waste water treatment plant location options
play

Waste Water Treatment Plant Location Options Presented by: Ben - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Waste Water Treatment Plant Location Options Presented by: Ben Greenough, S uperintendent of Public Works Date: April 3, 2017 In Camera Meeting S ewer S tudy Review 2010 S ewage Treatment and Disposal Feasibility S tudy 2013


  1. Waste Water Treatment Plant Location Options Presented by: Ben Greenough, S uperintendent of Public Works Date: April 3, 2017 In Camera Meeting

  2. S ewer S tudy Review  2010 S ewage Treatment and Disposal Feasibility S tudy  2013 Village/ S kidegate Band Joint S ewage Treatment Concept Design S tudy

  3. Existing S ewer S ystem

  4. Existing S ewer S ystem  Five pumping stations including the outfall pumping station  The collection system comprises 150, 200 and 250 mm PVC pipe  1.2 km outfall discharges into bearskin bay approx. 20 m depth  403 residential and commercial service connections  Does not provide sewer service to parts of the municipality

  5. Outfall  The outfall at Pumping S tation No. 5 discharges sewage through an approx. 1200 m long 200 mm HDPE S eries 45 outfall  The pipe is buried in a trench to j ust below the low tide mark and it then continues on the sea bottom to terminate at a depth of 20 m below low water

  6. Treatment Plant S iting Criteria  S hould be isolated from residential development and public use areas - ideally within industrial or agricultural zoned land  Based on a “ small footprint” type of treatment plant the useable portion of the site should be about 0.11 ha in size for a long term population of 3,000; however, if a 30 m buffer area around the treatment units is added, the area requirement increases to 0.86 ha  Long detention treatment such as aerated lagoons require considerably more area – a minimum of 6.0 ha for 3,000 people, including a 30 m buffer zone

  7. Treatment Plant S iting Criteria  To minimize pumping, the site should be near sea level  The outfall must be located in an area that provides good integration of the effluent into the seawater mass  The outfall location must minimize impact on fisheries resources and recreational use of the water  S iting must consider the potential for odor and noise nuisance on the nearest residential or public use area  The site must not impact archaeological sites

  8. Treatment Plant Concept Design For the purpose of this feasibility study, it has been assumed that a small site may be acquired for a Village owned treatment plant. A “ small footprint” S equencing Batch Reactor technology has been selected for the treatment plant.

  9. Treatment Plant Concept Design Initial stage (1,250 people) capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are detailed in Appendix 3 and summarized as follows:  Capital Cost $4,550,000 (2010 $)  O&M Cost $96,500/ year (2010 $)

  10. Treatment Plant S ite Options Option 1: S mith Pt Option 2: Central Area Option 3: S kidegate Landing W Option 4: S kidegate Landing E

  11. Treatment Plant S ite Options 1. S mith Point Area 2. Central Area 3. S kidegate Landing West Area 4. S kidegate Landing East Area 5. Joint treatment and disposal with the S kidegate Band Council

  12. S mith Point Area PROS  The required extension of the sewer system is minimum and the existing outfall can be used  Existing Pump S tation No. 5 can be used to pump sewage to the treatment plant; however, an effluent pump station, and a section of land outfall would be needed at the treatment site to connect to the existing 200 mm marine outfall CONS  Finding a site that is sufficiently large to provide for even a “ small footprint” treatment technology  VQC does not own property in this area  Not in an industrial or agricultural zoned location  Potential for odor, noise and nuisance on the nearest residential and public use areas

  13. S mith Point Area

  14. Central Area (Boat Launch) PROS  Existing Pump S tation No. 5 can be re-used along with a 200 mm forcemain extension to the treatment plant  The existing outfall at S mith Point can be used by pumping the treatment plant effluent in a 200 mm land section of outfall that is placed in the influent force main trench  VQC owns property In this location CONS  Finding a site that is sufficiently large to provide for even a “ small footprint” treatment technology  The sewage collection system must be extended about 1.2 km to service a site in the Central Area  Not in an industrial or agricultural zoned location  Potential for odor, noise and nuisance on the nearest residential and public use areas

  15. Central Area (Boat Launch)

  16. S kidegate Landing West Area PROS  A sit e near Haida Point is assumed and would allow for a new out fall t o be const ruct ed near Haida Point t o a 30 m dept h in S kidegat e Inlet  The exist ing out fall would revert t o an emergency overflow st at us for Pump S t at ion No. 5  The t reat ment plant sit e is assumed t o be at a high enough elevat ion t o allow gravit y discharge of effluent t o t he out fall  S it e would allow for sewer connect ion for maj orit y of municipalit y and open up propert y for pot ent ial development CONS  The propert y t hat was viewed at t his t ime has since been sold and VQC does not own any propert y in t he area  Finding a sit e t hat is sufficient ly large t o provide for even a “ small foot print ” t reat ment t echnology  Not in an indust rial or agricult ural zoned locat ion  Pump S t at ion No. 5 would be fit t ed wit h new pumps and a 200 mm forcemain will ext end 3.1 km from Pump S t at ion No. 5 t o t he t reat ment plant sit e  Pot ent ial for odor, noise and nuisance on t he nearest resident ial and public use areas

  17. S kidegate Landing West Area

  18. S kidegate Landing East Area PROS  A new outfall would be constructed near Image Point to discharge into 30 m of water in S kidegate Inlet  The treatment plant site is assumed to be at a high enough elevation to allow gravity discharge of effluent to the outfall  S ite would allow for sewer connection for maj ority of municipality and open up property for potential development  The site is zone industrial CONS  Finding a site that is sufficiently large to provide for even a “ small footprint” treatment technology  VQC does not own property in this area  S imilar to Option 3, Pump S tation No. 5 will be fitted with new pumps and a new 200 mm forcemain will extend 4.2 km to discharge to the treatment plant

  19. S kidegate Landing East Area

  20. Joint Treatment With S kidegate

  21. Joint Treatment With S kidegate  In 2013, VQC engineers, Opus Dayton & Knight, worked with the S kidegate Band’s Engineers to come up with a study on how to connect VQC’s sewer system with the S kidegate WWTP  The S tudy looked at:  S everal options on how to connect the two systems  Required upgrades to S kidegate’ s WWTP to handle the extra flow from VQC  Required upgrades to S kidegate’ s outfall

  22. Joint Treatment With S kidegate Conveyance system options

  23. Joint Treatment With S kidegate: S kidegate WWTP Upgrades  The current WWTP is designed for a population of 1,250 people. This would need to be upgraded to support a population of 2,400 people and accommodate growth in both communities The proposed upgrades include:  A new cement t ank, wit h aerat ion blowers  A st and by generat or t o accommodat e t he expansion  A well t o accommodat e a wat er service  A headworks building wit h mechanical screen and flow measurement equipment

  24. Joint Treatment With S kidegate: S kidegate WWTP Upgrades

  25. Joint Treatment With S kidegate: New Outfall  A new outfall would be needed to service the design population of 2,400, as the existing marine outfall only has adequate capacity for 1,700 people  The Option 3 and 4 conveyance system would require a new outfall to be located offshore from the sewage treatment plant  The 200 mm outfall is marginally undersized for the design flow, so if a new outfall is selected, then it would be wise to install a 250 mm pipe because the cost difference is small while capacity would be substantially increased allowing for growth

  26. Joint Treatment With S kidegate: New Outfall

  27. Joint Treatment With S kidegate: Overview

  28. Joint Treatment With S kidegate: Considerations An agreement between VQC and the S kidegate Band Council would have to be negotiated and include:  Ownership and cost sharing for the sewage conveyance system, both existing and new works  Cost sharing for the existing treatment plant and the expanded treatment plant, assuming Band ownership  Cost sharing for the new outfall, assuming Band ownership  Design and construction responsibility for new works

  29. Joint Treatment With S kidegate: Considerations  S ewage flow criteria  S ewage quality criteria  VQC and S BC responsibility for Permits, Approvals, etc.  And so on…

  30. Revised Estimates (2017 $) Option Study Estimate 2017 estimate 1. S mith Point $5,699,000 $6,838,800 2. Central Area $6,305,000 $7,566,000 3. S kidegate Landing West $7,158,000 $8,589,600 4. S kidegate Landing East $7,803,000 $9,363,600 5. Joint Treatment with S kidegate Band $11,800,000 $13,216,000 *added 20% to 2010 Study estimates 1 to 4, and 12% to 2013 Study estimate 5 to account for years of inflation

  31. Other Considerations: S ewer service Hook-ups

Recommend


More recommend