Opus DaytonKnight Consultants Ltd

Opus DaytonKnight Consultants Ltd North Vancouver ODK Office 210-889 Harbourside DriveNorth Vancouver BC V7P 3S1 Canada

t: +1 604 990 4800 f: +1 604 990 4805 w: www.opusdaytonknight.com

TO

COPY

FROM

DATE FILE SUBJECT

Joint Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee, District of Tofino Bob Macpherson, CAO, District of Tofino Blake Medlar, LWMP Consultant Al Gibb, Ph.D., P.Eng., Roger Warren, M. Eng., P.Eng., Aline Bennett, M.A.Sc., EITOpus DaytonKnightSeptember 7, 2016

D-B1201.00

Stage 3 LWMP - Phase 2 Detailed Assessments (revised)

Phase 2 of the Stage 3 LWMP process has built upon the information presented in Phase 1 for providing secondary wastewater treatment to residents, commercial enterprises, the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation, Parks Canada, the Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District and other stakeholders within the District of Tofino.

In Phase 1, four sites, Grice Point, the Hospital Site, DL 114 and the Chesterman Beach site were selected from a long list of sites for consideration. The JLWMAC evaluated these four sites in light of their economic, environmental, social and political impact. DL 114 was advanced from Phase 1 to Phase 2 for further consideration at the May 19, 2016 Joint Liquid Waste Management Advisory Committee (JLWMAC) meeting. The DL 117 site was included in Phase 2 assessments after feedback from the June through July 2016 public consultation phase of the Stage 3 Liquid Waste Management Planning process.

The objective of this memo is to discuss the capital and O&M cost estimates for the DL 114 and DL 117 sites to assist the JLWMAC in advancing one site to Phase 3. The cost estimates include the capital and operations and maintenance costs for:

• conveyance of wastewater to the new wastewater treatment plant site;• wastewater treatment plant infrastructure based on MWR Category 1 requirements,

including road access to the site;• repairing the outfall; and• managing the solids residuals produced in the wastewater treatment process.

Also included is a 15% allowance for engineering design, and a 15% contingency on all capital costs.

The cost estimates do not include:

Page 2

costs for acquiring land or right of ways for siting the wastewater treatment facility, pump stations or forcemains;

replacement of existing conveyance infrastructure that may be nearing the end of its useful life, but does not require upgrading or replacement to service the new wastewater treatment facility;

administration, training, insurance, or legal costs; additional vehicle costs.

In Phase 1, the cost estimates were considered Class D estimates with a level of accuracy of ±50%. The objective of Phase 2 is to take a more detailed look at the sites and cost estimates in order to reduce some of the contingencies to approximately ±35% by developing a site plan, sizing estimates, and contacting suppliers for major equipment quotes. It is important to note that these cost estimates are still considered Class D estimates since no detailed engineering design, geotechnical or environmental studies have been undertaken for the DL 114 site. Preliminary geotechnical, environmental and archaeological studies were done in 2005 for the DL 117 site.

The cost estimates should not be used for construction purposes, but are adequate for comparing the options and beginning the process of applying for grant funding.

Table 1A: Summary of Estimated Costs for Proposed DL 114 Site, ± 35%

DL 114 Site

SBR Plant Option MBBR-DAF Plant Option MBBR-DAF + Heat Recovery

Option

Capital Annual O&M Capital Annual O&M Capital Annual O&M

Conveyance $4,424,000 $68,000 $4,424,000 $68,000 $4,424,000 $68,000

Treatment $11,270,000 $430,000 $13,690,000 $493,000 $14,190,000 $523,000

Residuals $2,493,000 $250,000 $2,493,000 $250,000 $2,493,000 $250,000

Total $18,187,000 $748,000 $20,607,000 $811,000 $21,107,000 $841,000

20-year Net Present Value (no grant funding)

$26,770,000 $29,910,000 $30,750,000

20-year Net Present Value (50% capital grant)

$17,670,000 $19,610,000 $20,200,000

Table 1B: Summary of Estimated Costs for Proposed DL 117 Site, ± 35%

DL 117 Site

SBR Plant Option MBBR-DAF Plant Option MBBR-DAF + Heat Recovery

Option

Capital Annual O&M Capital Annual O&M Capital Annual O&M

Conveyance $5,674,500 $74,000 $5,674,500 $74,000 $5,674,500 $74,000

Treatment $12,655,000 $445,000 $15,130,000 $507,000 $15,630,000 $537,000

Residuals $2,493,000 $250,000 $2,493,000 $250,000 $2,493,000 $250,000

Total $20,822,500 $769,000 $23,297,500 $831,000 $23,797,500 $861,000

20 Year Net Present Value - No grant funding

$29,640,000 $32,830,000 $33,670,000

20 Year Net Present Value - 50% capital grant

$19,230,000 $21,180,000 $21,770,000

Net Present Value is calculated assuming a discount rate of 6%. It includes the capital costs of infrastructure and 20 years of O&M costs. Costs are in 2016 CAD dollars

1 Proposed Site at DL 114

The proposed DL 114 site is located just south of the District core, the community centre and the elementary school. The site could comfortably fit a larger footprint plant, with room for future expansion. Depending on the location of the wastewater treatment plant on the site, the closest residential property is approximately 120 to 150 metres from the edge of the plant footprint. There may be an opportunity at the DL 114 site to recover heat from the wastewater effluent either to heat buildings at the plant, or to heat a swimming pool at a new community centre. The proposed plant locations on DL 114 are shown on Figures 2A, 2B and 2C.

Costs are provided for three different options, meant to represent a range of costs; a larger footprint plant with less architectural enhancement, a smaller footprint plant with more architectural enhancement and a plant with architectural enhancement and incorporating sustainability features (heat recovery is used for this assessment). The intention of providing different cost options was to provide a range of costs to develop an understanding of what is appropriate for the District and its residents.

Overall the site at DL 114 generally has lower capital, operations and maintenance costs than the DL 117 site primarily due to site access and pumping costs. A summary of the estimated costs for the three cost options at DL 114 are shown in Table 1A.

Copy of Table 1A above: Summary of DL 114 Estimated Costs (±35%) DL 114 Site

SBR Plant Option MBBR-DAF Plant

Option MBBR-DAF + Heat

Recovery Option

Capital Annual

O&M Capital

Annual O&M

Capital Annual

O&M

Conveyance $4,424,000 $68,000 $4,424,000 $68,000 $4,424,000 $68,000

Treatment $11,270,000 $430,000 $13,690,000 $493,000 $14,190,000 $523,000

Residuals $2,493,000 $250,000 $2,493,000 $250,000 $2,493,000 $250,000

Total $18,187,000 $748,000 $20,607,000 $811,000 $21,107,000 $841,000 Detailed costs shown in attached Tables 2 (Capital and O&M costs) and Table 4 (Residuals)

Geotechnical, Environmental and Archaeological Assessments It is important to note that at this stage, no geotechnical studies, or environmental impact assessments have been done for the DL 114 site, which is a risk associated with the site. An archaeological impact assessment, described in Section 2, was completed for the DL 117 area, which may apply to the DL 114 site as well.

It is recommended that a detailed geotechnical site investigation and environmental impact assessment be completed at the pre-design stage once the site has been selected, with an approximate budget of $60,000 and $20,000 respectively. Given the results of the archaeological impact assessment completed for the DL 117 area, an archaeological impact assessment may not be required.

Page 5

1.1 Conveyance

New conveyance infrastructure required for siting a plant at DL 114 is shown in Figure 2A. A small pump station, PS-A, is proposed at the Cedar Street Outfall to pump raw wastewater conveyed to the outfall to the plant for treatment. A larger pump station, PS-B, is proposed at the First Street Outfall, to pump raw wastewater to the plant for treatment. A third pump station, PS-C, is proposed near Industrial Way, as an opportunity to divert odourous wastewater away from the District core and convey it directly to the plant for treatment. All proposed pump stations require new forcemains to convey wastewater to the plant for treatment.

The treatment plant will discharge treated effluent through the existing Cedar Street Outfall, with the First Street Outfall being abandoned. Upgrades to the outfall are required including repair of a hole that was cut into the outfall, an extension of the outfall and a new diffuser.

Generally, estimated conveyance costs are lower for the DL 114 site than for the DL 117 site (described in Section 2) because there is less new forcemain and less pumping required than at the DL 117 site. A summary of conveyance costs for the DL 114 site are shown in attached Table 2E.

1.2 Wastewater Treatment

The DL 114 site has adequate area to accommodate a larger footprint treatment plant so there are options for either a smaller footprint, more enclosed process or a larger footprint, less enclosed process. All options could be designed to produce the same quality of effluent. Layouts of the moving bed biofilm reactor with dissolved air flotation (MBBR-DAF) and sequencing batch reactor (SBR) plant options are shown on Figures 1A and 1B respectively. The options for wastewater treatment at the DL 114 site are summarized below and are shown on Figures 2B and 2C.

A larger footprint plant using sequencing batch reactor (SBR) technology is shown on Figure 2B, sited south of community centre, approximately 150 metres away from the closest residential property to the west. The plant footprint is approximately 9,600 m2. Including a 50 metre buffer all around brings the area up to approximately 4 hectares. The plant footprint site (not including the buffer) is reasonably level, and does not encroach on creeks and riparian assessment areas. It should be noted that the area has a network of trails commonly used by local residents. These trails would likely have to be replaced if this site is chosen for the plant but this cost has not been factored into the cost estimate at this time. The capital cost estimate is shown in Table 2A and assumptions used to produce the estimate include the following:

Treatment processes which present a higher odour risk are assumed to be enclosed and comprehensive odour control is included (influent screening and solids dewatering);

The SBR tanks are not enclosed, which adds some minor odour risk, but typically does not present an issue under regular operations;

Architectural enhancements on the administration building are included; The treatment process is not fully enclosed which can be considered less aesthetically pleasing

than a fully enclosed process. However, a 50 m treed buffer is assumed for all options, so the aesthetics may not be a concern.

Page 6

LED lighting and a backup generator is included in the estimate; Wastewater will flow to the outfall by gravity (effluent pump station not necessary); and A 150 m gravel road to the site is included.

A smaller footprint plant using moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) technology for the treatment process is shown on Figure 2C, sited to the east of the community centre, approximately 120 m away from the closest residential property, 50 metres from the edge of the school field, and 90 m from the community centre. The plant footprint is approximately 3,000 square metres. Including a 50 metre buffer around the site brings the area up to approximately 2.4 hectares. This proposed site (not including the buffer) would require grading and levelling due to steep slopes. The site does not appear to encroach on riparian areas, but it should be noted that there is a bog immediately south of the school The capital cost estimate is shown in Table 2C and assumptions used to produce the estimate include the following:

The treatment process is fully enclosed, eliminating almost all potential odour sources, though this is likely more stringent odour control than would be necessary at this site;

Architectural enhancements are included; LED lighting and a backup generator are included; Wastewater will flow to the outfall by gravity (effluent pump station not necessary); and A 80 metre gravel road to the site is included.

The operations and maintenance cost estimate includes labour, power, and chemicals for the major treatment unit processes and are shown in Tables 2B and 2D for the SBR and MBBR-DAF options respectively. The estimate also includes a sinking fund for equipment replacement costs and contract maintenance costs for manufacturer maintenance if necessary.

Overall, capital and operations and maintenance costs for the MBBR-DAF process are greater than for the SBR process because the process equipment is more expensive and enclosing all the treatment processes for enhanced odour control and architectural enhancements is more expensive.

Including sustainability features such as a heat recovery system for heating the plant buildings is assumed to increase capital costs by about $500,000, primarily for piping and HVAC equipment. Operations and maintenance costs are estimated to increase by about $30,000 primarily for additional pumping costs. If offsite use of recovered heat is implemented, capital costs will increase the further away the plant is from the end user since more piping is required.

Capital and operations and maintenance costs for the SBR and MBBR-DAF plants are shown in attached Tables 2A through 2D.

1.3 Residuals Management

Wastewater treatment plants produce residuals which come from solids removed from the treatment process and bacterial growth in the biological process. For this assessment, we have assumed that composting residuals at the landfill and using the compost as landfill cover may be an appropriate form of residuals management. Capital costs are shown for an aerated bunker composting system.

Page 7

This approach is used for both the proposed DL 114 and DL 117 sites. Capital and operations and maintenance costs for residuals management are shown in Table 4.

Page 8

2 Proposed Site at DL 117

The proposed DL 117 site is located south of the DL 114 site. Similar to the DL 114 site, DL 117 can comfortably fit a larger footprint plant with room for future expansion. With the location of the wastewater treatment plant in the northwest corner of the district lot, the closest residential property is about 300 metres north of the edge of the plant footprint. The proposed wastewater treatment plant locations for DL 117 are shown in Figures 3A, 3B and 3C.

As with DL 114, described previously, costs are provided for three different options, a larger footprint plant with less architectural enhancement, a smaller footprint plant with more architectural enhancement and a small footprint plant incorporating a heat recovery system. The intention of providing different cost options was to provide a range of costs and develop an understanding of what is appropriate for the District and its residents for each site option.

Overall the site at DL 117 has higher capital and operations and maintenance costs than the DL 114 site primarily due to greater site access costs and higher pumping costs.

Copy of Table 1B above: Summary of DL 117 Estimated Costs (±35%) DL 117 Site

SBR Plant Option MBBR-DAF Plant

Option MBBR-DAF + Heat

Recovery Option

Capital Annual

O&M Capital

Annual O&M

Capital Annual

O&M

Conveyance $5,674,500 $74,000 $5,674,500 $74,000 $5,674,500 $74,000

Treatment $12,655,000 $445,000 $15,130,000 $507,000 $15,630,000 $537,000

Residuals $2,493,000 $250,000 $2,493,000 $250,000 $2,493,000 $250,000

Total $20,822,500 $769,000 $23,297,500 $831,000 $23,797,500 $861,000 Detailed costs shown in attached Tables 3 (Capital and Operations & Maintenance costs) and Table 4 (Residuals)

Preliminary Geotechnical Site Investigation A preliminary geotechnical investigation was performed by Levelton Consultants (now part of WSP Canada) in a report dated June 9, 2005, for the, at that time, proposed Arnet Road Utility Corridor project. The project consisted of 1,250 metres of access road leading to a new wastewater treatment plant in the northwest corner of DL 117.

Geotechnical investigation consisted of hand probing to get an indication of depth to suitable subgrade. Depths to probe refusal ranged from 0.1 to 0.9 metres, which may be either bedrock or hard glacial till material. According to the report, dated June 9, 2005, the site review suggested favourable foundation ground conditions of till or bedrock at relatively shallow depth. The report also mentioned that site leveling might be required based on the gently rolling topography.

It is recommended that a detailed geotechnical site investigation be completed at the pre-design stage once the site has been selected, with an approximate budget of $60,000.

Environmental and Archaeological Impact Assessments An environmental investigation and archaeological impact assessment was performed by Gartner Lee Limited in a report dated January 2006 for the, at that time, proposed Arnet Road

Page 9

Utility Corridor project. The report was prepared to meet the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

The report noted that protected species have a high probability of occurring in or near the project area, and that the project would result in minor loss of habitat for certain species, though this effect was not considered significant given the proximity to the large protected area of Pacific Rim National Park. The report noted further that many of the environmental effects associated with the project could be mitigated through appropriate measures taken during construction and operation of the plant. A summary of possible mitigation measures is included in the report.

The archaeological impact assessment noted that the area is within the asserted traditional territory of the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation, but there are no previously recorded archaeological sites are located within or adjacent to the study area, no areas having moderate or high archaeological potential were identified. No further archaeological study is recommended for the area.

2.1 Conveyance

Similar to DL 114, new conveyance infrastructure required for siting a plant at DL 114 is shown in Figure 2B. A small pump station, PS-A, is proposed at the Cedar Street Outfall to pump raw wastewater conveyed to the outfall to the plant for treatment. A larger pump station, PS-B, is proposed at the First Street Outfall, to pump raw wastewater to the plant for treatment. A third pump station, PS-C, is proposed near Industrial Way, as an opportunity to divert odourous wastewater away from the District core and convey it directly to the plant for treatment. All proposed pump stations require new forcemains to convey wastewater to the plant for treatment.

Similar to the DL 114 site, the treatment plant will discharge treated effluent through the existing Cedar Street Outfall, with the First Street Outfall being abandoned. Upgrades to the outfall are required including repairing a hole that was cut into the outfall, an extension of the outfall and a new diffuser port. As the DL 117 is farther away from the outfall, it is assumed that an effluent pump station will be required at the treatment plant to pump effluent to the outfall (though this cost is included in the treatment plant costs).

Generally, estimated conveyance costs are greater for the DL 117 site than for the DL 114 site because there is more new forcemain and more pumping required than at the DL 114 site. A summary of conveyance costs for the DL 117 site are shown in attached Table 3E.

2.2 Wastewater Treatment

The DL 117 site is more remote than the DL 114 site, being further away from residential, industrial and community areas which will increase the capital costs. The site has adequate area to accommodate a larger footprint treatment so there are options for either a smaller footprint, more enclosed process or a larger footprint, less enclosed process, though all options can be designed to produce the same quality of effluent. Layouts of the moving bed biofilm reactor with dissolved air flotation (MBBR-DAF) and sequencing batch reactor (SBR) plant options are shown on Figures 1A and 1B respectively. The options for wastewater treatment at the DL 114 site are summarized below and are shown on Figures 3B and 3C.

Page 10

A larger footprint plant using sequencing batch reactor (SBR) technology is shown on Figure 3B, sited in the northwest corner of DL 117, between two water courses, approximately 300 metres away from the closest residential property to the northeast. The plant footprint is approximately 9,600 square metres. Including a 50 metre buffer all around brings the area up to approximately 4 hectares. The plant footprint site (not including the buffer) would likely require levelling, and an approximately 700 metre road increasing site preparation and site access costs relative to the DL 114 site. The cost estimate is shown in Table 3A and assumptions used to produce the estimate for DL 117 are similar to those used for the DL 114 site:

Treatment processes which present a higher odour risk are assumed to be enclosed and comprehensive odour control is included (influent screening and solids dewatering);

The SBR tanks are not enclosed, which adds some minor odour risk, but typically does not present an issue under regular operations;

Architectural enhancements on the administration building are included; The treatment process is not fully enclosed which can be considered less aesthetically pleasing

than a fully enclosed process. However, a 50 m treed buffer is assumed for all options, so the aesthetics may not be a concern.

LED lighting, backup generator included in estimate; An effluent pump station will be required to pump effluent to the outfall; A 700 m gravel road to the site is included.

A smaller footprint plant using MBBR-DAF technology for the treatment process is shown on Figure 3C, sited in the same location, in the northwest corner of DL 117, approximately 300 metres away from the closest residential property. The plant footprint is approximately 3,000 square metres. Including a 50 metre buffer around the site brings the area up to approximately 2.4 hectares. This proposed plant footprint site (not including the buffer) would require some site levelling and an approximately 700 metre road, thereby increasing site preparation and site access costs relative to the DL 114 site. The cost estimate is shown in Table 3C and assumptions used to produce the estimate are very similar to those used for the DL 114 site:

For consistency in cost estimates, the treatment process is fully enclosed, eliminating almost all potential odour sources, though this is likely more stringent odour control than would be necessary at this site;

Architectural enhancements are included; LED lighting and a backup generator are included; An effluent pump station will be required to pump effluent to the outfall; A 700 m gravel road to the site is included.

The operations and maintenance cost estimate includes labour, power, and chemicals for the major treatment unit processes and are shown in Tables 3B and 3D for the SBR and MBBR-DAF options respectively. The estimate also includes a sinking fund for equipment replacement costs and contract maintenance costs for manufacturer maintenance if necessary.

As with the DL 114 option, capital and operations and maintenance costs for the MBBR-DAF process are greater than for the SBR process because the process equipment is more expensive and because enclosing the treatment processes is more expensive.

Page 11

Including integrated sustainability features such as a heat recovery system for heating the plant buildings, is assumed to increase capital costs by about $500,000, primarily for piping and HVAC equipment. Operations and maintenance costs are estimated to increase by about $30,000 primarily for additional pumping costs. If offsite use of recovered heat is implemented, capital costs will increase the further away the plant is from the end user since more piping is required. Capital and operations and maintenance costs for the SBR and MBBR-DAF plants are shown in attached Tables 3A through 3D.

2.3 Residuals Management

Same as the DL 114 option and costs shown in Table 4.

Page 12

3 Summary and Conclusions

Three different options were presented for both the DL 114 and DL 117 sites in order to provide a range of options and costs for wastewater treatment. At the lower cost end, is a larger footprint (SBR) plant with fewer architectural enhancements and adequate odour control. At the higher end is a small footprint (MBBR-DAF), fully enclosed, architecturally enhanced plant with integrated sustainability features. As mentioned previously, both plants would be designed to produce the same quality of effluent. Provided below is a summary of the net present value costs for conveyance, wastewater treatment and residuals management for the options presented, ordered from lowest to highest: DL 114 – SBR $26,770,000 DL 117 – SBR $29,640,000 DL 114 – MBBR-DAF $29,910,000 DL 114 – MBBR-DAF + Heat Recovery $30,750,000 DL 117 – MBBR-DAF $32,830,000 DL 117 – MBBR-DAF + Heat Recovery $33,670,000

As shown, the site at DL 114 is generally less expensive than the site at DL 117 because of reduced site access and wastewater pumping costs for DL 114. The SBR plant options are less expensive than the MBBR-DAF plant options because the process equipment, architectural and structural costs are less. Ongoing operations and maintenance costs are also lower with the SBR plant. Site preparation costs are greater with the larger footprint SBR plant than with the MBBR-DAF plant, though this does not make up the difference. Incorporating sustainability features such as heat recovery adds capital and ongoing operations and maintenance expense. Depending on the potential end users and their proximity, it may be a beneficial system to include. It has also been noted that construction access at the DL 117 site may be easier than at the DL 114 site because of low overhead lines throughout the District core. Ease of access for construction is not currently factored into the cost estimate.

In terms of odour control and the proximity to residential and community infrastructure, it is not unusual for wastewater treatment plants to be situated close to residential and community infrastructure. Odour can be controlled with through design, and reduce potential odour levels to provide little to no disturbances. There is always a risk for process upsets and fugitive odours, though for this size of a plant, this would likely not be a major concern. Putting this into context for Tofino, the treatment plants proposed for the purposes of cost estimating have robust odour control equipment included which will significantly reduce odour risks. This means that under normal operations, outdoor odour at the treatment plant will be minor, and should be negligible at the fence line. Currently, the sites proposed are a minimum 150 metres away from residential neighbourhoods, and have a 50 metre treed buffer all around which significantly reduces odour risks and means the plant will not be visible to passerby’s. If deemed necessary, odour dispersion modelling can be conducted for the selected site during pre-design.

In terms of advantages and disadvantages of each site:

Page 13

• DL 117 is somewhat further away from residential development than DL 114. This will result inincreased pumping costs over the long term and increased site access costs. This may beconsidered beneficial to the residential property owners in the vicinity since there may bereduced odour risks. DL 117 is also closer to the District’s industrial area which may holdpotential users of recovered resources. This is a recommendation which must be made at theJLWMAC level and vetted by the Steering Committee.

• DL 114 is a more visible site than the DL 117 site. Therefore, the DL 114 site will may require amore enclosed process, odour control and architectural considerations than a similar plant atthe DL 117 site. These subtle considerations have not been accounted for in the cost estimates,but are worth considering.

Next steps are for the District to go back to the JLWMAC and the public with this more detailed comparison between the DL 114 and DL 117 sites. We recommend using the estimated capital and operating costs for each scenario to develop costs per residential service connection. This is important in the public consultation phase and will help the District, JLWMAC and stakeholders determine what kind of plant is most appropriate for the region.

Following the public consultation, the JLWMAC will review this cost estimate and accompanying considerations in light of the results of the public consultation and make a recommendation to the Steering Committee to advance one site to Phase 3 of this Stage 3 LWMP process.

Table 2A DL 114 - SBR Plant

Cost Estimate

Capital Cost Estimate - SBR Plant at DL 114Assumptions:

sized for 20 year average day design flow of approximately 2,000 m3/d, average domestic loading assumed

large footprint sequencing batch reactor plant

no effluent pump station required at DL 114

Item Description Unit Quantity 2016 Unit Cost Estimated Cost Notes

1 Civil & Sitework

Site preparation m2 9600 50.00$ 480,000.00$ site is approx 80 m by 120 m; unit cost includes

excavation, clearing, fill material, top soil, compaction

Site piping m 1000 200.00$ 200,000.00$ includes piping into WWTP, from screen to SBRs, from

SBR to UV from UV to FM tie in, from SBR to sludge

storage, sludge storage to dewatering

Landscaping m2 1920 10.00$ 19,200.00$ assume around administration building only

Tie-ins each 3 5,000.00$ 15,000.00$ tie into WWTP, tie into outfall, tie into potable water

asphalt m2 1920 50.00$ 96,000.00$ assume paving of site

access road m2 900 50.00$ 45,000.00$ assume 150 m of 6 m wide gravel road

Subtotal 855,000.00$

2 Treatment Process

Grit removal equipment LS 230,000.00$ vortex unit w/ grit pump, quote from Claro

Process equipment LS 540,500.00$ SBR hardware, aeration system, blowers, sludge pumps,

quote from Parkson

Screen LS 230,000.00$ 6 mm screens and press, quote from Claro

UV disinfection LS 133,285.00$ UV disinfection, quote from Wedeco

Centrifuge LS 552,000.00$ centrifuge w/ sludge pump, flow meter, polymer system,

discharge conveyor, control panel, quote from Andritz

Pumps, valves and other ancillary

equipment

LS 100,000.00$ allowance

Odour control LS 250,000.00$ HVAC in headworks & sludge thickening/dewatering

building w/ biofilter for odour control

Construction and Installation LS 2,035,785.00$ assume 100% of equipment costs

Effluent pump station LS -$ assume gravity flow to outfall

Subtotal 4,072,000.00$

3 Structural & Architectural

Administration building m2 300 2,500.00$ 750,000.00$ with office, bathroom, SCADA system, small lab

Headworks building m2 300 150.00$ 45,000.00$ headworks screens & grit removal is inside

Sludge thickening & dewatering

building

m2 300 150.00$ 45,000.00$ sludge thickening & dewatering equipment is inside

Electrical/blowers building m2 400 150.00$ 60,000.00$ electrical & blowers building

Maintenance shop & storage m2 450 150.00$ 67,500.00$ maintenance and storage shop

Structural Concrete m3 500 2,000.00$ 1,000,000.00$ concrete for screen, UV, splitter box, 2 SBR tanks, sludge

storage

Subtotal 1,967,500.00$

4 Electrical & SCADA

Power Supply & Distribution LS 300,000.00$ allowance

MCC's and Control Panel LS 200,000.00$ allowance

Instrumentation & Controls LS 300,000.00$ allowance

Genset LS 500,000.00$ allowance

Lighting & Utilities LS 75,000.00$ allowance

Site Power LS 100,000.00$ allowance

Electrical Infrastructure LS 300,000.00$ allowance for cable trays, conduits, pull boxes etc

Subtotal 1,775,000.00$

5 Subtotal 8,669,500.00$

6 Engineering & Contingency, 30% 2,600,850.00$ 15% engineering, 15% contingency

7 Total 11,270,000.00$

D-B1201.00 17/08/2016

Table 2B DL 114 - SBR Plant

Cost Estimate

O&M Cost Estimate - SBR Plant at DL 114Assumptions:


Item Description Calculation Estimated Annual Cost

1 Headworks

Disposal of screenings 1 hr/week x 52 weeks/year x $50/hr 2,600.00$

Equipment replacement costs Assume 5% of 330 k 16,500.00$

Power for screening, grit removal Assume 30 HP 15,500.00$

Subtotal 34,600.00$

2 Secondary Treatment & Clarification (SBRs)

Equipment replacement assume 5% $500 k of equipment 25,000.00$

Subtotal 25,000.00$

3 Aeration

Contract Maintenance 1 person x 2 hr/week x 52 weeks/hr x $50/hr 5,200.00$

Blower power 2 blowers, 30 HP each, 1 operating, 1 standby 15,000.00$

Equipment replacement costs assume $50,000/blower, 5% of cost 5,000.00$

Subtotal 25,200.00$

4 Pumps

Contract Maintenance assume 1 person, 2 hr/week, 52 weeks, $50/hr 5,200.00$

Power assume 2 pumps, 5 HP each, 1 running, 1 standby 1,000.00$

Equipment replacement costs assume $50,000/pump, 5% of cost 5,000.00$

Subtotal 6,200.00$

5 Disinfection


Power assume 30 HP 15,500.00$

Equipment replacement costs assume $200,000/UV system 5% of cost 10,000.00$

Bulb replacement 48 bulb, replaced every 2 years, $250/bulb 6,000.00$

Subtotal 30,700.00$

6 Dewatering


Power assume 30 HP, operating half the time 7,700.00$

Polymer assume 10 kg polymer per dry ton, $10/kg, assume 400 kg/d dry solids

produced

14,600.00$

Equipment replacement costs assume $100,000/dewatering system 5% of cost 5,000.00$

Subtotal 37,700.00$

7 Electrical and SCADA


Equipment replacement costs assume $1 m k of electrical and SCADA equipment 50,000.00$

Subtotal 70,800.00$

8 Labour

Plant personnel Assume 2.5 FTEs, $80,000/year 200,000.00$


9 Total 430,000.00$

D-B1201 17/08/2016

Table 2C DL 114 - MBBR-DAF Plant

Cost Estimate

Capital Cost Estimate - MBBR-DAF Plant at DL 114Assumptions:


small footprint MBBR-DAF plant

no effluent pump station required at DL 114


1 Civil & SiteWork

Site preparation m2 3000 50.00$ 150,000.00$ includes excavation, clearing, fill material, top soil,

compactionSite piping m 1000 200.00$ 200,000.00$ includes piping into WWTP, from screen to MBBR, from

MBBR to DAF, from DAF to UV from UV to FM tie in, from

MBBR to sludge storage, sludge storage to dewatering

Landscaping m2 600 10.00$ 6,000.00$ allowance


Asphalt m2 600 50.00$ 30,000.00$ assume site is paved

Access road m2 480 50.00$ 24,000.00$ assume 80m of 6m wide gravel road


2 Treatment Process

Grit removal LS 230,000.00$ vortex unit w/ grit pump, quote from Claro

MBBR/DAF/UV equipment LS 1,345,500.00$ includes screens, MBBR equipment, DAFs, blowers, sludge

holding tanks, UV disinfection, sludge pumps, chemical

feed equipment quote from VeoliaDewatering equipment LS 552,000.00$ centrifuge w/ sludge pump, flow meter, polymer system,

discharge conveyor, control panel, quote from Andritz

Pumps, valves and other ancillary

equipment

LS 100,000.00$ allowance

Odour control LS 500,000.00$ odour control, activated carbon or chemical scrubber


Effluent pump station LS -$ assume flow to outfall by gravity

Subtotal 5,455,000.00$


Administration building m2 300 2,500.00$ 750,000.00$ with office, bathroom, SCADA system, small lab, HVAC,

assuming architectural enhancementsProcess building m2 600 2,000.00$ 1,200,000.00$ includes various piping, equipment, concrete, minor

architectural enhancementsMaintenance and Storage building m2 150 150.00$ 22,500.00$ basic metal frame structure

Structural Concrete m3 500 2,000.00$ 1,000,000.00$ concrete channels for screen, UV, splitter box, MBBRs,

storage tankSubtotal 2,972,500.00$








Electrical Infrastructure 200,000.00$ allowance for cable trays, conduits, pull boxes etc

Subtotal 1,700,000.00$

5 Subtotal 10,528,500.00$


7 Total 13,690,000.00$

D-B1201.00 17/08/2016

Table 2D DL 114 - MBBR-DAF Plant

Cost Estimate

O&M Cost Estimate - MBBR-DAF Plant at DL 114Assumptions:



1 Headworks

Disposing of screenings 1 hr/week x 52 weeks/year x $50/hr 2,600.00$

Equipment replacement costs Assume 5% of $300k 15,000.00$


Subtotal 33,100.00$

2 Secondary Treatment (MBBRs)

Equipment replacement assume 5% on $1 m of equipment 50,000.00$

Subtotal 50,000.00$

3 Aeration



Equipment replacement costs assume $50,000/blower, 5% of capital 7,500.00$

Subtotal 43,700.00$

4 Clarification (DAFs)

Power 2 DAFs, assume 10 HP each, 1 operating, 1 standby 5,000.00$

Polymer addition assume 10 kg polymer per dry ton, $10/kg, assume 400 kg/d dry solids produced 14,600.00$

Equipment replacement costs assume $100,000/DAF, 5% of capital 10,000.00$

Subtotal 29,600.00$

5 Pumps


Power assume 2 pumps, 5 HP each, 1 running, 1 standby 1,000.00$


Subtotal 6,200.00$

6 Disinfection




Subtotal 21,500.00$

7 Dewatering



Polymer assume 10 kg polymer per dry ton, $10/kg, assume 400 kg/d dry solids produced 14,600.00$


Subtotal 37,700.00$



Equipment replacement costs assume $1 m of electrical and SCADA equipment 50,000.00$

Subtotal 70,800.00$

9 Labour



10 Total 493,000.00$

D-B1201 17/08/2016

Table 2E DL 114 - Conveyance

Cost Estimate

Capital & O&M Cost Estimate - Conveyance to DL114 SiteAssumptions:

Costs are for new infrastructure required for the WWTP

Costs do not include upgrades of old infrastructure

Costs do not include ROW, land purchase etc

Capital Cost Estimate

Item Description Estimated 2016 Cost Notes

1 New Pump Stations

PS-A 200,000.00$ small pump station

PS-B 675,000.00$ ~35 HP pump station

PS-C 625,000.00$ ~20 HP pump station

Subtotal 1,500,000.00$

2 New Forcemain and Outfall Land Section

PS-A to WWTP 200,000.00$ approx 500 m of 100 mm FM

PS-B to WWTP 536,000.00$ approx 800 m of 300 mm FM

PS-C to WWTP 735,000.00$ approx 1500 m of 200 mm FM

WWTP to Outfall 335,000.00$ approx 500 m of 300 mm FM

Subtotal 1,806,000.00$

3 Outfall

Marine contractor mob/demob 15,000.00$ allowance

Outfall improvements 50,000.00$ repair hole in outfall

Outfall extension 12,000.00$ assume 15 m extension

Replace diffuser 20,000.00$ assume 3 ports, 40 m long

Subtotal 97,000.00$

4 Subtotal 3,403,000.00$

5 Engineering & Continency 1,020,900.00$

6 Total 4,424,000.00$

Annual O&M Cost Estimate

Item Description Estimated Cost Notes

1 Pump Stations

Labour 13,000.00$ assume 2 hr/week per PS at $50/hr

Power 10,000.00$ assume $515/HP

Repairs 15,000.00$ assume 1% of capital cost

Subtotal 38,000.00$

2 Forcemain

Maintenance 20,000.00$ allowance

Subtotal 20,000.00$

3 Outfall

Annual maintenance 10,000.00$ assume diver inspection 2x per year at $5000 each

Subtotal 10,000.00$

4 Subtotal 68,000.00$

D-B1201 17/08/2016

Table 3A DL 117 - SBR Plant

Cost Estimate

Capital Cost Estimate - SBR Plant at DL 117Assumptions:



effluent pump station is required


1 Civil & Sitework

Site preparation m2 9600 50.00$ 480,000.00$ site is approx 80 m by 120 m; unit cost includes excavation, clearing, fill material, top

soil, compaction Site piping m 1000 200.00$ 200,000.00$ includes piping into WWTP, from screen to SBRs, from SBR to UV from UV to FM tie

in, from SBR to sludge storage, sludge storage to dewateringLandscaping m2 1920 10.00$ 19,200.00$ assume around administration building only


asphalt m2 1920 50.00$ 96,000.00$ assume paving of site

access road m2 4200 50.00$ 210,000.00$ 700 m of 6 m wide gravel road

Subtotal 1,020,200.00$

2 Treatment Process

Grit removal equipment LS 230,000.00$ vortex unit w/ grit pump, quote from Claro

Process equipment LS 540,500.00$ SBR hardware, aeration system, blowers, sludge pumps, quote from Parkson

Screen LS 230,000.00$ 6 mm screens and press, quote from Claro

UV disinfection LS 133,285.00$ UV disinfection, quote from Wedeco

Centrifuge LS 552,000.00$ centrifuge w/ sludge pump, flow meter, polymer system, discharge conveyor, control

panel, quote from AndritzPumps, valves and other ancillary equipment LS 100,000.00$ allowance

Odour control LS 250,000.00$ HVAC in headworks & sludge thickening/dewatering building w/ biofilter for odour

controlConstruction and Installation LS 2,035,785.00$ assume 100% of equipment costs

Effluent pump station LS 900,000.00$ assume same size as new PS-B

Subtotal 4,971,570.00$


Administration building m2 300 2,500.00$ 750,000.00$ with office, bathroom, SCADA system, small lab

Headworks building m2 300 150.00$ 45,000.00$ headworks screens & grit removal is inside

Sludge thickening & dewatering building m2 300 150.00$ 45,000.00$ sludge thickening & dewatering equipment is inside

Electrical/blowers building m2 400 150.00$ 60,000.00$ electrical & blowers building

Maintenance shop & storage m2 450 150.00$ 67,500.00$ maintenance and storage shop

Structural Concrete m3 500 2,000.00$ 1,000,000.00$ concrete for screen, UV, splitter box, 2 SBR tanks, sludge storage

Subtotal 1,967,500.00$









Subtotal 1,775,000.00$

5 Subtotal 9,734,270.00$


7 Total 12,655,000.00$

D-B1201 17/08/2016

Table 3B DL 117 - SBR Plant

Cost Estimate

O&M Cost Estimate - SBR Plant at DL 117Assumptions:



1 Headworks

Disposal of screenings 1 hr/week x 52 weeks/year x $50/hr 2,600.00$

Equipment replacement costs Assume 5% of 330 k 16,500.00$


Subtotal 34,600.00$

2 Secondary Treatment & Clarification (SBRs)

Equipment replacement assume 5% $500 k of equipment 25,000.00$

Subtotal 25,000.00$

3 Aeration



Equipment replacement costs assume $50,000/blower, 5% of cost 5,000.00$

Subtotal 25,200.00$

4 Pumps


Power assume 4 pumps, total of 40 HP, running 50%,

accounts for effluent PS

10,300.00$


Subtotal 20,500.00$

5 Disinfection




Bulb replacement 48 bulb, replaced every 2 years, $250/bulb 6,000.00$

Subtotal 30,700.00$

6 Dewatering



Polymer assume 10 kg polymer per dry ton, $10/kg, assume

400 kg/d dry solids produced

14,600.00$


Subtotal 37,700.00$



Equipment replacement costs assume $1 m k of electrical and SCADA equipment 50,000.00$

Subtotal 70,800.00$

8 Labour



9 Total 445,000.00$

D-B1201 17/08/2016

Table 3C DL 117 - MBBR-DAF Plant

Cost Estimate

Capital Cost Estimate - MBBR-DAF Plant at DL 117Assumptions:



effluent pump station required


1 Civil & SiteWork

Site preparation m2 3000 50.00$ 150,000.00$ includes excavation, clearing, fill material, top soil, compaction

Site piping m 1000 200.00$ 200,000.00$ includes piping into WWTP, from screen to MBBR, from MBBR to DAF, from DAF to UV from UV to FM tie

in, from MBBR to sludge storage, sludge storage to dewateringLandscaping m2 600 10.00$ 6,000.00$ allowance


Asphalt m2 600 50.00$ 30,000.00$ assume site is paved

Access road m2 4200 50.00$ 210,000.00$ assume 700m of 6m wide gravel road


2 Treatment Process

Grit removal LS 230,000.00$ vortex unit w/ grit pump, quote from Claro

MBBR/DAF/UV equipment LS 1,345,500.00$ includes screens, MBBR equipment, DAFs, blowers, sludge holding tanks, UV disinfection, sludge pumps,

chemical feed equipment quote from VeoliaDewatering equipment LS 552,000.00$ centrifuge w/ sludge pump, flow meter, polymer system, discharge conveyor, control panel, quote from

AndritzPumps, valves and other ancillary equipment LS 100,000.00$ allowance

Odour control LS 500,000.00$ odour control, activated carbon or chemical scrubber


Effluent pump station LS 900,000.00$ assume pump station is similar size to new PS-B

Subtotal 6,355,000.00$


Administration building m2 300 2,500.00$ 750,000.00$ with office, bathroom, SCADA system, small lab, HVAC, assuming architectural enhancements

Process building m2 600 2,000.00$ 1,200,000.00$ includes various piping, equipment, concrete, minor architectural enhancements

Maintenance and Storage building m2 150 150.00$ 22,500.00$ basic metal frame structure

Structural Concrete m3 500 2,000.00$ 1,000,000.00$ concrete channels for screen, UV, splitter box, MBBRs, storage tank

Subtotal 2,972,500.00$









Subtotal 1,700,000.00$

5 Subtotal 11,638,500.00$


7 Total 15,130,000.00$

D-B1201 17/08/2016

Table 3D DL 117 - MBBR-DAF Plant

Cost Estimate

O&M Cost Estimate - MBBR-DAF Plant at DL 117Assumptions:



1 Headworks

Disposing of screenings 1 hr/week x 52 weeks/year x $50/hr 2,600.00$

Equipment replacement costs Assume 5% of $300k 15,000.00$


Subtotal 33,100.00$

2 Secondary Treatment (MBBRs)

Equipment replacement assume 5% on $1 m of equipment 50,000.00$

Subtotal 50,000.00$

3 Aeration



Equipment replacement costs assume $50,000/blower, 5% of capital 7,500.00$

Subtotal 43,700.00$

4 Clarification (DAFs)

Power 2 DAFs, assume 10 HP each, 1 operating, 1 standby 5,000.00$

Polymer addition assume 10 kg polymer per dry ton, $10/kg, assume 400 kg/d dry solids produced 14,600.00$

Equipment replacement costs assume $100,000/DAF, 5% of capital 10,000.00$

Subtotal 29,600.00$

5 Pumps


Power assume total of 40 HP, running 50%, accounts for effluent PS 10,300.00$


Subtotal 20,500.00$

6 Disinfection




Subtotal 21,500.00$

7 Dewatering



Polymer assume 10 kg polymer per dry ton, $10/kg, assume 400 kg/d dry solids produced 14,600.00$


Subtotal 37,700.00$



Equipment replacement costs assume $1 m of electrical and SCADA equipment 50,000.00$

Subtotal 70,800.00$

9 Labour



10 Total 507,000.00$

D-B1201 17/08/2016

Table 3E DL 117 - Conveyance

Cost Estimate

Capital & O&M Cost Estimate - Conveyance to DL117 SiteAssumptions:

Costs are for new infrastructure required for the WWTP

Costs do not include upgrades of old infrastructure

Costs do not include ROW, land purchase etc


Item Description Estimated 2016 Cost Notes

1 New Pump Stations

PS-A 200,000.00$ small pump station

PS-B 975,000.00$ ~35 HP pump station

PS-C 625,000.00$ ~20 HP pump station

Subtotal 1,800,000.00$

2 New Forcemain and Outfall Land Section

PS-A to WWTP 120,000.00$ approx 500 m of 100 mm FM

PS-B to WWTP 1,005,000.00$ approx 800 m of 300 mm FM

PS-C to WWTP 539,000.00$ approx 1500 m of 200 mm FM

WWTP to Outfall 804,000.00$ approx 500 m of 300 mm FM

Subtotal 2,468,000.00$

3 Outfall

Marine contractor mob/demob 15,000.00$ allowance

Outfall improvements 50,000.00$ repair hole in outfall

Outfall extension 12,000.00$ extension to bedrock

Replace diffuser 20,000.00$ assume 3 ports, 40 m long

Subtotal 97,000.00$

4 Subtotal 4,365,000.00$

5 Engineering & Continency 1,309,500.00$

6 Total 5,674,500.00$


Item Description Estimated Cost Notes

1 Pump Stations

Labour 13,000.00$ assume 2 hr/week per PS at $50/hr

Power 13,000.00$ assume $515/HP

Repairs 18,000.00$ assume 1% of capital cost

Subtotal 44,000.00$

2 Forcemain

Maintenance 20,000.00$ allowance

Subtotal 20,000.00$

3 Outfall

Annual maintenance 10,000.00$ assume diver inspection 2x per year at $5000 each

Subtotal 10,000.00$

4 Subtotal 74,000.00$

D-B1201 17/08/2016

Table 4 DL 114 and DL 117

Residuals Management

Residuals ManagementAssumptions:

Costs do not include ROW, land purchase etc.

Residuals options are the same for the DL 114 and DL 117 sites


Item Unit Quantity 2016 Unit Cost Estimated Cost Notes

1 Mixer & conveyor each 1 100,000.00$ 100,000.00$ quote from Transform Compost Systems

Aeration system LS 1 75,000.00$ 75,000.00$ quote from Transform Compost Systems

Screening equipment LS 1 45,000.00$ 45,000.00$

Concrete pad m3 180 2,500.00$ 450,000.00$ assume 30 m by 30 m by 0.2 m concrete pad with

aeration equipmentQuonset covers each 3 35,000.00$ 105,000.00$

Lock block walls m2 300 300.00$ 90,000.00$

Electrical LS 44,000.00$ assume 20% of process equipment

Installation and construction 909,000.00$ assume 100% of equipment cost

Front end loader each 1 100,000.00$ 100,000.00$ allowance

2 Subtotal 1,918,000.00$

3 Engineering & Contingency, 30% 575,400.00$ 15% engineering, 15% contingency

4 Total 2,493,000.00$


Item Unit Quantity 2016 Unit Cost Estimated Cost Notes

1Power for blending, conveyors, aeration blowers

etc.

HP 30 350.00$ 5,000.00$ assume 30 HP for that equipment, running 1/3rd of

the timeLabour hours 832 50.00$ 42,000.00$ assume 1 operator, 16 hours/week

Maintenance 10,000.00$ assume 1% of equipment cost

Sludge trucking costs loads 75 120.00$ 9,000.00$ assume 2.5 m3/d --> 915 m3/yr, round trip 0.5 hr,

12 m3/loadWood waste -$ assume free

Wood waste trucking costs loads 230 800.00$ 184,000.00$ assume 7.5 m3/d --> 2750 m3/yr, assume 12 m3 per

load, assume coming from Port Alberni, could be

less if a local source is found

2 Subtotal 250,000.00$

D-B1201 17/08/2016

North Vancouver Office 210-889 Harbourside DriveNorth Vancouver BC V7P 3S1, Canada

604-990-4800

Plot

Date

09 A

ug 20

16 @

1:43

PM

Path

G:\D

&K C

AD D

rawi

ngs\D

KSER

VER

P Sh

are\D

rawi

ngs\T

OFIN

O\D-

B120

1\(F)

Figu

res\D

-B12

01.00

- FI

GURE

1A 1B

.DW

G Fig

ure 1

A P

LOT

SCAL

E: 1:

1 P

LOTT

ED B

Y: G

race

Zha

ng L

AST

SAVE

D BY

: vcg

jz0

DWG. No. D-B1201.00DRAWN BY: GZ/RB

Scale: 1:500

PLANT LAYOUT

PLANT FOOTPRINT USING MBBR PROCESS

= APPROX. 0.3ha (3000m²)

60

m

50m

TOTAL SITE AREA

INCLUDING 50m WIDE

BUFFER ALL AROUND

= APPROX. 2.4ha

BLOWERS

MA

IN

TE

NA

NC

E

SH

OP

&

S

TO

RA

GE

HEADWORKS

ADMIN.

TOP FLOOR

PARKING

SL

UD

GE

DE

WA

TE

RIN

G

MBBR

#1

UV

SCREENING &

SCREENINGS

W/C

GRIT REMOVAL

&

CLARIFICATION

PUMP STATION

ODOUR

CONTROL

SL

UD

GE

ST

OR

AG

E

TOFINO STAGE 3 LWMP

PHASE 2 - DETAILED ASSESSMENTS

EXAMPLE SITE PLAN FOR

MBBR-DAF OPTION

FIGURE 1A

LEGEND

DESIGN POPULATION 5,000

FUTURE EXPANSION

ELECTRICAL

UNDER

MBBR

#2

DAF

#1

DAF

#2

NOTE:

FOR FUTURE EXPANSION, THE SLUDGE

STORAGE TANK WOULD BECOME A THIRD MBBR

TANK AND THE UV WOULD BE MOVED TO ALLOW

FOR A THIRD DAF.


604-990-4800

Plot

Date

09 A

ug 20

16 @

1:43

PM

Path

G:\D

&K C

AD D

rawi

ngs\D

KSER

VER

P Sh

are\D

rawi

ngs\T

OFIN

O\D-

B120

1\(F)

Figu

res\D

-B12

01.00

- FI

GURE

1A 1B

.DW

G Fig

ure 1

B P

LOT

SCAL

E: 1:

1 P

LOTT

ED B

Y: G

race

Zha

ng L

AST

SAVE

D BY

: vcg

jz0

DWG. No. D-B1201.00DRAWN BY: GZ/RB

Scale: 1:500

PLANT LAYOUT

PLANT FOOTPRINT USING SBR PROCESS

= APPROX. 0.96ha (9,600 m²)

80

m

120m

TOTAL SITE AREA

INCLUDING 50m WIDE

BUFFER ALL AROUND

= APPROX. 4ha

NOTE:

PLANT FOOTPRINT CAN BE REDUCED TO 3,000m²

USING A SPACE-SAVING TECHNOLOGY SUCH AS

MBBR/DAF. THIS WOULD REDUCE THE TOTAL

SITE AREA INCLUDING 50m WIDE BUFFER ALL

AROUND TO ABOUT 2.4 ha

AERATION

BLOWERS

SLUDGE

THICKENING

AND

DEWATERING

HEADWORKS

SBR #1

SBR #2

FUTURE

ADMIN.

BUILDING

UV

AND

TERTIARY

FILTRATION

PARKING

SLUDGE

STORAGE

FUTURE

COVERED

STORAGE

MAINTENANCE

SHOP &

STORAGE

PARKING

BINS ETC.

PLANT ELECTRICAL

AND BLOWER

SCREENING & SCREENINGS W/C

GRIT REMOVAL & CLARIFICATION

PUMP STATION

FUTURE

ODOUR

CONTROL

SLUDGE

STORAGE

TOFINO STAGE 3 LWMP

PHASE 2 - DETAILED ASSESSMENTS

EXAMPLE SITE PLAN FOR

SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR OPTION

FIGURE 1B

LEGEND

DESIGN POPULATION 5,000

FUTURE EXPANSION


604-990-4800

Plot

Date

17 A

ug 20

16 @

11:17

AM

Path

G:\D

&K C

AD D

rawi

ngs\D

KSER

VER

P Sh

are\D

rawi

ngs\T

OFIN

O\D-

B120

1\(F)

Figu

res\D

-B12

01.00

- FI

GURE

2A.D

WG

FIGU

RE 2A

PL

OT S

CALE

: 1:2.

585

PLO

TTED

BY:

Kirs

ten B

ehnk

a L

AST

SAVE

D BY

: kbe

hnka

DWG. No.DRAWN BY: EK

N

PS-7

PS-4

PS-1

PROPOSED

WWTP SITE

CEDAR

STREET

OUTFALL

(REPAIR)

FIRST

STREET

OUTFALL

(ABANDON)

TOFINO STAGE 3 LWMP

PHASE 2 - DETAILED ASSESSMENT

KEY PLAN FOR PROPOSED SITE AT DL114

FIGURE 2A

NOTES:

1. NEW PS-A AT THE END OF CEDAR STREET

WITH FLOW TO NEW WWTP SITE.

2. NEW PS-B AT FIRST STREET OUTFALL WITH

FLOW TO NEW WWTP SITE.

3. NEW PS-C AT INDUSTRIAL WAY WITH FLOW

TO NEW WWTP SITE. (FOLLOWS TRAIL)

4. REPAIR CEDAR STREET OUTFALL, ABANDON

FIRST STREET OUTFALL.

NEW

PS-B

NEW PS-A

NEW PS-C

EXISTING SEWER / FORCEMAIN

PROPOSED SEWER / FORCEMAIN

EXISTING OUTFALLS

PROPOSED OUTFALL

EXISTING PUMP STATION

PROPOSED PUMP STATION

0 500250 750

m

1:25000

1000 1250

@ ANSI B

DISTRICT

LOT 114

LEGEND:

35

30

25

30

35

40

30

25

2520

20

30

25

40

3520

35

35

30

25

20

30

35

35

30

40

35

25

20

25

40

30

20

25

20

15

25

45

30

25

25

35

30

20


604-990-4800

Plot

Date

11 A

ug 20

16 @

10:27

AM

Path

G:\D

&K C

AD D

rawi

ngs\D

KSER

VER

P Sh

are\D

rawi

ngs\T

OFIN

O\D-

B120

1\(C)

Civi

l\+Ci

vil3D

\WOR

KING

FOL

DER\

DL11

4_loc

ation

_deta

il_ 2B

2C.dw

g FIG

URE

2B

PLOT

SCA

LE: 1

:2.58

5 P

LOTT

ED B

Y: G

race

Zha

ng L

AST

SAVE

D BY

: vcg

jz0


N

PS-A

TOFINO STAGE 3 LWMP


DL114: SBR OPTION

FIGURE 2B

LEGEND



INDEX CONTOUR (5m)

MINOR CONTOUR (1m)

WALKING TRAIL

RIPARIAN ASSESSMENT AREA

CREEK

PROPOSED WWTP SITE

50M BUFFER

* PLANT FOOTPRINT ≈ 9600m² = 0.96ha

FOOTPRINT WITH BUFFER ≈ 4ha

1:2500

0 40 80

m

20 60 100

@ ANSI B

35

30

25

30

35

40

30

25

2520

20

30

25

40

3520

35

35

30

25

20

30

35

35

30

40

35

25

20

25

40

30

20

25

20

15

25

45

30

25

25

35

30

20


604-990-4800

Plot

Date

15 A

ug 20

16 @

2:47

PM

Path

G:\D

&K C

AD D

rawi

ngs\D

KSER

VER

P Sh

are\D

rawi

ngs\T

OFIN

O\D-

B120

1\(C)

Civi

l\+Ci

vil3D

\WOR

KING

FOL

DER\

DL11

4_loc

ation

_deta

il_ 2B

2C.dw

g FIG

URE

2C

PLOT

SCA

LE: 1

:2.58

5 P

LOTT

ED B

Y: G

race

Zha

ng L

AST

SAVE

D BY

: kbe

hnka


N

PS-A


FOOTPRINT WITH BUFFER ≈ 2.4ha

MBBR PLANT

TOFINO STAGE 3 LWMP


DL114: MBBR - DAF OPTION

FIGURE 2C

LEGEND



INDEX CONTOUR (5m)

MINOR CONTOUR (1m)

WALKING TRAIL


CREEK

PROPOSED WWTP SITE

50M BUFFER

1:2500

0 40 80

m

20 60 100

@ ANSI B


604-990-4800

Plot

Date

17 A

ug 20

16 @

11:41

AM

Path

G:\D

&K C

AD D

rawi

ngs\D

KSER

VER

P Sh

are\D

rawi

ngs\T

OFIN

O\D-

B120

1\(F)

Figu

res\D

-B12

01.00

- FI

GURE

3A.D

WG

FIGU

RE 3A

PL

OT S

CALE

: 1:2.

585

PLO

TTED

BY:

Kirs

ten B

ehnk

a L

AST

SAVE

D BY

: kbe

hnka


N

PS-7

PS-4

PS-1

PROPOSED

WWTP SITE

CEDAR

STREET

OUTFALL

(REPAIR)

FIRST

STREET

OUTFALL

(ABANDON)

TOFINO STAGE 3 LWMP


KEY PLAN FOR PROPOSED SITE DL117

FIGURE 3A

NOTES:

1. NEW PS-A AT THE END OF CEDAR STREET

WITH FLOW TO NEW WWTP SITE.

2. NEW PS-B AT FIRST STREET OUTFALL WITH

FLOW TO NEW WWTP SITE.

3. NEW PS-C AT INDUSTRIAL WAY WITH FLOW

TO NEW WWTP SITE. (FOLLOWS TRAIL)

4. REPAIR CEDAR STREET OUTFALL, ABANDON

FIRST STREET OUTFALL.

NEW

PS-B

NEW PS-A

NEW PS-C

0 500250 750

m

1:25000

1000 1250

@ ANSI B

DISTRICT

LOT 117


PROPOSED SEWER / FORCEMAIN

EXISTING OUTFALLS

PROPOSED OUTFALL



LEGEND:

35

30

25

30

35

40

30

25

2520

20

30

25

40

35

20

35

35

30

25

20

25

20

25

40

3020

25

20

15

25

45

30

20

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30 30

3030

30

35

35

35

35

35

35

35

35

40

40

40

40

40

40

35

35

45

505560

65

70

80

80

75

60

60

45

45

4550

5040

25

40

40

40

4550

50

45

15

10

5

15

10

5 0

20

4550

55

40

4525

30

20

15 15

10

5155

45

4540

35

30

25

25

20

25

30

25

25

25

25

25

35

30

35

25

45

50

25

35

3040

4530

5560

6570

5560

5045

4035

3025

25

20

15

2025

3035

40

45

5040

35

30

25

15

15

1515

10

25

25

30 30

3030

25

35

25

25

25

30

2530

25

25

2520

30

20

2025 20

20

30

35

3540

35

30

30

25

2525

35

3035

3025

25

25

15

10

30 25

20

35

40

25

30

35

3530

25

20

15

55

1010

2030

4045

50

55

60

50

45

40

45

55

3025

20

55

5045

40

35


604-990-4800

Plot

Date

15 A

ug 20

16 @

2:47

PM

Path

G:\D

&K C

AD D

rawi

ngs\D

KSER

VER

P Sh

are\D

rawi

ngs\T

OFIN

O\D-

B120

1\(C)

Civi

l\+Ci

vil3D

\WOR

KING

FOL

DER\

DL11

7_FI

GURE

3B 3C

.dwg F

IGUR

E 3C

PL

OT S

CALE

: 1:2.

585

PLO

TTED

BY:

Gra

ce Z

hang

LAS

T SA

VED

BY: k

behn

ka


N

PS-4

TOFINO STAGE 3 LWMP


DL117: MBBR-DAF OPTION

FIGURE 3C

TOFINO COMMUNITY HALL AND EMERGENCY CARE CENTRE

PS-C

LEGEND




INDEX CONTOUR (5m)

MINOR CONTOUR (1m)

WALKING TRAIL


CREEK

PROPOSED WWTP SITE

50M BUFFER



1:5000

0 10050 150 200

m

@ ANSI B

35

30

25

30

35

40

30

25

2520

20

30

25

40

35

20

35

35

30

25

20

25

20

25

40

3020

25

20

15

25

45

30

20

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30 30

3030

30

35

35

35

35

35

35

35

35

40

40

40

40

40

40

35

35

45

505560

65

70

80

80

75

60

60

45

45

4550

5040

25

40

40

40

4550

50

45

15

10

5

15

10

5 0

20

4550

55

40

4525

30

20

15 15

10

5155

45

4540

35

30

25

25

20

25

30

25

25

25

25

25

35

30

35

25

45

50

25

35

3040

4530

5560

6570

5560

5045

4035

3025

25

20

15

2025

3035

40

45

5040

35

30

25

15

15

1515

10

25

25

30 30

3030

25

35

25

25

25

30

2530

25

25

2520

30

20

2025 20

20

30

35

3540

35

30

30

25

2525

35

3035

30

25

25

25

15

10

30 25

20

35

40

25

30

35

3530

25

20

15

55

1010

2030

4045

50

55

60

50

45

40

45

55

3025

20

55

5045

40

35


604-990-4800

Plot

Date

15 A

ug 20

16 @

2:47

PM

Path

G:\D

&K C

AD D

rawi

ngs\D

KSER

VER

P Sh

are\D

rawi

ngs\T

OFIN

O\D-

B120

1\(C)

Civi

l\+Ci

vil3D

\WOR

KING

FOL

DER\

DL11

7_FI

GURE

3B 3C

.dwg F

IGUR

E 3B

PL

OT S

CALE

: 1:2.

585

PLO

TTED

BY:

Gra

ce Z

hang

LAS

T SA

VED

BY: k

behn

ka


N

TOFINO STAGE 3 LWMP


DL117: SBR OPTION

FIGURE 3B

LEGEND




INDEX CONTOUR (5m)

MINOR CONTOUR (1m)

WALKING TRAIL


CREEK

PROPOSED WWTT PLANT SITE

50m BUFFER

TOFINO COMMUNITY HALL AND EMERGENCY CARE CENTRE



PS-4

PS-C

1:5000

0 10050 150 200

m

@ ANSI B

Documents

Opus DaytonKnight Consultants Ltd