, water that is con-sumed and removed from the watershed or aquifer should be assessed differently than non-consumptive uses.

continued on next page

“Government has a vital role in establishing appropriate price signals to influence citizen and corporate behaviour.”

Citizen

What you’ve said about water pricing

Last fall when we asked you to comment on the Legislative Proposal, we heard strong sentiments about water pricing. British Columbian’s clearly value their wa-ter as a social, cultural, and economic good, and support sustainable management of this public resource. Many respondents suggested that wa-ter is undervalued and current prices are too low, particularly for commercial and industrial uses. Other sectors, such as ag-riculture, expressed concerns about their ability to absorb increases in fees and the implications of increasing fees on com-petitiveness. Some respondents expressed

that there should be a flat rate for all water use while others thought that water pricing should reflect the degree of impact on the re-source or the profitability of the water usage.

We heard strong support for increasing water fees to fully realize the objectives of the new Water Sustainability Act. There was concern that increased water revenue might not be invested in improving water stewardship. Comments also supported us-ing fees to incent efficient water use. Many believe that fees and rentals should ensure a comprehensive approach to fresh water management in B.C. including information gathering, compliance and enforcement.

Principles to inform water pricing

“Recover the full cost of administering the Water Sustainabllity Act by increasing fees and water rentals for consump-tive use of surface and ground water licences.”

Water industry representative

“Water is essential for life and a resource to be valued and protected first and foremost.”

First Nations organization

“We are concerned that significant increases in costs could affect our farm companies’ competitiveness in the market and threaten long-term viability.”

Agricultural producer


UC-67

Cost recovery: Water pricing should support sustainable water manage-

ment and generate sufficient revenue to recover the costs of managing the water resource. This includes science, monitor-ing, planning and facilitating community involvement, regulation and enforcement. Costs to users should also reflect a fair re-turn to the Crown for use of a public re-source.

Efficiency: Water pricing should moti-vate users to demand only the amount

of water that is required for the intended purpose. Pricing should incent the use of non-potable water, encourage freshwater conservation, promote innovation and fa-cilitate government’s efficient administra-tion and management of the resource.

Food security and public health: Water pricing should recognize the

essential contribution of water to food se-curity. Food security is a prerequisite for healthy nutrition and foundational to hu-man and community health.

Which of these principles is most import-ant to you? Are there some that matter more than others? Tell us about how you would like to see these principles shape how British Columbians use and protect our water in the future.

Your comments will help shape how we develop options for water fees and rent-als that will be presented to Government for decision. Telling us what’s most import-ant to you will help us develop balanced, practical options that have the potential to do the most good for British Columbia and our precious water supply.

Over the next four weeks, we invite you to share your ideas by visiting the Water Sustainability Act Blog.

Comments will be accepted until April 8, 2014.


PricingModel

Review withKey UserGroups

Fee & RentalOptions

GovernmentReview /Approval

UpdateWater

Regulation

� Current pricing� Water Sustainability Act goals and policies� Other jurisdictions� Program costs� Previous engagement

Principles

Process for Water Pricing Review

Water for B.C. — safe, sustainable and valued by all

What do you think?Principles continued

UC-68

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/watersustainabilityact/

Attachment 2

9609505

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the four-page document entitled “Pricing B.C.’s Water” released on March 11, 2014. The following comments are provided by Inder Singh, Manager, Policy, Planning and Analysis Division, Water Services Department, Metro Vancouver and are provided from the perspective of the Greater Vancouver Water District: All “Sectors” should pay the same rate ($/1000m3) for water rental.

Provincial water rental rates ($/1000m3) should be based on the actual costs of providing service and must be reasonably related to the benefits received by those using the Provincial water resources. The Province should examine the reasons for the current differences in the rental rates paid by each sector. For example, why should there be disparity amongst the “Industrial & Commercial”, “Individual Domestic” and “Waterworks” sectors, which pay $0.85 per 1000 m3, $0.60 per 1000 m3 , and $1.10 per 1000 m3, respectively? The default premise (or starting position) should be the same water rental rate for all sectors. In the water supply industry, the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and the BC Water and Waste Association (BCWWA) both recommend that rates be based on cost of service and that differential rates for the same service should be avoided.

http://www.awwa.org/about-us/policy-statements/policy-statement/articleid/201/financing-accounting-and-rates.aspx http://www.bcwwa.org/resourcelibrary/RateSetting%20Position%20Statement%20rev%20%2024-06-2013_final.pdf

Only with a well documented rationale, should a particular water rental sector pay more, or less, than other sectors. We are in support of the principles described in the “Pricing B.C.’s Water” document, including simplicity, fairness and equity of water pricing for all users.

In 2013, the Greater Vancouver Water District (GVWD) diverted about 390 million m3 of water from its three sources (Capilano River, Seymour River, and Coquitlam Lake). The 2013 rate for water rental charged by the Province for waterworks purposes is $1.10 per 1,000 m3, so for 2013 the GVWD will pay the Province about $430,000 for “Waterworks” water rentals.

The GVWD and/or its member municipalities provide treated drinking water to end users, for all purposes, including the following water rental sectors as set out on page 2 of the “Pricing B.C.’s Water” document and defined in detail under the Water Regulation/Water Act:

• Industrial & Commercial;

• Municipal Waterworks (note that the GVWD sells water to municipalities and some municipalities in turn sell water to other municipalities);

• Agriculture (the Water Act definition includes irrigation, greenhouses, kennels, nurseries, “watering of golf courses, ornamental gardens, parks or similar properties”);

• Aquaculture (the Water Act definition includes fish hatcheries);

• Domestic (the Water Act definition includes camps, churches and community halls, institutions, public facilities).

UC-69

http://www.awwa.org/about-us/policy-statements/policy-statement/articleid/201/financing-accounting-and-rates.aspx

http://www.awwa.org/about-us/policy-statements/policy-statement/articleid/201/financing-accounting-and-rates.aspx

http://www.bcwwa.org/resourcelibrary/RateSetting%20Position%20Statement%20rev%20%2024-06-2013_final.pdf

http://www.bcwwa.org/resourcelibrary/RateSetting%20Position%20Statement%20rev%20%2024-06-2013_final.pdf

Attachment 2

9609505

In pricing GVWD water to municipalities, or with municipalities pricing water to retail customers, the GVWD and its member municipalities, with limited exceptions, take a cost of service based approach to water pricing and charge the same unit rate to all customer sectors (classes) that receive the same service. Embedded in the pricing to end-users of water from “Waterworks” providers, such as the GVWD, or its member municipalities, is the $1.10 per 1,000m3 water rental payment to the Province. By comparison, if a large institution had an Individual “domestic” water licence to extract water directly from a surface water source, it would currently pay a much lower water rental rate compared to a similar institution served via a municipality. These differential rental rates for extraction of water appear to be unfair and we suggest that all sectors should pay the same water rental rate.

Having all sectors pay the same rate for water rental is consistent with the “Pricing B.C.’s Water” principles of “fairness and equity”, simplicity”, “efficiency”, “cost recovery”, and “implications for water users”. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this document, which is of significance to the 2.3 million people served by the Greater Vancouver Water District and are keen to be an active participant in the process for water pricing review with key user groups.

UC-70

To: Utilities Committee From: Frank Huber, Director - Major Projects, Management Systems & Utility Support,

Water Services Mark Ferguson, Director - Project Delivery, Liquid Waste Services

Date: June 13, 2014 Meeting Date: July 10, 2014 Subject: Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures to April 30, 2014 RECOMMENDATION That the Committee receive for information the report titled Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures to April 30, 2014, dated June 13, 2014. PURPOSE To report on the status of the utilities capital expenditures. Utilities capital projects are typically multi-year in nature; therefore, this report provides a comparison between the total project budgets and total projected expenditures to project completion. BACKGROUND The Capital Expenditure reporting process as approved by the Board provides for regular status reports on capital expenditures with interim reports sent to the Utilities, Zero Waste and Finance Committees in June/July and October and a final year-end report to the Committees and Board in April. This is the first in a series of three reports on capital expenditures for 2014. In addition to this report, due to their size and complexity, separate detailed updates on the Seymour-Capilano Filtration Project and the Lions Gate Secondary WWTP Upgrade Project are provided to the Utilities Committee and Board quarterly. DISCUSSION The capital projects are separated into two types: “Ongoing” and “Completed”. Narrative information is provided describing key aspects of specific projects and each project is presented in the context of Total Projected Project Costs to Completion as compared to the Total Approved Budget. Appendix A contains summary financial information on “Ongoing Projects” and “Completed Projects”. The information presented is for Total Projected Completion which will generally cover multiple years. Capital project budgets typically include a minimum contingency of 10%. Individual project financial information is included as follows: Schedule 1 – Water, and Schedule 2 – Sewerage and Drainage (Liquid Waste). Appendix B provides narrative information for specific projects.

5.8

UC-71

ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Ongoing Capital Projects: The Water District is projecting to spend $20.22 million (1.3 %) less than the approved total project budgets for those projects in progress and included in Schedule 1. The Sewerage and Drainage District (Liquid Waste) is projecting to spend $19.70 million (2.8 %) less than the approved total project budgets for those projects in progress and included in Schedule 2. It is anticipated that in aggregate, ongoing capital projects in both Districts will be slightly under spent because the full contingency is not required. Completed Capital Projects: These are projects that have been completed during 2014, some of which may extend over multiple years. Overall the Water District and Sewerage and Drainage District (Liquid Waste) projects in this category are under spent by $0.05 million (2.9 %) and $3.81 million (10.4 %) respectively. Capital expenditures are funded internally through debt charges. As capital expenditures are incurred, short term financing is secured and converted twice per year to long term debt through the Municipal Finance Authority. If capital expenditures are less than budgeted for the year, the savings in debt charges create a surplus which may go against future capital expenditures via the Contribution to Capital Program to reduce borrowing. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The capital expenditure reporting process approved by the Board provides for interim reports to Committees in June/July and October, and a final year-end report to the Board in April of each year. This is the first in a series of three reports on capital expenditures for 2014. Both Districts (Water and Sewerage & Drainage) are projecting to be under spent for both ongoing and completed capital projects to April 30, 2014. It is anticipated that in aggregate, ongoing capital projects in both Districts will be slightly under spent because the full contingency is not required. Attachments and References: Appendix A: Capital Expenditure Summary Information as at April 30, 2014 Schedule 1: Water District Capital Expenditures Schedule 2: Sewerage & Drainage District (Liquid Waste) Capital Expenditures Appendix B: Capital Project Status Information as at April 30, 2014 Orbit #9443747

UC-72

9444862

Capital Expenditure Summary Information As at April 30, 2014

Ongoing Projects

Total Projected Expenditures to

Completion ACE/ Total Budget Projected Variance

Water $1,533,061,017 $1,553,284,017 $20,223,000

Liquid Waste $681,771,579 $701,470,579 $19,699,000

Total Ongoing Projects: $2,214,832,596 $2,254,754,596 $39,922,000

Completed Projects Total Actual Expenditures ACE/ Total Budget Variance

Water $1,796,519 $1,850,000 $53,481

Liquid Waste $32,634,514 $36,440,000 $3,805,486

Total Completed Projects: $34,431,033 $38,290,000 $3,858,967

APPENDIX A

UC-73

Schedule 1

Water District Capital Expenditures As of Apr 30, 2014

Total TotalProjected ACE / Projected Percent Project on

Program Project ID Project Description Project Location Project Total Project Project Complete Schedule?Actuals Budget Variance Note (Y/N) Comments

On-going Grand Totals 1,533,061,017 1,553,284,017 20,223,000 Completed Grand Totals 1,796,519 1,850,000 53,481

ON-GOING PROJECTS

Drinking Water Treatment CapSeymour Capilano Filtr Project North Vancouver 822,600,000 820,000,000 (2,600,000) (e) 97% Y Filtration Plant component completed over

budget in 2009.A0163 Coq UV Disinfection Construct Coquitlam 96,600,000 110,000,000 13,400,000 (d)(f) 98% N Excavation and foundation delays.

919,200,000 930,000,000 10,800,000 Infrastructure Growth Cap

A0036 Maple Ridge Main Stage II Maple Ridge 19,580,000 19,580,000 - (b) 65% YA0140 Coquitlam Intake No 2 Coquitlam 3,130,000 3,130,000 - 18% YA0164 Burnaby Mtn PS 2 Pre Design Burnaby 300,000 300,000 - 80% YA0171 Barnston Maple Ridge PS Pitt Meadows 46,500,000 46,500,000 - (c) 58% N Foundation design and equipment

procurement delays.A0198 Sasamat PS Stage II Pre design Vancouver 500,000 500,000 - 36% YA0199 Angus Drive Main PreDgn Design Vancouver 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 97% YA0201 Clayton Res Conceptual Design Surrey 600,000 900,000 300,000 (d) 99% YA0202 Port Mann Mn No 2 N Pre Design Coquitlam 500,000 500,000 - 97% YA0203 Seymour Main No 5 North North Vancouver 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 5% YA0208 Annacis No5 Conceptual Design New West / Surrey 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 35% N Shaft site selection delaysA0214 Port Mann Mn No 2 North Design Coquitlam 1,600,000 1,600,000 - 69% YA0215 Port Mann Mn No 2 South PreDes Surrey 500,000 500,000 - 65% YA0218 Kennedy Newton Main Surrey 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 2% YA0219 Coquitlam Main 4 Cape Horn Pre Coquitlam 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 2% YA0226 Angus Drive Main Construction Vancouver 28,000,000 28,000,000 - 2% YA0237 S Delta Main No 1 Upgde Design Delta 1,750,000 1,750,000 - 5% YA0241 Hellings Tank No. 2 - Pre Des Delta 800,000 800,000 - 6% YA0243 Fleetwood Reservoir Pre-Design Surrey 1,300,000 1,300,000 - 3% YA0247 Jericho Reservoir Pre Design Township of Langley 1,500,000 1,500,000 - 2% YA0249 S Delta main No 1 Pre build Delta 3,500,000 3,500,000 - 0% YA0251 Newton Pumping Improvements Surrey 250,000 250,000 - 0% Y

117,310,000 117,610,000 300,000 Infrastructure Maintenance Cap

A0002 Des and Cons Remed E2 Shaft P1 North Vancouver 1,500,000 1,500,000 - 96% YA0075 Phase 2Rem Cons E2 Drain CI Da North Vancouver 850,000 850,000 - 95% YA0134 Douglas Road Main 2 Stage 1 Burnaby 12,000,000 12,500,000 500,000 (a) 99% YA0146 Douglas Rd Main 2 Stage II Burnaby 11,000,000 11,000,000 - 99% YA0168 Cleveland Dam Elevator Replace North Vancouver 7,300,000 7,300,000 - 99% N Miscellaneous construction delays.A0170 DRM2 13th Ave Section Pipes Burnaby 16,000,000 16,000,000 - 90% N Tie-ins being coordinated with the City.A0181 DRM2 Kincaid Section Des Const Burnaby 12,300,000 12,300,000 - 99% N Delays in traffic management plan

development.

Total Project

development.A0182 DRM2 Delta Sect Des Construt Burnaby 16,600,000 16,600,000 - 95% N Remaining tie-ins to be complete in 2015.A0187 16th Ave Main No. 3 Vancouver 13,900,000 13,900,000 - 99% YA0192 Water Meter Upgrd 2011 Renewal Regional 350,000 350,000 - 99% YA0196 Re chlorination HVAC Upgrade Regional 600,000 600,000 - 97% YA0200 Annacis 4 Scour Protect DesCon Regional 560,000 1,200,000 640,000 (a)(d) 95% YA0205 Whalley Res Line Installation Surrey 900,000 900,000 - 98% YA0207 DRM2 Still Creek Design Burnaby 1,600,000 1,600,000 - 1% YA0211 E2 Shaft Phase 3 Test Wells North Vancouver 4,500,000 4,500,000 - 20% N Drilling delayed to spring 2014.A0212 Annacis 3 Scour Construction Regional 400,000 814,000 414,000 (h) 5% N Permitting delays.A0217 SSU Serpentine Riv Xing Rehab Surrey 480,000 480,000 - 0% YA0222 SCFP CW Chambers Roof Upgrade North Vancouver 500,000 500,000 - 24% YA0230 LCOC Metal Roof Replacement Burnaby 1,100,000 1,100,000 - 5% YA0235 SCFP Storage Building North Vancouver 1,400,000 1,400,000 - 1% N Project budget and scope under review.A0236 WWB1 TFMR & MCC Replacement New Westminster 942,000 942,000 - 2% YA0244 Central Park WPS Starters Burnaby 2,100,000 2,100,000 - 0% YA0250 Douglas Rd Main 2 Van Heights Burnaby 480,000 480,000 - 0% YA0252 Cleveland Dam Drumgate Resurf North Vancouver 1,135,000 1,135,000 - 5% N Assessment in 2014, rehab work in 2015

108,497,000 110,051,000 1,554,000 Infrastructure Risk Mgmt Cap

A0024 Seymour Falls Dam Seismic Cons North Vancouver 43,300,000 47,800,000 4,500,000 (d) 98% YA0116 Seism Up Kers LMtn CenPk West Regional 230,000 230,000 - 96% YA0145 Whalley Reservoir Upgrade Surrey 2,800,000 3,500,000 700,000 (a)(d) 98% YA0160 Cleveland Dam ADAS Phase II North Vancouver 800,000 800,000 - 99% YA0162 P Mann Water Supply Tunnel Con Surrey/Coquitlam 239,000,000 239,000,000 - 53% N Shaft construction delays.A0167 Second Narrows Water Tunnel North Vancouver/Burnaby 5,550,000 5,550,000 - 97% N Additional assessment underway.A0177 Seis Upg Design 4 Pump Station Regional 250,000 250,000 - 95% YA0178 Newton Res Seis Upgrd Const Surrey 3,000,000 3,000,000 - 99% YA0188 Seymour Falls Dam ADAS Ph II North Vancouver 300,000 300,000 - 50% N Design delays. Construction being

coordinated with other work at Seymour Falls Dam in 2015.

A0193 Braid St Main No 2 Design New Westminster 500,000 500,000 - 79% YA0209 Mackay Creek Mitigation North Vancouver 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 70% YA0210 Kennedy Hts Res Seis Upg Const Surrey 2,400,000 4,400,000 2,000,000 (a)(d) 95% YA0216 Capilano Mn No 9 Detail Design North Vancouver 1,300,000 1,300,000 - 82% YA0220 37th Ave Main No. 2 Predesign Vancouver 300,000 300,000 - 0% N Project scope under review.A0223 Convert to Blk Sodium Hypochi Coquitlam 4,500,000 4,500,000 - 1% YA0225 Capilano Main No9 Prebuild North Vancouver 6,000,000 6,000,000 - 24% YA0231 Second Narrows Tunnel Det Dsgn North Vancouver/Burnaby 10,000,000 10,000,000 - 2% YA0233 SCFP Filter Gullet Lining Des North Vancouver 500,000 500,000 - 23% YA0238 Coquitlam Gatehouse Coquitlam 1,600,000 1,600,000 - 0% YA0239 Coquitlam Multi-Storage Coquitlam 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 0% YA0240 Seismic Upgrade Constr 3 PS Vancouver/Surrey 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 2% N Project scope under review.A0242 Hellings Tank Seis Upg-Det Des Delta 600,000 600,000 - 1% YA0246 Clyton Reservoir Design Surrey 2,700,000 2,700,000 - 2% YA0248 SCFP Filter Gullet Lining Cons North Vancouver 1,500,000 1,500,000 - 0% Y

330,130,000 337,330,000 7,200,000 Infrastructure Upgrade Cap

A0159 Pt Moody Connector Main Meter Port Moody 400,000 400,000 - 87% N Commissioning delays.A0161 Capilano Power Feasibil Study North Vancouver 250,000 250,000 - 86% N Coordinating with Joint Water Use Plan.A0175 Water Optimization Auto Instru Regional 2,368,000 2,368,000 - 55% N Delays in instrument procurement.

2014_WD_Capital_Expenditure_Summary_-_April[1].xlsm - 2014 April Summary Page 1 of 2 6/26/2014

UC-74

Schedule 1

Water District Capital Expenditures As of Apr 30, 2014



Total Project

A0179 Mathers Ave Capilano Crossing North Vancouver 500,000 500,000 - 0% N Project under review.A0183 Coq Comm Improvements Design Coquitlam 150,000 150,000 - 5% N Design delays.A0195 CDEA GV series well upgrade North Vancouver 750,000 750,000 - 60% YA0224 CLD Seismic StabilityAssessmet North Vancouver 350,000 350,000 - 0% N Project delayed pending completion of

seismic hazard assessment.A0232 Lynn Valley Watr Reservoir Des North Vancouver 1,500,000 1,500,000 - 8% YA0234 Tilbury Valve Chamber Delta 2,500,000 2,500,000 - 10% N Project scope under review.A0245 SCFP - Hydraulic Power Units North Vancouver 525,000 525,000 - 6% Y

9,293,000 9,293,000 - Infrastructure Boundary Main 5 Cap

A0149 Boundary Rd Main No 5 Phase 3 Regional 39,000,000 39,000,000 - 95% Y39,000,000 39,000,000 -

Infrastructure Relocation CapA8000 South Fraser Perimeter Rd Regional 554,079 554,079 - 95% YA8001 Hwy 1 Widen and PM Bridge Twin Regional 2,024,743 2,024,743 - 86% YA8002 N Fraser Perimeter Pitt R Brdg Regional 3,161,195 3,261,195 100,000 (g) 96% YA8003 N Fraser Perim Lougheed Pitt M Pitt Meadows 36,000 260,000 224,000 (g) 90% YA8006 NFPR Coq New Westminster Regional 50,000 50,000 - 0% N Project delayed by Translink. A8007 202 St Hwy 1 Langley BusExch Township of Langley 5,000 50,000 45,000 (i) 95% YA8008 Evergreen Line Regional 200,000 200,000 - 54% N Project delayed by Translink.

6,031,017 6,400,017 369,000 Infrastructure Opportunity Prgm Cap

A0191 Barnston MR PS energy generatn Pitt Meadows 2,500,000 2,500,000 - 13% N Project scope under review.A0221 S Delta Main 1 Ladner Trk Road Delta 1,100,000 1,100,000 - 99% Y

3,600,000 3,600,000 -

Total On-going Projects 1,533,061,017 1,553,284,017 20,223,000

COMPLETED PROJECTS

Infrastructure Risk Mgmt Cap - - A0110 Capilano Main 5 Seismc Upg Des North Vancouver 1,500,445 1,550,000 49,555 (d) 100%A0204 Capilano Main No 9 Pre Design North Vancouver 296,074 300,000 3,926 100%

1,796,519 1,850,000 53,481

Total Completed Projects 1,796,519 1,850,000 53,481

Notes:(a) Competitive construction market resulted in a positive variance.(b) GVWD share - 59.80%: Maple Ridge share - 40.20% (A0036 and A0152).( ) GVWD h 39 18% Di t i t f M l Rid h 14 09% Cit f L l h 4 91% T hi f L l h 41 82% (A0171)(c) GVWD share - 39.18%: District of Maple Ridge share - 14.09%, City of Langley share 4.91%, Township of Langley share 41.82%. (A0171)(d) Full contingency not required.(e) Separate quarterly status reports for the Seymour-Capilano Filtration Project are being provided to the Utilities Committee and GVWD Board.(f) Construction costs lower than estimated.(g) MOT avoided highway construction impact on GVWD facilities resulting in savings on protective works.(h) Reduction in scope.(i) Project cost recovery from Province.

2014_WD_Capital_Expenditure_Summary_-_April[1].xlsm - 2014 April Summary Page 2 of 2 6/26/2014

UC-75

Schedule 2

Sewerage and Drainage District Capital Expenditures Liquid Waste As of Apr 30, 2014



On-going Grand Totals 681,771,579 701,470,579 19,699,000 Completed Grand Totals 32,634,514 36,440,000 3,805,486

ON-GOING PROJECTS

SD Infrastructure Growth

Z0049 NLWWTP Phase 1 T2 Design Township of Langley 9,000,000 9,000,000 - 90% YZ0050 NLWWTP Ph1 T2 Construction Township of Langley 55,300,000 55,300,000 - 18% YZ0053 LGWWTP Interim CEPT Upgd Equip West Vancouver 1,300,000 1,300,000 - 99% YZ0054 LGWWTP Interim CEPT Upgrd Con West Vancouver 1,320,000 1,320,000 - 99% N Project complete and in service. Dealing with project close out

documentation.G0041 Sapperton Pump Station Design New Westminster 3,700,000 3,700,000 - 28% YG0043 NSI Port Mann Twinning Surrey 20,600,000 20,600,000 - (8) 45% N On hold for NWLWWTP redirection of flows study.G0045 Bby Lk N Int Sperling Sect Des Burnaby 600,000 600,000 - 99% YG0046 N Nicomekl Trk Sewer No 2 Cons City of Langley 6,882,000 14,000,000 7,118,000 (1)(2) 99% YG0049 SSI K George Section Constr Surrey 30,000,000 30,000,000 - 99% YG0050 Katzie Pump Upgrade - Design Maple Ridge 200,000 200,000 - (8) 9% N On hold for NWLWWTP redirection of flows study.G0051 Katzie Genset - Assessment Maple Ridge 50,000 50,000 - 32% N On hold for NWLWWTP redirection of flows study.G0052 Sperling PS Pump Increase Burnaby 150,000 150,000 - 84% N Project scope revised.G0054 East Richmond PS Third Pump Richmond 225,000 225,000 - 99% YG0055 NSI 104 Avenue Extension Surrey 6,800,000 6,800,000 - 90% N Awaiting property acquisition from South Fraser Perimeter Road.

G0056 Lulu Raw Sewage Pump Genset Richmond 1,931,000 2,900,000 969,000 (1)(2) 35% NEquipment delivery delayed by supply contractor. Completion expected in mid 2014.

G0059 ANI Stg 8 Outfall Predesign Delta 3,000,000 3,000,000 - (6)

42% N Project was delayed due to additional analysis to address unforeseen conditions.

G0060 Maple Ridge FM Design Surrey 1,400,000 1,400,000 - (8) 5% N On hold for NWLWWTP redirection of flows study.G0061 NSI Roebuck Design Surrey 4,300,000 4,300,000 - (8) 13% N On hold for NWLWWTP redirection of flows study.G0062 Sperling PS Increase Pump Cap Burnaby 3,000,000 3,000,000 - 1% YG0063 Katzie PS Genset Design Maple Ridge 500,000 500,000 - (8) 0% N On hold for NWLWWTP redirection of flows study.G0064 Katzie PS Design Phase II Maple Ridge 2,000,000 2,000,000 - (8) 0% N On hold for NWLWWTP redirection of flows study.G0065 Bby Lk Int N Sperling Sect Con Burnaby 6,500,000 6,500,000 - 1% N Construction Tender to be issued by end of May 2014G0066 Langley Pump Station Langley 100,000 100,000 - 0% YG0067 SSI Johnston Rd Section Surrey 800,000 800,000 - 5% YG0068 SW Marine Dr Int. Twinning Vancouver 450,000 450,000 - 4% YG0069 Marshend PS - Concept Design Burnaby 125,000 125,000 - 0% YG0070 Queensborough PS - Predesign New Westminster 100,000 100,000 - 0% YG0071 Hastings Sanitary Trunk Sewer Burnaby/Vancouver 300,000 300,000 - 6% N Project scope under review.G0072 Collingwood Sanitary Trunk Vancouver 325,000 325,000 - 6% YG0073 Bby Lk N Int Philips Sect Burnaby 1,100,000 1,100,000 - 6% Y

162,058,000 170,145,000 8,087,000 SD Infrastructure Maint Cap

X0009 AIWWTP CCT ISO Gates Delta 325,000 1,000,000 675,000 (3) 1% YX0013 LNG Control & Inst Replacement West Vancouver 300,000 300,000 - 10% YX0014 AIWWTP CDAC Comp Replacement Delta 1,500,000 1,500,000 - 25% YX0016 IIWWTP C t d I t R l t Ri h d 2 750 000 2 750 000 Y

Total Projects

X0016 IIWWTP Constr and Inst Replmt Richmond 2,750,000 2,750,000 - 10% YX0018 NLWWTP 25kV Sub Repl Design Langley 300,000 300,000 - 0% YX0020 AIWWTP IPS Roof Replacement Delta 550,000 550,000 - 8% YN0046 Cost Alloc Billing Network Regional 4,879,000 5,230,000 351,000 (3) 91% N Delay in CSA certification of proposed metering instrumentation.N0296 Gleneagles PS 2 5 Rehab Design West Vancouver 1,200,000 1,200,000 - 8% YN0300 Gleneagles PS3 Construction West Vancouver 900,000 900,000 - 99% YN0307 Iona WWTP 2006 MCC ReplacementRichmond 700,000 700,000 - (4) 83% NN0318 FSA Sewer Repair Regional 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 76% YN0321 LGWWTP Control Instrument 2008 West Vancouver 300,000 300,000 - 89% YN0322 IIWWTP Control Instrument 2008 Richmond 500,000 500,000 - 53% YN0325 Gleneagles PS 1 Rehab West Vancouver 500,000 500,000 - 31% YN0333 LGWWTP Dig 4 Refurbishment West Vancouver 6,817,000 7,360,000 543,000 (2) 99% YN0336 IIWWTP 2009 MCC Replacement Richmond 1,375,000 1,375,000 - (4) 65% N Construction is now progressingN0337 LGWWTP 2009 MCC Replacement West Vancouver 830,000 830,000 - (4) 35% NN0340 Lions Gate Ctrl and Instr Repl West Vancouver 200,000 200,000 - 40% YN0341 Iona Control and Instr Replace Richmond 500,000 500,000 - 13% YN0343 IIWWTP PA Tanks Infl Gate Repl Richmond 610,000 610,000 - 75% YN0350 NW Interceptor Grit Chamber New Westminster 250,000 250,000 - 5% N Project to resume. Developing scope.N0352 VSA IIWWTP IPS VFD replacement Richmond 900,000 900,000 - 90% YN0358 AIWWTP Clarifier Corrosion Rep Delta 1,463,000 1,946,000 483,000 (1)(4) 16% N Contracts are in place, work to be completed by end of yearN0360 IIWWTP HVAC upgrade Richmond 2,095,000 2,095,000 - (4) 25% N Contracts are in place, work to be completed by end of yearN0361 Marshend PS Rehab Construction Burnaby 7,000,000 7,000,000 - 10% N Construction to commence after rezoning is complete.N0364 SSI Rehab Construction Surrey 713,000 3,000,000 2,287,000 (3) 99% YN0365 AIWWTP MCC Replacement Delta 2,844,000 2,844,000 - 1% N Coordinating with Stage V project.N0366 IIWWTP 12kv Feeder Replacement Richmond 897,000 897,000 - 85% N Construction more difficult than anticipated.N0368 AIWWTP Gas Compressor Repl Delta 400,000 800,000 400,000 (4) 25% YN0376 Iona Jetty North Slope Repair Richmond 5,000,000 5,000,000 - 27% N Delay due to permitting.N0377 Gilbert Trunk Sewer Twinning Richmond 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 96% YN0378 LGWWTP Gas Condensate Removal West Vancouver 1,300,000 1,300,000 - (6) 40% N Delay due to retenderingN0383 AIWWTP GrvtyThckner DAFRepa Delta 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 45% N Tanks not available due to operational needs.N0384 Iona MCC pwr dist ass rep 2010 Richmond 953,000 953,000 - 2% YN0385 Lulu MCC 80 011 and 012 replac Richmond 600,000 750,000 150,000 (7) 99% N Reviewing record drawings.N0387 Iona Solids Handling Design Richmond 4,500,000 4,500,000 - 38% YN0390 Iona Inlet Modifications Richmond 260,000 260,000 - 70% N Surge tower installed. Waiting for testing.N0392 LGWWTP HSG Compressor Repl West Vancouver 95,000 450,000 355,000 (9) 15% N Project cancelled.N0393 AIWWTP TF Pump Refurbishment Delta 855,000 855,000 - 67% YN0394 NSI Scour Construction Regional 457,000 995,000 538,000 (3) 2% YN0395 Gilbert Trunk Swr 2 Ph 1 Con Richmond 21,000,000 21,000,000 - 45% YN0396 Iona MCC Pwr Dist Ass Rep Fut Richmond 1,965,000 1,965,000 - 7% YN0397 LG WWTP Bar Screen Replacement West Vancouver 690,000 690,000 - 35% YN0398 AIWWTP WSS Line Replacement Delta 885,000 885,000 - (4) 30% YN0399 Lynn Sewage PS Upgrade North Vancouver 8,500,000 9,000,000 500,000 (1) 34% YN0411 Gilbert Trunk Swr No2 Ph2 Richmond 3,700,000 3,700,000 - 7% YN0421 Royal Ave PS - Predesign New Westminster 270,000 270,000 - 2% YN0422 Jervis SPS MCC ACP Repl Design Vancouver 115,000 115,000 - 1% YN0426 Iona Grit - Construction Richmond 8,100,000 8,100,000 - (6) 0% N Delayed due to removal of more biosolids than anticipated.

106,843,000 113,125,000 6,282,000 SD Infrastructure Risk Mgmt Cap

X0007 AIWWTP Ammonia Removal ConcDeDelta 300,000 300,000 - (4) 4% N RFP to be issued Q2 2014X0008 LIWWTP Ammonia Removal ConcDeRichmond 200,000 200,000 - (4) 3% N RFP to be issued Q2 2014X0015 LIWWTP PE Bypass Gates Design Richmond 150,000 150,000 - 6% YX0017 AIWWTP Ammonia Removal PreDes Delta 600,000 600,000 - (4) 0% N Project delayed due to delays in previous phase.N0056 FSA Easement Acquisition Progr Regional 1,500,000 1,500,000 - 72% YN0319 Jervis Planetarium Vancouver 6,765,000 9,000,000 2,235,000 (2) 99% Y

2014 SD Capital Expenditure Summary - April_.xlsm - 2014 April Summary Page 1 of 3 6/26/2014

UC-76

Schedule 2




Total Projects

N0331 Highbury Siphon Repair Const Vancouver 12,000,000 12,000,000 - 90% YN0348 NLWWTP Outfall Township of Langley 1,500,000 1,500,000 - 9% N PPA to review scope and include in NWLWWTP upgradesN0349 Highbury Overflow Facility Vancouver 110,000 110,000 - 19% N Project scope under review. Awaiting results from IIWWTP

capacity study.N0362 ISMP for Port Moody Coquitlam Regional 250,000 250,000 - 89% N Delay in hiring consultant.N0373 8th & Balaclava Data Collect'n Vancouver 100,000 100,000 - 20% N Delayed due to instrumentation sourcing / certifications.N0374 Coquitlam Interceptor Rehab Coquitlam 4,958,000 5,800,000 842,000 (1) 99% YN0386 AWWTP S Cogen Floor Rehab Des Delta 250,000 250,000 - 25% N Project scope under review.N0388 Highbury Air Mgt Facilities Vancouver 1,250,000 1,250,000 - 35% YN0389 NW CSO Gates Design New Westminster 825,000 825,000 - 4% N Project scope under review.N0391 AIWWTP Cogen Backup PrjDef Delta 1,400,000 1,400,000 - 99% N Delays in Consultant finalizing project definition report.N0409 AIWWTP SCL Flow Balance Design Delta 450,000 450,000 - (4) 4% N Project was delayed until initiation of AIWWTP Project Management

Support Services contract.N0412 AIWWTP PST Wway Col Remed DesDelta 300,000 300,000 - 14% YN0413 AIWWTP Cogen Backup Power Des Delta 9,000,000 9,000,000 - 3% YN0419 Sewer Seismic Upgrades Regional 500,000 500,000 - 0% YN0423 VSA Emerg Backup Power Concept Vancouver 300,000 300,000 - 2% YN0424 IIWWTP Sed Tank Effluent Gates Richmond 200,000 200,000 - 1% YN0427 NW Interceptor Columbia Sect New Westminster 702,000 702,000 - 0% YN0428 Gleneagles Forcemain Replace West Vancouver 330,000 330,000 - 1% Y

43,940,000 47,017,000 3,077,000 SD Infrastructure Upgrade Cap

X0012 IIWWTP Redund 12KV Fdr-Design Richmond 220,000 220,000 - 0% YX0021 NLWWTP SBS Storage Design Township of Langley 250,000 250,000 - 0% N On hold. Project scope under review.N0023 VSA Statutory Right of Way Vancouver 670,000 670,000 - 63% YN0065 NW Sewer overflow Oper Impr New Westminster 1,300,000 1,300,000 - 80% YN0066 New West Const CSO Storage Pro New Westminster 5,050,000 4,917,000 (133,000) 99% YN0324 AIWWTP Gas flow Meter Replace Delta 542,202 542,202 - 8% N On hold pending analysis of current flow meters.N0334 Jervis FM Extension to 8Al Vancouver 7,351,000 9,000,000 1,649,000 (2) 99% YN0344 Cloverdale SSO Treatment Surrey 150,000 150,000 - 11% N Project scope under review.N0345 Katzie SSO Treatment Maple Ridge 650,000 650,000 - 8% N On hold for NWLWWTP redirection of flows study.N0346 Lynn Creek SSO Treatment North Vancouver 13,000 750,000 737,000 (9) 2% N Per letter agreement from North Van, this project is no longer

required.N0367 Carvolth Sanitary Trunk Sewr 2 City of Langley 7,100,000 7,100,000 - 18% N Construction Tender to be issued in June 2014N0369 LIWWTP gas flowmeter repl Richmond 236,000 236,000 - 30% N On hold pending analysis of current flow meters.N0370 Sperling PS Station Upgrade Burnaby 500,000 500,000 - 60% YN0371 CDAC System migration planning Regional 300,000 300,000 - 95% YN0372 FSA Wastewater Meter Upgrades Regional 600,000 600,000 - 14% N Delay due to project scope review / revision.N0400 IIWWTP Dig 4 Roof Replacement Richmond 1,500,000 1,500,000 - 9% N Construction deferred to coincide with other capital works.N0401 Sperling PS Upgrade Constructt Burnaby 7,000,000 7,000,000 - 0% YN0402 NSSA Wastewater Meter Upgrades Regional 300,000 300,000 - 1% YN0403 VSA-Wastewater Meter Upgrades Vancouver 300,000 300,000 - 36% YN0404 LISA-Waterwater Meter Upgrades Richmond 300,000 300,000 - 24% YN0408 NWL WWTP Sludge Dewatering Township of Langley 2,500,000 2,500,000 - 6% YN0410 AIWWTP Secondary Bypass Design Delta 450,000 450,000 - (4) 8% N Project was delayed until initiation of AIWWTP Project Management

Support Services contract.N0415 IIWWTP Interim Facility Plan Richmond 250,000 250,000 - 10% YN0416 Wastewater Trtmt Plan for FSA Township of Langley 400,000 400,000 - 20% YN0417 LIWWTP Second Incomer Feeder Richmond 250,000 250,000 - 8% YN0420 LGWWTP Sludge Thickener No.2 West Vancouver 2,900,000 2,900,000 - 3% YN0425 IIWWTP Grit Effluent Gates Des Richmond 230,000 230,000 - 1% Y

41,312,202 43,565,202 2,253,000 SD Infrastruct Relocation Cap

N8000 South Fraser Perimeter Rd Regional 333,562 333,562 - 97% YN8001 Hwy 1 Widen and PM Bridge Twin Regional 5,714,815 5,714,815 - 98% Y

6,048,377 6,048,377 - SD Infr Sec Treat Upgrade Cap

X0001 VSA IONA WWTP Upgrade Design Richmond 16,500,000 16,500,000 - (5) 10% YX0002 NSA LG WWTP Upgrade Design North Vancouver 20,000,000 20,000,000 - (5) 39% Y

36,500,000 36,500,000 - SD Infr Opportunity Prgm Cap

X0010 AIWWTP IPS VFD Replacements Delta 1,050,000 1,050,000 - 0% YX0011 AIWWTP TF VFD Replacements Delta 870,000 870,000 - 0% YN0347 Sapperton Pump Stn Sewer Heat New Westminster 200,000 200,000 - 0% N Coordinating with Sapperton PS upgrade and developer Phase 2

development.N0379 VSA IRR Study Regional 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 90% YN0380 VSA IIWWTP flared Biogas util Richmond 600,000 600,000 - 19% N Delay in preparation of Project Interconnection Requirements

document by BC Hydro.N0381 LSA IRR Study Regional 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 0% YN0382 NSA IRR Study Regional 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 0% YN0406 LIWWTP Microsludge Richmond 13,100,000 13,100,000 - 11% YN0407 Evergreen LRTP Impacts Regional 750,000 750,000 - 85% Y

19,570,000 19,570,000 - SD Infr Annacis Stg 5 Exp Cap

Z0048 Annacis Stage 5 Phase 1 Delta 243,500,000 243,500,000 - 5% YZ0051 AIWWTP Stg 5 Ph 2 Pre Design Delta 5,000,000 5,000,000 - 59% YZ0055 ANI Stage 5 Ph 2 Detail Design Delta 17,000,000 17,000,000 - 0% Y

265,500,000 265,500,000 -

Total On-going Projects 681,771,579 701,470,579 19,699,000

COMPLETED PROJECTS

SD Infrastructure GrowthG0003 Sapperton Forcemain Const New Westminster 4,039,341 4,800,000 760,659 (2) 100%G0004 Front St Pres Sewer Skytrain New Westminster 3,303,347 3,750,000 446,653 (2) 100%Z0047 AIWWTP Trickling Filter Pump Delta 4,746,962 5,360,000 613,038 (1) 100%Z0052 LGWWTP Interim CEPT Upgrd Des West Vancouver 383,186 385,000 1,814 100%

12,472,835 14,295,000 1,822,165 SD Infrastructure Maint Cap

N0294 IIWWTP 2005 MCC Replacement Richmond 586,580 600,000 13,420 100%N0306 LGWWTP 2006 MCC Replacement West Vancouver 549,744 550,000 256 100%N0351 AIWWTP PATank Corrosion Repair Delta 3,077,338 4,500,000 1,422,662 (1) 100%N0357 IIWWTP Grit Tower Replacement Richmond 1,548,276 2,000,000 451,724 (1)(2) 100%

5,761,939 7,650,000 1,888,061


UC-77

Schedule 2




Total Projects

SD Infrastructure Risk Mgmt CapN0327 LGWWTP Refurb of DSST1 Design West Vancouver 998,764 1,000,000 1,236 100%N0338 LGWWTP SBS System Design ConstWest Vancouver 3,149,694 3,495,000 345,306 (2) 100%

4,148,458 4,495,000 346,542 SD Infrastructure Upgrade Cap

N0356 LIWWTP SHS Upgrade Phase 2 Richmond 914,282 1,000,000 85,718 (1) 100%914,282 1,000,000 85,718

SD Infr Opportunity Prgm CapN0354 Annacis Wastewater Centre Delta 9,337,000 9,000,000 (337,000) (6) 100%

9,337,000 9,000,000 (337,000)

Total Completed Projects 32,634,514 36,440,000 3,805,486

Notes:(1) Project will be completed under budget - savings due to competitive pricing.(2) Full contingency not required.(3) Reduction in scope.(4) Project is progressing now that new resources have become available.(5) Separate quarterly status reports for the Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Upgrade project are being provided to the Utilities Committee and Board.(6) Design revisions and unforeseen site conditions.(7) Negotiated installation contract price lower than budget; construction carefully monitored; change orders strictly controlled.(8) Awaiting East Fraser Servicing Study(9) Project cancelled.


UC-78

9443237 Page 1 of 4

APPENDIX B Capital Project Status Information

As at April 30, 2014

1. GREATER VANCOUVER WATER DISTRICT Major GVWD capital projects are generally proceeding on schedule and within budget. The

following capital program items and exceptions are highlighted:

i) Drinking Water Treatment Program

• All of the major construction contracts for the Seymour-Capilano Filtration Project are complete except for the twin tunnels and installation of the turbine/generator at the Capilano Energy Recovery Facility. Installation of the turbine/generator and tie-ins from the tunnels to the existing transmission system are scheduled to be completed in July and September 2014 respectively. Commissioning of the tunnels for filtration of Capilano source water is expected to commence in September 2014, with actual in-service dates projected for the end of 2014. As of the end of April 2014, the overall project is 97% complete.

• Construction of the Coquitlam UV Disinfection Facility is substantially complete and the

final occupancy permit has been received.

ii) Infrastructure Growth Program • Construction of Phase 1 of the Maple Ridge Main West, between the Barnston/Maple

Ridge Pump Station and 203rd Street and between 224th Street and 232nd Street has been completed. Construction of Phase 2 between 209th Street and 224th Street is scheduled to commence in June 2014 to coordinate with Maple Ridge’s road improvement program.

• Construction of the Barnston/Maple Ridge Pump Station continues. Construction of the

pump station walls is complete and the roof is underway. Construction is approximately 58% complete with overall completion scheduled for late 2014.

• Conceptual design of a new 22.5 ML (5 MG) reservoir to replace the Clayton Tank is complete. Preliminary design is scheduled to commence in June 2014.

• Conceptual design of the Annacis Water Supply Tunnel is well underway. Discussions regarding property acquisition for the north and south shaft sites continue and exploratory drilling, both on land and on the Fraser River, has been completed.

• Detailed design and property acquisition for Port Mann Main No. 2 (North) connecting the Cape Horn Pump Station and Reservoir near Mariner Way with the new Port Mann Water Supply Tunnel is underway. Construction of this 1.5m diameter, 2.5 km long steel water main is expected to start in spring 2015.

• The construction of the 1.5m diameter Angus Drive Main - Phase 1 between West 33rd Avenue and SW Marine Drive in Vancouver commenced in April 2014.

UC-79

9443237 Page 2 of 4

iii) Infrastructure Maintenance Program

• Construction of the Kincaid and Delta Avenue sections of the Douglas Road Main is complete. Final tie-ins are scheduled for fall 2014 to spring 2015.

• Design work on replacement of the E2 drainage shaft near Cleveland Dam has been completed. A contract was awarded to Jensen Drilling in April, to carry out the construction work. Mobilization is expected to commence in June. A noise bylaw variance has been obtained from the District of North Vancouver for this work. .

iv) Infrastructure Risk Management Program • Construction of the final lining of the north shaft of the Port Mann Water Supply Tunnel

in Coquitlam is underway. The TBM was launched from the south shaft in Surrey in late February and tunnel excavation is underway.

• Preliminary design of the proposed tunneled crossing of Burrard Inlet at 2nd Narrows is substantially complete. The consultant team is now finalizing the analytical work and expects to have a draft summary report completed in June.

• The field investigation program and analytical work for debris flow mitigation works for

Mackay Creek in North Vancouver is complete and a final report has been issued. Conceptual design of debris flow mitigation options is now underway.

• Construction of Phase 1 of Capilano Main No. 9 is underway. Shoring installation and excavation for the chamber are complete. Detailed design of the Phase II watermain along Capilano Road between the Capilano River Regional Park parking lot and Edgemont Boulevard is underway, including the stakeholder consultation related to the water main alignment and traffic impact mitigation plans.

v) Infrastructure Upgrade Program

• The Joint Water Use Plan for the Capilano and Seymour watersheds has been submitted

to the Province for approval, along with a request for water licenses to generate hydro power at Cleveland and Seymour Falls Dams. Following discussions with the Province, additional information has been submitted to Provincial staff to assist in their review.

• Preliminary design for the new 1.2 ML (0.26 MG) Lynn Valley Water Storage Reservoir is in progress.

vi) Infrastructure Opportunity Program

• Power generation at the Barnston/Maple Ridge Pump Station, taking advantage of the excess pressure available during off-peak periods when the pump station is not in use, is under review.

UC-80

9443237 Page 3 of 4

2. GREATER VANCOUVER SEWERAGE & DRAINAGE DISTRICT (Liquid Waste) Major GVS&DD liquid waste capital projects are generally proceeding on schedule and

within budget. The following capital program items and exceptions are highlighted:

i) Infrastructure Growth Program

• FSA – Northwest Langley WWTP Phase l Upgrade – The work expands treatment capacity with three new clarifiers, pumping station and ancillary process and electrical equipment. The general contractor completed the excavation work and the test piling. The data from the test piling is being analyzed by the consultant prior to proceeding with production piling. Substantial completion targeted for October, 2015.

• FSA – North Surrey Interceptor – Port Mann Section Twinning – Work on this project has been put on hold pending an East Fraser Sewer Servicing Study, expected to be complete by the end of 2015.

• FSA – Burnaby Lake North Interceptor – Sperling Section – Detailed design is complete. Pipe installation tenders will be issued by late May 2014.

• FSA – North Surrey Interceptor, 104th Avenue Section – Pipe installation is substantially complete and has been coordinated with construction of the South Fraser Perimeter Road. Acquisition of right of way required for the final tie-ins continues with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

• FSA – Annacis Outfall Pre-Design – This project involves identifying potential solutions to the transient/surge scenarios that may occur on the wastewater collection and treatment plant influent system in the event of a power outage, and assessing measures to increase capacity of the outfall. River modeling and preliminary analysis are now complete. Preliminary design is expected to be complete in 2014. The project team is initiating discussions with external agencies regarding permits, and identifying rights-of-way acquisition requirements.

• NSSA - Lions Gate WWTP Interim Chemically Enhanced Primary Treatment (CEPT)

Upgrade - Design and construction are complete. Owner commissioning is complete and the system is operational. Minor deficiencies are being rectified.

ii) Infrastructure Maintenance Program

• Marshend Pump Station Rehabilitation – Detailed design is complete. Construction is currently on hold pending Burnaby’s approval for rezoning the existing property. In addition, extra scope has been added to address growth demands which will delay the start of construction.

• LSA – Gilbert Trunk Sewer Twinning - Construction of Phase 1 of the twinning project is well underway and completion is expected in early 2015. Design of the second stage has commenced with construction scheduled to start summer 2015.

UC-81

9443237 Page 4 of 4

• VSA – Iona Island WWTP Solids Handling Upgrade – This project involves improving the existing grit removal and sludge screening systems, increasing sludge thickening capacity, and improving the digester mixing systems. Preliminary design is complete and detailed design is now underway. Construction is expected to start in late 2014, with completion in 2017.

• FSA – Annacis Island WWTP Secondary Clarifier Corrosion Repair – This project

involves replacing the 12 existing secondary clarifier mechanisms that are damaged by corrosion. One mechanism has been pre-purchased, with installation planned for summer 2014. Design engineering services for the 11 other mechanisms is planned to be issued during Fall 2014, with installation in 2015 and subsequent years.

iii) Infrastructure Risk Management Program

• FSA – Annacis Island WWTP Cogeneration System – Preliminary Design Phase was

initiated in February 2014 and engine configuration is scheduled to be finalized by June 2014. The procurement process for all engines (diesel and digester gas engines) will be initiated in fall 2014. The project is scheduled for completion at the end of 2017.

iv) Infrastructure Upgrade Program

• FSA – Sapperton Pump Station No. 2 – Preliminary design was completed in April and detailed design is underway and will be ready for equipment pre-purchase this fall. The project is proceeding as planned.

• FSA – Langley Connector and Carvolth Trunk Sewer Upgrading/Replacement - Design is nearing completion and will be tendered in June. Construction is expected to commence early fall 2014.

v) Infrastructure Opportunity Program

• LSA – Lulu Island WWTP MicroSludge® and Green Biomethane – Funding agreements

are in place and the project is initiated. The RFP process for engineering services is complete and a contract has been awarded. Engineering will begin in May 2014. Construction is planned to be complete in late 2015, to be followed by commissioning in early 2016.

vi) Annacis Stage 5 Expansion Program

• FSA – Annacis Island WWTP Stage 5 Phase 1 – This work involves expansion of

treatment process units including primary sedimentation tanks, secondary clarifiers, solid contact tanks and odour control. Detailed design commenced in early 2014. Field testing of stone columns installation to collect data for ground improvement detailed design optimization commenced in April 2014. The tender for Ground Improvement contract is scheduled to be issued by the end of May 2014.

UC-82

To: Utilities Committee

From: Tim Jervis, General Manager - Water Services Simon So, General Manager – Liquid Waste Services Date: July 2, 2014 Meeting Date: July 10, 2014 Subject: Managers’ Report RECOMMENDATION That the Utilities Committee receive for information the Managers’ Report dated July 2, 2014. 1. Integrated Resource Recovery Study for the Vancouver Sewerage Area – Simon So As identified in the Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan, the first phase of the Integrated Resource Recovery (IRR) Study for the Vancouver Sewerage Area (VSA) has been completed. This work identified and screened a number of potential resource recovery opportunities involving the liquid waste, solid waste, and energy systems within the VSA. GVS&DD members within the VSA (staff from Vancouver, Burnaby, Richmond, UBC, UEL, & MV) were considered “Study Owners” who provided substantial input to forming the work scope, consultant procurement, specific IRR opportunities, and review of work. From 2012 to 2014 a number of workshops and presentations were held with staff from the participating members. Specific opportunities resulting from the study include effluent heat recovery for use by Vancouver Airport Authority (YVR), diversification of use of organic materials, examination of waste-sourced energy for planned district energy systems along the Cambie Street corridor (including heat source options such as sewer heat, clean wood waste, and food waste), and exploring new technologies for managing biosolids. MV and YVR recently signed a collaborative agreement to proceed with a more detailed feasibility study on a Sea Island District Energy system using effluent heat that could also potentially service parts of Vancouver, Richmond, or UBC. This and other initiatives owned by respective municipalities can be viewed as the second phase of the study, some of which are now underway. The VSA IRR study is the second of four IRR studies to be completed, one for each sewerage area. The North Shore IRR was completed in 2011. The Lulu Island Sewerage Area IRR study is scheduled for 2014/15, to be followed by the Fraser Sewerage Area IRR study scheduled for 2015/16. 2. DCC Bylaw – Simon So The current DCC Bylaw was last updated in April 2010. Since the original bylaw was developed in 1996 there have been changes to the text of the document but not the DCC rates. In the light of the current 2014 Liquid Waste Long Range Infrastructure Capital Plan, and the changes to the Tier I and Tier II definitions, a DCC Bylaw review is required to ensure that the Bylaw accurately reflects the current

5.9

UC-83

growth estimates, refined sewer infrastructure plans, as well as the current approach to cost apportionment and debt financing. This year, staff have completed the following:

• apportionment of Liquid Waste infrastructure growth according to the new Tier I and Tier II definitions;

• development of a DCC Financial Model; and • Some initial infrastructure financing options and related rate schedules

This preliminary work is currently under review to identify outstanding issues. As a next step a draft DCC Background Report, comprising population/growth projections, capital program assist factors, equivalency factors, allocation of costs, policy assumptions and calculations will be reviewed with member municipalities. Based on the results of the Background Report and input from member municipalities, proposed amendments to the DCC Bylaw and rate schedules will be presented to Utilities and Finance Committees, together with a framework for consultation. 3. Utilities Committee 2014 Work Plan – Tim Jervis Attached is the updated 2014 Work Plan indicating the status of the Committee’s key priorities together with the quarter that each priority is expected to be considered by the Committee. Attachments: 1. Utilities Committee 2014 Work Plan

UC-84

Attachment 1 1st Quarter Status

Key Priorities

• 2014 Committee Priorities Complete • 2014 GVWD and GVS&DD Capital Projects Complete • Seymour-Capilano Filtration Project Status – Q4 2013 Complete • Coquitlam UV Disinfection Facility - Start-up and Commissioning Complete • Lions Gate Secondary WWTP – Quarterly Update Complete • Lions Gate Secondary WWTP Project Procurement Strategy Complete • Sewer Use Bylaw Treatment Fee Amendments Complete • Carvolth Trunk Sewer Complete • Celebrations to Recognize 100 Years of Regional Sewerage Services Complete • GVS&DD Cost Apportionment Bylaw Complete

2nd Quarter

Key Priorities • Tap Water Campaign - Summer Water Wagon Schedule Complete • Water Supply Forecast and Water Consumption/Conservation Update for Summer 2014 Complete • Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures Complete • Seymour-Capilano Filtration Project Status – Q1 2014 Complete • GVWD Quality Control Annual Report for 2013 Complete • Municipal Requests for Sewer Area Expansions Complete • Lions Gate Secondary WWTP - Quarterly Update In Progress • GVS&DD Development Cost Charge Review In Progress • Amendment of FSA Boundary – Anmore Sewer Service Request Complete • Port Moody-Coquitlam Drainage Area Integrated Stormwater Management Plan In Progress • Sewer Use Bylaw Pollution Prevention Plans In Progress • Sewer Heat Policy Framework In Progress

3rd Quarter

Key Priorities

• Approval of Joint Water Use Plan for Capilano and Seymour Watersheds In Progress • 2014 Progress Report for the DWMP In Progress • Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures In Progress • Seymour-Capilano Filtration Project Status – Q2 2014 In Progress • Update on Fisheries Initiatives in the Capilano, Seymour and Coquitlam Watersheds In Progress • Complete conceptual design of Annacis Water Supply Tunnel In Progress • Region-wide Baseline for Municipal Stormwater Management Pending • Lions Gate Secondary WWTP - Quarterly Update Pending • Source Control Outreach Program • 2013 Environmental Management & Quality Control Annual Report for GVS&DD

Pending In Progress

UC-85

4th Quarter

Key Priorities

• Summer 2014 Water Supply Performance Pending • Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures In Progress • Completion of the Multi-year Watershed Road Deactivation Program In Progress • Water Conservation/Tap Water Campaign/Water Wagon Update Pending • Seymour-Capilano Filtration Project Status – Q3 2014 Pending • Complete construction and commissioning of Barnston/Maple Ridge Pump Station In Progress • Commence Filtration (and energy recovery) of the Capilano Source In Progress • Municipal Requests for Sewerage Area Expansions Pending • Lions Gate Secondary WWTP - Quarterly Update Pending • Adaptive Management Framework for Municipal Integrated Stormwater Management

Plans In Progress

• Integrated Utility Management Advisory Committee (IUMAC) Annual Report Pending • 2015 Budgets – Water and Liquid Waste Services In Progress • Re-alignment of Sewerage Area Boundaries with the Urban Containment Boundary

Pending

UC-86

CPC 29UC-87

Ministre de !'Infrastructure, des Collectivites et des Affaires intergouvernementales

et ministre de I'Agence de developpement economique du Canada pour les regions du Quebec

Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec

Ottawa, Canada K1A 1MB

MAY 0 9 2014

Mr. Greg Moore Chair

Mr. Raymond Louie Vice-Chair Metro Vancouver Board 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, British Columbia V5H 4G8

Dear Messrs. Moore and Louie:

"~"-"'""':i''tp'"~;:;~~-... ~.-~ .. -· Info Copy: ........ \\"'5''"~ ......... _ Ale No.:--.......... - .. ~·-··-.. --·-Doc. No.: .............................. - .......... __ CAO Tracker No.: ................ --.......... - .. .

Ctw /lJ.· 8tftr37SO

Thank you for your letter of January 16, 2014, providing an update on the Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant project, and seeking a dialogue with me to secure financial support for the project. The Office of the Prime Minister forwarded to me a copy of a similar correspondence, also of January 16, 2014.

I recognize the importance of the Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant for Metro Vancouver and the North Shore municipalities it serves, and I understand that representatives from Metro Vancouver have met with officials from my Department on a few occasions, and most recently on January 30, 2014, to discuss the project.

Although the vast majority of public infrastructure in Canada falls under provincial, territorial or municipal jurisdiction, our Government is proud to make strategic investments in infrastructure that contribute to economic growth, job creation, a cleaner environment, and strong, prosperous communities.

Since 2006, our Government hils taken uuprt:cedented action to support the provinces, territories and municipalities in building new, modern, and efficient public infrastructure in every community across Canada.

I am very proud that our Government has delivered a New Building Canada Plan (NBCP) to help finance the construction, rehabilitation and enhancement of infrastructure across Canada. The Plan includes over $53 billion for provincial, territorial and municipal infrastructure over 10 years. Combined with investments in federal infrastructure and First Nations' infrastructure, total federal spending for infrastructure will reach $70 billion over the next decade. This is the largest and longest federal investment in jobcreating infrastructure in Canadian history.

. . . 2

Canada

TBowen

Text Box

6.1

CPC 30UC-88

Of the $53 billion under the NBCP, $47 billion consists of new funding for provincial, territorial and municipal infrastructure, starting in 2014-15, through three key funds:

- The Community Improvement Fund: $32.2 billion over 10 years consisting of an indexed Gas Tax Fund and the incremental Goods and Services Tax (GST) Rebate for municipalities to build roads, public transit, recreational facilities and other community infrastructure across Canada.

- The New Building Canada Fund (NBC F): $14 billion over I 0 years in support of major economic infrastructure projects of national, regional and local significance, including $I billion in funding dedicated to municipalities with fewer than I 00,000 residents through the Small Communities Fund.

- A renewed P3 Canada Fund: $1.25 billion over 5 years to continue supporting innovative ways to build infrastructure projects faster and provide better value for Canadian taxpayers through public-private partnerships.

The NBCF was officially launched on March 28, 2014. As announced, projects under the Provincial-Territorial Infrastructure Component of the NBCF will be jointly identified between the Government of Canada and provincial or territorial partners. Under this program, provinces and territories will detennine priorities among the projects that are proposed to them, and bring these forward for discussion with Infrastructure Canada. Given the issues you raise in your correspondence, I would recommend you contact your provincial representatives at the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, and share your views with them.

The NBCP will also protect taxpayers by requiring large projects to undergo a publicprivate partnership (P3) screen to determine if a P3 procurement would generate better value for money than a traditional procurement process. Projects with total eligible costs over $100 million will be required to undergo the P3 Screen. If it is determined that a P3 procurement would generate better value for taxpayers' money, then funding from the NBCF, if approved, would be conditional upon the project being procured as a P3. The NBCP also encourages the use of P3s by providing an additional $1.25 billion through the P3 Canada Fund.

We are committed to ensuring a seamless transition from the 2007 Building Canada Plan to the NBCP. Agreements for the renewal of the Gas Tax Fund are being finalized. Furthermore, details on the NBCF, including infonnation on how to apply for funding, are available online at www.infrastructure.gc.ca. Inquiries about details on the New Building Canada Fund can be sent to Jeff Moore, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Communications, Infrastructure Canada, at [email protected].

. .. 3

CPC 31UC-89

- 3-

As always, I look forward to ongoing collaboration with Metro Vancouver as we continue to make record investments in world-class infrastructure that supports job creation, economic growth and high quality of life for Canadians in every community across Canada.

Yours sincerely,

new greater vancouver regional district utilities … · 2014. 8. 22. · july 4, 2014 greater...

Documents