2017 GVS&DD EMQC Annual Report - Metro Vancouver · Revised Edition July 2019 Wastewater The 2017...

Revised Edition July 2019

Wastewater The 2017 Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage

District Environmental Management and Quality Control

Annual Report

ISSN 1496-9602

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE ....................................................................................................................... 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 3

1.0 WASTEWATER TREATMENT MONITORING PROGRAM ............................................... 18

1.1 LABORATORY PROGRAMS ....................................................................................... 18

1.2 MONTHLY REPORTING FOR OPERATIONAL CERTIFICATES ......................................... 19

1.3 QTRLY REPORTING FOR WASTEWATER SYSTEMS EFFLUENT REGULATIONS (WSER) ... 19

2.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC) .................................................. 21

3.0 ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP ........................................................................................ 24

3.1 EFFLUENT QUALITY ................................................................................................ 24

3.2 COMPLIANCE REVIEW (ME-00387) AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY ......................... 24

3.2.1 OPERATIONAL CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE REVIEW ........................................... 24

3.2.2 PERFORMANCE SUMMARY .............................................................................. 26

3.3 WASTEWATER SYSTEMS EFFLUENT REGULATIONS (WSER) AND COMPLIANCE REVIEW . 29

3.3.1 WSER COMPLIANCE REVIEW ........................................................................... 29

3.4 SECONDARY PROCESS ............................................................................................. 29

3.5 SOLIDS TREATMENT ............................................................................................... 30

4.0 IONA ISLAND WWTP ............................................................................................. 37



4.2.1 COMPLIANCE REVIEW ..................................................................................... 37


4.3 WASTEWATER SYSTEMS EFFLUENT REGULATIONS (WSER) & COMPLIANCE REVIEW .. 40


4.4 CHEMICALLY ENHANCED PRIMARY TREATMENT ...................................................... 41

4.5 SLUDGE TREATMENT/DIGESTER OPERATIONS ......................................................... 41

5.0 LIONS GATE WWTP ............................................................................................... 48




ii




5.4 CHEMICALLY ENHANCED PRIMARY TREATMENT ...................................................... 53

5.5 SLUDGE TREATMENT /DEWATERING ....................................................................... 53

6.0 LULU ISLAND WWTP .............................................................................................. 60








6.5 SOLIDS TREATMENT ............................................................................................... 66

6.6 DEWATERED SLUDGE .............................................................................................. 67

7.0 NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP ................................................................................ 74








7.5 SLUDGE TREATMENT .............................................................................................. 79

8.0 BIOSOLIDS MONITORING ....................................................................................... 86

8.1 ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP BIOSOLIDS MONITORING .................................................. 86

8.2 LIONS GATE WWTP BIOSOLIDS MONITORING .......................................................... 87

8.3 LULU ISLAND BIOSOLIDS MONITORING ................................................................... 88

8.4 IONA ISLAND WWTP DIGESTED SLUDGE MONITORING ............................................ 89

8.5 NORTHWEST LANGLEY TRUCKED SLUDGE MONITORING .......................................... 89

9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS ................................................................................ 91

10.0 OVERFLOW MONITORING ...................................................................................... 92

iii

10.1 COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW QUALITY MONITORING............................................ 92

10.1.1 CSO MONITORING PROGRAM .......................................................................... 94

10.1.2 CSO RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT MONITORING PROGRAM ................................ 97

10.2 SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW (SSO) MONITORING .................................................. 99

11.0 WHOLE EFFLUENT MONITORING .......................................................................... 102

11.1 EFFLUENT TOXICITY TESTING ................................................................................ 102

11.1.2 CHRONIC TOXICITY TESTING .......................................................................... 103

11.1.3 AMMONIA AS A POTENTIAL TOXICANT .......................................................... 104

11.2 SPECIAL CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................... 104

12.0 RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT MONITORING PROGRAMS ............................................ 106

12.1 IONA DEEP-SEA OUTFALL RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT MONITORING PROGRAM ...... 106

12.1.1 2017 SEDIMENT EFFECTS SURVEY .................................................................. 106

12.1.2 2017 INITIAL DILUTION ZONE BOUNDARY MONITORING ................................ 108

12.1.3 2017 DEMERSAL BIOTA SURVEY .................................................................... 111

12.2 LIONS GATE OUTFALL RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT MONITORING PROGRAM ............ 112

12.2.1 2017 SEDIMENT EFFECTS SURVEY .................................................................. 112

12.2.2 2017 INITIAL DILUTION ZONE BOUNDARY MONITORING ................................ 114

12.3 FRASER RIVER WWTP OUTFALLS RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT QUALITY .................... 117

12.3.1 2017 AIWWTP INITIAL DILUTION ZONE (IDZ) BOUNDARY MONITORING .......... 118

12.3.2 2017 NORTHWEST LANGLEY PILOT ................................................................ 119

12.4 RECREATIONAL WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM .................................... 120

12.4.1 TESTING ....................................................................................................... 121

12.4.2 REPORTING .................................................................................................. 122

12.4.3 GUIDELINES .................................................................................................. 122

12.4.4 RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 123

12.4.5 STATUS AND TRENDS .................................................................................... 127

13.0 AMBIENT ENVIRONMENT MONITORING PROGRAMS .............................................. 128

13.1 STRAIT OF GEORGIA AMBIENT MONITORING PROGRAM ........................................ 128

13.1.1 APPROACH ................................................................................................... 128

13.1.2 RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 130

13.2 FRASER RIVER AMBIENT MONITORING PROGRAM ................................................. 131

13.2.1 APPROACH ................................................................................................... 131

13.2.2 RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 132

iv

13.3 BURRARD INLET AMBIENT MONITORING PROGRAM .............................................. 133

13.3.1 APPROACH ................................................................................................... 133

13.3.2 RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 134

13.4 BOUNDARY BAY AMBIENT MONITORING PROGRAM .............................................. 136

13.4.1 APPROACH ................................................................................................... 137

13.4.2 RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 137

14.0 KEY MANHOLE MONITORING PROGRAM .............................................................. 141

14.1 NORTHWEST LANGLEY CATCHMENT ...................................................................... 142

14.2 LULU ISLAND SEWERAGE AREA ............................................................................. 143

14.3 2013-2016 ASSESSMENT STUDY ............................................................................ 144

15.0 LWS ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ..................................................... 146

15.1 OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................ 146

15.2 EMS WORK – 2017 ............................................................................................... 146

v

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 3.1 2017 ANNACIS WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL DAILY FLOWS ................................................................... 26 FIGURE 3.2 2017 ANNACIS WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS .......................... 27 FIGURE 3.3 2017 ANNACIS WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL cBOD ................................................................................ 28 FIGURE 4.1 2017 IONA ISLAND WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL DAILY FLOWS ............................................................ 38 FIGURE 4.2 2017 IONA ISLAND WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS ................... 39 FIGURE 4.3 2017 IONA ISLAND WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL BOD CONCENTRATIONS ............................................ 40 FIGURE 5.1 2017 LIONS GATE WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL DAILY FLOWS .............................................................. 50 FIGURE 5.2 2017 LIONS GATE WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS ..................... 51 FIGURE 5.3 2017 LIONS GATE WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL BOD CONCENTRATIONS .............................................. 52 FIGURE 6.1 2017 LULU ISLAND WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL DAILY FLOWS ............................................................ 63 FIGURE 6.2 2017 LULU ISLAND WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS ................... 64 FIGURE 6.3 2017 LULU ISLAND WWTP EFFLUENT cBOD CONCENTRATIONS ..................................................... 65 FIGURE 7.1 2017 NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL DAILY FLOWS ............................................. 76 FIGURE 7.2 2017 NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS .... 77 FIGURE 7.3 2017 NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP EFFLUENT CBOD CONCENTRATIONS ...................................... 78 FIGURE 8.1 ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP BIOSOLIDS – FECAL COLIFORMS 2017 ..................................................... 86 FIGURE 8.2 LIONS GATE WWTP BIOSOLIDS – FECAL COLIFORMS....................................................................... 87 FIGURE 8.3 LULU ISLAND WWTP BIOSOLIDS – FECAL COLIFORMS ..................................................................... 88 FIGURE 9.1 LOCATION OF METRO VANCOUVER’S WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS ................................... 91 FIGURE 10.1 TYPICAL COMBINED SEWER SYSTEM (FROM ADAMS, 2006) ........................................................... 92 FIGURE 10.2 METRO VANCOUVER COMBINED SEWER OUTFALL (CSO) LOCATIONS MONITORED IN 2017 ......... 93 FIGURE 10.3 CSO INFRASTRUCTURE: CSO SAMPLING KIOSK ............................................................................... 94 FIGURE 10.4 COMPARISON OF RAINFALL AND OVERFLOW EVENTS AT CSO LOCATIONS .................................... 95 FIGURE 11.1 COMPARISON OF 2017 WWTP EFFLUENT QUALITY W/ ACUTE AMMONIA TOXICITY CURVE ....... 105 FIGURE 12.1 IONA DEEP-SEA OUTFALL SEDIMENT EFFECTS MONITORING ........................................................ 107 FIGURE 12.2 IONA WWTP DEEP-SEA OUTFALL INITIAL DILUTION ZONE BOUNDARY STUDY AREA ................... 109 FIGURE 12.3 COLOUR VIDEO SOUNDER SHOWING A STRONG PLUME AT 50 M (ENKON, 2016) ....................... 110 FIGURE 12.4 LIONS GATE WWTP MONITORING OF OUTER BURRARD INLET ..................................................... 113 FIGURE 12.5 LIONS GATE SEDIMENT EFFECTS SURVEY AREA, 2017 (RED STATIONS WERE ACTIVE IN 2017 ..... 113 FIGURE 12.6 LIONS GATE INITIAL DILUTION ZONE BOUNDARY MONITORING STUDY AREA, 2017 ................... 115 FIGURE 12.7 MONITORING VESSEL & COLOUR VIDEO SOUNDER FOR LG IDZ BOUNDARY MON PROGR .......... 116 FIGURE 12.8 ANNACIS INITIAL DILUTION ZONE BOUNDARY MONITORING STUDY AREA, 2016 ........................ 118 FIGURE 12.9 COLLECTING RECREATIONAL-WATER SAMPLES ............................................................................. 120 FIGURE 12.10 RECREATIONAL WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM BEACH LOCATIONS .......................... 120 FIGURE 12.11 QUANTI-TRAYTM TESTING METHOD ............................................................................................... 122 FIGURE 12.12 PRIMARY-CONTACT RECREATIONAL WATER STATUS (2008-2017) ................................................ 126 FIGURE 13.1 OTHER MONITORING INITIATIVES AND DATA SOURCES . .............................................................. 129 FIGURE 13.2 FRASER RIVER AMBIENT WATER, SEDIMENT AND FISH MONITORING SITES ................................ 133 FIGURE 13.3 BURRARD INLET AMBIENT WATER, SEDIMENT AND FISH MONITORING SITES ............................. 136 FIGURE 13.4 BOUNDARY BAY AMBIENT WATER, SEDIMENT AND BIOTA MONITORING SITES .......................... 139 FIGURE 14.1 NW LANGLEY CATCHMENT 2017 KEY MANHOLE MON PROGRAM SAMPLING LOCATIONS ......... 143 FIGURE 14.2 LULU ISLAND SEWERAGE AREA 2017 KEY MANHOLE MON PROGRAM SAMPLING LOCATIONS ... 144

vii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1.1 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT MONITORING PARAMETERS – INFLUENT & EFFLUENT ........... 20 TABLE 3.1 ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP – 2017 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY ............................................................. 24 TABLE 3.2 OPERATIONAL CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE LEVELS .......................................................................... 24 TABLE 3.3 PREDICTED 30 DAY FECAL COLIFORM GEOMEAN AT THE ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP IDZ ................. 26 TABLE 3.4 2008-2017 ANNUAL AVERAGE DATA FOR FLOW, SUSPENDED SOLIDS AND BOD ........................... 28 TABLE 3.5 WSER COMPLIANCE LEVELS ............................................................................................................. 29 TABLE 3.6 2017 WSER MONITORING REPORT .................................................................................................. 29 TABLE 3.7 AIWWTP - 2017 ROUTINE MONITORING RESULTS & PERFORMANCE SUMMARY .......................... 31 TABLE 3.8 AIWWTP – 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM INFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS SUMMARY .............. 33 TABLE 3.9 AIWWTP – 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS SUMMARY ............. 34 TABLE 3.10 AIWWTP – 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM LOADINGS SUMMARY ............................................ 35 TABLE 4.1 IONA ISLAND WWTP – 2017 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY ................................................................... 37 TABLE 4.2 OPERATIONAL CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE LEVELS .......................................................................... 37 TABLE 4.3 2008 - 2017 ANNUAL AVERAGE DATA FOR FLOW, SUSPENDED SOLIDS AND BOD ......................... 39 TABLE 4.4 TRANSITIONAL AUTHORIZATION COMPLIANCE LEVELS FOR IONA ISLAND WWTP ......................... 40 TABLE 4.5 2017 WSER MONITORING REPORT .................................................................................................. 41 TABLE 4.6 IIWWTP - 2017 ROUTINE MONITORING RESULTS AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY ....................... 42 TABLE 4.7 IIWWTP – 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM INFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS SUMMARY ............... 44 TABLE 4.8 IIWWTP – 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS SUMMARY ............... 45 TABLE 4.9 IIWWTP – 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM LOADINGS SUMMARY ............................................. 46 TABLE 5.1 LIONS GATE WWTP – 2017 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY ..................................................................... 48 TABLE 5.2 OPERATIONAL CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE LEVELS .......................................................................... 48 TABLE 5.3 PREDICTED 30 DAY FECAL COLIFORM GEOMEAN AT THE LIONS GATE WWTP IDZ ......................... 49 TABLE 5.4 2008-2017 ANNUAL AVERAGE DATA FOR FLOW, SUSPENDED SOLIDS AND BOD ........................... 51 TABLE 5.5 TRANSITIONAL AUTHORIZATION COMPLIANCE LEVELS FOR LIONS GATE WWTP ........................... 52 TABLE 5.6 2017 WSER MONITORING REPORT .................................................................................................. 53 TABLE 5.7 LGWWTP - 2017 ROUTINE MONITORING RESULTS AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY ..................... 54 TABLE 5.8 LGWWTP – 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM INFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS SUMMARY ............. 56 TABLE 5.9 LGWWTP – 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS SUMMARY............. 57 TABLE 5.10 LGWWTP - 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM LOADINGS SUMMARY ............................................ 58 TABLE 6.1 LULU ISLAND WWTP – 2017 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY TABLE ......................................................... 60 TABLE 6.2 OPERATIONAL CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE LEVELS .......................................................................... 60 TABLE 6.3 2017 DISINFECTION SYSTEM INTERRRUPTIONS ............................................................................... 62 TABLE 6.4 PREDICTED 30 DAY FECAL COLIFORM GEOMEAN AT THE LULU ISLAND WWTP IDZ ....................... 63 TABLE 6.5 2008-2017 ANNUAL AVERAGE DATA FOR FLOW, SUSPENDED SOLIDS AND BOD ........................... 64 TABLE 6.6 WSER COMPLIANCE LEVELS ............................................................................................................. 65 TABLE 6.7 2017 WSER MONITORING REPORT .................................................................................................. 66 TABLE 6.8 LIWWTP – 2017 ROUTINE MONITORING RESULTS AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY ...................... 68 TABLE 6.9 LIWWTP – 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM INFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS SUMMARY .............. 70 TABLE 6.10 LIWWTP – 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM EFFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS SUMMARY ............ 71 TABLE 6.11 LIWWTP – 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM LOADINGS SUMMARY ............................................ 72 TABLE 7.1 NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP – 2017 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY .................................................... 74 TABLE 7.2 OPERATIONAL CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE LEVELS .......................................................................... 74 TABLE 7.3 PREDICTED 30 DAY FECAL COLIFORM GEOMEAN AT THE NW LANGLEY WWTP IDZ ....................... 75 TABLE 7.4 2008 - 2017 ANNUAL DATA FOR FLOW, SUSPENDED SOLIDS AND BOD .......................................... 77 TABLE 7.5 WSER COMPLIANCE LEVELS ............................................................................................................. 78 TABLE 7.6 2017 WSER MONITORING REPORT .................................................................................................. 79 TABLE 7.7 NWLWWTP – 2017 ROUTINE MONITORING RESULTS AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY ................. 80 TABLE 7.8 NWLWWTP – 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM INFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS SUMMARY ......... 82 TABLE 7.9 NWLWWTP – 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS SUMMARY ......... 83

viii

TABLE 7.10 NWLWWTP – 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM LOADINGS SUMMARY ....................................... 84 TABLE 8.1 ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP BIOSOLIDS – ORGANIC MATTER RECYCLING REGULATION...................... 86 TABLE 8.2 LIONS GATE WWTP BIOSOLIDS – ORGANIC MATTER RECYCLING REGULATION .............................. 87 TABLE 8.3 LULU ISLAND BIOSOLIDS – ORGANIC MATTER RECYCLING REGULATION ........................................ 88 TABLE 10.1 2017 CSO MONITORING EFFORT AND STATUS ................................................................................ 96 TABLE 10.2 GVS&DD CSO DISCHARGE DURATION, EVENTS AND VOLUME, 2017 .............................................. 97 TABLE 10.3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS BRAID, MACKAY AND HOLLYBURN/BELLEVUE SSO HHERA ................... 101 TABLE 12.1 RECREATIONAL - WATER MONITORING LOCATIONS & RECORD OF GUIDELINE ATTAINMENT ..... 124

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A - CSO WATER QUALITY MONITORING RESULTS

APPENDIX B - RECEIVING WATER BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY

1

PREFACE

The Environmental Management and Quality Control Division of the Liquid Waste Services Department is

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

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

receive discharges from the liquid waste management system for the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and

Drainage District (GVS&DD). This annual report summarizes the information gathered through the various

GVS&DD monitoring programs carried out by the Division in 2017 and provides an evaluation of the

operational effectiveness of the wastewater treatment plants. Some of the information in the report is

the result of joint efforts of Environmental Management and Quality Control Division and Operations and

Maintenance Division. The report is posted on Metro Vancouver’s website at the following location:

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

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

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

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

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

Under the provisions of the Environmental Management Act, the Minister of Environment approved Metro Vancouver’s Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ILWRMP, or the Plan) in May 2011. The Plan has three goals: protect public health and the environment; use liquid waste as a resource; and effective, affordable and collaborative management. Metro Vancouver manages its liquid waste in accordance with the ILWRMP and WWTP specific operational certificates. These certificates authorize the GVS&DD to discharge treated effluent from its WWTPs to the receiving waters. The federal Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations (WSER) under the Fisheries Act came into effect on July 18, 2012. GVS&DD is required to monitor and report effluent quality quarterly.

The District’s objective is to maintain ongoing compliance with the operational certificates and WSER and by doing so to continue to protect human health and the environment. The purpose of this report is to document the performance of the collection system and WWTPs in 2017 and to summarize findings of numerous environmental management initiatives and monitoring programs.

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

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

4

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS

Operational Certificates

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

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

In 2017, about 450 billion litres of wastewater were treated at the GVS&DD’s five wastewater treatment plants. Of this total, over 235 billion litres received primary treatment (Iona Island and Lions Gate) with the remaining 214 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 2017 are summarized below:

5

Total for 2017 Annacis Island

Iona Island

Lions Gate Lulu

Island Northwest

Langley Total

Effluent Flow, ML 183,589 205,085 30,419 25,768 4,681 449,541

BOD, Tonnes Removed

31,524 10,939 1,663 6,777 1,331 52,234

Suspended Solids, Tonnes Removed

29,757 14,986 3,080 5,328 1,275 54,426

Treatment Plant Performance Review

The overall performance of the GVRD’s five wastewater treatment plants was good. BOD and TSS operational certificate requirements were generally met throughout 2017. The following table summarizes the average reduction in BOD and total suspended solids loadings for all plants.

Wastewater Treatment Plant % BOD Reduction % TSS Reduction

Iona Island * 40 56

Lions Gate* 44 65

Annacis Island ** 94 90

Lulu Island ** 98 97

Northwest Langley** 95 94

* Reduction for primary plants expected to be about 30% for BOD and 60% for TSS ** Reduction for secondary plants expected to be about 90% for both TSS and BOD

6

In 2017, GVS&DD reported 11 events to the Ministry of Environment. These events can be grouped into 2 categories.

Category 1 (6 events) includes instances of disinfection or dechlorination system interruptions and plant bypasses. Probable causes and potential environmental effects are discussed in the table below.

Description Plant Date Quantity Discharged

Duration Probable Cause

Mitigation Measures

Potential Environmental Effects (Determined based on dilution dispersion modelling

of downstream concentrations)

Disinfection System Interruption and Plant Bypass

Lulu Island

Apr 5 Disinfection Interruption: 0.37 million litres

Plant Bypass: 0.29 million litres

Disinfection Interruption: 12.25 minutes

Plant Bypass: 5.40 minutes

Loss of power to a portion of the plant’s control system

Not Applicable

First Disinfection Interruption and Plant Bypass: There was potential for exceeding the applicable Health Canada Recreational Water Quality Guidelines at Garry Point Park for a short time, approximately 1 hour following the plant bypass. The applicable BC MOE Water Quality Guidelines for fecal coliforms were predicted to have been met at known registered water licence diversion points. The applicable BC MOE Water Quality Objectives for TSS and dissolved oxygen were expected to have been met in the Fraser River. The applicable BC MOE Water Quality Guidelines for chlorine were expected to have been met in the Fraser River. Second Disinfection Interruption: The applicable Health Canada Recreational Water Quality Guidelines were predicted to have been met at designated recreation areas. The applicable BC MOE Water Quality Guidelines for fecal coliforms were predicted to have been met at known registered water licence diversion points. The applicable BC MOE Water Quality Guidelines for chlorine were expected to have been met in the Fraser River.

Disinfection System Interruption

Lulu Island

May 15 0.26 million litres

7.57 minutes Closed isolation valve

Not Applicable

The applicable Health Canada Recreational Water Quality Guidelines were predicted to have been met at designated recreation areas. The applicable BC MOE Water Quality Guidelines for fecal coliforms were predicted to have been met at known registered water license diversion points. The applicable BC MOE Water Quality Guidelines for chlorine were expected to have been met in the Fraser River.

7



Mitigation Measures




Annacis Island


5 seconds BC Hydro Power Interruption

Not Applicable

The applicable BC MOE Water Quality Guidelines for chlorine were expected to have been met in the Fraser River.


Annacis Island


23 seconds BC Hydro Power Interruption

Not Applicable

The applicable BC MOE Water Quality Guidelines for chlorine were expected to have been met in the Fraser River.


Lulu Island

Aug 1 0.06 million litres

69 seconds, total

Power interruption due to loss of power from BC Hydro and transition from back-up generator to BC Hydro supply

Not Applicable

The applicable Health Canada Recreational Water Quality Guidelines were predicted to have been met at designated recreation areas.

The applicable BC MOE Water Quality Guidelines for fecal coliforms were predicted to have been met at known registered water licence diversion points.

Secondary Treatment Bypass

Lulu Island

Nov 14-15 Volume of effluent receiving primary treatment but not secondary treatment was 27.77 million litres

Secondary Treatment Bypass: 10.67 hours

Loss of BC Hydro power

Not Applicable

The applicable BC MOE Water Quality Objectives for TSS and dissolved oxygen were expected to have been met in the Fraser River.

8

Category 2 (5 events) were the results of daily discharge loadings for suspended solids above the maximum load limits. These exceptions typically have no significant environmental effect.



Mitigation Measures



Suspended Solids Loading

Iona Island

Jan 17 92.1 tonnes/day

Not Applicable

Wet weather caused high influent flow conditions

No remedial action required

The BC MOE Water Quality Guideline for TSS was expected to have been met in the Strait of Georgia.


Iona Island

Feb 9 83.7 tonnes/day

Not Applicable





Iona Island

Feb 15 79.4 tonnes/day

Not Applicable





Lions Gate

Mar 29 15.1 tonnes/day

Not Applicable



The BC MOE Water Quality Guideline for TSS was expected to have been met in the Burrard Inlet.


Iona Island

Dec 28 78.6 tonnes/day

Not Applicable




9

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

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

Parameter 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

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

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

Suspended Solids 0 0 0 0 0 0

BOD Daily Loading 0 0 0 0 0 0

Suspended Solids Daily Loading 0 0 0 0 0 4 (of 364)

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

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

Parameter 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017


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


BOD Daily Loading 0 0 0 0 0 0

Suspended Solids Daily Loading 0 0 0 1 (of 360) 0 1 (of 365)

Chlorine Residual* 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

Fecal Coliform 0 0 0 0 0 0

* Measured during disinfection season only – after dechlorination

10

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

Parameter 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

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

Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (cBOD)

0 0 0 0 0 0

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

cBOD Daily Loading 0 0 0 0 0 0

Suspended Solids Daily Loading 1 (of 362) 1 (of 365) 3 (of 364) 4 (of 361) 1 (of 366) 0

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

Disinfection Interruption 0 0 0 0 0 0


* Operational Certificate amended on December 21, 2017 ** Measured during disinfection season only – after dechlorination

11

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

Parameter 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017



0 0 0 0 0 0


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

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

Chlorine Residual* 0 0 0 0 0 2** (of 241)

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


Plant Bypass 0 0 0 0 0 0

Secondary Bypass 0 0 0 0 0 0

Primary Effluent During Secondary Bypass

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


* Measured during disinfection season only – after dechlorination ** Events were reported to the MOE and their assessment determined that conditions and requirements under

Emergency Procedures clause of the Operating Certificate were met in both instances.

12

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

Parameter 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017



0 0 0 0 0 0

Suspended Solids 0 0 0 0 0 1** (of 364)

cBOD Daily Loading 0 0 0 0 0 0

Suspended Solids Daily Loading 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chlorine Residual * 0 0 0 0 0 1** (of 216)

Disinfection Interruption 0 1 (of 215) 1 (of 220) 1 (of 221) 0 4** (of 218)


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

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


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


* Measured during disinfection season only – after dechlorination ** Events were reported to the MOE and their assessment determined that conditions and requirements under

Emergency Procedures clause of the Operating Certificate were met in all instances.

13

Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ILWRMP)

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

Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen

Demand (cBOD)

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

Average Average

≤ 25 mg/L ≤ 25 mg/L

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

Secondary Plants Annacis Island Lulu Island Northwest Langley

Parameters TSS cBOD TSS cBOD TSS cBOD

January 19 14 6 7

February 21 14 6 7

March 23 14 5 7 17 13

April 21 14 5 6

May 15 12 6 6

June 17 12 6 6 16 12

July 13 8 5 6

August 14 10 5 5

September 11 8 5 5 19 16

October 13 10 5 6

November 14 10 8 8

December 18 13 8 8 20 17

Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulation (WSER)

Quarterly monitoring reports were submitted through Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Effluent Regulatory Reporting Information System (ERRIS) in 2017. As required by WSER, the effluent monitoring

14

data reported were: number of days that effluent was deposited; total volume of effluent deposited in m3; average effluent cBOD in mg/L; and the average effluent concentration of suspended solids in mg/L. In addition, secondary treatment plants Annacis Island and Lulu Island were required to report effluent acute lethality on a quarterly basis and Northwest Langley was required to report effluent acute lethality on an annual basis.

A summary of events when the parameters regulated by the WSER for the District’s secondary wastewater treatment plants were not met in 2017 is shown in the next table.

Parameter Annacis Island WWTP

Lulu Island WWTP

Northwest Langley WWTP

Suspended Solids 0 0 0


0 0 0

Un-ionized Ammonia 0 0 0

Total Residual Chlorine 0 0 0*

Acute Lethality 0 0 0

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

GVS&DD’s primary plants, Iona Island and Lions Gate WWTPs were issued transitional authorizations under WSER on September 5, 2014. A summary of events when the parameters regulated by the transitional authorizations for the District’s primary wastewater treatment plants were not met is shown in the next table.

Parameter Iona

Island WWTP

Lions Gate

WWTP

Suspended Solids 0 0


0 0

Un-ionized Ammonia 0 0

BIOSOLIDS MONITORING PROGRAM

Process Requirements and Biosolids Management

The Organic Matter Recycling Regulation (OMRR) governs the management of biosolids and compost as soil amendments in the Province of British Columbia. Under this regulation, sampling frequencies and criteria values for fecal coliforms and metals as specified for Class A and Class B biosolids are based on several parameters including: type of treatment process (pathogen reduction requirements, vector

15

attraction reduction), the amount of dry solids produced on a monthly basis and the intended use of the material. The GVS&DD’s biosolids management program ensures that any biosolids not meeting class specifications are identified, tracked and managed appropriately.

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

The Iona Island WWTP operates mesophilic digesters which produce digested sludge complying with Class B pathogen levels. At Iona Island WWTP discharges from the digesters are further processed via lagoon stabilization and land-drying to produce a Class B biosolids product with soil-like consistency. These biosolids are currently stockpiled on site with anticipated use in future recycling projects. The Northwest Langley WWTP stopped operating aerobic digesters and continued to haul thickened wasted secondary sludge to Annacis Island WWTP.

Biosolids Quality

About 16,000 tests were performed on biosolids in 2017. The results showed that metals concentrations were generally well below the criteria value limits specified by OMRR.

In 2017, fecal coliform counts in biosolids were within the Class A or Class B criteria for the Annacis Island, Lulu Island and Lions Gate WWTPs.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

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

Overflow Quality Monitoring and Risk Assessments

Combined Sewer Overflows

In 2017, the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Monitoring Program characterized the overflow water quality for seven selected CSO locations: Angus Drive, Borden Street, Cassiar, Chilco-Brockton, Glenbroook, Heather, and Macdonald. In addition, receiving environment effects survey field work was completed for Angus CSO; and report was completed for Balaclava, Cassiar and Manitoba CSOs.

Sanitary Sewer Overflows

Metro Vancouver continued monitoring the receiving environment water quality after each sanitary sewer overflow and provided results to regulatory agencies and municipalities.

Whole Effluent Toxicity Monitoring.

In 2017, all effluent samples from all wastewater treatment plants passed the required monthly acute toxicity test using Environment and Climate Change Canada test protocols except for five samples of Iona Island effluent and one Lions Gate effluent samples. Each of these Iona Island and Lions Gate effluent

16

samples required oxygen in excess of that specified by the Environment and Climate Change Canada method.

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

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

WWTP Receiving Environment Quality

Metro Vancouver conducted comprehensive monitoring of the receiving environment for its wastewater treatment plant outfalls. In 2017, the monitoring programs included monitoring the boundary of the initial dilution zone (IDZ), and sediment effects surveys.

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

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

Recreational Water Quality

Metro Vancouver monitored the bacteriological quality of recreational waters in the region at 113 sampling sites from 41 locations. Both bathing and non-bathing beaches were monitored. In 2017, the bacteriological water quality for primary-contact recreation was met at bathing beaches during the bathing beach season from May through September. False Creek met the working guideline limit for secondary or incidental-contact activities throughout the 2017 season.

Ambient Environment Quality

Metro Vancouver conducted ambient environment monitoring for all of the major water bodies that receive discharges from point and non-point sources in the Metro Vancouver region. In 2017, ambient monitoring programs included assessment of the water quality for the Fraser River, Strait of Georgia and Boundary Bay. Work continued on a multiple year program to better understand the dispersal and removal of contaminants in the Strait of Georgia. In addition, field work was completed in Burrard Inlet for a fish survey, as well as a pilot study that combined ambient and receiving environment water quality assessment.

17

Fraser River 2017 ambient monitoring program water quality results indicated that most of the applicable water quality objectives and guidelines were met. Copper average concentrations were equal to the objective within the limits of analytical precision at 2 sites, and total iron was above the guideline at two sites on one sampling day.

Assessment of the prior year monitoring results for Burrard Inlet completed in 2017, indicated that all

parameters except dissolved oxygen and boron met the applicable Burrard Inlet water quality objective,

CCME or provincial guideline at all monitoring sites.

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

18

1.0 WASTEWATER TREATMENT MONITORING PROGRAM

1.1 LABORATORY PROGRAMS

In 2017, the Environmental Management & Quality Control Division carried out all routine monitoring

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

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

and Drainage District’s wastewater treatment plants.

As specified in the Operational Certificates issued by the MOE for each treatment plant, the GVS&DD is

required to monitor and report data monthly for effluent quality, treated sludge, and receiving waters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

wastewater treatment plants.

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

197,000 analyses in 2017.

Monitoring programs carried out in 2017 provided a comprehensive set of influent and effluent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19

1.2 MONTHLY REPORTING FOR OPERATIONAL CERTIFICATES

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

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

following location:

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

monitoring/operational-certificates/Pages/default.aspx

1.3 QUARTERLY REPORTING FOR WASTEWATER SYSTEMS EFFLUENT REGULATIONS (WSER)

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

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

Environment and Climate Change Canada through electronic Effluent Regulatory Reporting Information

System (ERRIS) within 45 days after the end of each quarter.

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

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

20

TABLE 1.1 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT MONITORING PARAMETERS – INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT

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

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

TKN Chemistry Composite 1/mo R R R R R

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

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

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

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

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

MBAS Chemistry Grab 1/mo R R R R R

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conductivity " " Composite 5 to 7/wk R R R R R

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

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

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

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

Fecal Coliform

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

Composite sample are collected over a 24 hour period C = Operational Certificate authorized discharge parameter

* Ammonia and pH are done on weekly grabs for all WWTP for CEPA monitoring. W = Wastewater System Effluent Regulations (WSER)

** Data used to calculate un-ionized ammonia M = Operational Certificate Effluent Monitoring Requirement

*** COD is reported five times per week with BOD once per week R = Routine Monitoring, Influent and Effluent

**** During chlorination season only. ( ) = Operational Certificate Reporting Requirements

Monitoring Requirements

M(1/mo) M(1/mo)ConsultantLC50 Grab

21

2.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC)

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

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

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

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

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

control.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requirements for accreditation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

water, wastewater and biosolids samples.

In 2017, over 197,000 analyses were performed by the Liquid Waste Services - Environmental

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

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

Services laboratory sections. The laboratory conducted more than 78,400 tests on QA/QC samples. This

represents 30.2% of the total analytical workload. These analyses were part of an on-going QA/QC

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

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

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

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

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

audit, the CALA Accreditation Council grants accreditation to the laboratory. In November 2017, a team

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

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

Accreditation Council has given approval to the LWS-EMQC Laboratory for the 2017 - 2019 maintenance

of accreditation.

22

During the year 2017, the Metro Vancouver Laboratory participated in the following inter-laboratory

analytical performance evaluation/certification programs:

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

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

been administered by CALA since January 1999.

The goal of external performance studies is to demonstrate technical competence. In 2017, the MV LWS

laboratory achieved an average PT score of 90, and 95% of the PT scores fell within the range of 73 – 99.

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

composite PT scores equal or exceed 70.

23

3.0 ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP

24

3.0 ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP

3.1 EFFLUENT QUALITY

The quality of effluent from Annacis Island WWTP in 2017 along with the authorized discharge compliance

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

TABLE 3.1 ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP – 2017 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

3.2 COMPLIANCE REVIEW (ME-00387) AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

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

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

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

Table 3.2.

TABLE 3.2 OPERATIONAL CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE LEVELS

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

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

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

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

operational certificate fees. For 2017, the maximum authorized daily loadings were 17.0 tonnes/day for

cBOD and 20.0 tonnes/day for TSS.

Discharge Monitoring

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

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

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

3.2.1 OPERATIONAL CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE REVIEW

In 2017, Annacis Island WWTP met all requirements of its Operational Certificate, as shown in Table 3.1.

Operational Certificate Requirement - ME00387, April 23, 2004.

Compliance Parameters Testing

Frequency

Max. Value

for the Year

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

Total Flow (MLD) Daily 923 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

cBOD (mg/L)* 3/week 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Suspended Solids (mg/L) 5/week 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

cBOD (Tonnes/Day)* 3/week 12.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Susp. Solids (Tonnes/Day) 5/week 19.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chlorine Residual (mg/L)** Daily <0.1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2***

Disinfection - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

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

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

*** Events were reported to the MOE and their assessment determined that conditions and requirements under Emergency Procedures clause of the

Operational Certificate were met in both instances.

** Effluent disinfected between April 1 and October 31

20.0

<0.1

-

-

2ADW

17.0

Number of Times Criteria Not Met

OC Limits

1050

45

45

25

Effluent bypasses

Operational Certificate ME-00387 Requirement:

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

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

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

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

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

maintained for the effluent not receiving secondary treatment.”

There was no bypassing of the secondary treatment process in 2017.

Plant bypasses

There were no plant bypass events in 2017.

Disinfection


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

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

zone as described in the Municipal Sewage Regulation.

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

chlorine residual below the detection limit.”

The effluent was disinfected between April 1 and October 31 using sodium hypochlorite solution (SHS)

and dechlorinated using sodium bisulfite (SBS). The average SHS dosage as chlorine was 2.1 mg/L and the

average SBS dosage as SO2 was 1.8 mg/L.

Annacis Island WWTP had two instances of dechlorination interruption on May 23 and May 30 due to loss

of power. The plant discharged a total of 0.03 million litres in 5 seconds and 0.14 million litres in

23 seconds, respectively. Events were reported to the MoE and their assessment determined that

conditions and requirements under Emergency Procedures clause of the Operational Certificate were met

in both instances.

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

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

Table 3.3.

26

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

Final Effluent April May June July August September October

Max 30 day Geomean* - 61 51 47 118 55 98

Dilution Factor** - 40 40 40 40 40 40

IDZ Result *** - 1.5 1.3 1.2 2.9 1.4 2.5

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

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

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

for 30 day periods at the edge of the IDZ.

3.2.2 PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

Annacis Island WWTP treated a total of 183,589 ML in 2017. The average effluent daily flow of 503 MLD was 2.2% higher than in 2016. The highest daily flow of 923 MLD and the peak flow rate of 12.9 m3/sec (1,110 MLD) were recorded on March 29 and November 22, respectively (Figure 3.1).

FIGURE 3.1 2017 ANNACIS WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL DAILY FLOWS

Influent SS loading was 4.1% higher than in 2016 and BOD loadings were 5.1% higher than in 2016

(Table 3.4). Influent SS concentrations ranged from 89 to 258 mg/L and averaged 187 mg/L. Influent BOD

concentrations ranged from 87 to 273 mg/L and averaged 192 mg/L.

27

The plant continued to produce good effluent quality in 2017 (Table 3.4). The final effluent SS ranged

from 8 to 31 mg/L (Figure 3.2). The final effluent cBOD ranged from 6 to 18 mg/L (Figure 3.3). Effluent SS

loading of 3,098 tonnes/year was 63% higher and effluent cBOD loading of 2,137 tonnes/year was 48.7%

higher than in 2016.

FIGURE 3.2 2017 ANNACIS WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS

28

FIGURE 3.3 2017 ANNACIS WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL CBOD

In 2017, the average reduction of suspended solids was 90% and the average reduction of BOD was 94%.

TABLE 3.4 2008-2017 ANNUAL AVERAGE DATA FOR FLOW, SUSPENDED SOLIDS AND BOD

YEAR FLOWS Suspended Solids Suspended Solids BOD cBOD BOD cBOD

MLD mg/L Tonnes/year

INF EFF INF EFF INF EFF INF EFF

2008 475 170 16 28921 2774 187 10 31719 1698

2009 487 174 14 30041 2514 190 9 32611 1687

2010 482 172 12 29684 2211 176 7 30453 1262

2011 483 176 12 30469 2196 182 8 31407 1396

2012 494 175 10 30873 1871 186 6 32480 1148

2013 470 189 10 31848 1683 197 7 32829 1107

2014 488 178 8 30557 1566 183 7 31503 1309

2015 468 190 8 31370 1414 198 7 32186 1240

2016 492 182 10 31552 1897 190 8 32016 1437

2017 503 187 17 32850 3093 192 12 33661 2137

Tonnes/yearmg/L

29

3.3 WASTEWATER SYSTEMS EFFLUENT REGULATIONS (WSER) AND COMPLIANCE REVIEW

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

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

Table 3.5.

TABLE 3.5 WSER COMPLIANCE LEVELS

Monthly average carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (cBOD) 25 mg/L

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

Monthly average concentration of total residual chlorine 0.02 mg/L

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

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

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

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

3.3.1 WSER COMPLIANCE REVIEW

In 2017, Annacis Island WWTP met WSER effluent quality standards and limits on cBOD and suspended

solids as summarized in Table 3.6.

TABLE 3.6 2017 WSER MONITORING REPORT

3.4 SECONDARY PROCESS

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

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

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

(scBOD) removal of 68%. The remaining scBOD concentrations after the trickling effluent ranged from

9 to 32 mg/L. Average Mean Cell Residence Time (MCRT) for the solids in the aeration tanks was 1.6 days

Number of Days Total volume of Average Average Concentration

that effluent effluent deposited CBOD of Suspended Solids

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

January 31 16,720,563 14 19

February 28 15,216,256 14 21

March 31 19,482,996 14 23

April 30 16,803,464 14 21 <0.02

May 31 15,606,405 12 15 <0.02

June 30 13,103,058 12 17 <0.02

July 31 12,591,123 8 13 <0.02

August 31 12,545,588 10 14 <0.02

September 30 12,288,728 8 11 <0.02

October 31 14,436,245 10 13 <0.02

November 30 16,893,497 10 14 <0.02

December 31 17,900,629 13 18

Acute Lethality Test Results

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

2/7/2017 8:30 Multi-Concentration Test Yes No




Average Concentration

of Total Residual

Chlorine (mg/L)

30

and it was adjusted seasonally from 1.0 to 2.5 days. Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids (MLSS) concentrations

were between 792 and 1,740 mg/L with an average of 1,163 mg/L.

3.5 SOLIDS TREATMENT

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

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

was 4.0%.

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

Thickeners (DAFTs). The average Thickened Waste Secondary Sludge (TWSS) total solids content was 5.8%

with a subnatant suspended solids concentration of 25 mg/L and Thickened Bottom Sludge (TBS)

suspended solids concentration of 110 mg/L. The average DAFT polymer dosage was 4.1 kg/dry tonne.

Mixed sludge from the primary and secondary processes had an average total solids content of 4.3% and

a volatile solids content of 88%. The average mixed sludge composition was 45% primary sludge and 55%

secondary sludge.

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

Vessel (FTV). Annacis Island WWTP digesters processed mixed sludge from the Annacis WWTP and

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

volume from the Northwest Langley WWTP was 14.9 ML.

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

primary digesters and 2 days for the FTVs. The average volatile solids reduction was 65% and the average

organic loading rate was 2.14 kg/m3. Bicarbonate alkalinity concentrations ranged between 4,660 and

5,870 mg/L.

Biosolids dewatering achieved an average cake solids content of 26.9% and average centrate suspended

solids concentration of 1,335 mg/L with an average recovery of 93%. The average polymer usage was 9.4

kg/tonne.

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

in Tables 3.7 to 3.10.

31

TABLE 3.7 ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP - 2017 ROUTINE MONITORING RESULTS AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

MONTH Max. Total Daily Grab pH Grab NH3 96 hr LC50 Composite Unionized

Inst.Flow Effluent Flow Average Average (%v/v) NH3 Maximum

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

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

JAN 11.8 870 452 539 7.0 30.2 >100 0.58

FEB 11.7 802 444 543 7.0 32.3 >100 0.51

MAR 12.0 923 484 628 6.8 25.0 >100 0.35

APR 10.1 720 472 560 7.0 27.6 >100 0.47

MAY 10.7 728 436 503 7.1 31.5 >100 0.51

JUN 8.7 497 418 437 7.2 34.6 >100 0.69

JUL 7.8 418 389 406 7.2 34.8 >100 0.80

AUG 7.7 422 381 405 7.3 35.4 >100 0.68

SEP 7.7 455 385 410 7.3 33.9 >100 0.63

OCT 11.7 713 391 466 7.2 34.6 >100 0.67

NOV 12.9 890 417 563 7.2 26.0 >100 0.54

DEC 12.6 831 431 577 7.1 27.8 >100 0.56

# Samples - - - 365 54 52 12 157

Maximum-Yr. 12.9 923 - - 7.4 39.9 0 0.80

Minimum-Yr. - - 381 - 6.7 15.3 >100 0.11

Average-Yr. - - - 503 7.1 31.3 >100 0.41

MONTH Ave Temp. SHS SBS SO2 Geomean Fecal Coliform

(oC) Dosage Dosage mg/L (MPN/100mL)

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

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

JAN 12 - - - - - - -

FEB 13 - - - - - - -

MAR 13 1.6 0.74 <0.02 2.2 1.65 - -

APR 14 1.8 0.63 <0.02 1.9 1.41 49 49

MAY 17 1.9 0.72 <0.02 1.7 1.12 32 61

JUN 19 2.2 0.70 <0.02 1.7 1.26 42 51

JUL 21 2.3 0.73 <0.02 1.7 1.19 47 47

AUG 22 2.4 0.72 <0.02 1.8 1.42 64 118

SEP 22 2.3 0.8 <0.02 1.8 1.27 42 55

OCT 20 2.2 0.8 <0.02 1.8 1.18 98 98

NOV 16 - - - - - - -

DEC 15 - - - - - - -

# Samples 54 223 241 241 224 241 62 62

Maximum-Yr. 23 2.7 1.2 <0.02 3.0 4.10 1,300 118

Minimum-Yr. 10 1.1 0.1 <0.02 1.4 0.20 <18 18

Average-Yr. 17 2.1 0.7 <0.02 1.8 1.26 - 49

Geomean - - - - - - 50 -

Final Effluent

(mg/L)

Ave. Residual Cl2

(1) Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature, Residual Chlorine (taken before dechlorination), 96 hour LC50 and Coliform are determined on grab samples; all other parameters are determined on 24 hr. flow proportioned composite samples.(2) Effluent is disinfected between April 1 and Oct 31.

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

32

TABLE 3.7 CONT'D: ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP - 2017 ROUTINE MONITORING RESULTS AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

MONTH Total Susp. Solids Conductivity

Ave. % Reduction (umhos/cm)

RAW INF FINAL EFF RAW FINAL RAW FINAL

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

JAN 252 94 163 29 10 19 57 88 85.6 10.0 535 617

FEB 204 104 162 27 12 21 59 87 85.9 11.3 653 713

MAR 206 89 141 31 14 23 53 84 86.8 14.0 503 616

APR 191 115 161 29 10 21 59 87 89.1 11.5 508 638

MAY 241 133 190 26 9 15 64 92 95.1 7.6 515 639

JUN 256 182 221 24 9 17 66 92 96.3 7.2 525 652

JUL 253 205 226 18 9 13 66 94 91.9 5.2 503 622

AUG 258 198 230 20 10 14 65 94 92.8 5.8 492 607

SEP 244 196 217 16 8 11 65 95 88.9 4.6 496 606

OCT 247 123 200 23 9 13 64 93 90.2 6.1 470 573

NOV 240 99 165 24 11 14 56 91 89.3 8.0 436 517

DEC 217 94 164 28 13 18 56 88 88.1 10.5 478 548

# Samples - - 346 - - 365 344 346 346 365 346 365

Maximum-Yr. 258 - - 31 - - 75 96 124 19.2 1240 1110

Minimum-Yr. - 89 - - 8 - 28 79 68.3 3.3 349 394

Average-Yr. - - 187 - - 17 61 90 90.0 8.5 509 612

Total to Date - Suspended Solids Loadings (Tonnes): 32850 3093

MONTH Average BOD Ave. BOD/cBOD Loadings Average COD

% Reduction (Tonnes/day) (mg/L)

RAW INF FINAL EFF BOD cBOD RAW FINAL

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

JAN 217 97 173 18 8 14 26 92 91.5 7.4 421 81

FEB 201 115 164 18 12 14 32 92 89.2 7.4 407 89

MAR 179 87 137 18 9 14 26 89 80.3 8.5 334 84

APR 201 145 171 18 10 14 32 91 90.5 8.0 392 91

MAY 215 130 177 15 8 12 36 93 88.6 5.7 436 82

JUN 238 167 204 17 6 12 35 94 90.3 5.3 505 84

JUL 245 216 234 11 7 8 36 96 95.8 3.4 530 75

AUG 255 205 238 14 6 10 38 96 96.7 4.0 539 75

SEP 273 208 243 11 6 8 40 97 100.6 3.1 529 71

OCT 264 134 206 13 7 10 35 95 93.1 4.4 471 74

NOV 243 118 164 17 7 10 34 94 92.1 5.9 402 65

DEC 236 160 194 18 10 13 37 94 98.9 7.2 413 73

# Samples - - 94 - - 157 92 93 94 157 335 262

Maximum-Yr. 273 - - 18 - - 46 98 114 12.3 601 112

Minimum-Yr. - 87 - - 6 - 11 85 69.9 2.3 221 49

Average-Yr. - - 192 - - 12 34 94 92.2 5.9 448 79

Total to Date - Biochemical Oxygen Demand Loadings (Tonnes): 33661 2137

(mg/L) (mg/L)

Total Suspended Solids Ave. Suspended Solids

(mg/L) Loadings (Tonnes/day)

BOD cBOD


33

TABLE 3.8 ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP – 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM INFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS SUMMARY

Parameters

Sample

Type Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Max Min. Average

Aluminium Dissolved (µg/L) Comp. 40 31 31 30 34 37 36 41 52 46 38 43 52 30 38

Aluminum Total (µg/L) Comp. 478 326 380 338 530 376 369 352 367 513 505 377 530 326 409

Arsenic Total (µg/L) Comp. 1.0 0.9 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.7 1.2 0.7 0.9

Barium Dissolved (µg/L) Comp. 16.3 14.0 14.3 12.0 10.6 7.6 7.4 6.9 7.1 6.6 8.1 9.8 16.3 6.6 10.1

Barium Total (µg/L) Comp. 30.8 32.8 26.6 26.7 25.5 22.5 22.2 19.7 20.6 19.0 20.3 25.6 32.8 19.0 24.4

Boron Dissolved (µg/L) Comp. 105 93 82 103 94 109 112 115 115 99 94 121 121 82 104

Boron Total (µg/L) Comp. 119 94 82 109 97 111 115 112 116 100 91 132 132 82 107

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

Cadmium Total (µg/L) Comp. <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Calcium Total (µg/L) Comp. 17100 17500 17100 17400 15300 13600 12800 11500 11100 10200 13600 14100 17500 10200 14275

Chromium Dissolved (µg/L) Comp. 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.9 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.2 0.9 1.8 1.3 0.9 1.8 0.5 1.0

Chromium Total (µg/L) Comp. 1.9 1.8 2.6 3.0 3.7 2.8 2.6 3.1 2.9 4.4 4.2 2.3 4.4 1.8 2.9

Cobalt Dissolved (µg/L) Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.9 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.9 <0.5 <0.6

Cobalt Total (µg/L) Comp. 0.5 0.5 <0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.7 1.5 0.6 0.7 0.5 1.5 <0.5 <0.7

Copper Dissolved (µg/L) Comp. 20.3 17.5 17.0 12.3 16.1 19.6 23.6 20.0 21.0 24.0 21.6 19.6 24.0 12.3 19.4

Copper Total (µg/L) Comp. 63.4 72.1 52.4 41.7 55.9 65.4 85.2 63.9 70.1 72.8 69.5 63.0 85.2 41.7 64.6

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

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

Hardness as CaCO3 (mg/L) Comp. 57.6 60.2 56.7 60.2 52.1 48.1 44.9 40.7 39.4 38.1 47.5 49.5 60.2 38.1 49.6

Iron Dissolved (µg/L) Comp. 427 619 766 1150 1130 1160 649 1600 770 698 1510 808 1600 427 941

Iron Total (µg/L) Comp. 1490 1900 2020 2840 2980 3040 2040 3310 2050 1810 3510 1910 3510 1490 2408

Lead Dissolved (µg/L) Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 <0.5 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.6

Lead Total (µg/L) Comp. 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.9 2.6 2.2 2.9 2.6 2.7 3.2 2.2 6.1 6.1 1.9 2.7

Magnesium Total (µg/L) Comp. 3630 4030 3360 4050 3380 3410 3170 2890 2830 3080 3290 3460 4050 2830 3382

Manganese Dissolved (µg/L) Comp. 70.3 73.1 63.7 71.9 64.1 68.4 54.4 56.9 46.0 46.6 65.1 63.9 73.1 46.0 62.0

Manganese Total (µg/L) Comp. 91.4 100 81.7 94.2 86.7 92.2 81.4 77.3 68.9 67.7 94.4 88.8 100 67.7 85.4

Mercury Total (µg/L) Comp. 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.09 <0.05 0.06 0.12 0.15 0.06 0.12 0.07 0.06 0.15 <0.05 <0.08

Methylene Blue Active Substances (mg/L) Grab 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.1 2.0 3.7 3.2 2.8 3.2 3.3 2.6 2.7 3.7 2.0 2.8

Molybdenum Dissolved (µg/L) Comp. 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.1 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.4 2.9 0.7 2.9 0.6 1.1

Molybdenum Total (µg/L) Comp. 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.1 1.4 1.5 2.0 2.2 3.5 1.2 3.5 1.1 1.6

Nickel Dissolved (µg/L) Comp. 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.0 2.3 2.1 1.8 1.6 2.3 1.2 1.6

Nickel Total (µg/L) Comp. 2.8 2.1 2.0 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.6 3.9 3.2 3.7 3.5 2.6 3.9 2.0 2.8

Nitrogen - Ammonia as N (mg/L) Comp. 20.2 25.7 14.8 19.8 18.7 25.5 26.2 26.2 28.2 27.6 26.4 24.9 28.2 14.8 23.7

Nitrogen - Nitrate as N (mg/L) Grab <0.01 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 <0.02

Nitrogen - Nitrite as N (mg/L) Grab <0.01 <0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 <0.02

Nitrogen - Total Kjeldahl (mg/L) Comp. 35 42 24 32 40 40 46 46 42 42 41 41 46 24 39

Oil & Grease (mg/L) Grab 32 299 59 35 27 40 39 30 77 38 47 299 27 66

Phenol (mg/L) Grab 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.03

Phosphorus Dissolved (µg/L) Comp. 1420 2070 1190 1370 1420 1950 2350 2230 2640 2460 2140 2060 2640 1190 1942

Phosphorus Total (µg/L) Comp. 3330 4600 2730 3650 3680 4900 5000 4870 5000 4900 4940 4560 5000 2730 4347

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

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

Silver Total (µg/L) Comp. 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 1.4 0.8 0.7 1.0 1.4 <0.5 <0.7

Sulphate (mg/L) Comp. 11.6 12.1 11.0 12.2 11.2 11.1 10.5 9.6 9.0 11.4 13.4 12.6 13.4 9.0 11.3

Zinc Dissolved (µg/L) Comp. 23 24 24 22 23 15 22 15 19 23 14 20 24 14 20

Zinc Total (µg/L) Comp. 75 88 65 72 102 99 115 107 106 116 98 95 116 65 95

34

TABLE 3.9 ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP – 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS SUMMARY

Parameters

Sample










Cadmium Total (µg/L) Comp. <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2


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


Cobalt Dissolved (µg/L) Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0.7 <0.5 1.0 1.2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 1.2 <0.5 <0.7

Cobalt Total (µg/L) Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 0.7 <0.5 1.0 1.2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 1.2 <0.5 <0.7




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




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

Lead Total (µg/L) Comp. 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.7 <0.5 <0.6



Manganese Total (µg/L) Comp. 74.0 81.4 78.6 84.2 76.9 68.0 60.3 54.5 49.2 50.3 64.6 80.3 84.2 49.2 68.5

Mercury Total (µg/L) Comp. <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Methylene Blue Active Substances (mg/L) Grab 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.5





Nitrogen - Ammonia as N (mg/L) Comp. 29.2 36.9 25.4 24.3 29.0 35.6 34.2 36.4 38.1 40.0 33.9 30.6 40 24.3 32.8

Nitrogen - Nitrate as N (mg/L) Grab 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 <0.02

Nitrogen - Nitrite as N (mg/L) Grab 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.01 0.03


Oil & Grease (mg/L) Grab 6 5 3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 4 <3 <3 6 <3 <4

Phenol (mg/L) Grab <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



Selenium Total (µg/L) Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5


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




35

TABLE 3.10 ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP – 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM LOADINGS SUMMARY

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

Parameters

Aluminium Dissolved 24 14 19 7 15 5 8 3

Aluminum Total 345 143 206 75 59 18 32 12

Arsenic Total 0.9 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.1

Barium Dissolved 10 2.8 5.3 1.9 5.5 0.8 2.2 0.8

Barium Total 19 8.0 12 4.5 7.8 1.5 4.2 1.5

Boron Dissolved 63 41 51 19 83 48 61 22

Boron Total 71 40 53 19 88 49 65 24

Cadmium Dissolved <0.15 <0.08 <0.10 <0.04 <0.14 <0.08 <0.10 <0.04

Cadmium Total 0.15 <0.08 <0.10 <0.04 <0.14 <0.08 <0.10 <0.04

Calcium Total 12443 4383 7311 2676 10957 4018 6880 2518

Chromium Dissolved 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.5 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1

Chromium Total 2.4 0.8 1.5 0.5 0.9 0.3 0.5 0.2

Cobalt Dissolved 0.4 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1 0.5 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1

Cobalt Total 0.6 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1 0.5 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1

Copper Dissolved 12 7.0 9.5 3.5 21 3.4 8.5 3.1

Copper Total 38 24 32 12 30 10 16 6

Cyanide Total <14 <8.1 <10 <3.7 <13 <8.1 <9.9 <3.6

Fluoride 36 <20 <26 <9.4 52 <21 <31 <11

Hardness as CaCO3 41260 16288 25276 9251 38410 15585 24605 9006

Iron Dissolved 736 256 463 169 188 50 73 27

Iron Total 1942 778 1194 437 691 222 333 122

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

Lead Total 2.7 0.9 1.3 0.5 0.5 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1

Magnesium Total 2445 1170 1703 623 2679 1141 1803 660

Manganese Dissolved 46 19 31 11 45 18 30 11

Manganese Total 59 28 43 16 51 20 35 13

Mercury Total 0.06 <0.02 <0.04 <0.01 <0.04 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01

Methylene Blue Active Substance 2038 1129 1375 503 359 136 228 83

Molybdenum Dissolved 1.3 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.9 0.3 0.5 0.2

Molybdenum Total 1.5 0.5 0.8 0.3 1.0 0.3 0.5 0.2

Nickel Dissolved 1.0 0.6 0.8 0.3 1.3 0.9 1.1 0.4

Nickel Total 1.7 1.0 1.4 0.5 1.4 1.0 1.2 0.4

Nitrogen - Ammonia as N 12187 10660 11414 4177 18900 13736 15810 5786

Nitrogen - Nitrate as N 22 <4.1 <6.9 <2.5 19 <4.1 <7.6 <2.8

Nitrogen - Nitrite as N 22 <4.1 <7.6 <2.8 29 4.3 16 5.9

Nitrogen - Total Kjeldahl 26068 17363 19076 6982 24113 15262 18178 6653

Oil & Grease 135895 12402 32003 11713 3592 <1220 <1741 <637

Phenol 22 11 16 6 <6.5 <4.1 <4.9 <1.8

Phosphorus Dissolved 1091 782 926 339 1508 1008 1274 466

Phosphorus Total 2398 1981 2094 767 1890 1160 1462 535

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

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

Silver Total 0.6 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1 <0.3 <0.2 <0.2 <0.1

Sulphate 8005 3721 5663 2073 9776 6036 7433 2721

Zinc Dissolved 17 6.1 10 3.8 35 7.4 16 6.0

Zinc Total 66 40 46 17 43 12 21 7.6

INFLUENT EFFLUENT

Tonnes per

year

Tonnes per

yearkg/day kg/day

36

4.0 IONA ISLAND WWTP

37

4.0 IONA ISLAND WWTP


The quality of effluent from Iona Island WWTP in 2017 along with the authorized discharge compliance parameters listed in the Operational Certificate is summarized in Table 4.1.

TABLE 4.1 IONA ISLAND WWTP – 2017 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY




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

Table 4.2.


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

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


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


BOD and 78.0 tonnes/day for TSS.


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

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

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

4.2.1 COMPLIANCE REVIEW

In 2017, the daily loadings for TSS on January 17, February 9, February 15 and December 28 were above

the Operational Certificate discharge limit due to high flow conditions as shown in Table 4.1

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


Frequency

Max. Value for

the Year

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

Date

Total Flow (MLD) Daily 1,415 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

BOD (mg/L)* 3/week 123 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


BOD (Tonnes/Day)* 3/week 78.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Suspended Solids (Tonnes/Day) 5/week 92.1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4

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

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

84.0


OC Limits

1,530

130

100

78.0

-

38

Plant bypasses


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

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

confirmed in writing.”



Iona Island WWTP treated a total of 205,084 ML in 2017. The average daily flow of 562 MLD was 4.5%

higher than in 2016. The maximum daily flow of 1,415 MLD occurred on March 28 (Figure 4.1).

FIGURE 4.1 2017 IONA ISLAND WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL DAILY FLOWS

Influent SS loading of 26,748 tonnes/day was 6.1% higher than 2016 while BOD loading of 26,858 tonnes/day was

4.9% higher than in 2016. Influent SS concentrations were between 38 and 410 mg/L with an average of 148 mg/L.

Influent BOD concentrations were between 22 and 256 mg/L with an average of 150 mg/L (Table 4.3).

39

TABLE 4.3 2008 - 2017 ANNUAL AVERAGE DATA FOR FLOW, SUSPENDED SOLIDS AND BOD

Effluent suspended solids concentrations were within the range of 34 to 91 mg/L with an average value

of 58 mg/L (Figure 4.2). Effluent BOD concentrations were within the range of 23 to 123 mg/L with an

average of 83 mg/L (Figure 4.3).

FIGURE 4.2 2017 IONA ISLAND WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS

YEAR FLOWS Suspended Solids Suspended Solids BOD BOD

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


2008 541 133 57 24516 11149 144 94 26179 17728

2009 550 139 58 25199 11397 144 90 25786 16764

2010 570 134 57 25766 11627 140 87 26431 16755

2011 548 136 55 25003 10954 144 91 26083 16743

2012 565 135 54 25135 10875 143 80 25865 15122

2013 500 149 53 25369 9604 151 84 25492 14482

2014 553 138 53 24904 10481 143 81 25523 14960

2015 507 150 54 24659 9758 166 87 26082 14473

2016 538 144 53 25212 10368 153 79 25598 14316

2017 562 148 58 26748 11762 150 83 26858 15919

40

FIGURE 4.3 2017 IONA ISLAND WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL BOD CONCENTRATIONS

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

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

and SS removal efficiencies are reduced. In 2017, the average reduction of suspended solids was 56% and

the average reduction of BOD was 40%.


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

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

characteristics shown in Table 4.4.

TABLE 4.4 TRANSITIONAL AUTHORIZATION COMPLIANCE LEVELS FOR IONA ISLAND WWTP

Monthly average carbonaceous biochemical oxygen

demand (cBOD)

105 mg/L



41




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


In 2017, Iona Island WWTP met all transitional authorization limits on cBOD and suspended solids

summarized in Table 4.5.


4.4 CHEMICALLY ENHANCED PRIMARY TREATMENT

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

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

composite effluent sample and if the current day’s plant flow is less than or equal to 450 MLD. The

chemical dosing system was set at 67 mg/L of alum and 0.57 mg/L of polymer with about 6 to 8 hour run

times.

In 2017, there were a total of 78 CEPT treatment runs which occurred mostly from April to September.

The number of treatment days was lower than the 117 treatment days in 2017.

4.5 SLUDGE TREATMENT/DIGESTER OPERATIONS

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

Thickened Primary Sludge (TPS) total solids content was 5.6%.

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

hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 22 days. The average volatile solids reduction was 72% and the average

organic loading rate was 2.61 kg/m3. Bicarbonate alkalinity concentrations ranged between 1,870 and

4,660 mg/L.

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

presented in Tables 4.6 to 4.9.




January 31 18,810,794 68 58

February 28 17,632,735 66 56

March 31 24,217,235 52 57

April 30 20,345,094 58 55

May 31 17,237,599 66 56

June 30 12,755,680 80 63

July 31 11,559,656 85 64

August 31 11,644,011 82 59

September 30 11,767,870 83 65

October 31 15,759,140 77 59

November 30 21,894,923 60 56

December 31 21,459,977 64 52

42

TABLE 4.6 IONA ISLAND WWTP - 2017 ROUTINE MONITORING RESULTS AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

MONTH Max. Instant. Total Daily Average Grab NH3 Average 96 hr

Flow Rates Effluent Flow D.O. Average Grab pH LC50

(m3/sec) (MLD) (mg/L) (mg/L) (%v/v)

Max. Min. Ave. EFF EFF EFF EFF

JAN 18.3 1374 407 607 10.8 11.8 7.3 >100

FEB 17.9 1370 416 630 6.8 12.7 7.2 >100

MAR 17.7 1415 426 781 9.9 6.2 7.2 >100

APR 17.5 1076 463 678 6.5 6.6 7.2 >100

MAY 17.5 1130 401 556 10.0 11.9 7.2 >100

JUN 18.0 821 385 425 3.9 18.2 7.1 64.8

JUL 6.0 384 359 373 2.6 22.0 7.1 80.2

AUG 13.5 543 353 376 3.7 21.3 7.2 82.2

SEP 12.8 582 354 392 4.0 20.9 7.1 >100

OCT 18.2 1012 340 508 3.8 19.2 7.2 88.3

NOV 17.8 1281 393 730 4.7 9.8 7.3 94.9

DEC 18.0 1312 409 692 5.2 12.6 7.3 >100

# Samples - - - 365 157 13 52 52 12

Maximum-Yr. 18.3 1415 - - 0.25 10.8 25.7 7.4 >100

Minimum-Yr. - - 340 - 0.01 2.6 1.9 7.0 65

Average-Yr. - - - 562 0.11 5.8 14.6 7.2 >93

MONTH Average Average Average

D.O. Conductivity

(mg/L) (umhos/cm) (mg/L) EFFLUENT INFLUENT

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

JAN 10.8 637 640 294 186 38 35 93 32 68

FEB 6.8 783 793 283 179 39 32 120 39 66

MAR 9.9 488 497 232 158 19 20 72 19 52

APR 6.5 494 510 254 168 33 29 91 42 58

MAY 10.0 544 555 319 188 42 38 90 47 66

JUN 3.9 640 629 418 222 62 52 100 57 80

JUL 2.6 676 666 439 233 68 51 104 70 85

AUG 3.7 680 680 446 223 60 45 94 59 82

SEP 4.0 669 676 437 226 55 50 96 66 83

OCT 3.8 566 572 357 203 48 45 93 47 77

NOV 4.7 492 502 257 174 27 27 101 40 60

DEC 5.2 577 563 276 175 37 36 91 30 64

# Samples 13 247 249 362 363 49 49 - - 157

Maximum-Yr. 10.8 1640 1680 715 286 75 66 120 - -

Minimum-Yr. 2.6 203 217 81 80 6 7 - 19 -

Average-Yr. 5.8 603 606 335 195 45 39 - - 70

Geomean - - - - - - -

Average

Soluble BOD

Composite - Max

Un-ionzed NH3

(mg/L)

EFF

0.15

0.12

0.08

0.16

0.15

0.25

COD

(mg/L)

cBOD

(mg/L)

0.18

0.20

0.21

0.18

0.24

0.22

(1) Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature, Residual Chlorine , 96 hour LC50 and Coliform are determined on grab samples; all other parameters are determined on 24 hr. flow proportioned composite samples.

(1) Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature, Residual Chlorine , 96 hour LC50 and Coliform are determined on grab samples; all other parameters are determined on 24 hr. flow proportioned composite samples.(2) Percent reduction is calculated only for days when both influent and effluent tests were done

(3) January 1

43

TABLE 4.6 CONT'D: IONA ISLAND WWTP - 2017 ROUTINE MONITORING RESULTS AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

MONTH Susp. Solids Suspended Solids

%

INFLUENT EFFLUENT Average (Tonnes/day)

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

JAN 212 40 123 91 41 58 49 67.7 34.9

FEB 208 47 121 70 43 56 48 68.3 35.2

MAR 180 38 103 78 34 57 42 76.0 43.3

APR 179 68 113 68 39 55 49 73.1 37.0

MAY 231 71 144 76 41 56 59 75.8 31.4

JUN 247 132 184 79 54 63 66 76.0 26.9

JUL 225 165 191 75 56 64 66 71.3 23.9

AUG 253 160 205 73 48 59 71 77.2 22.4

SEP 410 142 202 87 53 65 67 78.5 25.7

OCT 247 67 163 75 40 59 59 74.9 30.2

NOV 213 53 111 78 46 56 43 71.6 40.6

DEC 216 44 120 90 37 52 47 68.8 35.5

# Samples - - 363 - - 364 362 363 364

Maximum-Yr. 410 - - 91 - - 81 147 92.1

Minimum-Yr. - 38 - - 34 - -25 46.4 17.3

Average-Yr. - - 148 - - 58 56 73.3 32.2


MONTH BOD BOD

%

INFLUENT EFFLUENT Average (Tonnes/day)

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

JAN 166 38 121 101 37 76 33 65.0 42.8

FEB 153 52 116 123 44 76 37 68.3 44.1

MAR 133 22 95 82 23 60 29 67.9 45.7

APR 189 88 125 118 48 72 39 75.3 46.4

MAY 189 81 137 106 52 76 42 74.9 43.1

JUN 226 96 177 109 63 93 46 76.4 42.9

JUL 228 177 205 120 78 102 51 77.4 38.6

AUG 256 175 210 115 73 96 54 78.5 36.0

SEP 228 155 206 110 83 100 52 81.3 39.7

OCT 229 75 156 116 54 89 38 73.2 44.0

NOV 206 45 102 117 45 72 23 71.4 53.3

DEC 253 62 140 121 34 78 34 73.7 47.3

# Samples - - 95 - - 104 95 95 104

Maximum-Yr. 256 - - 123 - - 63 110 78.6

Minimum-Yr. - 22 - - 23 - -7 31.1 23.3

Average-Yr. - - 150 - - 83 40 73.6 43.6


Total Suspended Solids

(mg/L) Average Loadings

Average Loadings

Biochemical Oxygen Demand

(mg/L)


44

TABLE 4.7 IONA ISLAND WWTP – 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM INFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS SUMMARY

Parameters

Sample










Cadmium Total (µg/L) Comp. <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.2 <0.2 <0.2


Chromium Dissolved (µg/L) Comp. 0.9 3.3 2.4 2.2 3.7 1.3 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.7 0.7 <0.5 3.7 <0.5 <1.5


Cobalt Dissolved (µg/L) Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.6

Cobalt Total (µg/L) Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.9 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.7 <0.5 <0.5 0.9 <0.5 <0.6




Fluoride (mg/L) Comp. 0.11 0.09 0.15 0.07 0.08 <0.05 <0.05 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.12 <0.05 0.15 <0.05 <0.09

Hardness as CACO3 (mg/L) Comp. 64.3 87.0 69.3 65.1 41.4 70.4 68.7 67.8 74.7 61.6 93.0 85.9 93.0 41.4 70.8








Mercury Total (µg/L) Comp. <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.06 1.52 <0.05 0.09 0.17 0.07 1.52 <0.05 <0.19

Methylene Blue Active Substanc (mg/L) Grab 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.9 1.2 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 1.2 0.2 0.7






Nitrogen - Nitrate as N (mg/L) Grab 0.47 0.44 0.96 0.71 0.38 0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 0.12 0.11 <0.01 0.96 <0.01 <0.28

Nitrogen - Nitrite as N (mg/L) Grab 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.04 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.04 0.07 <0.01 0.08 <0.01 <0.05


Oil & Grease (mg/L) Grab 10 9 6 LA <3 8 14 10 38 10 29 11 38 <3 <13

Phenol (mg/L) Grab <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.02



Selenium Total (µg/L) Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.9 <0.5 <0.7


Silver Total (µg/L) Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.8 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.8 <0.5 <0.6




45

TABLE 4.8 IONA ISLAND WWTP – 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS SUMMARY

Parameters

Sample












Chromium Dissolved (µg/L) Comp. 0.9 3.2 2.5 2.3 3.9 0.9 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.7 0.5 <0.5 3.9 <0.5 <1.5


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

Cobalt Total (µg/L) Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5




Fluoride (mg/L) Comp. 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.08 0.07 <0.05 <0.05 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.12 <0.05 0.15 <0.05 <0.08
















Nitrogen - Nitrate as N (mg/L) Grab 0.46 0.17 0.93 0.61 0.33 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.93 <0.01 <0.22

Nitrogen - Nitrite as N (mg/L) Grab 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.04 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.07 <0.01 <0.03


Oil & Grease (mg/L) Grab 9 7 5 8 <3 14 11 17 12 9 14 10 17 <3 <10

Phenol (mg/L) Grab <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 <0.02



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






46

TABLE 4.9 IONA ISLAND WWTP – 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM LOADINGS SUMMARY


Parameters

Aluminium Dissolved 25 8.3 13 4.8 28 8.7 18 6.4

Aluminum Total 890 147 344 126 615 59 264 97

Arsenic Total 3.5 0.3 0.9 0.3 3.4 0.2 0.8 0.3

Barium Dissolved 12 2.5 6.7 2.5 12 2.0 6.5 2.4

Barium Total 25 6.7 13 4.7 18 3.7 10 3.6

Boron Dissolved 36 26 30 11 35 27 31 11

Boron Total 37 29 32 12 34 29 32 12


Cadmium Total 0.23 <0.08 <0.11 <0.04 <0.23 <0.08 <0.11 <0.04

Calcium Total 14779 5821 9503 3478 13866 5133 9072 3320

Chromium Dissolved 4.2 <0.2 <1.0 <0.4 4.4 <0.2 <1.0 <0.4

Chromium Total 8.3 0.5 2.2 0.8 7.6 0.2 1.7 0.6

Cobalt Dissolved 0.6 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1 <0.6 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1

Cobalt Total 0.7 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1 <0.6 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1

Copper Dissolved 10 3.5 5.8 2.1 11 2.4 5.5 2.0

Copper Total 38 19 24 8.9 32 12 18 6.6

Cyanide Total <23 <7.5 <11 <4.2 <23 <7.5 <11 <4.2

Fluoride 110 <19 <48 <18 110 <19 <47 <17

Hardness as CaCO3 54052 25489 38238 13995 51893 23572 37013 13547

Iron Dissolved 113 70 83 30 111 42 72 27

Iron Total 1110 340 542 198 804 149 327 120

Lead Dissolved <0.6 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1 <0.6 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1

Lead Total 4.2 0.9 1.7 0.6 2.4 0.4 0.9 0.3

Magnesium Total 4492 2496 3521 1289 4453 2368 3489 1277

Manganese Dissolved 26 10 17 6.2 25 9.7 17 6.1

Manganese Total 44 16 26 9.7 39 12 22 8.2

Mercury Total 0.57 <0.02 <0.08 <0.03 <0.06 <0.02 <0.03 <0.01





Nickel Total 11 0.8 2.0 0.7 1.7 0.6 0.9 0.3


Nitrogen - Nitrate as N 702 <3.8 <202 <74 680 <3.8 <170 <62

Nitrogen - Nitrite as N 58 <3.8 <27 <9.8 51 <3.8 <20 <7.2


Oil & Grease 14363 <3207 <6186 <2264 7040 <3330 <4948 <1811

Phenol 11 <3.8 <6.3 <2.3 12 <3.8 <7.0 <2.6



Selenium Total 0.6 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1 0.6 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1


Silver Total 0.6 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1 <0.6 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1

Sulphate 14503 8677 11519 4216 14393 9136 12680 4641

Zinc Dissolved 26 9.8 14.8 5.4 29 8.7 15 5.6

Zinc Total 72 33 45 16 61 20 31 11

INFLUENT EFFLUENT

Tonnes per

year

Tonnes per

yearkg/day kg/day

47

5.0 LIONS GATE WWTP

48

5.0 LIONS GATE WWTP


The quality of effluent from Lions Gate WWTP in 2017 along with the authorized discharge compliance


TABLE 5.1 LIONS GATE WWTP – 2017 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY




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

shown in Table 5.2.


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

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


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

operational certificate fees. For 2017, the maximum daily loadings were 13.5 tonnes/day for BOD and

14.5 tonnes/day for TSS.


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

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

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


In 2017, the daily loadings for TSS on March 29 was above the Operational Certificate discharge limit due to high flow conditions as shown in Table 5.1.

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


Frequency

Max. Value for

the Year

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

Total Plant Flow (MLD) Daily 219 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

BOD (mg/L) 3/Week 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Suspended Solids (mg/L) 5/Week 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

BOD (Tonnes/Day) 3/Week 11.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Suspended Solids (Tonnes/Day) 5/Week 15.1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Chlorine Residual (mg/L)* Daily <0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Disinfection - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


OC Limits

318

130

130

14.5

<0.1

-

* Effluent disinfected between May 1 and September 30

13.5

49

Plant bypasses



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

confirmed in writing.”


Disinfection


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

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

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

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

residual below the detection limit.”

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

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

as chlorine was 7.2 mg/L and average SBS dosage as SO2 was 3.0 mg/L.

The Burrard Inlet fecal coliform WQO of 200 MPN/100/ml for the edge of the IDZ was predicted to have

been met from June through September in 2017 as shown in Table 5.3.

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

Final Effluent May June July August September

Max 30 day Geomean* - 122 76 63 44

Dilution Factor** - 250 250 250 250

IDZ Result *** - 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2

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

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

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

30 day periods at the edge of the IDZ.

50


Lions Gate WWTP treated a total of 30,419 ML in 2017. The 2017 average daily flow of 83 MLD was the

same as the 2016 average daily flow. The highest daily flow of 219 MLD was recorded on March 29

(Figure 5.1). On January 18, the maximum instantaneous flow exceeded the top range of the flow

recording instruments and was estimated to be 425 MLD or 4.9 m3/sec.

FIGURE 5.1 2017 LIONS GATE WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL DAILY FLOWS

The average influent SS and BOD concentrations were 2.9% and 1.5% lower than in 2016. In 2017, the

influent SS and BOD loadings were 2.6% and 0.1% lower, respectively, than in 2016.

The plant’s overall performance was good. The effluent SS concentrations were within the range of 32

mg/L to 81 mg/L with an average value of 54 mg/L (Figure 5.2). Effluent total BOD concentrations were

within the range of 38 mg/L to 112 mg/L with an average value of 72 mg/L (Figure 5.3). Effluent SS loading

of 1,645 tonnes/year was 3.7% higher and effluent BOD loading of 2,128 tonnes/year was 3.0% higher

than the previous year (Table 5.4). The average SS reduction was 65% and the average BOD reduction

was 44% (Table 5.7)

51


FIGURE 5.2 2017 LIONS GATE WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS

YEAR FLOWS Suspended Solids Suspended Solids BOD BOD

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


2008 90 169 61 5448 2012 154 95 4970 3074

2009 93 167 60 5435 2031 148 91 4814 2973

2010 95 166 58 5612 1999 142 90 4771 3035

2011 91 173 57 5590 1885 142 91 4591 2950

2012 88 167 54 5237 1731 146 90 4553 2818

2013 78 176 55 4857 1558 140 91 3825 2515

2014 83 169 52 4889 1561 133 81 3854 2358

2015 80 183 54 4974 1557 150 78 3956 2121

2016 83 170 53 4852 1587 134 71 3796 2066

2017 83 165 54 4725 1645 132 72 3791 2128

52

FIGURE 5.3 2017 LIONS GATE WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL BOD CONCENTRATIONS


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

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

substances as shown in Table 5.5.

TABLE 5.5 TRANSITIONAL AUTHORIZATION COMPLIANCE LEVELS FOR LIONS GATE WWTP

Monthly average carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (cBOD)

115 mg/L






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

53


In 2017, Lions Gate WWTP met all transitional authorization limits on cBOD and suspended solids as

summarized in Table 5.6.


5.4 CHEMICALLY ENHANCED PRIMARY TREATMENT

Chemically Enhanced Primary Treatment (CEPT) occurred from February 24 to November 13 with a total

of 136 treatment runs. The two main triggers in starting the CEPT system are the previous day’s plant

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

dosing system was set at 66 mg/L of alum and 0.46 mg/L of polymer with an average of 4 hour run times.

5.5 SLUDGE TREATMENT /DEWATERING

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

Thickened Screened Primary Sludge (TSPS) total solids content was 5.5%.

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

hydraulic retention time (HRT) was 37 days with an average volatile reduction of 74% and the average

organic loading rate of 1.44 kg/m3day. Bicarbonate alkalinity concentrations ranged between 2,760 and

5,070 mg/L.

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

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

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

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

The average total solids content in dewatered sludge (biosolids) was 31.1% and centrate suspended solids

concentration was 1,734 mg/L with an average recovery of 90%. The average polymer dosage was 7.6

kg/tonne.

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

Tables 5.7 to 5.10.




January 31 2,869,983 71 60

February 28 2,536,314 70 60

March 31 3,347,186 54 55

April 30 2,913,659 57 57 <0.02

May 31 2,609,555 61 47 <0.02

June 30 2,084,891 69 55 <0.02

July 31 1,916,083 72 52 <0.02

August 31 1,913,914 71 51 <0.02

September 30 1,887,876 78 47 <0.02

October 31 2,403,852 67 53

November 30 3,032,807 53 53

December 31 2,902,606 70 58


of Total Residual

Chlorine (mg/L)

54

TABLE 5.7 LIONS GATE WWTP - 2017 ROUTINE MONITORING RESULTS AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

MONTH Max. Instant. Total Daily Average Average Comp.- Max. Average Grab NH3 96 hr

Flow Rates Effluent Flow Temp. D.O. Un-ionized NH3 Grab pH Average LC50

(m3/sec) (MLD) (oC) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (%v/v)

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

JAN 4.9 208 73 93 11 4.9 0.17 7.1 18.8 >100

FEB 2.4 161 71 91 11 3.2 0.14 7.1 17.9 >100

MAR 3.6 219 73 108 10 7.6 0.11 7.0 10.3 >100

APR 2.0 127 78 97 11 8.2 0.12 7.0 11.1 >100

MAY 2.0 136 70 84 14 6.4 0.15 7.1 17.3 >100

JUN 1.6 90 64 69 16 4.2 0.18 7.0 21.6 >100

JUL 1.3 64 59 62 19 3.5 0.22 7.1 25.9 >100

AUG 1.1 68 58 62 20 3.5 0.21 7.1 25.1 >100

SEP 1.2 69 58 63 20 3.0 0.22 7.0 23.0 >100

OCT 3.6 135 61 78 17 0.1 0.26 7.0 21.2 82.2

NOV 3.2 176 66 101 14 1.0 0.17 7.0 12.1 >100

DEC 2.3 156 69 94 12 3.0 0.16 7.1 17.4 >100

# Samples - - - 365 52 13 157 52 52 12

Maximum-Yr. 4.9 219 - - 21 8.2 0.26 7.2 30.0 >100

Minimum-Yr. - - 58 - 8 0.1 0.04 6.9 3.6 82

Average-Yr. - - - 83 15 4.0 0.13 7.0 18.6 >99

MONTH SHS SBS Res. Geomean Fecal Coliform

Dose Dose SO2 (MPN/100mL)

(mg/L Cl2) (mg/L SO2) (mg/L) AT EFFLUENT WEIR EFFLUENT INFLUENT

EFF Before SO2 After SO2 EFF EFF Monthly Max. 30 d Geo Max. Min. Ave.

JAN - - - - - - - 99 38 71

FEB - - - - - - - 98 43 70

MAR - - - - - - - 71 37 54

APR 3.7 0.9 <0.02 2.8 2.3 - - 89 44 57

MAY 4.1 1.1 <0.02 3.0 1.9 122 130 90 31 61

JUN 5.7 1.0 <0.02 3.0 2.1 52 122 89 52 69

JUL 7.7 0.9 <0.02 3.0 1.9 72 76 94 47 72

AUG 9.0 1.1 <0.02 3.1 1.6 26 63 90 57 71

SEP 9.8 1.0 <0.02 3.1 1.4 48 44 97 51 78

OCT - - - - - - - 97 37 67

NOV - - - - - - - 74 34 53

DEC - - - - - - - 106 40 70

# Samples 155 155 155 168 166 45 45 - - 157

Maximum-Yr. 10.7 1.6 <0.02 3.4 4.2 940 130 106 - -

Minimum-Yr. 2.6 0.3 <0.02 0.6 0.5 <18 26 - 31 -

Average-Yr. 7.2 1.0 <0.02 3.0 1.9 - 67 - - 66

Geomean - - - - - 63 -

Residual

Chlorine (mg/L)

Final Effluent

cBOD

(mg/L)

(1) pH, Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature,Residual Chlorine, 96 hour LC50 and Coliform are determined on grab samples; all other parameters are determined on 24 hr. flow proportioned composite samples.(2) Residual Chlorine were taken before dechlorination, mg/L.

55

TABLE 5.7 CONT'D: LIONS GATE WWTP - 2017 ROUTINE MONITORING RESULTS AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

MONTH Susp. Solids Suspended Solids Average

% Conductivity

INFLUENT EFFLUENT Average (Tonnes/day) (umhos/cm)

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

JAN 174 79 141 81 45 60 56 12.5 5.5 1453 1483

FEB 172 96 142 70 48 60 57 12.5 5.4 1558 1537

MAR 175 74 121 70 47 55 53 12.7 6.0 1200 1205

APR 167 100 138 72 42 57 58 13.2 5.5 1044 1037

MAY 212 119 168 57 32 47 72 13.9 3.9 1133 1143

JUN 224 156 187 68 41 55 70 12.8 3.8 1260 1258

JUL 243 178 204 62 41 52 74 12.6 3.2 1407 1399

AUG 233 174 205 62 41 51 75 12.7 3.1 1681 1677

SEP 364 181 208 58 36 47 77 13.1 3.0 1710 1737

OCT 253 109 180 64 42 53 70 13.4 4.1 1647 1592

NOV 200 90 139 69 42 53 60 13.3 5.3 1455 1579

DEC 193 81 144 78 39 58 59 12.8 5.3 1291 1320

# Samples - - 360 - - 365 360 360 365 243 248

Maximum-Yr. 364 - - 81 - - 88 22 15.1 3040 4230

Minimum-Yr. - 74 - - 32 - 7 10.1 2.2 613 616

Average-Yr. - - 165 - - 54 65 12.9 4.5 1402 1415


MONTH BOD BOD Average

%

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

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

JAN 144 57 116 89 46 75 34 10.6 7.0 300 207

FEB 149 87 120 99 57 77 37 10.9 7.0 301 198

MAR 141 63 105 78 45 61 36 10.5 6.5 250 168

APR 143 83 113 86 50 62 44 10.3 5.9 271 178

MAY 151 87 125 90 38 70 44 10.4 5.8 312 190

JUN 162 122 135 97 59 79 42 9.3 5.6 350 213

JUL 193 137 156 99 52 74 54 9.6 4.6 376 220

AUG 165 134 154 85 64 76 51 9.5 4.7 381 220

SEP 242 146 173 103 70 87 49 10.9 5.5 375 225

OCT 194 104 153 92 50 70 52 11.3 5.2 349 206

NOV 162 68 109 74 41 58 45 10.7 5.8 275 173

DEC 169 97 132 112 47 77 39 11.2 6.7 292 197

# Samples - - 93 - - 104 93 93 104 360 365

Maximum-Yr. 242 - - 112 - - 64 16 11.6 506 274

Minimum-Yr. - 57 - - 38 - 13 8.0 3.2 132 122

Average-Yr. - - 132 - - 72 44 10.4 5.8 319 200


COD(mg/L) Average Loadings


(mg/L) Average Loadings

Biochemical Oxygen Demand

(1) pH, Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature,Residual Chlorine, 96 hour LC50 and Coliform are determined on grab samples; all (1) Percent reduction is calculated only for days when both influent and effluent tests were done

56

TABLE 5.8 LIONS GATE WWTP – 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM INFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS SUMMARY

Parameters

Sample




Arsenic Total (µg/L) Comp. 0.6 <0.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.9 <0.5 <0.6






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


Chromium Dissolved (µg/L) Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5







Fluoride (mg/L) Comp. 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.08 0.10 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.11 0.15 0.07 0.16 0.07 0.12

Hardness as CACO3 (mg/L) Comp. 156 185 127 107 98.9 103 107 121 164 187 201 121 201 98.9 140








Mercury Total (µg/L) Comp. <0.05 0.08 <0.05 0.09 <0.05 0.14 0.21 0.10 0.18 0.06 0.07 0.14 0.21 <0.05 <0.11







Nitrogen - Nitrate as N (mg/L) Grab 0.43 0.47 0.75 0.66 0.46 0.20 0.13 0.02 <0.01 0.07 0.28 0.47 0.75 <0.01 <0.33

Nitrogen - Nitrite as N (mg/L) Grab 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.04 <0.01 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.07 <0.01 <0.05


Oil & Grease (mg/L) Grab 11 7 8 13 9 7 8 17 200 14 15 9 200 7 27

Phenol (mg/L) Grab <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01



Selenium Total (µg/L) Comp. 0.6 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 <0.5 0.7 <0.5 <0.6


Silver Total (µg/L) Comp. 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.6 3.3 0.9 1.9 0.8 0.8 <0.5 3.3 <0.5 <1.2




57

TABLE 5.9 LIONS GATE WWTP – 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS SUMMARY

Parameters

Sample




Arsenic Total (µg/L) Comp. 0.6 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 0.8 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.8 <0.5 <0.6






Cadmium Total (µg/L) Comp. <0.2 <0.2 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.2 <0.2 <0.2


Chromium Dissolved (µg/L) Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5








Hardness as CaCO3 (mg/L) Comp. 144 166 120 104 92.9 89.8 98.1 109 151 186 191 120 191 89.8 131















Nitrogen - Nitrate as N (mg/L) Grab 0.02 0.23 0.64 0.59 0.33 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.04 <0.01 0.03 0.23 0.64 <0.01 <0.20

Nitrogen - Nitrite as N (mg/L) Grab 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.07 0.08 <0.01 <0.04



Phenol (mg/L) Grab <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.02



Selenium Total (µg/L) Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.6


Silver Total (µg/L) Comp. 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 0.5 0.8 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.8 <0.5 <0.6




58

TABLE 5.10 LIONS GATE WWTP - 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM LOADINGS SUMMARY


Parameters

Aluminium Dissolved 3.1 1.1 1.6 0.6 5.2 1.2 2.4 0.9

Aluminum Total 198 31 77 28 71 20 41 15

Arsenic Total 0.10 <0.03 <0.04 <0.02 0.09 <0.03 <0.04 <0.02

Barium Dissolved 1.7 0.5 1.0 0.4 1.6 0.4 0.9 0.3

Barium Total 3.0 1.2 2.0 0.7 2.5 0.8 1.5 0.5

Boron Dissolved 12 9 10 4 12 9 10 4

Boron Total 13 9 11 4 12 9 11 4


Cadmium Total 0.03 <0.01 <0.02 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.02 <0.01

Calcium Total 2327 1155 1692 619 2196 1041 1584 580

Chromium Dissolved <0.06 <0.03 <0.04 <0.01 <0.06 <0.03 <0.04 <0.01

Chromium Total 0.17 0.07 0.10 0.04 0.14 0.04 0.07 0.02

Cobalt Dissolved <0.06 <0.03 <0.04 <0.01 <0.06 <0.03 <0.04 <0.01

Cobalt Total <0.06 <0.03 <0.04 <0.01 <0.06 <0.03 <0.04 <0.01

Copper Dissolved 1.5 0.2 0.7 0.3 1.6 0.2 0.7 0.2

Copper Total 6.8 3.2 4.2 1.5 4.9 2.3 2.9 1.1

Cyanide Total <2.2 <1.2 <1.6 <0.6 <2.2 <1.2 <1.6 <0.6

Fluoride 15 5.8 10 3.5 16 6.3 10 3.6

Hardness as CaCO3 13871 6756 10757 3937 12777 5901 10094 3695

Iron Dissolved 18 5.3 11 4.1 23 6.6 13 4.8

Iron Total 159 50 87 32 114 28 61 22

Lead Dissolved <0.06 <0.03 <0.04 <0.01 <0.06 <0.03 <0.04 <0.01

Lead Total 0.38 0.16 0.25 0.09 0.23 0.09 0.13 0.05

Magnesium Total 2261 927 1588 581 2181 782 1490 545

Manganese Dissolved 6.0 2.1 3.8 1.4 5.8 1.9 3.6 1.3

Manganese Total 7.2 2.9 4.9 1.8 6.9 2.4 4.4 1.6

Mercury Total 0.01 <0.004 <0.008 <0.003 <0.010 <0.003 <0.004 <0.001





Nickel Total 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.1


Nitrogen - Nitrate as N 76 <0.6 <30 <11 65 <0.6 <18 <6.7

Nitrogen - Nitrite as N 7.7 <0.6 <4.1 <1.5 8.1 <0.6 <3.2 <1.2


Oil & Grease 12467 460 1815 664 1226 607 837 306

Phenol 1.1 <0.6 <0.8 <0.3 1.3 <0.6 <0.9 <0.3



Selenium Total 0.06 <0.03 <0.04 <0.02 0.07 <0.03 <0.04 <0.01


Silver Total 0.21 <0.04 <0.09 <0.03 0.07 <0.03 <0.04 <0.02

Sulphate 6107 2418 4044 1480 5499 2778 3959 1449

Zinc Dissolved 3.4 1.5 2.1 0.8 3.7 1.3 2.1 0.8

Zinc Total 9.0 4.9 6.1 2.2 6.6 3.2 4.1 1.5

INFLUENT EFFLUENT

Tonnes per

year

Tonnes per

yearkg/day kg/day

59

6.0 LULU ISLAND WWTP

60

6.0 LULU ISLAND WWTP


The quality of effluent from Lulu Island WWTP in 2017 along with the authorized discharge compliance


TABLE 6.1 LULU ISLAND WWTP – 2017 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY




ME-0023 on April 23, 2004. The operational certificate included the compliance levels shown in Table 6.2.







cBOD and 4.5 tonnes/day for TSS.




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


In 2017, Lulu Island WWTP met all requirements of its Operational Certificate as shown in Table 6.1.

Operational Certificate Requirement - ME-00233, April 23, 2004


Frequency

Max. Value

for the Year


Total Flow (MLD) Daily 98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

cBOD (mg/L)* 3/week 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Suspended Solids (mg/L) 5/week 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1****

cBOD (Tonnes/Day)* 3/week 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Chlorine Residual (mg/L)** Daily <0.1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1****

Disinfection - - 0 0 0 2*** 1 0 0 1*** 0 0 0 0 4****

Plant Bypass - - 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1****

Secondary Bypass 2ADW - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1****

-

BOD (mg/L) - 161 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1****

Suspended Solids (mg/L) - 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

**** Events were reported to the MOE and their assessment determined that conditions and requirements under Emergency Procedures clause of the

Operational Certificate were met in all instances.

* cBOD reported 1/week when COD are reported 5/week ** Effluent disinfected between April 1 and October 31

*** Disinfection interruption. Fraser River fecal coliform water quality objective was not exceeded at the edge of the initial dilution zone.

130

130



OC Limits

233

45

45

3.6

4.5

<0.1

-

-

-

61

Effluent bypasses


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

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

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

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

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

maintained for the effluent not receiving secondary treatment.”

Due to a loss of BC Hydro power on November 14 and 15, the secondary treatment process was bypassed

for 10.67 hours. The applicable BC MOE Water Quality Objectives for TSS and dissolved oxygen were

expected to have been met in the Fraser River.

Plant bypasses

Due to a loss of power to a portion of the plant’s control system, there was a 5.4 minute plant bypass on

April 5. There was potential for exceeding the applicable Health Canada Recreational Water Quality

Guidelines at Garry Point Park for a short time, approximately 1 hour following the plant bypass. The

applicable BC MOE Water Quality Guidelines for fecal coliforms were predicted to have been met at

known registered water licence diversion points. The applicable BC MOE Water Quality Objectives for TSS

and dissolved oxygen were expected to have been met in the Fraser River. The applicable BC MOE Water

Quality Guidelines for chlorine were expected to have been met in the Fraser River.

Disinfection




zone as described in the Municipal Sewage Regulation. If chlorine is used, the effluent

shall be dechlorinated prior to discharge to reduce the chlorine residual below the

detection limit.”

Final effluent was disinfected with sodium hypochlorite solution (SHS) and dechlorinated using sodium

bisulfite (SBS) solution before being discharged to the Fraser River. The average chlorine dosage was

2.0 mg/L, and the average SBS dosage as SO2 was 2.4 mg/L.

Lulu Island WWTP had four instances of disinfection system interruption in 2017.

62

TABLE 6.3 2017 DISINFECTION SYSTEM INTERRRUPTIONS

Date

Quantity Discharged (ML) Duration Probable Cause

April 5 (2 instances) 0.37 12.25 minutes

Loss of power to a portion of the plant’s control system

May 15 0.26 7.57 minutes Closed isolation valve

August 1 0.06 69 seconds

Power interruption due to loss of power from BC Hydro and transition from

back-up generator to BC Hydro supply

Potential Environmental Effects of Disinfection System Interruption (based on dilution dispersion modelling of downstream concentrations):

April 5:

First Disinfection System Interruption: There was potential for exceeding the applicable Health Canada Recreational Water Quality Guidelines at Garry Point Park for a short time, approximately 1 hour following the plant bypass. The applicable BC MOE Water Quality Guidelines for fecal coliforms were predicted to have been met at known registered water licence diversion points. The applicable BC MOE Water Quality Guidelines for chlorine were expected to have been met in the Fraser River. Second Disinfection System Interruption: The applicable Health Canada Recreational Water Quality Guidelines were predicted to have been met at

designated recreation areas. The applicable BC MOE Water Quality Guidelines for fecal coliforms were

predicted to have been met at known registered water licence diversion points. The applicable BC MOE

Water Quality Guidelines for chlorine were expected to have been met in the Fraser River.

May 15:

Disinfection System Interruption The applicable Health Canada Recreational Water Quality Guidelines were predicted to have been met at


predicted to have been met at known registered water license diversion points. The applicable BC MOE

Water Quality Guidelines for chlorine were expected to have been met in the Fraser River.

August 1:

Disinfection System Interruption The applicable Health Canada Recreational Water Quality Guidelines were predicted to have been met at


predicted to have been met at known registered water licence diversion points.

The Fraser River fecal coliform 30 day WQO of 200 MPN/100ml for the edge of the IDZ was predicted to

have been met for May to October in 2017 as shown in Table 6.4.

63

TABLE 6.4 PREDICTED 30 DAY FECAL COLIFORM GEOMEAN AT THE LULU ISLAND WWTP IDZ


Max 30 day Geomean* - 41 57 57 90 95 128

Dilution Factor** - 30 30 30 30 30 30

IDZ Result *** - 1.4 1.9 1.9 3.0 3.2 4.3

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

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

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

30 day periods at the edge of the IDZ.


Lulu Island WWTP treated a total of 25,768 ML in 2017. The average flow of 70.6 MLD was 0.9% higher than the last year’s average of 70.0 MLD. The highest daily flow of 97.8 MLD (Figure 6.1) and the maximum peak flow of 1.55 m3/sec or 134 MLD were recorded on December 19th and December 29th respectively.

FIGURE 6.1 2017 LULU ISLAND WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL DAILY FLOWS

64

The influent BOD concentrations were between 186 and 386 mg/L with an average of 266 mg/L. The

influent SS concentrations were between 150 and 295 mg/L with an average of 213 mg/L. Influent SS

loading of 5,478 tonnes/year and BOD loading of 6,946 tonnes/year were 1.1% lower and 1.4% higher

than in 2016 (Table 6.5).


The plant’s overall performance was very good. The effluent suspended solids (SS) concentrations were

between 3 and 47 mg/L with an average of 6 mg/L (Figure 6.2).

FIGURE 6.2 2017 LULU ISLAND WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS




2008 74.2 232 5 6261 147 225 <6 6180 131

2009 76.2 * 5 * 133 * <6 * 145

2010 73.5 176* 5 4661* 141 252* <5 6748* 126

2011 71.5 188 5 4907 143 254 <5 6652 129

2012 71.0 201 5 5210 142 263 <5 6856 126

2013 69.4 206 5 5205 134 263 5 6722 130

2014 70.7 205 5 5276 128 263 5 6813 139

2015 69.2 216 5 5431 133 273 6 6903 134

2016 70.0 217 5 5541 132 266 6 6853 149

2017 70.6 213 6 5478 150 266 6 6946 169

mg/L Tonnes/year

65

The effluent cBOD levels were between <4 and 17 mg/L with an average of 6 mg/L (Figure 6.3). The

effluent SS loading of 150 tonnes/year was 13.5% higher than 2016. The effluent cBOD loading of 169

was 13.4% higher than 2016.

FIGURE 6.3 2017 LULU ISLAND WWTP EFFLUENT CBOD CONCENTRATIONS

In 2017, the average percent reduction of suspended solids was 97% and the percent reduction for BOD

was 98%.


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

system. The effluent quality standards and limits for Lulu Island Wastewater Treatment Plant are shown

in Table 6.6.


Monthly average carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (cBOD)

25 mg/L






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

66


In 2017, Lulu Island WWTP met WSER effluent quality standards and limits on cBOD and suspended solids

as summarized in Table 6.7.



The secondary process continued to operate very well with three trickling filters (TF), three aeration tanks

in contact mode and four secondary clarifiers.

The average soluble cBOD (scBOD) removal across the trickling filters was 81%. The trickling effluent

scBOD concentrations were in the range of 11 to 26 mg/L with an average of 16 mg/L.

The mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) were in the range of 976 to 2,230 mg/L with an average of 1,477

mg/L. The average mean cell residence time (MCRT) was 1.5 days and it varied from 1.0 day to 2.4 days.

6.5 SOLIDS TREATMENT

Primary sludge from the primary sedimentation tanks was thickened in one gravity thickener and screened

in one sludge screen. The average Thickened Screened Primary Sludge (TSPS) total solids content was 4.4%

One Dissolved Air Flotation Thickener (DAFT) unit was used to thicken waste secondary sludge from the

mixed liquor channel. The average Thickened Waste Secondary Sludge (TWSS) total solids content was

4.8% with a subnatant suspended solids concentration of 45 mg/L and Thickened Bottom Sludge (TBS)

suspended solids concentration of 355 mg/L. The average polymer dosage was maintained at 3.8

kg/tonne.

Primary sludge and secondary sludge were mixed in a sludge blending tank. Treated mixed sludge

averaged approximately 66% primary sludge and 34% secondary sludge over the year with seasonal

variation to accommodate the changing biomass requirements for secondary treatment. The average

total and volatile solids content of the mixed sludge were 4.3% and 88%, respectively.




January 31 2,155,413 7 6

February 28 1,989,398 7 6

March 31 2,217,713 7 5

April 30 2,122,122 6 5 <0.02

May 31 2,226,930 6 6 <0.02

June 30 2,142,987 6 6 <0.02

July 31 2,185,698 6 5 <0.02

August 31 2,151,309 5 5 <0.02

September 30 2,081,056 5 5 <0.02

October 31 2,152,068 6 5 <0.02

November 30 2,104,414 8 8 <0.02

December 31 2,238,699 8 8








of Total Residual

Chlorine (mg/L)

67

Digestion was very stable with two mesophilic digesters operating in parallel mode for the entire year.

The average hydraulic retention time was 29 days with volatile solids reduction of 63% and organic loading

rate of 1.35 kg/m3 day. Bicarbonate alkalinity concentrations ranged between 4,100 and 5,244 mg/L.

6.6 DEWATERED SLUDGE

Digested sludge dewatering is via two centrifuges. The centrifuges are normally operated six times per

week on an alternating basis. The average dewatered sludge (biosolids) total solids content was

23.4%. Average solids recovery was 93% and average centrate suspended solids concentration was 1,283

mg/L. The average polymer dosage was 12.4 kg/tonne.

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

Tables 6.8 to 6.11.

68

TABLE 6.8 LULU ISLAND WWTP – 2017 ROUTINE MONITORING RESULTS AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

MONTH Max. Total Daily Grab pH Max. Comp. Grab NH3 96 hr LC50

Inst.Flow Effluent Flow Average Un-ionized NH3 mg/L (%v/v) (mg/L)

Rate (MLD) FINAL mg/L FINAL

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

JAN 1.55 93.3 62.9 69.5 7.2 0.53 29.9

FEB 1.36 86.4 65.1 71.0 7.2 0.42 28.9

MAR 1.34 90.4 66.6 71.5 7.2 0.79 30.1

APR 1.28 77.7 64.0 70.7 7.1 0.49 27.7

MAY 1.31 80.8 67.7 71.8 7.2 0.52 30.3

JUN 1.20 74.8 68.1 71.4 7.2 0.61 25.4

JUL 1.38 75.0 64.8 70.5 7.2 0.60 30.0

AUG 1.26 73.9 66.4 69.4 7.1 0.60 27.7

SEP 1.19 70.5 67.9 69.4 7.3 0.53 30.2

OCT 1.32 80.0 66.3 69.4 7.1 0.66 32.5

NOV 1.36 83.9 64.2 70.1 7.2 0.55 28.2

DEC 1.55 97.8 64.9 72.2 7.2 0.45 32.0

# Samples - - - 365 52 157 52

Maximum-Yr. 1.55 98 - - 7.4 0.79 42.4

Minimum-Yr. - - 62.9 - 7.0 0.20 19.1

Average-Yr. - - - 70.6 7.2 0.41 29.4

MONTH Ave. Temp. Average SHS SBS SO2 Geomean Fecal Coliform

(oC) D.O. (mg/L) Dose Dose Outfall (MPN/100mL)

FINAL FINAL (mg/L Cl2) (mg/L SO2) (mg/L) AT EFFLUENT WEIR

EFF EFF EFF EFF EFF Monthly Max. 30 d Geo

JAN 14 2.7 - - - - -

FEB 14 2.5 - - - - -

MAR 15 2.5 1.2 2.2 1.5 - -

APR 17 2.5 1.6 2.2 1.2 29 37

MAY 19 2.7 1.6 2.4 1.0 41 41

JUN 20 2.8 1.8 2.5 1.1 39 57

JUL 22 2.6 2.0 2.4 0.9 57 57

AUG 22 2.5 2.3 2.5 1.0 51 90

SEP 23 2.8 2.5 2.6 1.1 117 95

OCT 19 2.5 2.1 2.5 1.2 55 128

NOV 17 2.7 - - - - -

DEC 17 3.5 - - - - -

# Samples 52 13 215 216 219 218 61 61

Maximum-Yr. 24 3.5 3.5 3.1 2.52 700 128

Minimum-Yr. 13 2.4 1.2 0.9 0.58 <18 18

Average-Yr. 18 2.7 2.0 2.4 1.09 - 53

Geomean - - - - - 50 -

>100

FINAL EFFLUENT

Regular

>100

>100

>100

>100

>100

>100

>100

>100

>100

>100

>100

>100

13

>100

>100

<0.02

Ave. Residual Chlorine

FINAL EFFLUENT

(mg/L)

0.0

0.0

-

-

After SBS

-

0.0

<0.02

<0.02

<0.02

<0.02

-

-

<0.02

<0.02

<0.02

(1) pH, Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature,Residual Chlorine, 96 hour LC50 and Coliform are determined on grab samples; all other parameters are determined on 24 hr. flow proportioned composite samples.(2) Residual Chlorine were taken before dechlorination, mg/L.

(3) Effluent is disinfected between April 1 and October 31.


69

TABLE 6.8 CONT'D: LULU ISLAND WWTP - 2017 ROUTINE MONITORING RESULTS AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

MONTH Total Suspended Solids Suspended Solids Ave. Susp. Solids Ave Conductivity

(mg/L) Ave. % Reduction Loadings (umhos/cm)

RAW INFLUENT FINAL EFFLUENT

Max. Min. Ave. Max. Min. Ave. Primary Final Influent Effluent INF EFF

JAN 258 164 210 16 4 6 73 97 14.6 0.4 610 672

FEB 252 163 207 12 4 6 74 97 14.6 0.5 598 659

MAR 253 176 209 7 4 5 75 97 15.0 0.4 754 816

APR 233 171 208 7 4 5 73 98 14.7 0.3 615 683

MAY 260 188 214 8 4 6 73 97 15.4 0.4 595 668

JUN 243 190 216 11 4 6 72 97 15.5 0.4 559 639

JUL 262 198 224 8 3 5 71 98 15.8 0.3 575 658

AUG 286 193 226 7 4 5 71 98 15.7 0.4 559 641

SEP 295 186 216 6 4 5 70 98 15.0 0.3 566 643

OCT 280 183 218 7 4 5 73 98 15.1 0.4 578 652

NOV 248 171 204 47 5 8 73 96 14.3 0.6 587 650

DEC 246 150 200 11 5 8 72 96 14.4 0.5 577 626

# Samples - - 362 - - 364 361 361 362 364 361 363

Maximum-Yr. 295 - - 47 - - 82 99 21.5 3.4 1450 1530

Minimum-Yr. - 150 - - 3 - 43 78 10.6 0.2 506 527

Average-Yr. - - 213 - - 6 73 97 15.0 0.4 598 668

Total to Date - Suspended Solids Loadings (Tonnes): 5478 150.1

MONTH Average BOD Average BOD/cBOD Average COD

% Reduction Loadings (Tonnes/day)

RAW INFLUENT FINAL EFFLUENT Influent Effluent

Max. Min. Ave. Max. Min. Ave. Primary Final BOD cBOD Inf Eff

JAN 386 196 263 17 5 7 50 97 18.9 0.5 574 59

FEB 296 229 268 9 5 7 52 98 19.6 0.5 576 55

MAR 271 214 246 9 5 7 46 97 17.7 0.5 555 55

APR 302 249 269 8 5 6 46 98 19.3 0.4 574 55

MAY 274 186 251 8 5 6 43 98 18.4 0.4 569 61

JUN 285 207 248 8 <4 6 46 98 18.0 <0.5 582 56

JUL 285 243 263 15 <4 6 43 97 18.9 <0.5 602 57

AUG 292 249 275 7 <4 5 45 98 19.4 <0.4 603 54

SEP 295 270 281 10 4 5 44 98 19.6 0.4 605 54

OCT 322 268 288 13 <4 6 45 98 20.0 <0.5 592 54

NOV 301 242 274 16 <4 8 47 97 19.7 <0.6 580 65

DEC 333 236 269 10 4 8 49 97 18.6 0.6 561 56

# Samples - - 94 - - 158 90 93 94 158 349 262

Maximum-Yr. 386 - - 17 - - 67 99 26.4 1.5 839 227

Minimum-Yr. - 186 - - <4 - 30 91 13.3 <0.3 435 41

Average-Yr. - - 266 - - 6 46 98 19.0 <0.5 581 57


(Tonnes/day) RAW

BOD* cBOD

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


70

TABLE 6.9 LULU ISLAND WWTP – 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM INFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS SUMMARY

Parameters

Sample









Cadmium Dissolved (µg/L) Comp. <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.4 0.8 <0.2 0.8 <0.2 <0.3

Cadmium Total (µg/L) Comp. 0.2 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.2 <0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 1.0 1.7 0.2 1.7 <0.2 <0.5




Cobalt Dissolved (µg/L) Comp. 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0.9 1.2 1.2 <0.5 <0.8

Cobalt Total (µg/L) Comp. 1.4 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.9 1.3 1.6 1.6 0.7 1.1




Fluoride (mg/L) Comp. 0.13 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.13 0.27 0.42 0.42 <0.05 <0.12




Lead Dissolved (µg/L) Comp. <0.5 <0.5 0.6 0.5 <0.5 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.6





Mercury Total (µg/L) Comp. 0.16 0.06 0.15 0.07 0.07 0.89 0.12 0.21 0.11 0.07 0.18 0.10 0.89 0.06 0.18







Nitrogen - Nitrate as N (mg/L) Grab <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.02

Nitrogen - Nitrite as N (mg/L) Grab <0.01 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 <0.02



Phenol (mg/L) Grab 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.03



Selenium Total (µg/L) Comp. <0.5 <0.5 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.7 0.6 <0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.0 <0.5 <0.7


Silver Total (µg/L) Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.6




71

TABLE 6.10 LULU ISLAND WWTP – 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM EFFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS SUMMARY

Parameters

Sample




Arsenic Total (µg/L) Comp. 0.5 <0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 <0.5 0.6 0.6 <0.5 <0.6








Chromium Dissolved (µg/L) Comp. 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 <0.5 0.5 <0.5 0.6 0.8 <0.5 <0.6

Chromium Total (µg/L) Comp. 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 <0.5 0.7 1.0 0.8 1.0 <0.5 <0.8

Cobalt Dissolved (µg/L) Comp. 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.7 <0.5 0.9 0.6 <0.5 0.7 1.2 1.2 <0.5 <0.8

Cobalt Total (µg/L) Comp. 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 1.0 0.6 <0.5 0.8 1.2 1.2 <0.5 <0.8




Fluoride (mg/L) Comp. 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.05 <0.05 0.06 <0.05 0.05 0.08 <0.05 0.09 <0.05 <0.06





Lead Total (µg/L) Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5











Nitrogen - Nitrate as N (mg/L) Grab 0.01 <0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 <0.02

Nitrogen - Nitrite as N (mg/L) Grab 0.03 <0.01 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.01 <0.01 0.06 <0.01 <0.03


Oil & Grease (mg/L) Grab 3 <3 <4 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 4 <4 <3 4 <3 <4

Phenol (mg/L) Grab <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01





Silver Total (µg/L) Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.6




72

TABLE 6.11 LULU ISLAND WWTP – 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM LOADINGS SUMMARY


Parameters


Aluminum Total 34.8 16.0 24.5 9.0 2.8 1.6 2.2 0.8

Arsenic Total 0.09 0.05 0.06 0.02 0.05 <0.03 <0.04 <0.01


Barium Total 6.0 0.9 1.6 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1

Boron Dissolved 6.9 4.7 5.7 2.1 7.0 4.7 5.9 2.2

Boron Total 6.9 4.1 5.8 2.1 7.4 4.6 6.2 2.3

Cadmium Dissolved 0.05 <0.01 <0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Cadmium Total 0.11 <0.01 <0.03 <0.01 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Calcium Total 1084 741 908 332 921 625 803 294

Chromium Dissolved 0.11 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.06 <0.03 <0.04 <0.02

Chromium Total 0.24 0.11 0.15 0.06 0.07 <0.04 <0.05 <0.02

Cobalt Dissolved 0.08 <0.03 <0.05 <0.02 0.08 <0.03 <0.05 <0.02

Cobalt Total 0.11 0.05 0.08 0.03 0.08 <0.03 <0.05 <0.02


Copper Total 3.8 2.9 3.4 1.3 1.2 0.8 0.9 0.3

Cyanide Total <1.6 <1.3 <1.4 <0.5 <1.6 <1.3 <1.4 <0.5

Fluoride 29 <3.3 <7.7 <2.8 6.2 <3.4 <4.1 <1.5

Hardness as CaCO3 4589 3092 3797 1390 4083 2704 3430 1256

Iron Dissolved 59 31 47 17 13 7.3 9.3 3.4

Iron Total 165 98 139 51 26 13 17 6.3

Lead Dissolved 0.04 <0.03 <0.04 <0.01 <0.04 <0.03 <0.04 <0.01

Lead Total 0.19 0.11 0.15 0.06 <0.04 <0.03 <0.04 <0.01

Magnesium Total 469 283 372 136 432 265 346 127


Manganese Total 6.8 4.0 5.6 2.1 4.9 2.3 3.8 1.4

Mercury Total 0.063 0.004 0.013 0.005 <0.01 <0.003 <0.004 <0.001

Methylene Blue Active Substance 224 70 179 66 34 13 23 8.4




Nickel Total 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1


Nitrogen - Nitrate as N 1.6 <0.7 <1.0 <0.3 2.1 <0.7 <1.2 <0.4

Nitrogen - Nitrite as N 2.1 <0.7 <1.001 <0.4 4.2 <0.7 <1.8 <0.7


Oil & Grease 3665 1172 2156 789 276 <196 <228 <83

Phenol 2.9 1.3 2.3 0.8 <0.8 <0.7 <0.7 <0.2



Selenium Total 0.08 <0.03 <0.04 <0.02 <0.04 <0.03 <0.04 <0.01


Silver Total 0.0 <0.03 <0.04 <0.01 0.04 <0.03 <0.04 <0.01

Sulphate 1483 767 1096 401 1853 1254 1483 543

Zinc Dissolved 2.0 1.3 1.5 0.6 3.2 1.1 1.9 0.7

Zinc Total 9.8 5.9 6.9 2.5 3.4 1.3 2.2 0.8

INFLUENT EFFLUENT

Tonnes per

year

Tonnes per

yearkg/day kg/day

73

7.0 NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP

74

7.0 NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP


The quality of effluent from Northwest Langley WWTP in 2017 along with the authorized discharge

compliance parameters listed in the Operational Certificate is summarized in Table 7.1.

TABLE 7.1 NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP – 2017 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY


The Ministry of Environment under the provisions of the Environmental Management Act and in accordance with Metro Vancouver’s Liquid Waste Management Plan issued an Operational Certificate ME-04339 on April 23, 2004. The operational certificate included compliance levels shown in Table 7.2. TABLE 7.2 OPERATIONAL CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE LEVELS






cBOD and 0.50 tonnes/day for TSS. On December 21, 2017, the Ministry of Environment issued an

amended Operational Certificate with a revised maximum daily discharge loading for TSS of 0.55

tonnes/day.




discharge flow, cBOD, suspended solids, chlorine residual and maximum daily loadings for cBOD and

suspended solids.

Operational Certificate Requirement - ME-04339, April 23, 2004*


Frequency

Max. Value

for the Year


Total Flow (MLD) Daily 20.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

cBOD (mg/L) 1/week 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


cBOD (Tonnes/Day) 1/week 0.38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Chlorine Residual (mg/L)** Daily N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Disinfection - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

** Effluent disinfected between April 1 and October 31. Peracetic Acid used as primary disinfectant


OC Limits

42

45

45

0.50

0.50 / 0.55*

<0.1

-

* Operational Certificate amended on December 21, 2017. Suspended Solids Loading Limit increased from 0.50 to 0.55 tonnes/day

75


In 2017, Northwest Langley WWTP had no instances of non-compliance as shown in Table 7.1.

Bypasses



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

in writing.”


Disinfection




zone as described in the Municipal Sewage Regulation.

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

chlorine residual below the detection limit.”

From April 1 to October 31 inclusive, Northwest Langley WWTP disinfected the final effluent using

Peracetic Acid (PAA). The PAA dosage ranged from 1.3 to 2.4 mg/L with an average of 1.9 mg/L.

The Fraser River fecal coliform WQO of 200 MPN/100 ml for the edge of the IDZ was predicted to have

been met from May to October in 2017 as shown in Table 7.3.

TABLE 7.3 PREDICTED 30 DAY FECAL COLIFORM GEOMEAN AT THE NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP INITIAL DILUTION ZONE


Max 30 day Geomean* - 434 3022 3420 2839 2604 1311

Dilution Factor** - 51 51 51 51 51 51

IDZ Result *** - 8.5 59.3 67.1 55.7 51.1 25.7

WQO (Met or Not Met) - Met Met Met Met Met Met

* Geomean (MPN/100mL) over 30 day period (effluent).

** Dilution Factor - minimum dilution factor for IDZ at the Northwest Langley WWTP outfall.

*** IDZ Result - determined by calculation of Geometric Mean of fecal coliform levels in the receiving water due to discharges of final effluent, for 30 day periods

at the edge of the IDZ.

76


Northwest Langley WWTP treated a total of 4,618 ML in 2017. The average daily flow of 12.8 MLD was

3.2% higher than in 2016. The highest daily flow of 20.5 MLD occurred on March 28 (Figure 7.1).

FIGURE 7.1 2017 NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL DAILY FLOWS

The influent suspended solids concentrations ranged from 184 to 607 mg/L with an average of 292 mg/L.

The influent BOD concentrations varied from 194 to 430 mg/L with an average of 295 mg/L. The influent

suspended solids loading of 1,360 tonnes/year and the cBOD loading of 1,399 tonnes/year were 8.1%

higher and 5.2% higher, respectively, than in 2016 (Table 7.4).

77

TABLE 7.4 2008 - 2017 ANNUAL DATA FOR FLOW, SUSPENDED SOLIDS AND BOD

The plant continued to produce effluent quality that met the requirements of the Operational Certificate.

The effluent suspended solids concentrations were between 6 and 39 mg/L with an average of 18 mg/L

(Figure 7.2). The effluent cBOD concentrations were between 4 and 30 mg/L with an average of 15 mg/L

(Figure 7.3). The average effluent suspended solids loading of 85 tonnes/year was 2.6% higher while the

cBOD loadings of 68 tonnes/year were 1.6% lower than last year. The plant attained average reductions

of 94% and 95% respectively for SS and BOD.

FIGURE 7.2 2017 NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP EFFLUENT TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS




2008 11.0 207 16 831 65 295 <11 1173 43

2009 11.6 227 18 955 77 309 <12 1300 51

2010 11.9 251 19 1084 83 297 <10 1302 44

2011 12.0 217 22 952 96 285 11 1288 49

2012 12.2 236 21 1049 96 289 12 1290 55

2013 12.2 258 20 1142 88 319 15 1431 66

2014 12.8 260 17 1213 82 299 14 1397 66

2015 12.9 279 19 1301 91 310 15 1431 68

2016 12.4 280 18 1258 83 292 15 1330 69

2017 12.8 292 18 1360 85 295 15 1399 68

Tonnes/yearmg/L

78

FIGURE 7.3 2017 NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP EFFLUENT CBOD CONCENTRATIONS


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

system. The effluent quality standards and limits for the Northwest Langley WWTP shown in Table 7.5.


Quarterly average carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (cBOD)

25 mg/L

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

Quarterly average concentration of total residual chlorine 0.02 mg/L




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

79


In 2017, Northwest Langley WWTP met WSER effluent quality standards and limits on cBOD and

suspended solids, as summarized in Table 7.6.



The secondary process operated with one trickling filter in part or full operation and two activated sludge

tanks (AST) that were commissioned in 2016. The new ASTs increased treatment capacity from 1,134 m3

to 1,800 m3.

Approximately 54% of plant flow passed through the plant equalization pond before discharging to the

trickling filter (TF). The remaining 46% of the raw influent flowed directly to the TF. The average soluble

cBOD removal across the trickling filters was 68%.

Three new clarifiers were commissioned in 2016 increasing the treatment capacity from 3,200 m3 to

8,700 m3.

As of 2012, a blend of raw influent and equalization pond effluent composite samples was used as the

trickling filter influent (TFI) sample. Return secondary sludge (RSS) concentration is a calculated value

using activated sludge (AS) and TF effluent concentrations.

7.5 SLUDGE TREATMENT

Undigested thickened waste secondary sludge was trucked to Annacis Island WWTP.

A comprehensive summary of the Northwest Langley WWTP performance and monitoring results is

presented in Tables 7.7 to 7.10.




January-March 90 1,203,066 13 17

April-June 91 1,170,439 12 16

July-September 92 1,080,563 16 19

October-December 92 1,227,103 17 20




80

TABLE 7.7 NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP – 2017 ROUTINE MONITORING RESULTS AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

MONTH Max. Ave. Temp Ave. DO Un-ionized NH3 Ave NH3 96 hr

Inst.Flow (oC) (mg/L) Comp - Max Grab LC50

Rate FINAL FINAL (mg/L) (mg/L) (%v/v)

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

JAN 0.3 18.9 11.3 12.8 10.4 6.2 0.31 26.2 >100

FEB 0.3 17.5 11.1 13.0 11.4 7.1 0.46 26.8 >100

MAR 0.3 20.5 12.1 14.3 13.4 11.7 6.9 0.31 24.1 >100

APR 0.4 15.1 11.9 13.3 14.1 6.6 0.34 26.6 >100

MAY 0.3 16.4 11.3 12.9 17.1 6.1 0.38 28.3 >100

JUN 0.3 14.3 11.7 12.3 12.9 19.1 5.3 0.16 15.6 >100

JUL 0.4 12.9 10.1 11.6 20.8 5.2 0.18 14.7 >100

AUG 0.3 12.6 10.5 11.7 21.4 4.5 0.18 14.1 >100

SEP 0.3 14.0 10.8 11.9 11.8 19.8 4.9 0.13 16.8 >100

OCT 0.4 19.1 10.7 12.8 17.2 5.2 0.16 13.2 >100

NOV 0.3 18.6 11.8 13.5 14.8 4.9 0.21 17.6 >100

DEC 0.3 18.9 11.6 13.8 13.4 12.4 4.1 0.32 23.7 >100

# Samples - - - 365 - 98 48 110 53 12

Maximum-Yr. 0.4 20.5 - - 13.4 22.0 8.7 0.46 32.5 >100

Minimum-Yr. - - 10.1 - - 9.0 3.5 0.04 6.9 >100

Average-Yr. - - - 12.8 - 15.9 5.6 0.20 20.5 >100

MONTH Average PAA Residual PAA (mg/L)

COD Dose

(mg/L) mg/L Morning

INF EFF EFF At Injection Monthly Q Ave Monthly Max 30 d Geo

JAN 629 87 - - - - - -

FEB 652 80 - - - - - -

MAR 608 80 - 1.0 <0.7 <0.7 - -

APR 665 108 1.9 <1.2 <0.5 397 820

MAY 613 93 1.9 1.1 <0.4 746 434

JUN 628 101 1.9 <0.7 <0.4 <0.4 2,777 3,022

JUL 676 120 1.8 <0.6 <0.4 1,721 3,420

AUG 674 102 1.8 <0.6 <0.4 2,603 2,839

SEP 665 127 1.9 <0.7 <0.4 <0.4 1,823 2,604

OCT 646 96 1.8 <0.7 <0.4 874 1,311

NOV 650 93 - - - - -

DEC 653 101 - - - <0.4 - -

# Samples 352 365 220 220 220 - 30 8

Maximum-Yr. 1210 146 2.4 1.70 1.1 <0.4 33,000 3,420

Minimum-Yr. 407 33.0 1.3 <0.4 <0.4 - 45 330

Average-Yr. 646 99 1.9 <0.9 <0.7 - - -

Geomean - - - - - - 1353 -

Morning Final Effluent AT EFFLUENT WEIR

Geomean Fecal Coliform

(MPN/100mL)

Total Daily

Effluent Flow

(MLD)

(1) pH, Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature,Residual PAA , 96 hour LC50 and Coliform are determined on grab samples; all other parameters are determined on 24 hr. flow proportioned composite samples.(2) Peracetic Acid (PAA) is used as primary disinfectant during disinfection season. Sodium hypochlorite (chlorine) is the backup

disinfectant.

81

TABLE 7.7 CONT’D: NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP - 2017 ROUTINE MONITORING RESULTS AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

MONTH AVE Total Susp. Solids

TSS Average Loadings

RAW INFLUENT % (Tonnes/day)

Max. Min. Ave. Max. Min. Ave. Q Ave Reduct. INF EFF

JAN 452 186 267 39 7 22 91 3.40 0.28

FEB 607 243 308 22 6 16 95 3.98 0.20

MAR 466 190 269 17 11 13 17 95 3.80 0.19

APR 461 210 318 28 14 20 93 4.24 0.27

MAY 439 204 289 26 9 13 95 3.73 0.17

JUN 390 212 296 20 9 16 16 95 3.65 0.19

JUL 433 224 304 27 11 19 94 3.55 0.22

AUG 393 224 294 23 8 16 95 3.43 0.18

SEP 547 242 317 34 17 24 19 92 3.79 0.28

OCT 419 192 298 27 15 21 93 3.74 0.27

NOV 410 205 293 25 14 19 93 3.92 0.25

DEC 383 184 261 28 13 20 20 92 3.55 0.28

# Samples - - 354 - - 365 - 354 354 365

Maximum-Yr. 607 - - 39 - - 20 99 7.21 0.47

Minimum-Yr. - 184 - - 6 - - 84 2.52 0.07

Average-Yr. - - 292 - - 18 - 94 3.73 0.23

Total to Date - Suspended Solids Loadings (Tonnes): 1359.6 84.83

MONTH AVE Average BOD/cBOD

BOD Loadings (Tonnes/day)

% BOD cBOD

Max. Min. Ave. Max. Min. Ave. Q Ave Reduct. INF EFF

JAN 347 194 269 30 5 15 95 3.50 0.19

FEB 342 220 275 15 4 12 96 3.86 0.15

MAR 294 208 253 16 8 11 13 96 3.72 0.16

APR 369 299 320 20 8 14 96 4.22 0.19

MAY 307 230 260 12 8 10 96 3.45 0.13

JUN 324 238 278 14 9 12 12 96 3.51 0.14

JUL 392 267 305 19 7 14 96 3.72 0.16

AUG 374 266 321 19 8 14 95 3.78 0.17

SEP 379 304 335 26 16 20 16 94 4.13 0.24

OCT 430 199 316 20 14 16 95 4.00 0.20

NOV 365 215 299 20 13 16 95 4.15 0.23

DEC 369 269 318 26 11 19 17 94 4.32 0.27

# Samples - - 97 - - 157 - 95 97 157

Maximum-Yr. 430 - - 30 - - 17 98 5.38 0.38

Minimum-Yr. - 194 - - 4 - - 87 2.65 0.05

Average-Yr. - - 295 - - 15 - 95 3.83 0.19

Total to Date - Biochemical Oxygen Demand Loadings (Tonnes): 1399.0 68.09

RAW INFLUENT FINAL EFFLUENT

BOD cBOD

(mg/L) (mg/L)


(mg/L)

FINAL EFFLUENT


82

TABLE 7.8 NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP – 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM INFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS SUMMARY

Parameters

Sample





Barium Dissolved (µg/L) Comp. 23.3 34.7 11.3 10.7 118 7.7 34.3 23.5 39.7 44.8 36.2 14.9 118 7.7 33.3

Barium Total (µg/L) Comp. 143 319 33.8 64.1 192 32.4 170 427 148 1360 2060 123 2060 32.4 423




Cadmium Total (µg/L) Comp. 0.2 0.2 1.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.7 1.2 0.2 0.4




Cobalt Dissolved (µg/L) Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.7 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.7 <0.5 <0.6

Cobalt Total (µg/L) Comp. 0.6 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.0 0.9 1.0 2.2 0.7 0.6 0.6 1.0 2.2 0.6 1.0


Copper Total (µg/L) Comp. 132 95.8 128 92.4 109 145 184 105 118 165 141 133 184 92.4 129






Lead Dissolved (µg/L) Comp. 0.5 <0.5 0.6 0.5 <0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.6 <0.5 0.5 0.8 <0.5 <0.6





Mercury Total (µg/L) Comp. 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.15 0.06 0.05 0.19 0.21 0.06 0.20 0.08 0.09 0.21 0.05 0.11







Nitrogen - Nitrate as N (mg/L) Grab 0.16 0.69 0.12 0.32 0.55 0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.69 <0.01 <0.16

Nitrogen - Nitrite as N (mg/L) Grab 0.44 0.13 0.49 0.07 0.11 0.02 0.20 <0.01 <0.01 0.03 0.01 <0.01 0.49 <0.01 <0.13



Phenol (mg/L) Grab 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.04



Selenium Total (µg/L) Comp. <0.5 0.5 0.9 1.2 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.7 1.2 <0.5 <0.8


Silver Total (µg/L) Comp. <0.5 <0.5 0.6 0.6 <0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 1.3 1.0 0.7 1.3 <0.5 <0.7

Sulphate (mg/L) Comp. 31.5 61.7 31.7 68.7 71.5 58.9 59.4 51.2 66.4 105 57.6 34.9 105 31.5 58.2



83

TABLE 7.9 NORTHWEST LANGLEY WWTP – 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS SUMMARY

Parameters

Sample




Arsenic Total (µg/L) Comp. <0.5 0.5 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.6

Barium Dissolved (µg/L) Comp. 45.6 53.1 14.9 62.8 53.1 21.0 46.7 89.5 96.1 111 54.6 61.4 111 14.9 59.2

Barium Total (µg/L) Comp. 58.2 62.4 16.8 103 94.7 27.7 71.2 139 195 266 81.6 82.4 266 16.8 99.8













Fluoride (mg/L) Comp. 0.20 0.31 0.18 <0.05 0.25 0.19 0.27 1.64 3.27 1.15 0.30 0.23 3.27 <0.05 <0.67




Lead Dissolved (µg/L) Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.6

Lead Total (µg/L) Comp. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 <0.5 <0.5 0.8 <0.5 <0.6











Nitrogen - Nitrate as N (mg/L) Grab 0.65 0.14 0.44 0.50 0.50 2.06 5.18 8.10 5.46 3.78 3.18 0.11 8.10 0.11 2.51

Nitrogen - Nitrite as N (mg/L) Grab 0.14 0.07 0.16 0.19 0.16 1.69 2.01 2.08 2.54 1.30 0.89 0.38 2.54 0.07 0.97


Oil & Grease (mg/L) Grab 3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <4 <3 <3 <4 <3 3 <3 <4

Phenol (mg/L) Grab <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01









84

TABLE 7.10 NW LANGLEY WWTP – 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM LOADINGS SUMMARY


Parameters


Aluminum Total 225 10 63 23 14 1.6 4.8 1.8

Arsenic Total 0.017 0.007 0.010 0.004 0.008 <0.006 <0.007 <0.002


Barium Total 24.8 0.4 5.3 1.9 3.2 0.2 1.3 0.5

Boron Dissolved 2.0 1.1 1.4 0.5 1.8 1.2 1.5 0.6

Boron Total 2.1 1.3 1.5 0.5 1.8 1.3 1.6 0.6


Cadmium Total 0.017 0.003 0.006 0.002 <0.010 <0.002 <0.003 <0.001

Calcium Total 413 134 236 86 367 127 211 77

Chromium Dissolved 0.10 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.01

Chromium Total 0.26 0.12 0.16 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.01

Cobalt Dissolved 0.008 <0.006 <0.007 <0.003 <0.010 <0.006 <0.007 <0.002

Cobalt Total 0.026 0.007 0.013 0.005 <0.010 <0.006 <0.007 <0.002


Copper Total 2.2 1.2 1.7 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.2

Cyanide Total <0.3 <0.2 <0.7 <0.1 <0.3 <0.2 <0.3 <0.1

Fluoride 19 1.4 6.1 2.2 40 <0.7 <8.4 <3.1

Hardness as CaCO3 1544 502 916 335 1397 507 827 303

Iron Dissolved 3.9 1.6 2.2 0.8 1.5 0.9 1.2 0.4

Iron Total 36 7.9 14 5.0 2.5 1.6 2.0 0.7

Lead Dissolved 0.010 <0.006 <0.008 <0.003 0.008 <0.006 <0.007 <0.002

Lead Total 0.055 0.028 0.038 0.014 0.012 <0.006 <0.008 <0.003

Magnesium Total 124 41 79 29 117 44 73 27


Manganese Total 1.3 0.7 0.9 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.2

Mercury Total 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 <0.010 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Methylene Blue Active Substance 26 8.2 18 6.5 5.1 2.7 3.9 1.4




Nickel Total 0.55 0.06 0.22 0.08 0.28 0.03 0.11 0.04


Nitrogen - Nitrate as N 12 <0.1 <2.8 <0.9 96 1.4 31 11

Nitrogen - Nitrite as N 6.8 <0.1 <1.7 <0.6 31 1.2 12 4.4


Oil & Grease 617 156 322 118 51 <36 <42 <15

Phenol 0.69 0.26 0.49 0.18 <0.17 <0.12 <0.13 <0.05



Selenium Total 0.016 <0.006 <0.009 <0.003 <0.010 <0.006 <0.007 <0.002


Silver Total 0.016 <0.006 <0.008 <0.003 <0.010 <0.006 <0.007 <0.002

Sulphate 1259 404 773 283 957 333 626 229

Zinc Dissolved 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.2

Zinc Total 2.7 1.7 2.0 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.2

INFLUENT EFFLUENT

Tonnes per

year

Tonnes per

yearkg/day kg/day

85

8.0 BIOSOLIDS MONITORING

86

8.0 BIOSOLIDS MONITORING

8.1 ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP BIOSOLIDS MONITORING Results of monthly testing programs for Biosolids and the criteria values required under the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation (OMRR) are shown in Table 8.1. TABLE 8.1 ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP BIOSOLIDS – ORGANIC MATTER RECYCLING REGULATION

* There are no limits for Chromium and Copper for Class A Biosolids. Class B Biosolids limits shown for reference ** Geomean for Year.

Criteria values for all metal parameters were met throughout 2017. The average concentrations of all regulated metals were below 75% of the OMRR limits. Data values produced during 2017 for fecal coliforms in biosolids were within the Class A criteria (Figure 8.1). The maximum value was 1,000 MPN/g, the minimum value was 28 MPN/g and the geometric mean for all samples collected in the year was 120 MPN/g. Biosolids samples were collected approximately three times per week to meet the sampling frequency requirements for Class A biosolids.

FIGURE 8.1 ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP BIOSOLIDS – FECAL COLIFORMS 2017

Arsenic Cadmium Chromium

*

Cobalt Copper

*

Lead Mercury Moly Nickel Selenium Zinc Fecal

Coliform

(MPN/g)75 20 1060 150 2200 500 5 20 180 14 1850 1000

MAX 7.2 2.8 87.4 6.9 800 46.1 1.9 11.9 39.7 8.3 1520 1,000

MIN 3.7 1.9 51.1 3.5 600 28.7 0.9 8.6 23.9 5.7 1130 28

AVE 5.4 2.3 61.0 4.5 699 38.3 1.4 9.8 29.8 7.0 1276 120**

# Times

Exceeded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Class A

Criteria

(mg/Kg)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1/1/2017 2/1/2017 3/1/2017 4/1/2017 5/1/2017 6/1/2017 7/1/2017 8/1/2017 9/1/2017 10/1/2017 11/1/2017 12/1/2017

Feca

l Co

lifo

rm M

PN

/Kg

-d

ry

Date

ANNACIS WWTP BIOSOLIDS FECAL COLIFORM 2017

Cake 1 Cake 2 Cake 3 Cake 4 OMRR Class A Criteria

87

8.2 LIONS GATE WWTP BIOSOLIDS MONITORING

Lions Gate WWTP produces Class B dewatered biosolids. In 2017, biosolids produced at Lions Gate WWTP achieved the Class B criteria for metals specified in the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation. Results of weekly testing programs for Biosolids and the criteria values required under the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation are shown in Table 8.2. TABLE 8.2 LIONS GATE WWTP BIOSOLIDS – ORGANIC MATTER RECYCLING REGULATION – REVISED

JULY 2019

The plant consistently achieved the Class B fecal coliform criteria (geomean of 2,000,000 MPN/g for seven

consecutive samples). The highest geometric mean was 441,557 MPN/g and the geometric mean for all

samples collected during the year was 152,561 MPN/g (Figure 8.2).

FIGURE 8.2 LIONS GATE WWTP BIOSOLIDS – FECAL COLIFORMS

Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Lead Mercury Moly Nickel Selenium Zinc Fecal

Coliform

(MPN/g)

75 20 1060 150 2200 500 15 20 180 14 1850 2,000,000

MAX 4.0 2.7 54.4 3.7 786 91.0 2.4 12.3 40.6 7.6 1370 441,557*

MIN 2.9 1.6 30.6 2.6 543 44.7 1.0 6.5 20.5 4.4 782 65,673*

AVE 3.3 2.3 40.7 3.2 682 64.6 1.6 8.5 27.2 6.0 1133 152,561**

# Times

Exceeded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Class B

Criteria

(mg/Kg)

* Geomean of 7 samples

** Geomean for Year

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000

10000000

100000000

1/1/2017 2/1/2017 3/1/2017 4/1/2017 5/1/2017 6/1/2017 7/1/2017 8/1/2017 9/1/2017 10/1/2017 11/1/2017 12/1/2017

FEC

AL

CO

LIFO

RM

(M

PN

/KG

-DR

Y)

DATE

LIONS GATE WWTP Biosolids Fecal Coliform 2017

Cake 1 Cake 2 OMRR Class B Criteria - 7 day geomean 7 day Geomean

88

8.3 LULU ISLAND BIOSOLIDS MONITORING

Lulu Island WWTP produces a Class B dewatered biosolids product. In 2017, biosolids produced at Lulu Island WWTP consistently achieved the Class B criteria for fecal coliform and metals as stated in the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation. Results of weekly testing programs for Biosolids and the criteria values required under the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation are shown in Table 8.3. TABLE 8.3 LULU ISLAND BIOSOLIDS – ORGANIC MATTER RECYCLING REGULATION – REVISED JULY

2019

In 2017, criteria values for metals were met at all times during the year. Fecal coliform tests were conducted at least once per week. The plant consistently achieved the Class B fecal coliform criteria (geomean of 2,000,000 MPN/g for seven consecutive samples). In the final biosolids - the highest geometric mean was 942,458 MPN/g and the geometric mean for all samples collected during the year was 300,646 MPN/g (Figure 8.3).

FIGURE 8.3 LULU ISLAND WWTP BIOSOLIDS – FECAL COLIFORMS

Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Lead Mercury Moly Nickel Selenium Zinc Fecal

Coliform

(MPN/g)

75 20 1060 150 2200 500 15 20 180 14 1850 2,000,000

MAX 6.8 9.2 43.6 6.1 629 32.8 2.3 11.4 34.7 7.4 1320 942,458*

MIN 4.7 2.8 27.6 4.1 515 22.4 0.7 7.4 24.7 4.7 1040 103,132*

AVE 5.5 4.5 33.5 4.8 574 27.8 1.3 8.7 29.6 5.8 1196 300,646**

# Times

Exceeded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Class B

Criteria

(mg/Kg)

* Geomean of 7 samples

** Geomean for Year

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

10,000,000

1/1/2017 2/1/2017 3/1/2017 4/1/2017 5/1/2017 6/1/2017 7/1/2017 8/1/2017 9/1/2017 10/1/2017 11/1/2017 12/1/2017

Feac

l Co

lifo

rm (

MP

N/K

g-d

ry)

Date

LULU WWTP BIOSOLIDS FECAL COLIFORM 2017

Cake OMRR Class B Criteria - 7 day Geomean 7 day Geomean

89

8.4 IONA ISLAND WWTP DIGESTED SLUDGE MONITORING Iona Island WWTP operates mesophilic digesters which produced digested sludge that is further processed via lagoon stabilization and land-dried in a stockpile at the plant site.

8.5 NORTHWEST LANGLEY TRUCKED SLUDGE MONITORING Undigested thickened waste secondary sludge from the Northwest Langley WWTP was trucked to Annacis Island WWTP.

90

9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

91

9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

In 2017, Metro Vancouver’s five WWTPs together collected and treated about 450 billion litres of

wastewater before discharging to the receiving environment. The location of Metro Vancouver’s WWTPs

is shown in Figure 9.1. The Iona Island and Lions Gate wastewater treatment plants discharge primary

treated wastewater into marine waters of the Strait of Georgia and Burrard Inlet, respectively. The

Annacis Island, Lulu Island and Northwest Langley wastewater treatment plants discharge secondary

treated wastewater into the Main Arm of the Fraser River. The dispersed treated wastewater in the

receiving environment must meet applicable water quality objectives.

Environmental monitoring and assessment programs form a major part of the Metro Vancouver’s

integrated approach to managing liquid waste. In addition, Metro Vancouver conducts special studies

and research projects.

The Environmental Monitoring Committee, a technical advisory committee to Metro Vancouver under

the ILWRMP, guides and reviews the monitoring programs and other environmental initiatives. The

committee is made up of representatives from the federal and provincial governments, member

municipalities, Metro Vancouver, universities and one public member.

The following Chapters present an overview of the environmental monitoring and management programs

and initiatives associated with the operation of Metro Vancouver’s wastewater collection and treatment

system.

FIGURE 9.1 LOCATION OF METRO VANCOUVER’S WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS

92

10.0 OVERFLOW MONITORING

Sewer systems are designed to collect domestic and industrial wastewater in the same pipe. Some older

systems known as combined sewer systems also collect surface water runoff. During periods of heavy

rain, snowmelt, inflow, and infiltration, the wastewater volume in the sewer system can exceed the

capacity of the sewer collection system or treatment plant. Sewer systems are designed to overflow when

input is too great and to discharge excess wastewater directly to nearby water bodies. MV monitors these

discharges to determine potential effects on the receiving water bodies.

10.1 COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW QUALITY MONITORING

Early in the twentieth century, before wastewater was treated, the accepted practice was to consolidate

sanitary and stormwater (surface water) flows into a single pipe. This type of collection system is a

combined sewer. Metro Vancouver no longer builds combined sewer systems; however, they are still

present throughout the region.

Wastewater treatment plants typically receive and treat all combined and sanitary sewer flows in dry or moderate rainfall periods. During heavy rainfall, the water levels in the combined sewer pipe network and interceptors can rise beyond their conveyance capacity due to increased surface water runoff. To prevent sewer water from backing up into homes and businesses, the combined sewer systems were designed with relief points to discharge overflow wastewater and stormwater directly to the receiving waters via Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), as illustrated in Figure 10.1.

FIGURE 10.1 TYPICAL COMBINED SEWER SYSTEM (FROM ADAMS, 2006) Metro Vancouver’s ILWRMP states that MV will not build new combined sewers in its region, and that MV will separate existing combined sewers into storm and sanitary sewers. Separation is done via infrastructure replacement or sewer capacity-upgrading programs. As CSOs continue to operate, the ILWRMP also includes a commitment to monitor and characterize the quality of CSO discharges.

Substances in CSO discharges may interfere with meeting water quality objectives in receiving water

bodies. Currently, Metro Vancouver operates 20 CSOs at 15 locations (Figure 10.2). These CSOs are in

addition to those owned and operated by the cities of Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster.

93

FIGURE 10.2 METRO VANCOUVER COMBINED SEWER OUTFALL (CSO) LOCATIONS MONITORED IN 2017

94

10.1.1 CSO MONITORING PROGRAM

Since 1996, Metro Vancouver has undertaken an annual effluent quality monitoring program for CSOs

under its ownership. The purpose of the CSO Monitoring Program is to characterize the quality of CSO

discharges by collecting representative samples for the analysis of targeted parameters. Routinely

monitored parameters include microbiological indicators, conventional parameters and metals, and when

sample volume permits select organics are also analyzed. Due to infrastructure constraints (affecting

collected volume) of the automated sampling system, toxicity testing is only conducted periodically when

grab samples can be collected.

The monitoring plan (since automation) was to monitor and characterize Metro Vancouver’s 14 (now 15)

CSO locations:

Over a five-year cycle

At a rate of three locations per year

With up to ten overflow events sampled at each location

As sampling infrastructure is completed, we are able to continuously identify sampling efficiencies to

improve overall monitoring program design over time. A team is completing the autosampling

infrastructure at a new 15th CSO location, New Westminster Tank CSO, for 2018.

As priorities change due to site related interests and activities, so can the monitoring plan.

AUTOSAMPLER INFRASTRUCTURE

Autosamplers are installed where technically feasible at CSO locations upstream of the outfalls. Most

sampling sites consist of prefabricated above ground metal kiosks or in-ground concrete vaults, while one

sampling site is located inside an existing pump station. The sampling infrastructure at the New

Westminster CSO Tank will consist of an above ground metal kiosk. The kiosks and vaults are secured

structures that house each autosampler, which is connected to sampling lines and associated

communication electronics (Figure 10.3). Each sampling site utilizes existing Metro Vancouver water-level

monitoring electronics to communicate with the autosampler. When the water-level monitor detects

flows exceeding a pre-established level specific for each CSO location; the autosampler will trigger to begin

sampling. When automatic triggering is not available, manual samples are collected if feasible.

FIGURE 10.3 CSO INFRASTRUCTURE: SAMPLING KIOSK (LEFT), KIOSK WITH AUTOSAMPLER (CENTER), SAMPLER COMMUNICATION ELECTRONICS (RIGHT)

95

CSO MONITORING APPROACH

Successful monitoring is challenging even with the automated sampling system. Developing storms are

tracked using online forecasting tools (e.g., weather networks and Global Forecast System) along with

information from Metro Vancouver’s rain gauges to achieve sampling efficiency. Autosamplers are

programmed before the beginning of a storm for time-based interval sampling of the combined sewer

discharge during an overflow. The objective is to sample a given CSO event with emphasis on collecting

its “first flush”. First flush occurs at the beginning of the overflow and is characterized by the re-

suspension of accumulated solids in the sewer system as well as impervious surfaces above. This re-

suspension results in higher constituent concentrations during the initial discharge, which incoming

stormwater will dilute. This concentrated first flush would represent the worst-case scenario (i.e., highest

loading) in the combined discharge pipe. To help capture that “first flush” of an overflow, programming

the autosampler is specific to each CSO site. The drainage area characteristics, and the rain forecast will

affect the aliquot volume and sampling frequency programmed into the autosampler.

Another challenge with successful sample collection is that each CSO behaves differently to rainfall. Figure 10.4 compares three CSO sites, that are located in close proximity to each other, during the same rainfall period and demonstrates that overflow characteristics are drainage area specific.

FIGURE 10.4 COMPARISON OF RAINFALL AND OVERFLOW EVENTS AT CHILCO-BROCKTON, ENGLISH BAY AND BALACLAVA CSO LOCATIONS

Chilco-Brockton (left panel) did not approach the overflow level (and demonstrated a delayed response to the rain)

English Bay #1 (centre panel) overflowed (i.e., the water level crosses the red dashed line indicating an overflow) at peak rainfall

Balaclava (right panel) flows fluctuated near the overflow level, without ever actually overflowing

2017 CSO MONITORING LOCATIONS

Seven Metro Vancouver CSO locations were scheduled for monitoring in 2017: Angus Drive, Borden,

Chilco-Brockton, Cassiar, Glenbrook, Heather and Macdonald. Table 10.1 shows a description of the level

of effort undertaken for these sites in 2017.

96

TABLE 10.1 2017 CSO MONITORING EFFORT AND STATUS

CSO Location

2017 Monitoring

Angus Drive

One grab sample was collected in December during the CSO receiving environment monitoring program, and analyzed for routine parameters, PCBs, PBDEs and acute toxicity.

Borden St. Six attempts were made from mid-January to mid-May, two first flush composites and one grab sample (not first flush) were collected. The grab sample was submitted for routine analyses, volatiles, PAHs and acute toxicity. Only one composite sample had enough volume for all routine analyses.

Cassiar Seven attempts were made from late March to mid-October, four composites were submitted for routine analyses, two qualified as “first flush”.

Chilco-Brockton

Two composite samples were attempted, one first flush composite was analyzed for routine parameters.

Glenbrook One grab was collected during the outfall receiving environment monitoring program, (not “first flush”) and submitted for routine analyses, volatiles, PAHs and acute toxicity. Two composite samples (one considered first flush) were submitted for routine analyses.

Heather Sampling was attempted between January and October. Two composite samples were collected between July and October. One first flush composite was analyzed for all routine parameters, the second was not considered first flush and had only enough volume for bacteriology. Two July dry-weather grab samples were collected to characterize the continuous flows in that section of the sewer and analyzed for routine parameters.

MacDonald Attempts were made throughout 2017, one successful “first flush” composite was collected in January with only enough volume for microbiology.

CSO MONITORING RESULTS

Table 10.2 summarizes estimates of CSO discharge duration, number of events and total discharge volume for 2017. The total discharge volume for all of Metro Vancouver CSOs was 25 % greater than 2016 at approximately 30 million cubic meters. In 2017, the samples collected from Angus Drive, Borden, Cassiar, Chilco-Brockton, Glenbrook, Heather and Macdonald CSOs were submitted for microbiology and routine physico-chemical analyses, and when volumes were sufficient select trace organics (volatiles, PAHs PCBs and/or PBDEs) with results provided in Appendix A. The bulk of the sampling occurred during the rainfall periods of spring and winter months with two July dry-weather samples to characterize the apparent continuous flows in the Heather CSO. The CSO samples tested for acute toxicity to rainbow trout (i.e., Angus, Borden and Glenbrook) were not acutely toxic.

97

TABLE 10.2 GVS&DD CSO DISCHARGE DURATION, EVENTS AND VOLUME, 2017

Receiving Water CSO Outfall Total Duration of Discharges

(hours)

Number of Discharge

Events

Total Discharge Volume

(million m3)

Burrard Inlet - Second Narrows to

Roche point

Westridge 327 66 0.10

Willingdon 1,804 94 0.80

Burrard Inlet - First to Second Narrows

Cassiar 1,247 100 4.56

Clark/Vernon 2,521 237 14.90

(Clark #1, Clark #2, Vernon)

Brockton 48 17 0.09

Burrard Inlet - False Creek

Heather 266 83 0.67

Burrard Inlet – Balaclava 140 44 1.40

Outer Harbour English Bay / Alma Discovery 288 97 0.34

(English Bay #1, English Bay #2)

Fraser River – North Arm

Macdonald 4 6 0.01

Angus 238 90 1.76

Manitoba 233 65 0.85

South Hill 594 87 0.97

Borden 1,513 108 0.45

New Westminster CSO Tank 203 15 0.43

Fraser River – Main Stem

Glenbrook 1,096 105 2.41

Total Discharge Volume

29.74

10.1.2 CSO RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT MONITORING PROGRAM

The objective of this study is to assess the possible effects of the CSO discharges on the receiving

environment at selected CSO outfall locations. Previously collected CSO discharge characterization data

(physical, chemical, and bacteriological), information on the nature of the receiving environment, and

results of previously completed CSO receiving environment studies were used in a weight of evidence

approach to prioritize CSO sites for environmental effects surveys. The program includes a determination

of receiving environment water quality; water (if feasible) and sediment physical, chemistry and toxicity

analyses; and benthic invertebrate community structure assessments. In 2017, a report was substantially

completed for the 2014-2015 receiving environment monitoring (REM) program for the Balaclava, Cassiar

and Manitoba CSOs, work continued on the 2016 REM program for Clark Drive CSO and field work was

initiated for the Angus Drive and Glenbrook CSO REM programs.

98

APPROACH

WATER

Receiving environment water quality at the edge of the initial dilution zone (IDZ) is estimated based on

the CSO effluent monitoring data and the modelled dilution at the edge of the IDZ. Where feasible

dependent on a CSO occurring during the sediment survey, receiving water samples are to be collected

prior to sediment sampling.

SEDIMENT

The sediment monitoring program was designed using a gradient approach. The selection of

representative monitoring stations took into consideration site specific factors including the nature of the

receiving environment, harbour facility structures, past or current discharges, and activities on-shore and

in the water body. The sediment effects survey was timed to coincide with the wet season and before

the Fraser River freshet to capture sediment samples deposited from the CSO discharges into the receiving

environment. Collected sediments were analyzed for physical parameters, nutrients, metals, select trace

organics (e.g. polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs),

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) surfactants, hormones and sterols, toxicity and benthic invertebrate

community structure.

RESULTS

2014-2015. Balaclava, Cassiar and Manitoba CSOs

Water

Concentration estimates, based on modelled dilutions and CSO discharge data, suggest that

concentrations of suspended solids and copper would exceed the applicable Burrard Inlet or Fraser River

Objectives at the edge of the IDZ for the three CSOS.

Sediment

Fecal coliforms, enterococci and coprostanol showed exposure gradients in sediments around the three

outfalls, where higher concentrations were measured near the outfall and concentrations decreased

relative to distance from the outfall. Exposure gradients extended up to 200 m northeast of Balaclava,

181 m east and 50 m southwest of Cassiar, and 100 m downstream of Manitoba CSOs.

Sediment analytical results were compared to the applicable Burrard Inlet or Fraser River Water Quality

Objectives (for sediment), BC Water Quality Guidelines (for sediment), and Federal Environmental Quality

Guidelines (FEQG). Parameters above objectives or guidelines beyond 100 m (the IDZ boundary) of the

outfall were as follows:

Balaclava - lead, mercury and most PAHs

Cassiar - zinc, most PAHs and BDE-99. Results indicate there are likely other sources of PAHs in

addition to the CSO.

Manitoba - arsenic, chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, 2 PAHs and BDE-99. Results indicate that

there are likely other upstream sources of metals and PAHs. Nickel was above guidelines at all

sites, reflecting background conditions in the Fraser River.

99

Sediment at the three CSOs showed some toxicity to amphipods. Balaclava CSO toxicity (reduced survival

rates) was observed in two samples from within the IDZ and did not correspond to the presence of metals

or PAHs above objectives or guidelines. Most sediment samples from the Cassiar CSO were toxic. Survival

rates below 50% were observed as far as 124 m east of the outfall and reduced survival occurred 181 m

from the outfall. The pattern of sediment toxicity corresponded with concentrations of BDE-99 above the

FEQG. For the Manitoba CSO reduced survival was observed in sediment collected approximately 100 m

and 200 m downstream of the CSO outfall and did not clearly correspond with sediment chemistry.

Effects on benthic invertebrate communities were subtle. At Balaclava indications of organic pollution

were observed within 100 m of the outfall. At Cassiar, community changes, correlated to CSO exposure

and total organic carbon, extended to 181 m from the outfall. The benthic community throughout the

Manitoba study area was characteristic of those responding to organic enrichment, but there was no clear

relationship to CSO exposure.

The reports for the 2016 Clark Drive CSO REM program, as well as the 2017 Angus and Glenbrook REM

Programs are in preparation.

Bibliography

Enkon Environmental Limited (2018). CSO Receiving Environment Monitoring Program: 2014-2015

Balaclava, Cassiar and Manitoba Effects Survey. Commissioned by Metro Vancouver, Burnaby,

BC.

10.2 SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW (SSO) MONITORING

Wastewater treatment plants typically receive and treat all sanitary sewer flows in dry or moderate

rainfall periods. However, heavy rainfall events, power outages, instrumentation or mechanical issues

may cause water levels in the sanitary sewer pipe network and interceptors to rise beyond their

conveyance capacity. To prevent sewer backups into homes and businesses, the sanitary sewer systems

were designed with relief points to overflow untreated wastewater directly to receiving waters via

emergency outfalls.

Metro Vancouver’s ILWRMP states that “Metro Vancouver will monitor SSO effluents and receiving environment to assess the fate and effects at significant SSO locations and requires prevention of wet weather SSOs for 24-hour storm events of less than 1 in 5 years return period.” To fulfill this ILWRMP requirement, Metro Vancouver conducted SSO characterization monitoring at significant SSO locations between 2009 and 2016, as well as receiving environment water quality monitoring after each SSO event. The information collected was used to conduct human health and ecological risk assessments for significant SSO locations. In 2017 risk assessments were completed for Braid Street Outfall, Mackay Avenue Outfall and Hollyburn/Bellevue Avenue at 15th Street SSOs. This completes the risk assessments for significant SSO sites and as such, SSO characterization monitoring is discontinued. However, Metro Vancouver continues to conduct receiving environment water quality monitoring

following each SSO. The water quality data is provided to regulatory agencies and municipalities in sewer

overflow response reports that include information on SSO location, date and time (start/end), duration,

100

volume, estimated cause, immediate actions taken to minimize duration of the SSO and mitigate the

impact, and planned long-term actions to eliminate it.

10.2.1 RISK ASSESSMENT

To inform management decisions a screening level human health and ecological risk assessment (HHERA) of potential management options for Braid Street Outfall, Mackay Avenue Outfall, and Hollyburn/Bellevue Avenue at 15th Street SSOs was completed in 2017 using data collected between 2012 and 2015. SSO characterization data, toxicity test results, background data from ambient and receiving environments, and modelled dilution factors were used to estimate concentrations for substances of potential concern at the discharge point in the receiving water body, at the edge of the initial dilution zone (IDZ), at recreational areas, and at registered water license points of diversion (POD) for each of the above noted SSO locations. These concentrations were compared with Environmental Quality Objectives (EQOs) for protection of human health and aquatic life. Concentrations or toxicity results above the EQO were regarded as posing a potential risk. RESULTS

Findings of the Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HHERA) for SSOs at Braid Street Outfall,

Mackay Avenue Outfall, and Hollyburn/Bellevue Avenue at 15th Street are presented in Table 10.3.

101

TABLE 10.3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS BRAID, MACKAY AND HOLLYBURN/BELLEVUE SSO HHERA

Scenario Braid Street Outfall Mackay Avenue Outfall Hollyburn/ Bellevue Avenue at 15th Street

Current

Peak hourly flow is up to 3 m3/s with a duration up to 18.5 hours. Discharge up to

200,000 m3 total flow to the Fraser River through the existing outfall

Peak hourly flow is up to 0.529 m3/s with a duration up to 6 hours. Discharge

11,416 m3 total volume into Burrard Inlet through the existing outfall

Peak hourly flow is up to 0.1 to 0.3 m3/s with a duration up to 6 hours. Total

volume of 2,160 to 6,480 m3 to Burrard Inlet at the shoreline approximately 350

m west of Ambleside Beach.

Human Health SOPCs:

Discharge of effluent into the Fraser River from the Braid Street Outfall may cause

E. coli exposure for secondary recreational / industrial / irrigation contact. Risks due

to secondary and industrial contact were considered acceptable based on site-

specific use. Risks caused to irrigation PODs were not considered to be acceptable

and Management Alternative 1 was considered.

Ecological SOPCs:

Discharge of effluent into the Fraser River from the Braid Street Outfall would meet

the risk threshold of 5% probability for the identified worst case ecological SOPCs.

The toxicity test evaluations indicated that whole effluent acute effects associated

with discharging effluent into the Fraser River would be localized and would meet

the toxicological EQOs within 12 m of the end of pipe.

Human Health SOPCs:

Discharge of effluent into the Burrard Inlet from the Mackay Avenue Outfall may

cause E. coli exposure for secondary recreational / industrial contact and primary

recreational contact within 300 m of nearest designated swimming beach at

Brockton Point. With appropriate precautions (i.e., sampling and notification), human

health risks related to E. coli exposure are considered manageable.

Management Alternative 1 was also assessed in the hope of finding qualitative

improvements.

Ecological SOPCs:

Discharge of effluent into the Burrard Inlet from the Mackay Avenue Outfall would

meet the risk threshold of 5% probability for the identified worst case ecological

SOPCs.


with discharging effluent into the Burrard Inlet would be localized and would meet

the toxicological EQOs immediately at the end of pipe.

Human Health SOPCs:

Discharge of effluent into Burrard Inlet according to the existing scenario for the

Hollyburn/Bellevue Avenue at 15th Street SSO location may cause unacceptable

E. coli exposure for both primary and secondary recreational contact so

Management Alternative 1 was considered.

Ecological SOPCs:

Discharge of effluent into Burrard Inlet according to the existing scenario for the

Hollyburn/Bellevue Avenue at 15th Street SSO may cause unacceptable exposure

to identified ecological receptors so Management Alternative 1 was considered.

Management

Alternative 1

Construct a storage tank Pipe upgrade Pipe upgrade

Human health SOPCs:

Management Alternative 1 was considered to address the impacts to irrigation

PODs downstream of the Braid Street Outfall location. Construction of a 187,500 m3

storage tank resulted in less than 5% probability of a concentration EQO

exceedance for “crops eaten raw”.

Human Health SOPCs:

Discharge of effluent into Burrard Inlet according to the existing condition for the

Mackay Avenue Outfall may cause E. coli exposure for primary and secondary

recreational and industrial contact. However, Management Alternative 1 did not

significantly improve the E. coli exposure.

With appropriate precautions (i.e., sampling and notification), human health risks

related to E. coli exposure are considered manageable.

Human Health SOPCs:

Discharge of effluent into Burrard Inlet according to Management Alternative 1c

(i.e., outfall at 32 m depth) for the Hollyburn/Bellevue Avenue at 15th Street SSO

location may cause unacceptable E. coli exposure for both primary and secondary

recreational contact. After further consideration, secondary and primary contact

was considered to be manageable if precautions are taken (i.e., sampling and

notification).

Ecological SOPCs:

Discharge of effluent into Burrard Inlet according to Management Alternative 1c

(i.e., outfall at 32 m depth) for the Hollyburn/Bellevue Avenue at 15th Street SSO

would meet the risk threshold of 5% probability for the identified worst case

ecological SOPC.


with discharging effluent into Burrard Inlet would be localized and would meet the

toxicological EQOs within 5 m of the end of pipe.

Management

Alternative 2 Not Applicable

Construct a storage tank Construct a storage tank

Management Alternative 2 was not considered since manageable level of risk with

existing condition.

Management Alternative 2 was not considered since acceptable level of risk with

Management Alternative 1c.

Bibliography Tetra Tech Canada Inc. 2017. Sanitary Sewer Overflows – Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for Braid Street outfall, Mackay Avenue outfall, and Hollyburn/Bellevue at 15th Street. Commissioned by Metro Vancouver, Burnaby, BC.

102

11.0 WHOLE EFFLUENT MONITORING

11.1 EFFLUENT TOXICITY TESTING

Chemical analysis of an effluent cannot predict toxicity by itself. Many chemical substances are either not

detectable by common methods of chemical analysis, or the methods for these substances have yet to be

developed. As well, when different substances are combined in a mixture such as effluent, the apparent

toxicity of the combined substances can be different from the toxicities of the individual substances.

Therefore, whole effluent toxicity monitoring is conducted to determine the potential total toxic effect of

an effluent when measured directly with an aquatic organism in a toxicity test.

11.1.1 ACUTE TOXICITY TESTING

Acute toxicity testing measures the survival of test organisms over a short exposure period to effluent.

The primary objective of the testing is to ensure that the treated wastewater is protective of aquatic life.

Testing of effluent is conducted on a monthly basis in accordance with each wastewater treatment plant’s

(WWTP’s) operational certificate. Samples of whole effluent are screened for acute toxicity using rainbow

trout following Environment and Climate Change Canada’s test protocols.

The standard method for determining acute lethality of effluents to rainbow trout exposes test fish to a

series of effluent dilutions, and determines the fish survival rate at the end of a 96-h exposure period.

The final result is reported as the 96-h LC50 value (median lethal concentration), which is the percent (by

volume) of the original effluent sample that is estimated to be lethal to 50% of the test fish.

A test-pass for all municipal effluents requires that the LC50 value must be equal to or greater than 100%.

This means that 50% or more of the test fish must survive for 96 hours in the original undiluted sample of

effluent. If an effluent sample does not pass the toxicity test, a toxicity identification evaluation is

conducted with the objective to identify, and ultimately, correct for the probable cause of the observed

toxicity.

In 2008, Environment and Climate Change Canada published an add-on test procedure along with a

corresponding guidance document for pH stabilization during the testing of acute lethality that is only

applicable to municipal effluents. The purpose of pH stabilization is to replace the carbon dioxide lost due

to aeration in order to maintain the pH throughout the test at the same levels observed at the start of the

test. This add-on procedure recognizes that the toxicity observed in municipal wastewater effluents may

be due to a shift in pH which is an artifact of the standard reference method.

In June 2012, the Government of Canada introduced the Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations under

the Fisheries Act. Under these Regulations, toxicity testing of effluent can be conducted by one step or

test with or without the add-on pH stabilization procedure. Metro Vancouver WWTP effluent samples

met all three conditions of the add-on pH stabilization procedure, so in August 2012 Metro Vancouver

began conducting acute toxicity tests using rainbow trout on its effluent samples using the reference

method with the add-on pH stabilization procedure to prevent the generation of any false-positive results.

103

Results

In 2017, all effluent samples from Metro Vancouver’s three secondary WWTPs (Annacis Island, Lulu Island

and Northwest Langley) and most samples from the two primary WWTPs (i.e., Iona Island and Lions Gate)

passed the OC required monthly acute rainbow trout toxicity test.

For the Iona Island and Lions Gate WWTPs, seven and 11 acute effluent samples passed the required

monthly toxicity test, respectively. All of the remaining samples (i.e., five Iona and one Lions Gate) passed

when more oxygen was added to these samples than is allowed by the technical specifications of the

standard Environment and Climate Change Canada method.

In addition to the rainbow trout acute toxicity testing, monthly (or quarterly for Northwest Langley WWTP

since 2015) testing of Daphnia magna acute toxicity, as recommended by the Canada-wide Strategy for

the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent has been conducted since 2009. All samples collected

from each of the five wastewater treatment plants passed the test in 2017.

11.1.2 CHRONIC TOXICITY TESTING Chronic toxicity testing measures the reproduction or growth of test organisms over a longer exposure

period to effluent. The primary objective of the testing is to demonstrate that the treated wastewater

beyond the Initial Dilution Zone (IDZ) boundary is protective of aquatic life.

Testing is conducted on a monthly (or quarterly for Northwest Langley WWTP) basis following the Canada-

wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent. Samples of whole effluent undergo

chronic toxicity screening using Environment and Climate Change Canada’s biological 7-d test methods:

test of larval growth and survival using fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas); and test of reproduction

and survival using the water flea (Ceriodaphnia dubia). These tests are used to determine the potential

toxicity of effluent to different types of organisms (i.e., fish and invertebrate) in the aquatic environment.

In addition to effluent testing, a water sample is also collected from the Fraser River (quarterly) for testing

to provide information on background environmental conditions. This water sample is collected at a

reference area located at Derby Reach Regional Park, which is upstream of Metro Vancouver’s secondary

wastewater treatment plants and beyond their zone of influence.

The fathead minnow test measures whether an effluent sample affects the growth and survival of very young (larval) minnows. Similarly, the water flea test measures whether the sample affects the reproduction and survival of the water flea. Test results are typically reported as IC25, which is the percent by volume (of the original effluent sample) at which there is a 25% inhibition effect of a sublethal test endpoint such as reproduction or growth.

Results

Test results varied by test organism, plant effluent and the monitoring period examined. Periodically

some toxicity was observed at an effluent concentration that may predict it to persist at the IDZ boundary,

especially considering that some toxicity has also been observed in the Fraser River. Additional testing

and investigation to determine if there is a pattern to the observed variability, and subsequently identify

potential sources of apparent chronic toxicity will be conducted.

104

11.1.3 AMMONIA AS A POTENTIAL TOXICANT Ammonia in wastewater effluent can be toxic and harmful to aquatic life, especially fish. Ammonia

dissolved in water is a substance specified on the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1 of the Canadian

Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). Sources of ammonia in the environment include municipal and

industrial wastewater, as well as agricultural runoff and natural processes.

In keeping with the national strategy for the management of municipal wastewater, Environment and

Climate Change Canada developed the CEPA threshold toxicity curve which can be used to determine the

potential for acute ammonia toxicity. The pH of the effluent is a factor in ammonia toxicity, and the CEPA

curve takes this into account. Metro Vancouver monitors the quality of the final effluent for the ammonia

concentration and pH level on a weekly basis at each of its wastewater treatment plants.

If the data point for ammonia and pH falls below the CEPA curve, the effluent would be predicted to not

contain an acutely lethal concentration of ammonia. Conversely, if the data point falls on or above the

curve, the effluent would be predicted to contain an acutely lethal concentration of ammonia.

In conjunction with the CEPA curve, Figure 11.1 shows the 2017 monitoring results for ammonia in the

final effluent for each of Metro Vancouver’s wastewater treatment plants plotted on one graph. All

effluent results for all of the treatment plants were below the threshold acute concentration curve for

ammonia at the measured pH value of the effluent. This predicts that the effluent did not contain an

acutely lethal concentration of ammonia.

Potential for chronic toxicity due to ammonia is also a consideration. There is either a provincial water quality objective or guideline for total ammonia that is applicable in the receiving waters for each WWTP. Previous studies by Metro Vancouver in the vicinity of the wastewater discharges have shown that the provincial water quality objective or guideline (as applicable) for total ammonia was met in the aquatic environment.

11.2 SPECIAL CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION

Although chemical characterization can be challenging, it is included by the CCME Canada-wide Strategy

for the Management of Municipal Wastewater (i.e., the Strategy). In 2014, the characterization of

wastewater from all five WWTPs for the trace organics listed in the strategy was started and continued

through 2017. The trace organic substances required to be analyzed by the Strategy include:

organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),

volatile organic compounds, phenolic compounds, surfactants. Although the Strategy indicates “other

substances specifically associated with industrial or commercial activities that discharge into the sewer

system”, there are other types of trace organics that are also of concern and not necessarily specific to

industrial or commercial activities such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), hormones and sterols,

and pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs), as well as other types of pesticides. These

substances are also being analyzed.

105

FIGURE 11.1 COMPARISON OF 2017 WWTP EFFLUENT QUALITY WITH THE ACUTE AMMONIA THRESHOLD TOXICITY CURVE

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0

Tota

l Am

mo

nia

exp

ress

ed

as

Nit

roge

n (

mg/

L)

pH (pH units)

NH3 Acute Threshold conc.

Annacis Effluent Grab

Iona Effluent Grab

Lions Gate Effluent Grab

Lulu Effluent Grab

North West Langley Effluent Grab

Total Ammonia = 306132466.34 x (2.7183^(-2.0437 x pH))

106

12.0 RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT MONITORING PROGRAMS

A key component of Metro Vancouver’s ILWRMP involves monitoring, assessment and forecasting to

evaluate potential effects of wastewater discharges, such as wastewater treatment plant effluents into

the receiving water bodies. Monitoring determines if the discharges meet water quality objectives and

guidelines. As well, monitoring characterizes the receiving environment, provides background data,

develops indicators of environmental change, and assesses long-term trends.

12.1 IONA DEEP-SEA OUTFALL RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT MONITORING PROGRAM

The Iona Deep-Sea Outfall Receiving Environment Monitoring (REM) Program has occurred annually since

1986, including two years of baseline monitoring prior to the operation of the deep-sea discharge in 1988.

Prior to 1988, wastewater was discharged directly to the intertidal region of Iona Beach. The Iona deep-

sea outfall discharges primary-treated effluent from the Iona Island Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)

at an average depth of about 90 metres (m), through a diffuser system into the Strait of Georgia, some

seven kilometers (km) west of the Iona Island shoreline.

The overall objective of the Iona Deep-Sea Outfall REM Program is to determine possible short- and long-

term effects of the discharge to the receiving environment. Monitoring reports that incorporate results

and provide assessments of the annual monitoring programs and projects are produced. Depending on

the type of project and corresponding analyses undertaken, these annual reports may be offset by one

year to allow for completion of data analysis and interpretation, as well as report production and review.

The work conducted under the monitoring program has included assessments of effluent quality, plume dispersion modeling, receiving water quality, sediment quality, composition and structure of the organisms that dwell in and on the sediments, and contaminant uptake and overall health of fish and crab. The 2017 program included an annual sediment effects survey and water column monitoring at the Initial Dilution Zone (IDZ) boundary, and a demersal fish survey. 12.1.1 2017 SEDIMENT EFFECTS SURVEY

The Iona Sediment Effects Survey included monitoring of sediment and bottom-water chemistry and

bacteriology, and benthic infaunal community structure. These components have been monitored

annually since 2000 (typically March/April under pre freshet conditions), allowing for the evaluation of

potential long-term effects on the receiving environment.

The survey included 16 established monitoring stations that are located on a north-south transect on the

80-m depth contour in the Iona outfall study area (Figure 12.1). All 16 stations were sampled for bottom

water quality (2 m above the seafloor), sediment chemistry and bacteriology, and benthic invertebrates.

In addition, Stations 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15 and 16 were also sampled for water quality at the 55-m trapping

depth (based on effluent dispersion modelling).

Water samples were analyzed for physical parameters, nutrients, and bacteriology. Sediment samples collected from all stations were analyzed for metals and organic compounds including alkylphenols, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), hormones and sterols, and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). Additionally, analyses at select stations also included: Chlorinated and Brominated Flame Retardants, select pesticides, and select pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs).

107

FIGURE 12.1 IONA DEEP-SEA OUTFALL SEDIMENT EFFECTS MONITORING

Preliminary Results

As in previous years, water quality results were within the ranges expected for a coastal urban system,

with no noted exceedances of water quality guidelines. Water bacteriology levels (E. coli, fecal coliform,

and enterococci) were loosely associated with proximity to the outfall.

Sediment chemistry values were mostly below prescribed provincial and federal guidelines for the

protection of aquatic life. The noted exceedances of metals included arsenic, copper, and nickel; however,

these metals were also noted to be in exceedance of guidelines at the prescribed reference sites,

indicating potential influences from other sources, namely discharges from the Fraser River. In terms of

organics, only select substances exceeded guidelines, often with no consistent relationship to the Iona

discharge. Exceedances were observed for acenaphthene, 2-methynaphthalene, and naphthalene at the

northern stations (1, 2 and 3) as well as a single exceedances of each dibenz[a,h]anthracene, Total

pentaPBDE, and total decaPBDE in close proximity to the outfall. Overall, based on spatial patterns and

comparisons to established guidelines, the potential environmental hazard measured in the study is

considered to be low, and there is little or no change in sediment quality over time for most substances.

In 2017, compounds that were associated with the Iona discharge included: fecal coliforms, coprostanol,

enterococci, cadmium, silver, 4-Nonylphenol, PBDE 47 and PBDE 209. Multivariate analysis of these

108

analytes indicated an overall presence of sewage-related indicators immediately north of the diffuser.

Beyond Stations 7 to the north and 10 to the south, the influence of the effluent is noted to decrease to

background conditions. This is consistent with previous years’ observations.

The benthic infauna community pattern mirrored the sediment chemistry pattern with lower abundance noted between Stations 5 and 14; however, no differences in infauna biomass were noted. As in previous years, the differences in the infaunal community were driven by an increase in opportunistic polychaetes and the absence of organisms sensitive to disturbance at stations close to the outfall. Overall, there is no indication of increasing impacts to the benthic infaunal community within the Iona study area. The zone of influence has not increased over recent years. 12.1.2 2017 INITIAL DILUTION ZONE BOUNDARY MONITORING

The overall REM program for the Iona WWTP was developed in 2000; a monitoring program for the edge

of the initial dilution zone (IDZ) was included as an annual component of the REM in 2010, after earlier

surveys in 1989 and 1996. The objective of this component of the overall REM program is to establish

compliance with water quality guidelines at the boundary of the IDZ, as currently, there are no site-specific

water quality objectives available for the Strait of Georgia.

The IDZ is defined as the zone extending up to 100 m horizontally in any direction from a discharge, but

not to exceed more than 25% of the width of the water body at the discharge point. The boundary of the

IDZ is the regulatory and compliance boundary where water quality objectives and guidelines begin to

apply. To increase the likelihood of successfully sampling from the effluent plume, sample collection was

conducted during the summer when stratification is strongest, making the plume easier to identify.

Water samples were collected within the effluent plume from fixed locations identified in the program

design (Figure 12.2) as well as at three reference area sampling locations (R-1, R-2, R-3) approximately

8.3 km south of the Iona Deep Sea Outfall, corresponding with Site 15 for the Iona sediment effects

monitoring program (Figure 12.1). In 2017, reference site R-1 was moved farther offshore than it had

been located from 2010 to 2016 in order to place it outside the influence of the effluent plume; intrusion

of the effluent plume at site R-1 was observed in 2013, 2015, and 2016.

109

FIGURE 12.2 IONA WWTP DEEP-SEA OUTFALL INITIAL DILUTION ZONE BOUNDARY STUDY AREA

Approach

The Iona IDZ boundary monitoring program was conducted between August 1 and August 29, 2017. The

monitoring program included five sampling events over a 30 day period to meet the criteria for

comparison with British Columbia’s long-term average guidelines. August 15 and August 22 events

included the collection of samples at multiple depths at the IDZ boundary west and north of the outfall.

Sampling times were selected to reflect specific tidal conditions (ebb, flood and slack) and/or a

combination of tides at the edge of the IDZ boundary.

Samples were collected within the effluent plume at the edge of the IDZ boundary and at the reference

area. The location of the plume was determined in the field using an onboard colour video-sounder

(Figure 12.3). In the absence of a plume signal, samples were collected at pre-determined sampling points

(Figure 12.2) at a depth of 55 m. E.coli and fecal coliform concentrations were used to confirm that

samples were collected from the plume. On August 15 and 22 additional bacteriology samples were

collected at 45 m and 65 m depths to better delineate the depth and extent of the effluent plume. These

samples were subject to laboratory analysis, as well as field water quality measurements. In addition,

depth profiles for temperature, pH, conductivity, salinity and dissolved oxygen were measured during

each sampling event at one reference site and one IDZ boundary site.

Based on fecal coliform concentrations ≥1000 MPN/100 mL or enterococci counts of ≥450 MPN/100mL,

73% of all samples collected during the 2017 survey successfully captured the Iona WWTP effluent plume.

All reference area samples and within-plume IDZ boundary samples were analyzed for conventional

variables, nutrients, total and dissolved organic carbon and low-level total metals. The shorter holding

time parameters (e.g., pH, total ammonia, nitrite, nitrate) were analyzed for all samples. Selected within-

110

plume, IDZ boundary and reference samples were also analyzed for nonlyphenols (including its mono- and

di-ethoxylates, and octylphenol), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and selected hormones and

sterols.

FIGURE 12.3 COLOUR VIDEO SOUNDER SHOWING A STRONG PLUME NEAR 50 M (ENKON, 2016)

Preliminary Results

All parameters with applicable water quality guidelines, met the applicable guidelines with the exception

of dissolved oxygen and total boron.

The long-term average dissolved oxygen concentrations calculated at both the reference area and IDZ

boundary were below the minimum long-term average guideline of 8 mg/L, which is a reflection of lower

oxygen concentrations in deep water rather than a result of the Iona effluent discharge. In addition,

dissolved oxygen concentrations at the IDZ boundary (August 29th) were below the 5.0 mg/L minimum

guideline in six of seven grab samples. In-situ depth profiles showed dissolved oxygen concentrations

below 5.0 mg/L at both the IDZ boundary and the reference area on four of the five sampling days.

Total boron concentrations in all samples at both the IDZ boundary and the reference area were greater

than the guideline, whereas the discharge effluent concentration was less than the guideline. The

observed boron concentrations are a result of natural background conditions in the marine environment.

Since the program was initiated in 2010, significant decreasing trends have been observed for total copper and nonylphenol concentrations in effluent, while there were no significant trends in the receiving environment water quality. As noted above, the BC Water Quality Guidelines were consistently met, with the exception of boron and dissolved oxygen. During this period, there were also some spatial trends where bacteria and ammonia concentrations were consistently higher at the IDZ boundary than at the reference area, as were average concentrations for total phosphorus, total copper and total suspended solids but to a lesser degree. Otherwise there were no consistent spatial patterns.

111

12.1.3 2017 DEMERSAL BIOTA SURVEY

In September 2017, a biota monitoring program was executed in the marine environment and included

two sites in the Iona study area. Station 8, designated as Near-Field, and Station 15, designated as

Reference (Figure 12.1) were sampled for demersal fish. The fish community was identified, enumerated,

and weighed to allow for detailed community analysis. Additionally, 20 male and 20 female English sole

(Parophrys vetulus) were collected for detailed tissue chemistry analysis as well as histopathological

assessments. The report is under preparation.

Bibliography

Ellis, D.V., C. Gobeil, K.J. Hall, L.L Johnson, T.G. Milligan and T.B. Reynoldson. (2006). Peer Review of Cycle

3 of the Iona Deep-Sea Outfall Environmental Monitoring Program. Report prepared for the

Greater Vancouver Regional District, Burnaby, BC. Project Coordinated by 2WE Associates

Consulting Ltd., Victoria, BC. 65 pp. + Appendices.

ENKON Environmental Limited. (2017). Iona Deep-Sea Outfall Receiving Environment Monitoring

Program: 2016 Initial Dilution Zone Boundary Monitoring. Final Report Prepared for Metro

Vancouver Regional District (GVRD), Burnaby, BC by ENKON Environmental Limited, Surrey, BC.

85 pp + Appendices

IRC Integrated Resource Consultants Inc. (IRC) and Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD). (1997).

Combined Report on Iona Deep Sea Outfall 1996 Environmental Monitoring Program, Receiving

Water Quality. Prepared by IRC, Richmond, BC and Quality Control Division, Operations and

Maintenance, GVRD, Burnaby, BC. June 1997.

Hodgins, D.O. and S.L.M. Hodgins. (1999). Iona Deep-Sea Outfall, 1999 Environmental Monitoring

Program: Effluent Dispersion and Solids Deposition Modelling Study. Report prepared for the

Greater Vancouver Regional District, Burnaby, BC by Seaconsult Marine Research Ltd., Vancouver,

BC.

Ocean Dynamics. (2016). Iona Island Waste Water Treatment Plan Deep Water Outfall Inspection

(Submarine Section), Vancouver, BC. Final Report prepared for Terra Remote Sensing, Sidney, BC,

by Ocean Dynamics Inc., Courtenay, BC.

Seguin, S.R., G.S. Lawrence, B.J. Burd, M.L. Fanning, G. Brooks, L. Currie, and S. Worku. (2016). Iona Deep-

Sea Outfall Receiving Environment Monitoring Program, 2015 Sediment Effects Survey. Report

prepared for Metro Vancouver, Burnaby, BC by Golder Associates Ltd., Burnaby, BC. 218 pp. +

Appendices.

Wilson, R. C. H., J. A. J. Thompson, M. B. Yunker, B. J. Burd, J. F. Garrett, and D. G. Brand. (1999). Iona

Deep-Sea Outfall Environmental Monitoring Program, Post-Discharge Review. Prepared for the

Greater Vancouver Regional District by 2WE Associates Consultants Ltd., Salt Spring Island, BC.

112

12.2 LIONS GATE OUTFALL RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT MONITORING PROGRAM

The Lions Gate Outfall Receiving Environment Monitoring (REM) Program has been conducted annually

since 2003, beginning with the sediment effects survey that includes chemistry and benthic community

analyses. Since that time, the overall program has been enhanced to include additional chemical analyses

and water column monitoring. The program was founded by an initial workshop that proposed a set of

15 monitoring and investigative activities designed to allow Metro Vancouver to meet its objectives for a

REM program. Based on these recommendations, results of effluent dispersion and solids deposition

modeling, seabed imaging techniques and sediment sampling undertaken in 2001/2002, the framework

for a REM program for the Lions Gate WWTP was developed.

Since the annual sediment effects survey was initiated, it has undergone various iterations and

modifications that have included: increasing the number of benthos sampling stations from 10 to 17 (with

changes or decreases in chemistry only stations), adding or replacing original stations to provide reference

areas and more closely follow the predicted path of the wastewater plume, and expansion of the types of

chemical analyses to include emerging contaminants of concern.

The REM program has also evolved to include water column monitoring. Initial Dilution Zone (IDZ)

boundary monitoring program was recommended in the “Development of a Receiving Environment

Monitoring Approach to Liquid Waste Management” for the Lions Gate WWTP receiving environment. It

was adopted as an annual component of the monitoring program in 2009, after earlier surveys in 2001

and 2006.

The Lions Gate outfall discharges primary treated effluent into the turbulent First Narrows area of Burrard

Inlet through an outfall and diffuser located just to the west of the Lions Gate Bridge in West Vancouver.

The average diffuser depth is about 20 m, and discharges about 184 m offshore. The effluent is dispersed

initially throughout the inner and outer Burrard Inlet before entering the Strait of Georgia. Between May

and September 30 the effluent is disinfected.

Annual monitoring reports that incorporate the results and provide assessments of the monitoring work

are produced. Depending on the type of study, time of year, and corresponding analyses undertaken,

these annual reports may be offset by about one year to allow for completion of data analysis and

interpretation, as well as report production and review. Therefore, only preliminary results are

summarized below.

12.2.1 2017 SEDIMENT EFFECTS SURVEY

The 2017 Sediment Effects Survey included water quality monitoring, sediment quality characterization

and an evaluation of infaunal community structure (Figure 12.4) between April 4 and 10. Surface and

bottom (2-m above the seafloor) and trapping (15-m) depth-water samples were collected from 17

established monitoring stations located in inner and outer Burrard Inlet as well as at two reference sites

west of Burrard Inlet (Figure 12.5).

113

FIGURE 12.4 LIONS GATE WWTP MONITORING OF OUTER BURRARD INLET

FIGURE 12.5 LIONS GATE SEDIMENT EFFECTS SURVEY AREA, 2017 (RED STATIONS WERE ACTIVE IN

2017)

As in previous years, preliminary results from 2017 indicate that water quality within the Lions Gate study

area was within the range expected for urban coastal marine environments. Fecal coliform and E. coli

counts were higher at stations along the north shore of Burrard Inlet, but a lack of correlation with

enterococci suggested the possible contribution of other sources of bacteria.

Sediment quality data showed exceedances of several provincial/federal guidelines. Although variable

among sites, copper, arsenic and nickel were in exceedance at most of the stations, including the

reference locations. Several polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were elevated compared with

114

guidelines including consistent exceedances of acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, 2-methylnaphthalene,

naphthalene, phenanthrene, benz[a]anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene, chrysene, dibenz[a,h]anthracene,

fluoranthene, and also dioxins and furans. As with metals, most of these exceedances also occurred at

the reference stations outside of Burrard Inlet. The Inner Harbour had the greatest number of guideline

exceedances: seven (7) metals and 25 organic analytes, while stations along the north shore were noted

as having moderate levels of exceedances.

Additional analysis was conducted at selected stations for select pesticides as well as chlorinated and

brominated flame retardants. Some spatial patterns were noted with respect to chlorinated and

brominated flame retardants and will be used to guide future analysis.

Spatial analysis of known sewage indicators (enterococci, 4-nonlyphenol, cadmium, silver, PBDE-47 and

PBDE-209) indicated that the reference stations had low levels of sewage indicators, but equally elevated

concentrations of PAHs, organic material, metals, PCBs and dioxins & furans. This suggests the distribution

of sediment contaminants are not directly linked to the Lions Gate effluent discharge, but instead is likely

influenced from other sources such as urban run-off and other discharges in Burrard Inlet.

Spatial patterns for effluent indicators and other substances were not clearly linked to changes in benthic

infaunal community structure. Although benthic infaunal communities differed among stations, there

was no overall indication of impoverishment. “Pollution-tolerant” taxa were rarely found and are not

increasing in abundance.

Similar to findings observed in the Iona monitoring area, sediment biotic indicators of organic enrichment

have shown limited change over time. Further monitoring of the study area will provide additional

information to help determine their significance and if they are outfall related, associated with long-term

fluctuations in oceanographic conditions, or if they are due to a combination of these and/or confounding

factors present in Burrard Inlet.

12.2.2 2017 INITIAL DILUTION ZONE BOUNDARY MONITORING

The objective of this initial dilution zone (IDZ) boundary monitoring program is to determine whether

water quality at the Lions Gate WWTP IDZ boundary meets applicable Water Quality Objectives and

Guidelines. IDZ boundary monitoring was adopted as an annual component of the monitoring program

in 2009.

The Lions Gate IDZ Monitoring Program occurs in autumn during the plant non-disinfection period. This

coincides with higher WWTP discharge flows. Water samples are collected over a five week (30-day)

period (between October and December) from within the effluent plume at the boundary of the IDZ

(Figure 12.6), as well as at two reference locations in Inner (IBI) and Outer (OBI) Burrard Inlet.

115

FIGURE 12.6 LIONS GATE INITIAL DILUTION ZONE BOUNDARY MONITORING STUDY AREA, 2017

Approach

The 2017 IDZ boundary monitoring program took place over a five-week period between November 14

and December 11. The weekly sampling dates and times were selected to reflect specific tide conditions

(ebb, flood and slack) at the IDZ boundary.

During each survey, four to seven samples at the IDZ boundary plus one or two samples at each of two

reference sites were collected. An onboard colour video sounder was used to determine the location,

depth and extent of the effluent plume (Figure 12.7). Confirmation that samples had been collected from

the plume was based on the results of bacteriological analyses1.

1 Fecal coliform concentration ≥ 1000 MPN/100 mL or in one instance, enterococci concentration of < 300 MPN/100 mL.

116

FIGURE 12.7 MONITORING VESSEL AND COLOUR VIDEO SOUNDER FOR LIONS GATE INITIAL

DILUTION ZONE BOUNDARY MONITORING PROGRAM

Samples were collected from

a depth of about 15 m within

the effluent plume at the

edge of the IDZ boundary and

at the reference area, and

under slack tide near surface

samples were also collected.

Samples were subject to

laboratory analysis, as well as

field water quality

measurements.

All reference area samples

and IDZ boundary samples

confirmed to have been

collected from within the

effluent plume, were

analyzed for conventional

variables, nutrients, total

metals, as well as the shorter holding time parameters (e.g., pH, total ammonia, nitrite, nitrate). In

addition, selected samples from within the plume and the reference area were analyzed for nonlyphenols

(including its mono- and di-ethoxylates, and octylphenol). Corresponding effluent samples were also

collected during the sampling period to measure concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

(PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and select pesticides.

Preliminary results from the within plume samples for the five surveys were compared with 30-day

average water quality objectives.

Preliminary Results

Based on fecal coliform or enterococci concentrations, 54% of the samples collected at the IDZ boundary

successfully captured the effluent plume. The preliminary water quality and chemistry results for these

samples were compared with applicable water quality objectives.

All physical and inorganic parameters met the applicable Burrard Inlet objectives and provincial guidelines

with the exception of dissolved oxygen, temperature, and total boron. Dissolved oxygen concentrations

were below the minimum 6.5 mg/L objective for Burrard Inlet in most samples at the IDZ boundary as well

as the reference sites. Furthermore, all IDZ and reference locations had average dissolved oxygen

concentrations below the 8.0-mg/L minimum 30-day average (long-term average) provincial guideline.

Total boron at both reference areas and at the IDZ boundary exceeded the 30-day average guideline.

However, the concentration of boron in effluent samples were well below the guidelines. Total boron

concentrations in the receiving environment were similar to typical boron concentrations in Canadian

coastal waters and are not of concern.

Sampling

Vessel

Plume

117

Bibliography

Coastal and Ocean Resources Incorporated (CORI). (2002). Lions Gate ROV Far-Field Imaging Survey.

Prepared for the GVRD, Burnaby, BC by Coastal and Ocean Resources Incorporated, Sidney, BC,

February 2002.

ENKON Environmental Limited (ENKON). (2017). Lions Gate Receiving Environment Monitoring Program,

2016 Initial Dilution Zone Boundary Monitoring. Final Report prepared for Metro Vancouver,

Burnaby, BC by ENKON Environmental Limited, Surrey, BC. 99 pp + appendices.

Hodgins, D.O. and S.L.M. Hodgins. (2000). Lions Gate Wastewater Treatment Plant Monitoring Program:

Effluent Solids Deposition Modelling Study. Prepared for the Greater Vancouver Regional District,

Burnaby, BC by Seaconsult Marine Research Ltd., Vancouver, BC

Metro Vancouver. (2010). Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management, A Liquid Waste

Management Plan for the Greater Vancouver Sewerage & Drainage District and Member

Municipalities, May 2010. Metro Vancouver, Burnaby, BC. 32 pp. + Addendum: Ministerial

Conditions dated May 30, 2011.

Seguin, S.R., G.S. Lawrence, B.J. Burd, M.L. Fanning, Brooks G., Madonald T, and S. Worku (2018). Lions Gate Outfall Receiving Environment Monitoring Program, 2016 Sediment Effects Survey. Report prepared for Metro Vancouver, Burnaby, BC by Golder Associates Ltd., Burnaby, BC, 205 pp. + Appendices.

12.3 FRASER RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OUTFALLS RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT QUALITY

Metro Vancouver owns and operates three secondary wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) that

discharge treated effluent into the Main Arm of the Fraser River. The largest of these plants is the Annacis

Island WWTP, which discharges into the Fraser River immediately downstream of the Alex Fraser Bridge.

Followed by the discharges into the Fraser River from the Lulu Island WWTP at the foot of Gilbert Street

in Richmond, and Northwest Langley WWTP downstream of the 201st Street in Langley.

The Fraser River receiving environment monitoring (REM) program for Metro Vancouver’s three

secondary wastewater treatment plants was designed to be cyclical and include the following program

components: annual initial dilution zone (IDZ) boundary monitoring; bi-annual chronic effluent toxicity

testing (see Section 11.1.2); and sediment quality monitoring conducted once during the five-year cycle

(Gartner-Lee, 2003).

Water column monitoring at the IDZ boundary is the primary receiving environment monitoring program

and is focused at the Annacis Island WWTP outfall. The effluent plume at the Annacis WWTP outfall can

be sampled with a high success rate, compared to the highly transient plumes located at Lulu Island and

Northwest Langley WWTP outfalls. The effluent discharge rate at Annacis is substantially greater than at

either the Lulu Island or Northwest Langley WWTPs. Consequently, indicators of potential effects, if

present, would likely be detected in the Annacis Island WWTP receiving environment first. As a result,

monitoring has been focussed on Annacis since 2003.

The ILWRMP was approved by the BC Ministry of Environment with the condition that “monitoring near

the outfalls for all five wastewater treatment plants” is undertaken (i.e., Ministerial Condition #6). As a

118

result, Metro Vancouver is reviewing the feasibility of monitoring for the more transient plumes at Lulu

and Northwest Langley WWTPs. A pilot study at Lulu Island WWTP was undertaken in 2014-15, while a

pilot study was initiated in 2017 at Northwest Langley.

12.3.1 2017 ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP INITIAL DILUTION ZONE (IDZ) BOUNDARY MONITORING

The objective of the Annacis IDZ monitoring program is to assess whether site-specific water quality

objectives and guidelines are being met at the IDZ boundary for Metro Vancouver’s Fraser River WWTP

discharges.

The Annacis Island WWTP IDZ monitoring program included annual winter IDZ monitoring that occurs in

February/early March during typically low river flows to reflect the worst-case water quality or lowest

dilution. In 2017, a second low-river flow monitoring survey was conducted in late summer/early autumn.

Sample locations for both periods include a reference area upstream of the Fraser River Trifurcation near

the SkyTrain Bridge in New Westminster, and from within the plume at the edge of the IDZ at the Annacis

Island WWTP. The study area for the IDZ boundary monitoring program at the Annacis Island WWTP is

shown in Figure 12.8.

FIGURE 12.8 ANNACIS INITIAL DILUTION ZONE BOUNDARY MONITORING STUDY AREA, 2016

Annacis IDZ Study Area (left), and

Sampling Vessel at the Annacis Outfall

(above). Metro Vancouver Photo.

Approach

Winter and late summer/early autumn monitoring was conducted weekly (five events each) between

February 15 and March 15, and September 12 and October 10, 2017, respectively, to allow for comparison

with 30-day average water quality objectives. During each of the five monitoring events, three samples

were collected from the reference area (at 5 m depth) and five samples were collected from within the

effluent plume (depth 3 to 8 m) at the edge of the IDZ boundary. These samples were subject to

laboratory analysis, as well as field water quality measurements. In addition, depth profiles for

119

temperature, pH, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen were measured at one reference and one IDZ

boundary site.

Confirmation that samples were collected from within the plume was based on: bacteriological analyses

for the winter monitoring period; and ammonia concentrations for the late summer/early autumn

monitoring period when the Annacis effluent was being disinfected.

All reference area samples and IDZ boundary samples confirmed to have been collected from the effluent

plume2 were also analyzed for conventional variables, nutrients, low-level total and dissolved metals, total

and dissolved organic carbon (TOC and DOC).

In addition, in the winter sampling period, selected samples from within the plume and the reference area

were analyzed for nonylphenols (including its mono- and di-ethoxylates, and octylphenol), polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), and hormones and sterols.

Preliminary Results

In the winter and summer, validly comparable concentrations samples from within the plume of all

parameters met their corresponding applicable water quality objectives or guidelines at the Annacis IDZ

boundary. In the summer, un-ionized ammonia concentrations in several samples collected from the IDZ

boundary during three of the five weeks were above the 16-µg/L CCME guideline; however, ammonia

concentrations met the corresponding Fraser River Water Quality Objective for total ammonia for all

samples in each weekly event.

The annual winter results from 2005 to 2017 data were compared. During this period, significant

decreasing trends were observed for concentrations of fecal coliforms, dissolved aluminum and

nonylphenols in effluent, while there were no significant trends in the receiving environment water

quality. During this period there were some spatial trends where the concentration of fecal coliforms,

total ammonia, total phosphorus and total copper were higher at the IDZ boundary than at the reference

area.

Comparison of the 2005-2017 winter IDZ monitoring results with the Fraser River ambient monitoring

stations located above Sapperton Bar and near Tilbury Island did not show higher concentrations of any

parameters downstream of the Annacis IDZ boundary than upstream of the outfall.

12.3.2 2017 NORTHWEST LANGLEY PILOT

In 2017, a pilot study at Northwest Langley was initiated to inform sampling methodology for future

monitoring if logistically possible. Sediment samples were collected within a zone of probable influence

and analyzed for grain size to determine if fine sediment was present. A second survey was conducted on

December 12 to revisit previously sampled sediment locations with fine sediment for additional analyses,

and investigate additional locations. Water quality samples were also collected by using a grid pattern to

determine if the plume could be detected.

2 In the current winter survey, fecal coliform concentration ≥1000 MPN/100 mL, and/or enterococci concentrations ≥300 MPN/100 mL, or ammonia concentrations >0.200 mg/L were deemed to have captured the plume. Based on these criteria, 100% of the winter samples successfully captured the plume. In the summer monitoring survey, 88% of the samples successfully captured the plume based on ammonia concentrations 0.200 mg/L as N.

120

The results are currently being analyzed. A summary of this program will be included in the 2018 annual

report.

Bibliography

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). (2009). Canada-wide Strategy for the

Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent. Endorsed by CCME Council of Ministers,

February 17, 2009, Whitehorse, Yukon.

McCallum, D., D. Hodgins, B. Burd and L. Hewitt. (2003). Proposed Receiving Environment Monitoring

Programs for the Annacis Island, Lulu Island and Northwest Langley Wastewater Treatment

Plants. Prepared for the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD), Burnaby, BC by Gartner Lee

Limited, Burnaby, BC, in association with Seaconsult Marine Research Ltd., Salt Spring Island, BC

and Ecostat Research, North Saanich, BC.



Municipalities, May 2010. Metro Vancouver, Burnaby, BC. Ministerial Conditions dated May 30,

2011.

Smith, A. 2016. Receiving Environment Monitoring Program for Metro Vancouver’s Fraser River

Wastewater Treatment Plants: 2015 Initial Dilution Zone Boundary Monitoring. Final Report

Commissioned by Metro Vancouver. Burnaby, BC: Metro Vancouver.

Swain, L.G., D.G. Walton, B. Phippen, H. Lewis, S. Brown, G. Bamford, D. Newsom and I. Lundman. (1998).

Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for the Fraser River from Hope to Sturgeon and Roberts

Banks. First Update. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC.

12.4 RECREATIONAL WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM

Metro Vancouver monitors the bacteriological quality of local recreational waters on a weekly basis

throughout the beach season from May to September (Figure 12.9). Sampling outside of the beach season

may also be conducted, but at a lower frequency. Both bathing (swimming) and non-bathing beaches are

monitored.

FIGURE 12.9 COLLECTING RECREATIONAL-WATER SAMPLES

The Recreational Water Quality Monitoring Program has been in

place for more than 50 years. During this time, many monitoring sites

have been added to the program. The 2017 program included

monitoring of 113 sites at 41 locations (Figure 12.10). A minimum of

five samples are collected from each site within a 30-day period.

FIGURE 12.10 RECREATIONAL WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM BEACH LOCATIONS

121

E. coli bacteria are used by Metro Vancouver as an indicator of fecal contamination to determine the safety of waters for recreational activities such as swimming, windsurfing, waterskiing, boating and fishing. E. coli are found in the intestinal tract of warm-blooded animals such as mammals and birds and lead to fecal contamination, which can increase the risk of gastrointestinal illnesses for recreational water users. Common sources of fecal contamination in recreational waters may include the following:

feces from humans, pets and birds

agricultural and stormwater runoff

combined and sanitary sewer overflows

malfunctions in wastewater collection or treatment systems

improperly maintained septic tanks

release of raw sewage from boat holding tanks

12.4.1 TESTING

Metro Vancouver measures E. coli abundance using the Colilert-18® system which uses the Quanti-Tray /

2000™ manufactured by IDEXX® (Figure 12.11). This system is recognized by the International

Organization for Standardization (ISO 9308-2:2012) as the standard for water and wastewater (IDEXX,

2012). It is also approved by United State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and is included in the

Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, Section 9223 (SMWW, 22nd Edition,

2012).

122

FIGURE 12.11 QUANTI-TRAYTM TESTING METHOD

In the photo panel, from left to right, the pictures show the following:

(i) packet of Colilert-18® reagent being added to a diluted sample; (ii) sample being poured into the sterile Quanti-Tray ™ that will be sealed

before incubation; (iii) post-incubated tray showing yellow colouring in wells. E. coli levels,

are then determined when placing these wells under UV light (not shown).

12.4.2 REPORTING

Metro Vancouver reports test results to both the local health authorities (Vancouver Coastal Health and

Fraser Health) and the beach operators (member municipalities and Metro Vancouver Parks). Metro

Vancouver, on a weekly basis, calculates and reports the 30-day running geometric mean concentration

of E. coli for each beach location so compliance with appropriate guidelines can be determined. This

results in a new geometric mean being calculated every time a beach is sampled. Notifications of any

elevated counts is also given at the time of reporting (i.e., when a beach geometric mean is approaching

the guideline or the guideline is exceeded).

12.4.3 GUIDELINES

The local health authorities set the monitoring requirements, and have the overall responsibility to

determine whether recreational water is safe for public use. Guidelines for recreational waters are

outlined in a Health Canada document titled “Guidelines for Canadian Recreational Water Quality” (2012),

and in a BC Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy document title “Recreational Water

Quality Guidelines: Guideline Summary. Water Quality Guideline Series” (2017). The primary objective

of these guidelines is the protection of public health.

Health Canada defines primary contact as a recreational activity in which there is the intentional or

incidental immersion of the whole body or the face and trunk, and where it is likely some water will be

swallowed. Primary contact activities include swimming, windsurfing and waterskiing.

For primary or whole body contact activities, the guidelines establish a maximum concentration limit for

the geometric mean of less than or equal to 200 E. coli bacteria per 100 mL of recreational water. This

concentration is based on at least five samples taken during a period not to exceed 30 days.

(i)

(ii) (iii)

123

A working guideline is also available for secondary (incidental) contact activities, such as boating and

fishing, in which substantial contact (as described above) with water is rare. The working guideline is set

at 1,000 E. coli bacteria per 100 mL of recreational water. This is equivalent to five times the guideline

value for the geometric-mean concentration for primary-contact recreation.

The local health authorities are responsible for making an assessment of the recreational water quality

results, to determine the possible health risks and the most effective approach to protecting the health

of recreational water users. The health authorities may require the beach operator to post a warning sign

indicating that the water is unsafe for swimming or wading. These swimming advisory signs are left in

place for as long as necessary and removed once the health authority determines that the health hazard

no longer exists.

12.4.4 RESULTS

Primary Contact Beaches

In 2017, the bacteriological water quality for primary-contact recreation was met for all of the bathing

beaches during the beach season from May to September.

Secondary Contact Beaches

For non-bathing beach areas, the monitoring data indicated that all of False Creek (i.e., West, Central and

East basins) met the working guideline limit for secondary or incidental contact activities for the entire

2017 season. Furthermore, the bacteriological water quality was exceptionally good in West False Creek

where the water quality did not exceed the guideline limit for primary contact activities.

Comparison to Guidelines Over Time

Table 12.1 provides a list of the monitoring areas and locations for recreational waters along with a record

of attainment of the guideline for primary contact recreation during the beach season for the past ten

years. If the guideline at a given location was not met, then the number of days that the guideline was

above the limit for a given year is shown. In addition, if a given location was posted due to possible fecal

contamination, then the number of days a swimming advisory was posted is given (note that the number

of days a beach is posted is obtained from information made available to Metro Vancouver from Beach

Operators and Health Authority Websites, and Metro Vancouver cannot warrant its accuracy). This record

does not include any advisories and postings for other types of biological or chemical hazards, if any.

Figure 12.12 shows the number of days between May and September that bacterial counts at the primary-

contact recreational waters were above the guideline and posted for the past ten years (from

2008 - 2017). False Creek has been excluded from this chart as it is not classified as a primary-contact

recreational water body.

124

TABLE 12.1 RECREATIONAL - WATER MONITORING LOCATIONS AND RECORD OF GUIDELINE ATTAINMENT

Area Location Recreational Water Quality Guideline Met Since 2008

If no, then number of days Geometric Mean was over guideline If no, then number of days posted

Outer Harbour Whytecliff Park No: 2014 (27 days); 2015 (14 day) No: 2014 (27 days); 2015 (12 days)

Eagle Harbour No: 2013 (2 days); 2014 (39 days) No: 2013 (3 days); 2014 (39 days)

***Sandy Cove No: 2014 (21 days) No: 2014 (27 days)

Dundarave No: 2014 (21 days) No: 2014 (27 days)

Ambleside No: 2014 (24 days) No: 2014 (27 days)

Third Beach Yes Yes

Second Beach No: 2013 (3 days) No: 2013 (4 days)

English Bay Beach Yes Yes

Sunset Beach No: 2013 (5 days); 2014 (37 days) No: 2013 (6 days); 2014 (63 days)

Kitsilano Point Yes Yes

Kitsilano Beach Yes Yes

Jericho Beach Yes Yes

Locarno Beach Yes Yes

Spanish Banks Yes Yes

*False Creek West False Creek No: 2014 (20 days) Yes

Central False Creek No: 2014 (33 days) Yes

East False Creek No: 2008 (25 days); 2014 (64 days); 2015 (52 days) No: 2008 (26 days)

Indian Arm, Port Moody Arm & Inner Harbour

Cates Park Yes Yes

Deep Cove Yes Yes

Bedwell Bay Yes No: 2014 (7 days)

Belcarra Park - Picnic Area Yes Yes

Old Orchard Park No: 2014 (1 day) No: 2011 (3 days); 2014 (15 days)

Barnet Marine Park Yes No: 2014 (7 days)

***Crab Park Yes Yes

Brockton Point Yes Yes

Wreck Beach Foreshore East Yes Yes

Foreshore West (Acadia Beach) Yes Yes

Trail 4 (Towers Beach) Yes Yes

Trail 6 (North-Arm Breakwater) Yes Yes

Trail 7 (Oasis) No: 2016 (8 days) No: 2016 (7 days)

Sturgeon Bank Iona Beach Yes Yes

Garry Point No: 2009 (5 days); 2010 (2 day) No: 2009 (6 days); 2010 (2 days); 2011 (3 days)

125

TABLE 12.1 CONT’D RECREATIONAL - WATER MONITORING LOCATIONS AND RECORD OF

GUIDELINE ATTAINMENT

Area Location Recreational Water Quality Guideline Met Since 2008

If no, then number of days Geometric Mean was over guideline If no, then number of days posted

Boundary Bay Centennial Beach Yes Yes

Crescent Beach North Yes Yes

Crescent Beach Yes Yes

****White Rock Beach (East and West) Yes No: 2011 (4 days)

Sasamat Lake **Sasamat Lake - Float Walk Yes Yes

**Sasamat Lake - Outdoor Centre Yes Yes

Sasamat Lake - White Pine Beach North No: 2009 (2 days) No: 2009 (2 days)

***Sasamat Lake - White Pine Beach South Yes Yes

* False Creek is not classified as primary-contact recreational water body (i.e., not a swimming or bathing beach). A working guideline limit

of 1,000 MPN/100mL for secondary-contact recreation is used to indicate the number of days that this guideline was over the limit during

May 1st to September 30th.

** Recreational water quality monitoring started at Sasamat Lake – Float Walk and Sasamat Lake – Outdoor Centre in 2009.

*** Recreational water quality monitoring started at Sandy Cove, Crab Park and Sasamat Lake – White Pine Beach South in 2014.

**** White Rock Beach was split into White Rock Beach West and White Rock Beach East in 2015.

Between 2008 and 2017, the primary-contact recreational water quality throughout Greater Vancouver

has been excellent, particularly in 2008, 2012 and 2017 when the guidelines were not exceeded and no

swimming advisories were posted. However, the one exception was for the 2014 beach season, when

guidelines were exceeded frequently and swimming advisories were posted for several areas. Since 2008,

the cumulative number of beach days for all individual beach locations that exceeded the guideline ranged

from two days (2010) to 170 days (2014), while the total cumulative number of days the beaches were

posted ranged from 2 days (2010) to 239 days (2014) 3.

Overall, the percentage of time that primary-contact recreational waters met the guideline for primary-

contact recreation ranged from 100% (2008, 2012 and 2017) to 97.0% (2014). The percentage of time

that these beaches were open for primary-contact recreation ranged from 100% (2008, 2012 and 2017)

to 95.8% (in 2014).

3 The total number of days is calculated as the days each beach location exceeds the guideline/is posted. As a result, the total number of days may exceed the number of days in the beach season, because the days at each beach location are summed (e.g., in 2014 several beaches were above the guideline for a total of 170 days).

126

FIGURE 12.12 PRIMARY-CONTACT RECREATIONAL WATER STATUS (2008-2017) (A) Number of days the beaches were posted for the particular water body (the number indicates the number of beaches posted within each water body)

(B) Percentage of time the guideline was met and beaches were open for recreation

127

12.4.5 STATUS AND TRENDS

E. coli geometric means are useful in assessing the bacteriological quality of recreational waters over time.

Graphs of the 30-day geometric means of E. coli results for the 2017 beach season are provided in

Appendix B. Included with the 2017 results are the geometric means of E. coli for the years 2013 to 2016.

Bibliography

British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. 2017. B.C. Recreational Water

Quality Guidelines: Guideline Summary. Water Quality Guideline Series, WQG-02. Prov. B.C.,

Victoria B.C.

IDEXX Laboratories. (2012). IDEXX Colilert®-18/Quanti-Tray® Test Becomes the New ISO

Standard 9308-2:2012 [Trade]. Retrieved from https://www.idexx.com/corporate/news/press-

releases/20120808pr.html

Health Canada. (2012). Guidelines for Canadian Recreational Water Quality, Third Edition. Ottawa, ON.



Municipalities, May 2010. Metro Vancouver, Burnaby, BC. 32 pp. + Addendum: Ministerial

Conditions dated May 30, 2011.

Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (SMWW) (2012). 22nd Ed., Method 9223.

APHA, AWWA and WPCF, Washington, DC. 2012. p9-93 to 9-95.

https://www.idexx.com/corporate/news/press-releases/20120808pr.html

https://www.idexx.com/corporate/news/press-releases/20120808pr.html

128

13.0 AMBIENT ENVIRONMENT MONITORING PROGRAMS

The Minister’s Approval for the ILWRMP includes a requirement to continue the ambient monitoring

programs specified in the approved 2001 Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP). Specific monitoring

programs include ambient receiving environment monitoring in areas where water quality (as indicated

by water quality objective criteria) is potentially affected by wastewater and/or stormwater.

Metro Vancouver has established ambient monitoring programs in the southern portion of the Strait of

Georgia, the lower Fraser River, Burrard Inlet and Boundary Bay. The objectives of these programs are to

provide baseline environmental quality data, develop indicators of environmental change, assess the

overall environmental health of the water bodies that receive Metro Vancouver wastewater and

stormwater discharges, and to evaluate trends within the monitoring areas over time. The data collected

is valuable for interpretation of findings of the receiving environment monitoring programs, and necessary

for effective management of liquid waste discharges. The results of the ambient monitoring programs

are used in assessing the need and priority for facility upgrades.

Each of Metro Vancouver’s ambient monitoring programs operates on a five year cycle, with data

summary and interpretation reports completed annually and a program review report completed once

every five years. The annual reports may require a year or more to complete depending on the type of

study, time of year field work was completed, turnaround time for analytical results, and time needed for

data analysis, interpretation, reporting and review.

13.1 STRAIT OF GEORGIA AMBIENT MONITORING PROGRAM

The Strait of Georgia ambient monitoring program was initiated in 2004. Due to the program’s vast scope

and complexity, in the first ten years the program was conducted in partnership with the Department of

Fisheries and Oceans’ Institute of Ocean Sciences (IOS). Upon conclusion of the collaboration with IOS, in

2013, Metro Vancouver has continued the monitoring program with the Department of Earth, Ocean and

Atmospheric Sciences (EOAS) of UBC. UBC and Metro Vancouver were awarded a five-year Natural

Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Collaborative Research and Development

(CRD) grant in the summer of 2016.

The program’s overall objective is to understand the pathways, cycling, fate and variability of organic

material and trace metals in the Strait of Georgia.

The components of the monitoring program include determining any long-term trends in the Strait of

Georgia water properties (temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen), characterizing processes in the

water column (circulation, mixing, biological productivity, turbidity) and monitoring of water quality,

sediments and biota (phytoplankton, zooplankton, fish and benthic organisms that dwell in sediments).

13.1.1 APPROACH

With the continued operation of Ocean Networks Canada/Victoria Experimental Network Under the Sea

(ONC/VENUS) coastal observatory, it is possible to monitor the state of the Strait, and to provide a context

for more efficient examination of circulation and mixing processes in the Strait. The 2017 investigation

included field sampling through dedicated ship time and analysis of data archives from various existing

monitoring initiatives, such as VENUS’ seabed monitoring nodes, the Ferry Monitoring System, Coastal

Ocean Dynamics Applications Radar (CODAR), Moderate-Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS)

129

images from Aqua satellite, and IOS quarterly water quality survey cruises (Figure 13.1). The surface

circulation and dispersion of Fraser River fresh water has been investigated using GPS-tracked surface

drifters. Fraser River salt wedge has been studied using Conductivity-Temperature-Depth (CTD) profiler,

Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ACDP), and echo sounder.

Time series water column sampling is carried out to determine seasonal cycle and long-term trends of

persistent organic substances (Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), Polybrominated diphenyl ethers

(PBDEs)), trace metals and biomass in the strait.

FIGURE 13.1 OTHER MONITORING INITIATIVES AND DATA SOURCES FOR LONG-TERM WATER PROPERTY TREND ANALYSIS AND WATER COLUMN MONITORING LOCATIONS FOR DISSOLVED AND PARTICULATE PCB, PBDE, BIOTA, AND TRACE METALS.

With additional funding from NSERC’s CRD program, the scope of the program has been broadened to

include quantification of contaminant bioaccumulation across the food web to determine their fate and

ecological impact.

Circulation model is applied to predict the expected concentrations of PCBs, PBDEs, and trace metals

throughout the Strait.

130

13.1.2 RESULTS

In 2017, monitoring results for 2016 were compiled and reported. The section below provides an

overview.

2016 Ambient Program Results

The fate and transport of critical contaminants in the Strait of Georgia is largely controlled by water

column conditions (circulation, mixing, biological productivity, turbidity). Continued effort has been

devoted to qualify the underlying circulation and mixing in the Strait. The surface and near surface water

properties (temperature, salinity, chlorophyll) in the southern Strait of Georgia are strongly influenced by

the Fraser River plume. Both in and out of plume water properties and timing of the spring bloom have

been established since 2003. Long term trends of intermediate and deep water properties (temperature,

salinity, dissolved oxygen) of the Strait of Georgia have been extended using the latest archival data. In

general, observed long term changes are small compared to seasonal and inter-annual variability.

Conditions in 2015 were somewhat anomalous in comparison with those observed in previous years.

Mean temperature rose considerably in 2015 at both intermediate and deep waters and deep water

oxygen levels reached significantly lower levels in early 2015, and have not returned to normal in 2016.

In contrast to previous sediment core and seawater samples which show comparable PCB and PBDE

concentrations, the latest measurements confirm the shift from a higher presence of PCBs to a higher

presence of PBDEs in the Strait of Georgia, likely due to their increased usage mainly as flame-retardants.

Measurements so far indicate that Iona outfall is not a major direct point source of dissolved PBDEs.

However, similarity of the PBDE congener distribution in particles collected in the Iona plume and in

sediment samples suggests that Iona could be one of the sources of particulate PBDE. Modelling was

initiated to assess the relative importance of Iona outfall on the PBDE load in the Strait of Georgia water.

The PCB seawater concentration data collected so far indicates that dissolved PCB concentrations in the

Strait of Georgia are significantly higher than particulate PCB concentrations, suggesting that they are

mainly added in dissolved form from localized legacy contamination or from the atmosphere.

The total cadmium concentration in Iona effluent is found to be similar to the dissolved cadmium

concentration in the incoming Pacific water, therefore Iona Island WWTP outfall is unlikely to have an

impact on cadmium level of the Strait of Georgia seawater. Despite the increased use of nano-silver as

antimicrobial, no silver concentration increase has been observed in Iona effluent. Although the total

amount of copper discharged from municipal effluents into the Strait of Georgia has been decreasing, the

measured surface dissolved copper concentrations in the Strait of Georgia in 2016 are comparable with

other populated coastal areas, and about 10 times higher than open oceans.

Phytoplankton and zooplankton samples were collected for determination of biomass, primary

productivity and species composition. These samples were also used to develop analytical methods for

measuring lipid content, fatty acids, trace metals, PCB and PBDE to determine bioaccumulation pathways

in the Strait of Georgia’s pelagic food web.

131

Bibliography

Frouin, H., N. Dangerfield, R. W. Macdonald, M. Galbraith, N. Crewe, P. Shaw, D. Mackas, and P. S. Ross

2013. Partitioning and bioaccumulation of PCBs and PBDEs in marine plankton from the Strait of

Georgia, British Columbia, Canada. Prog. Oceanogr. 115, 65-75.

Johannessen, S. C., R. W. Macdonald, C. A. Wright, B. Burd, D. P. Shaw, and A. van Roodselaar. 2008.

Joined by geochemistry, divided by history: PCBs and PBDEs in Strait of Georgia sediments. Mar. Env.

Res. 66, S112-S120.

Johannessen, S.C., R. W. Macdonald, B. Burd, A. van Roodselaar, and S. Bertold, 2015. Local Environmental

Conditions Determine the Footprint of Municipal Effluent in Coastal Waters: A Case Study in the Strait of

Georgia, British Columbia. Science of the Total Environment 508, 228-239.

Pawlowicz, R., R.Di Costanzo, M. Halverson, E. Devred, and S. C. Johannessen. 2017. Advection, surface

area, and sediment load of the Fraser River plume under variable wind and river forcing. Atmosphere-

Ocean 55, 1-21.

Pawlowicz, R., Francois R. and Maldonado, M. 2017. Contaminant Dispersion and Removal in the Strait of

Georgia (2016). Commissioned by Metro Vancouver. Burnaby, BC: Metro Vancouver.

13.2 FRASER RIVER AMBIENT MONITORING PROGRAM

The Fraser River ambient monitoring program was initiated in 2003. Three of Metro Vancouver's

secondary WWTPs discharge to the Fraser River: Northwest Langley, Annacis Island, and Lulu Island

WWTPs. Ambient water quality is monitored yearly, while sediment, and fish tissues and health are

monitored about once every five years. The program includes seven monitoring sites for water, and

sediment, and three sampling areas for fish (Figure 13.2). This program covers the Fraser River within the

geographic area of Metro Vancouver, including the Main Stem, Main Arm and North Arm.

13.2.1 APPROACH

Water

The water monitoring program was designed to be completed during the annual low flow period in the

river and to coincide with the highest period of rainfall to capture worse case conditions of minimum

dilution and high probability of sanitary and combined sewer overflows (SSOs and CSOs) and rainfall

runoff. Because the lower Fraser River is influenced by tides, a salt water wedge originating from the

Strait of Georgia can travel as far upstream as Annacis Island. Although there is mixing, the freshwater of

the river and from runoff, SSOs and CSOs tends to float on top of the salt water wedge. To ensure that

samples are representative of river water, sample collection is done within one metre of the surface at

the end of an ebb (outgoing) tide to avoid the salt water wedge. Water quality has been monitored

annually since 2003, for physical parameters, bacteriology, nutrients, dissolved oxygen, metals and

surfactants. Since 2014, City of Surrey has coordinated their monitoring of four tributaries to the Fraser

River (Manson Canal, Bolivar Creek, Bon Accord Creek, and 196 Street Outfall) to coincide with the Fraser

River Ambient Monitoring Program and those results are considered in the annual ambient water report.

132

Sediment

Sediment monitoring is timed to target the highest levels of accumulated contaminants in the river

sediments. Sediment deposition occurs during the winter low flow period, however during freshet (spring

melt) deposited sediments are likely to be re‐suspended or moved due to high river flows. Thus, the

highest levels of accumulated contaminants coincide with the pre‐freshet period in late February through

March. Sediment sampling was conducted in March of 2006 and 2011, and in April of 2016. Sediments

are monitored for physical parameters, total organic carbon, bacteriology, nutrients, metals, organic

contaminants, hormones and surfactants.

Fish

Fish are collected from three areas representing the Main Stem, Main Arm and North Arm of the Fraser

River. Two species of fish were surveyed; Peamouth chub (Mylocheilus caurinus) and Large Scale Sucker

(Catostomus macrocheilus). Fish sampling is conducted in September, to allow for gonad growth after

spring spawning. The first ambient fish survey was conducted in 2003‐2004; however insufficient fish

were captured, so a second survey was completed in 2007 during the first monitoring cycle. Another fish

survey was completed in 2012 during the second monitoring cycle. Fish are surveyed for health indicators,

metals, organic contaminants and biochemical markers of exposure to contaminants. In 2012, monitoring

also included stable carbon and nitrogen isotope signatures to assess if the fish move from one area to

another (site fidelity).

13.2.2 RESULTS

2017 Water Monitoring Results

The analytical results were compared with Fraser River Water Quality Objectives, BC Water Quality

Guidelines, or Canadian Council of the Ministers of Environment (CCME) Canadian Environmental Quality

Guidelines. All measured parameters met the applicable objectives or guidelines except total copper and

total iron. Mean concentrations of total copper near Sapperton Bar and Tilbury Island, were above the

30-day average objective, but were equal to the objective within the limits of analytical precision. Total

iron concentrations at Barnston Island and Tilbury Island were above the maximum guideline on one

sampling day. City of Surrey monitoring results from four tributaries to the Fraser River (Manson Canal,

Bolivar Creek, Bon Accord Creek, and 196 Street Outfall) were compared with BC Water Quality

Guidelines. Samples collected from Bon Accord Creek met all applicable guidelines. Guidelines that were

not met include dissolved oxygen and total iron for Manson Canal, Bolivar Creek and 96 St Outfall, total

zinc for Bolivar Creek and 196 St Outfall, and E. coli., Enterococci, and total copper for the 96 St Outfall.

Spatial patterns have been relatively consistent over the 15-year period of the program. Average

concentrations for specific conductance, total ammonia, nitrate, fecal coliforms, total suspended solids,

total phosphorus and total metals (copper, iron, zinc) increased from upstream to downstream.

No statistically significant temporal trends in ambient water quality were observed over the 15 years of

ambient water quality monitoring, with the exception of significantly decreasing concentrations of total

phosphorus at the river’s mouth (Ewen Slough and McDonald Slough), but not at the other five monitoring

stations. This suggests that the observed decreases might have been influenced by phosphorus

concentrations in the seawater of Strait of Georgia.

133

FIGURE 13.2 FRASER RIVER AMBIENT WATER, SEDIMENT AND FISH MONITORING SITES

Bibliography ENKON Environmental Limited. 2002. GVRD Fraser River Ambient Monitoring Program. Commissioned by

Greater Vancouver Regional District. Burnaby, BC: Greater Vancouver Regional District. ENKON Environmental Limited. 2017. Fraser River Ambient Monitoring Program 2017 Water Column

Monitoring. Commissioned by Metro Vancouver. Burnaby, BC: Metro Vancouver.

13.3 BURRARD INLET AMBIENT MONITORING PROGRAM

13.3.1 APPROACH

Water

The annual water column monitoring for Burrard Inlet is conducted during November and December to

coincide with the anticipated high stormwater runoff period and peak combined and sanitary sewer

overflows. Samples are collected within one metre of the surface to capture stormwater runoff effects

and three metres from the bottom to capture mixing and marine water effects. Water quality has been

134

monitored annually since 2007, for physical parameters, bacteriology, nutrients, dissolved oxygen,

phytoplankton, metals and surfactants. Monitoring locations are shown in Figure 13.3.

Sediment

Sediment monitoring for Burrard Inlet has been timed to capture sediment samples deposited from

wastewater system discharges and stormwater runoff into Burrard Inlet. In the program design, it was

recommended to collect sediment samples in late spring before the Fraser River freshet, which deposits

large volumes of sediment from the Fraser River into Burrard Inlet. Sediment monitoring was conducted

in April 2008, January and April 2011, December 2013, and April 2015. Monitoring was done twice in 2011

to determine whether there are measurable temporal differences between late winter and early spring.

Sediments are monitored for physical parameters, total organic carbon, bacteriology, nutrients, metals,

organic contaminants, hormones and surfactants.

Fish

English sole is monitored as an environmental health indicator for this program because it is prevalent on

soft bottom sediments that occur throughout Burrard Inlet and it feeds on benthic organisms. Therefore,

this species is exposed to substances that may be present in water and sediments. English Sole also have

a tendency to bio-accumulate some organic compounds, thus they have an increased potential for

exhibiting adverse effects over time. Fish monitoring is conducted in the late fall to allow for gonad growth

after spawning. Fish sampling was conducted in 2007 and 2012. Fish were analyzed for health indicators,

metals, organic contaminants and biochemical markers of exposure to contaminants.

In September 2017, a modified fish survey was completed. The program was modified to focus on the

effects on biota due to Metro Vancouver discharges, rather than only collect ambient data. Five of the

original seven Ambient Monitoring Program sites were sampled for fish community. This included Sites

1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 (Figure 13.3). At each site, a minimum of three 20-minute bottom trawls were conducted.

The entire catch was identified and weighed. In addition to catch processing, a minimum of 20 male and

20 female English sole (Parophrys vetulus) were retained. Fish were sacrificed for a detailed health

assessment that included biometric, growth, and histopathology assessments. Various tissue samples

were collected (muscle tissue, liver, whole body composites, bile, and blood) for the analysis of various

parameters (e.g. metals and organics). The 2017 fish report is under preparation

13.3.2 RESULTS

In 2017, the 2016 water column monitoring report was completed.

2016 Water Column Monitoring Results

The chemistry results for the Burrard Inlet water column samples collected in 2016 were compared with

applicable Burrard Inlet Water Quality Objectives, BC Water Quality Guidelines, or Canadian Council of

the Ministers of Environment Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines.

All parameters except dissolved oxygen and boron met the applicable Burrard Inlet water quality

objective, CCME or provincial guideline at all seven sampling sites.

135

Dissolved oxygen concentrations did not meet the minimum Burrard Inlet water quality objective in

40% to 100% of the near-bottom samples, but met the objective in all near-surface samples. In

addition, dissolved oxygen concentrations at all near-bottom locations and the near-surface

locations in the Inner Harbour and Port Moody Arm did not meet the 30-day average BC guideline.

Boron exceeded the applicable BC guideline at all sites; however, concentrations measured are

typical for coastal marine waters.

The highest “30-day average” (geometric mean) concentrations of fecal coliforms occurred in the

Inner and Outer Harbours. Fecal coliform concentrations in these areas were variable but typically

higher than the concentrations in the Central Harbour, Port Moody Arm and Indian Arm.

Water quality trends over the ten years (2007 -2016) of the Burrard Inlet Ambient Monitoring

Program were assessed. Dissolved oxygen concentrations in the near-surface waters of the Outer

and Inner Harbours showed a statistically significant decreasing trend. In the near-bottom water of

Indian Arm total phosphorus concentrations showed a significant increasing trend.

The results of the 2007-2016 ambient water quality monitoring program are consistent with the

historical data for dissolved oxygen. Although near surface waters were usually well-oxygenated,

low dissolved oxygen conditions persisted in the deeper water. The low dissolved oxygen

concentrations are largely a natural phenomenon that results from poor circulation and only

occasional renewal of the deeper water.

In the past, several other parameters, including, copper, mercury, lead and zinc have occasionally

not met Burrard Inlet water quality objectives.

The 2007-2016 ambient sampling results appear to show lower metals concentrations compared

with historical (pre-2000) conditions. Although some of the apparent temporal differences can be

explained by the lower detection limits used in post-2000 studies, overall the results suggest an

improvement in metals concentrations compared with historical (pre-2000) conditions.

136

FIGURE 13.3 BURRARD INLET AMBIENT WATER, SEDIMENT AND FISH MONITORING SITES

Bibliography

Nautilus Environmental. 2006. Ambient Monitoring Program for Burrard Inlet. Commissioned by Greater

Vancouver Regional District. Burnaby, BC: Greater Vancouver Regional District.

ENKON Environmental Limited. 2017. Burrard Inlet Ambient Monitoring Program - 2016 Water Column

Monitoring. Commissioned by Metro Vancouver. Burnaby, BC: Metro Vancouver.

13.4 BOUNDARY BAY AMBIENT MONITORING PROGRAM

The Boundary Bay Ambient Monitoring Program was initiated in 2009, in partnership with the BC Ministry

of Environment, and the municipalities of Surrey, Delta, and White Rock. Metro Vancouver monitors sites

in the marine environment of Boundary Bay and the municipalities monitor the major streams that flow

into Boundary Bay through their jurisdictions. This section reports on the findings of Metro Vancouver

conducted marine monitoring. Although no Metro Vancouver wastewater treatment plants discharge to

Boundary Bay, there are Metro Vancouver storm water and sanitary sewer (SSO) discharges in the

Boundary Bay watershed. Water quality is monitored annually during two time periods (dry season and

wet season), sediment twice in five years and biota (mussels and benthic invertebrates) once every five

years. Monitoring site locations are distributed throughout Boundary Bay and are shown in Figure 13.4.

137

13.4.1 APPROACH

Water

Water quality is monitored two times per year, once during the summer dry season to capture agricultural

runoff and once during the fall wet season to capture the highest period of storm water runoff and

combined and sanitary sewer overflows, all of which are potential sources of bacterial contamination,

which can impact shellfish harvesting areas in Boundary Bay. Water quality has been monitored annually

since 2009, for physical parameters, bacteriology, nutrients, dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll-a, and metals.

Sediment

Sediment is monitored twice every five years, in winter or early spring during the period of highest

stormwater runoff and SSOs. This period constitutes a time of potential maximum exposure to bacteria

and compounds of concern, either waterborne or bound to particulate matter deposited into the bay.

Sediments are monitored for physical parameters, total organic carbon, bacteriology, metals, and organic

contaminants. Sediment monitoring was conducted in 2010, in 2014 in conjunction with the biota

program, and in 2016.

Biota

Biota monitoring was completed in 2014. A caged mussel study was conducted at 11 sites (6 subtidal and

5 intertidal). Farm raised blue mussels were deployed in cages and exposed to ambient conditions for

approximately 60 days (March 2014 - May 2014). There were 150 mussels deployed per site in three

cages of 50 mussels each.

The program aimed to assess chemical uptake and bacteria levels of the mussels and the potential sub-

lethal effect of these chemicals and bacteria on growth. Survival, total length and weight, tissue and shell

weight, and bacteria and chemical concentrations were assessed and/or compared between baseline

(t=0 days) and exposed mussels (t=60 days).

Cage retrieval, benthic invertebrate sampling and sediment sampling (mentioned above) occurred at the

same time. Mussels were analyzed for health indicators, bacteriology, metals, and organic substances.

Benthic invertebrates were assessed for community structure and biodiversity and results will be used to

monitor changes in benthic invertebrate communities over time.

13.4.2 RESULTS

In 2017, the 2016 water column and the 2016 sediment monitoring reports were completed, an overall

program assessment report was completed, and the 2017 water column fieldwork was completed for the

dry and wet seasons. The 2017 water column monitoring program report is under preparation. The

findings of the 2014 biota and sediment monitoring program are under review.

2016 Water Column Monitoring Results

The analytical results for the 2016 Boundary Bay marine water column samples were compared with the Boundary Bay Water Quality Objectives and BC Water Quality Guidelines. Results generally met the applicable objectives or guidelines, for most parameters. The main exception was boron that exceeded the BC guidelines, as has been the case in all previous years of this study. All boron results were consistent

138

with typical boron concentrations in Canadian coastal marine waters. In addition, in 2016, measured levels of, copper, chromium (VI), zinc, turbidity and fecal coliform (long term objective) in marine waters, on at least one occasion at one site, did not meet the applicable guidelines or objectives. 2016 Sediment Monitoring Results

The chemistry results for the Boundary Bay sediment samples collected in 2016 were compared with

applicable Boundary Bay Water Quality Objectives (for sediment), BC Water Quality Guidelines (for

sediment), Federal Environmental Quality Guidelines (FEQG) or Canadian Council of Ministers of the

Environment Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines. 41 of 47 measured parameters (87%) were

below applicable objectives or guidelines at all sites. Substances that did not meet the applicable

benchmarks were arsenic, cadmium, copper, nickel, dioxin/furan toxicity equivalent (TEQs) and

toxaphene. Elevated concentrations of all these substances except toxaphene occurred only at Site 11.

The concentration of toxaphene at Site 4 was above the guideline. The detection limit for toxaphene at

Site 11 was above the guideline, so comparison with the guideline is not possible.

Concentrations of metals & organics of potential concern were highly dependent upon sediment particle

size. All sampling stations except Site 11 had sandy sediment. Site 11 had fine sediment (94% silt plus

clay) and the highest concentrations of most metals and organic substances.

Comparison with historical data showed no apparent trends in concentrations of metals and PAHs over time. PCBs and organochlorine pesticides were rarely detected before 2014, but detection limits were higher than those used in the current study. 2017 Program Review

An overall review of the monitoring results produced between 2009 and 2015 was conducted. The

assessment also included a critical review of the program and provided recommendations for future

monitoring.

The water quality data for sites in the Boundary Bay receiving environment exhibited little between-site

and temporal variability. Dissolved oxygen has been consistently low in water samples from most sites, in

comparison with the Boundary Bay Water Quality Objectives and BC Water Quality Guidelines. Although

dissolved oxygen is typically lower in coastal marine waters than in fresh water, catchment discharges

may be contributing to high biochemical oxygen demand. Fecal coliform levels were observed to exceed

their respective water quality objective or guideline values in approximately 30-40% of samples from the

Blackie Spit Side Channel, and in approximately 30% of samples collected from the Tsawwassen/Delta

Middle site.

Ten of the eleven 2014 marine sediment sampling locations were interpreted as being reflective of

predominantly non-depositional areas, with less than 7% fines (silts and clays; <63 µm diameter), and thus

the sediment chemistry data may not reflect the composition of sediments discharged from the Boundary

Bay catchment areas.

In 2014, caged mussels were deployed at the same eleven sites from which sediment samples were

obtained. Spatial differences in mussel soft-tissue concentrations of metals such as chromium, lead,

mercury, silver and vanadium were observed, as were spatial differences (albeit of a lesser difference in

magnitude between sites) in various persistent bioaccumulative contaminants. Since the major portion

139

of the halogenated organic substances analyzed in mussel tissues are prone to global atmospheric and

oceanic transport, the spatial differences in mussel tissue concentrations likely reflect differences in the

mixing of terrigenous inputs from especially the larger catchments (Serpentine and Nicomekl Rivers) with

marine water masses. The BBAMP observed mussel tissue concentrations, nonetheless, are generally an

order of magnitude or lower than generic risk-based tissue residue guidelines developed by the Canadian

Council of Ministers of the Environment or other agencies for the protection of wildlife consumers.

Sediment sampling for benthic macro-invertebrate community analyses was also completed in 2014. The

detailed results show profound between-site differences in species diversity and abundance. Such

profound differences are expected across the Boundary Bay tideflat and shallow subtidal areas overall,

based on differences in basic hydrodynamic and geomorphic processes between deeper areas of seabed

that are beyond the depth of influence of wind-waves, the sand-dominated low to mid-intertidal area that

is routinely scoured by windwave action, and the higher intertidal area that accumulates a higher

percentage of fine -grained sediments based on the attenuation of wind wave energies up the beach.

Overall, the review found that BBAMP serves its intended objectives. However, eleven specific

recommendations were provided that are intended to reduce the magnitude of confounding variability,

which is a detriment to the detection of temporal and spatial trends relative to land use and human

activities within the catchment areas. These recommendations are under review.

FIGURE 13.4 BOUNDARY BAY AMBIENT WATER, SEDIMENT AND BIOTA MONITORING SITES

Bibliography

140

Hemmera Envirochem Inc. 2017. Boundary Bay Assessment and Monitoring Program: Review and

Recommendations Based on Monitoring Results from 2009 to 2015. Commissioned by Metro

Vancouver. Burnaby, BC: Metro Vancouver.

Enkon Environmental Limited. 2017. Boundary Bay Ambient Monitoring Program 2016 Sediment

Monitoring Report. Commissioned by Metro Vancouver. Burnaby, BC: Metro Vancouver.

Tri-Star Environmental Consulting. 2018. 2016 Boundary Bay Ambient Monitoring Program Water Column

Monitoring Report. Commissioned by Metro Vancouver. Burnaby, BC: Metro Vancouver

141

14.0 KEY MANHOLE MONITORING PROGRAM

The Greater Vancouver Sewerage & Drainage District consists of four main sewerage areas as follows:

North Shore Sewerage Area (NSSA);

Vancouver Sewerage Area (VSA);

Fraser Sewerage Area (FSA); and

Lulu Island Sewerage Area (LISA).

A key manhole monitoring program (KMMP) was initiated in 2013 with the following objectives:

Provide baseline water quality data in each of Metro Vancouver’s sewerage areas;

Identify point and non-point sources of contaminants to the wastewater collection system;

Evaluate long-term temporal and spatial trends within and among the sewerage areas

using data compiled previously in the 1990s;

Characterize changes, if any, in wastewater quality; and

Identify contaminants that may signal the need for development and implementation of

source control initiatives.

In 2017, the scope of the KMMP consisted of sampling the sanitary sewers, pump stations, and WWTP at

key locations in the LISA and the Northwest Langley Catchment, which is part of the FSA,. The wastewater

from the Northwest Langley Catchment is treated at the Annacis Island WWTP and the Northwest Langley

WWTP, which account for 41% and 1%, respectively, of the overall wastewater flow in the region.

Wastewater from the LISA is treated at the Lulu Island WWTP, which accounts for 6% of the overall

wastewater flow in the region.

Approach

The 2017 KMMP included the following elements:

Deployment of portable auto-samplers placed in cages at each manhole, pump station or

WWTP monitoring site, programmed to collect time-proportional composite samples (75

mL samples collected every 15 minutes during a 24-hour period);

Simultaneous sampling from each of the monitoring sites and the WWTP influents and

effluents during 24-hour periods, scheduled from midnight to midnight;

Sampling for a minimum of ten days representing both weekdays and weekends;

Sampling during dry weather flow conditions, i.e., less than 5 mm rainfall, to characterize

worst-case contaminant concentrations and loadings;

Analysis of the composite samples at the Metro Vancouver chemistry and process

laboratories for the following parameters: total metals, pH, conductivity, BOD, COD, TSS,

nutrients, ammonia, chloride, and sulphate; and

Analysis of grab samples at the Metro Vancouver microbiology laboratory for E. coli and

fecal coliform levels.

142

14.1 NORTHWEST LANGLEY CATCHMENT

The Northwest Langley Catchment was added to the KMMP to provide wastewater characterization data to inform treatment process design for the proposed upgrades to the Northwest Langley WWTP. The Northwest Langley Catchment KMMP included analysis of an increased scope of organic compounds, inorganic compounds, and contaminants of emerging concern in the composite samples collected from each site. These parameters included the following:

Chromium, including hexavalent and trivalent;

Cyanide;

Hormones and sterols;

Mercury;

Nonylphenols and ethoxylates;

Perfluorinated compounds;

Pesticides;

Pharmaceuticals and personal care products;

Phenols;

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs);

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs);

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; and

Sulphide.

For the Northwest Langley Catchment, six monitoring sites were sampled during dry weather flow conditions from June 18 to July 16, 2017. Ten composite samples were collected at each site for analysis by Metro Vancouver chemistry and process laboratories. Five grab samples were collected at each site for analysis of microbiological parameters and in addition, five composite samples were collected at four sites for analysis of organic compounds, inorganic compounds, and contaminants of emerging concern by CALA accredited laboratories. The 2017 Northwest Langley Catchment sampling locations are shown in Figure 14.1 and included the following:

Baynes Pump Station;

Katzie Pump Station;

Manhole 97 (Township of Langley collection system);

Manhole 98 (Township of Langley collection system);

Northwest Langley WWTP Influent; and

Northwest Langley WWTP Effluent.

143

FIGURE 14.1 NORTHWEST LANGLEY CATCHMENT 2017 KEY MANHOLE MONITORING PROGRAM SAMPLING LOCATIONS

14.2 LULU ISLAND SEWERAGE AREA

Four monitoring sites within the LISA were sampled during dry weather flow conditions from July 16 to

August 3, 2017. Ten composite samples were collected at each site for analysis by Metro Vancouver

chemistry and process laboratories. Five grab samples were collected at each site for analysis of

microbiological parameters. The LISA sampling locations are shown in Figure 14.2 and included the

following:

Bridgeport Pump Station;

Steveston Branch Sewer – Manhole 2;

Main Arm Branch Sewer – Finn Road Section – Manhole 2; and

Lulu Island WWTP Influent.

144

FIGURE 14.2 LULU ISLAND SEWERAGE AREA 2017 KEY MANHOLE MONITORING PROGRAM SAMPLING LOCATIONS

For each KMMP monitoring site, flow monitoring data and analytical chemistry results were used to

calculate the loadings contribution of the measured parameters to the WWTP. The results of the 2017

Northwest Langley Catchment KMMP and the LISA KMMP are under review.

14.3 2013-2016 ASSESSMENT STUDY

In addition to 2017 KMMP field work, the KMMP 2013-2016 Assessment Study was initiated for the NSSA,

FSA, and VSA. Composite samples from selected manholes and pump stations throughout each sewerage

area were collected between 2013 and 2016. The NSSA KMMP was completed during both dry weather

and wet weather flow conditions in 2013 and during dry weather flow conditions in 2015. The FSA KMMP

was completed during both dry weather and wet weather flow conditions in 2014 and during dry weather

flow conditions in 2016. The VSA KMMP was completed during dry weather flow conditions in 2015 and

2016. Historically, KMMPs were also completed for the VSA in 1997, 1998, and 1999 and for the NSSA in

1998 and 1999.

Based on the available datasets for the NSSA, FSA, and VSA, the KMMP 2013-2016 Assessment Study will

investigate the following:

Seasonal differences in concentrations and loadings between dry weather and wet weather flow

conditions;

Temporal changes between the most recent KMMPs completed between 2013 and 2016 and the

historical KMMPS completed between 1997 and 1999;

145

Systematic differences between the quality of the wastewater in the collection system and the

influent and effluent of the WWTPs;

Daily fluctuations in concentrations and loadings, including differences between weekdays and

weekends;

Spatial variations and variations between municipalities in concentrations and loadings;

Potential areas to target for source control initiatives with the aim of ensuring WWTP discharge

and biosolids regulatory compliance;

Distribution of Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (IC&I) and residential components (e.g.

land use) of the catchment areas for each sampling site;

Monitoring program methods, including sampling sites, parameters, timing, and frequency of

sampling; and

Recommendations for program improvement.

The KMMP 2013-2016 Assessment Study reports are under preparation.

146

15.0 LWS ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

15.1 OVERVIEW

Metro Vancouver is developing an Environmental Management System (EMS) for its Liquid Waste utility.

An EMS is a management framework for identifying and addressing how a business interacts with the

environment, complying with environmental regulations, ensuring due diligence, and continuously

improving environmental performance in operations. It is a systematic and iterative approach to plan,

do, review and take preventative and corrective action. It involves evaluation of environmental risks and

defining policies, programs, procedures, protocols, training, communications, performance measures,

and review and decision processes around those environmental risks. These essential components are

defined by international standards (the most widely followed is ISO - International Organization for

Standardization), giving state of the art specifications for good practice in order to help businesses become

more efficient and effective.

The EMS will incorporate the principles of the standard ISO EMS 14001:2015 into Metro Vancouver LWS

practices. The Environmental Management System will include:

1. Measurable targets that motivate continuous improvement and are consistent with other

departmental and corporate objectives;

2. Regular monitoring and reporting on progress toward meeting these targets;

3. Procedures and processes that continuously improve environmental performance in

operating the wastewater utility; and,

4. Access to environmental information and training for staff.

15.2 EMS WORK – 2017

In 2017 work focussed on the following:

Conducting a gap analysis which identifies where Metro Vancouver LWS has gaps in its

environmental management systems as compared with the ISO EMS 14001:2015 standard;

Creating an implementation plan which outlines how to go about addressing the gaps; and,

Developing templates for components of an EMS ‘manual’, or key pieces of documentation which

support the system.

Work on these fronts is ongoing with annual review and iterative modifications providing opportunity for

continuous improvement and alignment with other related objectives, processes and systems for Liquid

Waste Services (e.g., environmental monitoring and risk assessments, and management systems for

safety, assets, knowledge, energy, and performance).

APPENDIX A CSO Water Quality Monitoring Results

A - 1

ANGUS DRIVE CSO QUALITY MONITORING, 2017 – MICROBIOLOGY, GENERAL CHEMISTRY, METALS & TOXICITY

The Angus Drive CSO kiosk is located on Angus Drive just north of 75th Ave in Vancouver, and south of the sampling manhole.

Descriptive Statistics (1)

Decriptive Statistics (1)

Grab Grab

Range Mean Stdev N %ND (3)

Range Mean StDev N %ND (3)

MICROBIOLOGY (2)

TOTAL METALS

E.coli 1800 MPN/100mL 120,000 - 120,000 120,000 ** 1 0% Aluminum 5 µg/L 810 - 810 810 ** 1 0%

Enterococci 10 MPN/100mL 18,000 - 20,000 20,000 ** 1 0% Arsenic 0.5 µg/L 4.9 - 4.9 5 ** 1 0%

Fecal Coliform 18000 MPN/100mL 340,000 - 340,000 340,000 ** 1 0% Barium 0.5 µg/L 14 - 14 14 ** 1 0%

INORGANIC CHEMISTRY and PHYSICAL Boron 10 µg/L < 10 - < 10 < 10 ** 1 100%

Chemical Oxygen Demand 20 mg/L 45 - 45 45 ** 1 0% Cadmium 0.2 µg/L < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 ** 1 100%

Conductivity 1 umhos/cm 61 - 61 61 ** 1 0% Calcium 20 µg/L 6900 - 6900 6900 ** 1 0%

Hardness as CaCO3 0.2 mg/L 21 - 21 21 ** 1 0% Chromium 0.5 µg/L 2.8 - 2.8 3 ** 1 0%

Nitrogen - Ammonia as N 0.2 mg/L 0.4 - 0.4 0.4 ** 1 0% Cobalt 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

Nitrogen - Nitrate as N 0.01 mg/L 0.3 - 0.3 0.3 ** 1 0% Copper 0.5 µg/L 19 - 19 19 ** 1 0%

Nitrogen - Nitrite as N 0.01 mg/L 0.03 - 0.03 0.03 ** 1 0% Iron 5 µg/L 790 - 790 790 ** 1 0%

pH 0.1 pH 7 - 7 7 ** 1 0% Lead 0.5 µg/L 2.8 - 2.8 2.8 ** 1 0%

Total Suspended Solids 10 mg/L 39 - 39 39 ** 1 0% Magnesium 10 µg/L 940 - 940 940 ** 1 0%

Volatile Suspended Solids 10 mg/L 23 - 23 23 ** 1 0% Manganese 0.5 µg/L 23 - 23 23 ** 1 0%

TOXICITY(4) Mercury 0.05 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

LC50 Rainbow Trout 96-h ** %vol/vol > 100 - >100 100 ** 1 100% Molybdenum 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

Nickel 0.5 µg/L 1.1 - 1.1 1.1 ** 1 0%

< Indicates results reported were less than detection limit Phosphorus 20 µg/L 330 - 330 330 ** 1 0%

Selenium 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

Silver 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

Sodium 50 µg/L 3600 - 3600 3600 ** 1 0%

Zinc 3 µg/L 32 - 32 32 ** 1 0%

DISSOLVED METALS

(4) LC50 results represent % survival showing 0% mortality observed in all tested concentration. Aluminium 5 µg/L 33 - 33 33 ** 1 0%

Arsenic 0.5 µg/L 4.4 - 4.4 4.4 ** 1 0%

Barium 0.5 µg/L 5.9 - 5.9 5.9 ** 1 0%

Boron 10 µg/L < 10 - < 10 < 10 ** 1 100%

Cadmium 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

Calcium 0.2 µg/L 6000 - 6000 6000 ** 1 0%

Chromium 20 µg/L 1.4 - 1.4 1.4 ** 1 0%

Cobalt 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

Copper 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

Iron 0.5 µg/L 5.4 - 5.4 5.4 ** 1 0%

Lead 5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

Magnesium 10 µg/L 700 - 700 700 ** 1 0%

Manganese 0.5 µg/L 5.9 - 5.9 5.9 ** 1 0%

Molybdenum 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

Nickel 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

Phosphorus 20 µg/L 200 - 200 200 ** 1 0%

Selenium 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

Silver 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

Sodium 50 µg/L 3400 - 3400 3400 ** 1 0%

Zinc 3 µg/L 11 - 11 11 ** 1 0%

Units

**Not applicable

Analyte Detection Limit Units

(2) Samples collected for microbiology were done in duplicate. So the result reported is a geomean between the duplicates.

(1) Range, mean (geomean for microbiology), standard deviation and number of samples (N) are provided. When results are less

than detection limit, the detection limit was used to calculate each statistic. When result was above the maximum reportable limit,

the maximum reportable limit was used to calculate each statistic.

Analyte Detection Limit

(3) Percent of samples where result was less than the detection limit.

A - 2

ANGUS DRIVE CSO QUALITY MONITORING, 2017 – ORGANICS


Grab


EXTRACTABLE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS

HEPH (C19-C32 less PAH) (3) 0.20 mg/L 0.370 - 0.37 0.37 ** 1 0%

LEPH (C10-C19 less PAH) (4) 0.20 mg/L < 0.200 - < 0.2 < 0.20 ** 1 100%

POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAH)

1-Methylnaphthalene (5) 0.05 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%


Acenaphthene 0.05 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Acenaphthylene 0.05 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Acridine (6) 0.05 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Anthracene 0.01 µg/L < 0.01 - < 0.01 < 0.01 ** 1 100%

Fluorene 0.05 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Naphthalene 0.1 µg/L < 0.1 - < 0.1 < 0.1 ** 1 100%

Phenanthrene 0.05 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Quinoline (6) 0.02 µg/L < 0.02 - < 0.02 < 0.02 ** 1 100%

Low Molecular Weight PAHs 0.1 µg/L < 0.1 - < 0.1 < 0.1 ** 1 100%

Benzo(a)anthracene 0.01 µg/L 0.017 - 0.017 0.017 ** 1 0%

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.005 µg/L 0.02 - 0.02 0.02 ** 1 0%

Benzo(b&j)fluoranthene 0.03 µg/L < 0.03 - < 0.03 < 0.03 ** 1 100%

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.05 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.05 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Chrysene 0.02 µg/L < 0.02 - < 0.02 < 0.02 ** 1 100%

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.003 µg/L < 0.003 - < 0.003 < 0.003 ** 1 100%

Fluoranthene 0.02 µg/L 0.044 - 0.044 0.044 ** 1 0%

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.05 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Pyrene 0.02 µg/L 0.059 - 0.059 0.059 ** 1 0%

High Molecular Weight PAHs 0.05 µg/L 0.14 - 0.14 0.14 ** 1 0%

Total PAH = LPAH + HPAH 0.1 µg/L 0.14 - 0.14 0.14 ** 1 0%

MONOCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (MAH)

1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane 300 ug/L < 300.0 - < 300 < 300.0 ** 1 100%

1,1,1-trichloroethane 0.5 ug/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane 0.5 ug/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

1,1,2Trichloro-1,2,2Trifluoroethane 0.5 ug/L < 1 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

1,1,2-trichloroethane 2 ug/L < 2.0 - < 2.0 < 2.0 ** 1 100%

1,1-dichloroethane 0.5 ug/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

1,1-dichloroethene 0.5 ug/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

1,2,3-trichlorobenzene 0.5 ug/L < 1 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 2 ug/L < 2 - < 2 < 2 ** 1 100%

1,2-dibromoethane 0.2 ug/L < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 ** 1 100%

1,2-dichlorobenzene 0.2 ug/L < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 ** 1 100%

1,2-dichloroethane 0.5 ug/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

1,2-dichloropropane 0.5 ug/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

1,3,5-trimethylbenzene 0.5 ug/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

1,3-dichlorobenzene 0.5 ug/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

1,3-dichloropropane 0.5 ug/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

1,4-dichlorobenzene 1 ug/L < 1.0 - < 1.0 < 1.0 ** 1 100%

Benzene 0.5 ug/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

Bromobenzene 0.4 ug/L < 0.4 - < 0.4 < 0.4 ** 1 100%

Bromodichloromethane 2 ug/L < 2 - < 2 < 2 ** 1 100%

Bromoform 1 ug/L < 1 - < 1 < 1 ** 1 100%

Bromomethane 1 ug/L < 1 - < 1 < 1 ** 1 100%

UnitsAnalyte Detection Limit

Low

Mo

lecu

lar

We

igh

t P

AH

s (L

PA

H)

Hig

h M

ole

cula

r W

eig

ht

PA

Hs

(HP

AH

)

A - 3

ANGUS DRIVE CSO QUALITY MONITORING, 2017 – ORGANICS CONTINUED


Grab



Carbon tetrachloride 0.5 ug/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

Chlorobenzene 0.5 ug/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

Chlorodibromomethane 0.5 ug/L < 1 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

Chloroethane 1 ug/L < 1 - < 1 < 1 ** 1 100%

Chloroform 1 ug/L < 1 - < 1 < 1 ** 1 100%

Chloromethane 1 ug/L < 1 - < 1 < 1 ** 1 100%

cis-1,2-dichloroethene 1 ug/L < 1 - < 1 < 1 ** 1 100%

cis-1,3-dichloropropene 1 ug/L < 1 - < 1 < 1 ** 1 100%

Dichlorodifluoromethane 1 ug/L < 1 - < 1 < 1 ** 1 100%

Dichloromethane 2 ug/L < 2 - < 2 < 2 ** 1 100%

Ethylbenzene 2 ug/L < 2 - < 2 < 2 ** 1 100%

Hexachlorobutadiene 0.4 ug/L < 0.4 - < 0.4 < 0.4 ** 1 100%

Isopropylbenzene 0.5 ug/L < 1 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

Tetrachloroethene 1 ug/L < 1 - < 1 < 1 ** 1 100%

Toluene 0.5 ug/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

trans-1,2-dichloroethene 0.4 ug/L < 0.4 - < 0.4 < 0.4 ** 1 100%

trans-1,3-dichloropropene 1 ug/L < 1 - < 1 < 1 ** 1 100%

Trichloroethene 1 ug/L < 1 - < 1 < 1 ** 1 100%

Trichlorofluoromethane 0.5 ug/L < 1 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

Vinyl chloride 4 ug/L < 4 - < 4 < 4 ** 1 100%

m & p-Xylene 0.5 ug/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

o-Xylene 0.4 ug/L < 0.4 - < 0.4 < 0.4 ** 1 100%

Xylenes (Total) 0.4 ug/L < 0.4 - < 0.4 < 0.4 ** 1 100%

Methyl-tert-butylether (MTBE) 2 µg/L < 2 - < 2 < 2 ** 1 100%

Styrene 4 µg/L < 4.0 - < 4.0 < 4.0 ** 1 100%

VH C6-C10 (7) 300 µg/L < 300 - < 300 < 300 ** 1 100%

VPH (VHW6 to 10 - BTEX) (8) 300 µg/L < 300 - < 300 < 300 ** 1 100%

POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) & POLYBROMINATED DIPHENYL ETHERS (PBDEs) (9)

Aroclor 1016 0.00005 mg/L < 0.00005 - < 0.00005 < 0.00005 ** 1 100%

Aroclor 1221 0.00005 mg/L < 0.00005 - < 0.00005 < 0.00005 ** 1 100%

Aroclor 1232 0.00005 mg/L < 0.00005 - < 0.00005 < 0.00005 ** 1 100%

Aroclor 1242 0.00005 mg/L < 0.00005 - < 0.00005 < 0.00005 ** 1 100%

Aroclor 1248 0.00005 mg/L < 0.00005 - < 0.00005 < 0.00005 ** 1 100%

Aroclor 1254 0.00005 mg/L < 0.00005 - < 0.00005 < 0.00005 ** 1 100%

Aroclor 1260 0.00005 mg/L < 0.00005 - < 0.00005 < 0.00005 ** 1 100%

Aroclor 1262 0.00005 mg/L < 0.00005 - < 0.00005 < 0.00005 ** 1 100%

Aroclor 1268 0.00005 mg/L < 0.00005 - < 0.00005 < 0.00005 ** 1 100%

Total PCB 0.00005 mg/L < 0.00005 - < 0.00005 < 0.00005 ** 1 100%

Units

PC

Bs


A - 4

ANGUS DRIVE CSO QUALITY MONITORING, 2017 – ORGANICS CONTINUED


Grab


POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) & POLYBROMINATED DIPHENYL ETHERS (PBDEs) (9)

DeBDE 250 pg/L 2900 - 2900 2900 ** 1 0%

4,4'-DiBDE 5 pg/L < 5 - < 5 < 5 ** 1 100%

3,3',4,4'-TeBDE 10 pg/L < 10 - < 10 < 10 ** 1 100%

3,3',4,4',5-PeBDE 10 pg/L < 10 - < 10 < 10 ** 1 100%

2,6-DiBDE 5 pg/L < 5 - < 5 < 5 ** 1 100%

2,4-DiBDE 5 pg/L < 5 - < 5 < 5 ** 1 100%

2,4,6-TrBDE 5 pg/L < 5 - < 5 < 5 ** 1 100%

2,4,4'-TrBDE 5 pg/L 10 - 10 10 ** 1 0%

2,3',4',6-TeBDE 10 pg/L < 10 - < 10 < 10 ** 1 100%

2,3',4,4'-TeBDE 10 pg/L 15 - 15 15 ** 1 0%

2,3',4,4',6-PeBDE 10 pg/L < 10 - < 10 < 10 ** 1 100%

2,3,3',4,4',5,-HxBDE 20 pg/L < 20 - < 20 < 20 ** 1 100%

2,3,3',4,4',5',6-HpBDE 20 pg/L < 20 - < 20 < 20 ** 1 100%

2,3,3',4,4',5,5',6-OcBDE 20 pg/L < 20 - < 20 < 20 ** 1 100%

2,2',4-TrBDE 5 pg/L 6.1 - 6.1 6.1 ** 1 0%

2,2',4,5'-TeBDE 10 pg/L 17 - 17 17 ** 1 0%

2,2',4,4'-TeBDE 10 pg/L 360 - 360 360 ** 1 0%

2,2',4,4',6-PeBDE 10 pg/L 71 - 71 71 ** 1 0%

2,2',4,4',5-PeBDE 10 pg/L 310 - 310 310 ** 1 0%

2,2',4,4',5,6'-HxBDE 20 pg/L 31 - 31 31 ** 1 0%

2,2',4,4',5,5'-HxBDE 20 pg/L 34 - 34 34 ** 1 0%

2,2',3,4,4'-PeBDE 10 pg/L 30 - 30 30 ** 1 0%

2,2',3,4,4',6-HxBDE 20 pg/L < 20 - < 20 < 20 ** 1 100%

2,2',3,4,4',6'-HxBDE 20 pg/L < 20 - < 20 < 20 ** 1 100%

2,2',3,4,4',6,6'-HpBDE 20 pg/L < 20 - < 20 < 20 ** 1 100%

2,2',3,4,4',5'-HxBDE 20 pg/L < 20 - < 20 < 20 ** 1 100%

2,2',3,4,4',5',6-HpBDE 20 pg/L 40 - 40 40 ** 1 0%

2,2',3,4,4',5,5'-HpBDE 20 pg/L < 20 - < 20 < 20 ** 1 100%

2,2',3,4,4',5,5',6-OcBDE 20 pg/L < 20 - < 20 < 20 ** 1 100%

2,2',3,3',4,5',6,6'-OcBDE 20 pg/L < 20 - < 20 < 20 ** 1 100%

2,2',3,3',4,5,5',6,6'-NoBDE 50 pg/L 120 - 120 120 ** 1 0%

2,2',3,3',4,4',6-HpBDE 20 pg/L < 20 - < 20 < 20 ** 1 100%

2,2',3,3',4,4',6,6'-OcBDE 20 pg/L 12 - 12 12 ** 1 0%

2,2',3,3',4,4',5,6'-OcBDE 20 pg/L 16 - 16 16 ** 1 0%

2,2',3,3',4,4',5,6,6'-NoBDE 50 pg/L 190 - 190 190 ** 1 0%

2,2',3,3',4,4',5,5',6-NoBDE 50 pg/L 260 - 260 260 ** 1 0%

** Not applicable

< Indicates results reported were less than detection limit

(3) HEPH = Heavy Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons.

(4) LEPH = Light Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons.

(5) Alkylated Low Molecular Weight PAHs.

(6) N-Heterocycle Low Molecular Weight PAHs.

(7) Volatile Hydrocarbons containing all petroleum hydrocarbons in the carbon range of C6-C10, including BTEX and Styrene.

(8) Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons containing all pretroleum hydrocarbons in the carbon range of C6-C10 minus BTEX.

(9) PCBs and PBDEs require lower detection for representation.

Units

(1) Range, mean standard deviation (not applicable for a single sample) and number of samples (N) are provided. When results are less than detection

limit, the detection limit was used to calculated each statistic. When result was above the maximum reportable limit, the maximum reportable limit was

used to calculate each statistic.


PB

DES


A - 5

BORDEN CSO QUALITY MONITORING, 2017 – MICROBIOLOGY, GENERAL CHEMISTRY AND TOXICITY

The Borden CSO sampling vault is located at 1565 Kent Ave North East in Vancouver at the roadway entrance to an industrial complex

immediately east of Knight Street Bridge.


Grab Composite Total(3)

Range Mean Stdev N Range Mean Stdev N Range Mean Stdev N %ND(4)

MICROBIOLOGY (2)

E.coli 1800 MPN/100mL 560,000 - 560,000 560,000 ** 1 880,000 - 4,500,000 1,990,000 2,600,000 2 560,000 - 4,500,000 1,300,000 2,200,000 3 0%

Enterococci 10 MPN/100mL 31,000 - 31,000 31,000 ** 1 310,000 - 820,000 500,000 400,000 2 31,000 - 820,000 200,000 400,000 3 0%

Fecal Coliform 18000 MPN/100mL 2,000,000 - 2,000,000 2,000,000 ** 1 1,400,000 - 4,500,000 2,510,000 2,200,000 2 1,400,000 - 4,500,000 2,330,000 1,600,000 3 0%

INORGANIC CHEMISTRY and PHYSICAL

Biochemical Oxygen Demand 10 mg/L 17 - 17 17 ** 1 110 - 110 110 ** 1 17 - 110 64 66 2 0%

Chemical Oxygen Demand 20 mg/L 78 - 78 78 ** 1 460 - 460 460 ** 1 78 - 460 269 270 2 0%

Conductivity 1 umhos/cm 280 - 280 280 ** 1 2,100 - 2,100 2100 ** 1 280 - 2,100 1190 1287 2 0%

Hardness as CaCO3 0.2 mg/L 56 - 56 56 ** 1 89 - 89 89 ** 1 56 - 89 73 23 2 0%

Nitrogen - Ammonia as N 0.2 mg/L 0.6 - 0.6 0.6 ** 1 3.2 - 3.2 3.2 ** 1 0.6 - 3.2 1.9 2 2 0%

Nitrogen - Nitrate as N 0.01 mg/L 1.2 - 1.2 1.20 ** 1 0.42 - 0.42 0.42 ** 1 0.4 - 1.2 0.8 1 2 0%

Nitrogen - Nitrite as N 0.01 mg/L 0.04 - 0.04 0.04 ** 1 0.15 - 0.15 0.15 ** 1 0.04 - 0.15 0.10 0.08 2 0%

pH 0.1 pH 7 - 7 7 ** 1 7 - 7 7 ** 1 7 - 7 7 0 2 0%

Total Suspended Solids 10 mg/L 48 - 48 48 ** 1 450 - 450 450 ** 1 48 - 450 249 284 2 0%

Volatile Suspended Solids 10 mg/L 22 - 22 22 ** 1 230 - 230 230 ** 1 22 - 230 126 147 2 0%

TOXICITY(5,6)

LC50 (LC25/ LC50 - Survival) ** %vol/vol > 100 - > 100 > 100 ** 1

LC50 (IC25/ IC50 - Reproduction) ** %vol/vol > 100 - > 100 > 100 ** 1


(5) LC50 results represent % survival showing 0% mortality observed in all tested concentration using a 95% confidence limit.

(6) IC50 results represent % reproduction showing 0% reproductive anomalies observed in all tested concentration using a 95% confidence limit.


(3) Total includes both grab and composite samples.



**Not applicable

(1) Range, mean (geomean for microbiology), standard deviation and number of samples (N) are provided. When results are less than detection limit, the detection limit was used to calculate each statistic. When result was above the maximum reportable limit, the maximum reportable limit

was used to calculate each statistic.

A - 6

BORDEN CSO QUALITY MONITORING, 2017 – METALS Decriptive Statistics (1)


Range Mean StDev N Range Mean StDev N Range Mean Stdev N %ND (3)

TOTAL METALS

Aluminum 5 µg/L 1700 - 1700 1700 ** 1 12000 - 12000 12000 ** 1 1700 - 12000 6850 7300 2 0%

Arsenic 0.5 µg/L 1.4 - 1.4 1.4 ** 1 3.8 - 3.8 3.8 ** 1 1.4 - 3.8 2.6 2 2 0%

Barium 0.5 µg/L 41 - 41 41 ** 1 180 - 180 180 ** 1 41 - 180 110 98 2 0%

Boron 10 µg/L 19 - 19 19 ** 1 21 - 21 21 ** 1 19 - 21 20 1 2 0%

Cadmium 0.2 µg/L < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 ** 1 0.6 - 0.6 0.6 ** 1 < 0.2 - 0.6 < 0.40 0.3 2 50%

Calcium 20 µg/L 18000 - 18000 18000 ** 1 26000 - 26000 26000 ** 1 18000 - 26000 22000 5700 2 0%

Chromium 0.5 µg/L 3.3 - 3.3 3.3 ** 1 17 - 17 17 ** 1 3.3 - 17 10.2 10 2 0%

Cobalt 0.5 µg/L 0.7 0.7 0.7 ** 1 4.5 - 4.5 4.5 ** 1 0.7 - 5 2.6 3 2 0%

Copper 0.5 µg/L 26 - 26 26 ** 1 160 - 160 160 ** 1 26 - 160 90 95 2 0%

Iron 5 µg/L 1900 - 1900 1900 ** 1 11000 - 11000 11000 ** 1 1900 - 11000 6450 6400 2 0%

Lead 0.5 µg/L 6.4 - 6.4 6.4 ** 1 39.5 - 39.5 39.5 ** 1 6.4 - 40 23 23 2 0%

Magnesium 10 µg/L 2700 - 2700 2700 ** 1 5700 - 5700 5700 ** 1 2700 - 5700 4200 2100 2 0%

Manganese 0.5 µg/L 54 - 54 54 ** 1 330 - 330 330 ** 1 54 - 330 190 195 2 0%

Mercury 0.05 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 0.65 - 0.65 0.65 ** 1 < 0.05 - 0.7 < 0.4 0.4 2 50%

Molybdenum 0.5 µg/L 1.1 - 1.1 1.1 ** 1 4.2 - 4.2 4.2 ** 1 1.1 - 4.2 2.7 2.2 2 0%

Nickel 0.5 µg/L 2.1 - 2.1 2.1 ** 1 10 - 10 10 ** 1 2.1 - 10 10 5.6 2 0%

Phosphorus 20 µg/L 330 - 330 330 ** 1 2100 - 2100 2100 ** 1 330 - 2100 1200 1300 2 0%

Selenium 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 1 - 1 1 ** 1 < 0.5 - 1 < 0.8 0.4 2 50%

Silver 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 100%

Sodium 50 µg/L 35000 - 35000 35000 ** 1 410000 - 410000 410000 ** 1 35000 - 410000 223000 265000 2 0%

Zinc 3 µg/L 75 - 75 75 ** 1 420 - 420 420 ** 1 75 - 420 250 244 2 0%

DISSOLVED METALS

Aluminium 5 µg/L 39 - 39 39 ** 1 37 - 37 37 ** 1 37 - 39 40 1.4 2 0%

Arsenic 0.5 µg/L 1 - 1 1 ** 1 0.8 - 0.8 0.8 ** 1 0.8 - 1 0.9 0.1 2 0%

Barium 0.5 µg/L 20 - 20 20 ** 1 46 - 46 46 ** 1 20 - 46 30 18 2 0%

Boron 10 µg/L 18 - 18 18 ** 1 17 - 17 17 ** 1 17 - 18 20 0.7 2 0%

Cadmium 0.2 µg/L < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 ** 1 < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 ** 1 < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 0 2 100%

Calcium 200 µg/L 17000 - 17000 17000 ** 1 19000 - 19000 19000 ** 1 17000 - 19000 18000 1414 2 0%

Chromium 20 µg/L 0.6 - 0.6 0.6 ** 1 0.8 - 0.8 0.8 ** 1 0.6 - 0.8 0.7 0.1 2 0%

Cobalt 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 100%

Copper 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 100%

Iron 0.5 µg/L 8.9 - 8.9 8.9 ** 1 15 - 15 15 ** 1 9 - 15 10 4.3 2 0%

Lead 5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 100%

Magnesium 10 µg/L 2100 - 2100 2100 ** 1 1900 - 1900 1900 ** 1 1900 - 2100 2000 141 2 0%

Manganese 0.5 µg/L 21 - 21 21 ** 1 59 - 59 59 ** 1 21 - 59 40 27 2 0%

Molybdenum 0.5 µg/L 0.7 - 0.7 0.7 ** 1 1.8 - 1.8 1.8 ** 1 0.7 - 1.8 1.3 0.8 2 0%

Nickel 0.5 µg/L 0.6 - 0.6 0.6 ** 1 1.2 - 1.2 1.2 ** 1 0.6 - 1.2 0.9 0.4 2 0%

Phosphorus 20 µg/L 200 - 200 200 ** 1 310 - 310 310 ** 1 200 - 310 260 78 2 0%

Selenium 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 100%

Silver 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 100%

Sodium 50 µg/L 33000 - 33000 33000 ** 1 390000 - 390000 390000 ** 1 33000 - 390000 212000 252000 2 100%

Zinc 3 µg/L 23 - 23 23 ** 1 37 - 37 37 ** 1 23 - 37 30 10 2 0%

** Not Applicable





(1) Range, mean, standard deviation and number of samples (N) are provided. When results are less than detection limit, the detection limit was used to calculate each statistic. When result was above the maximum reportable

limit, the maximum reportable limit was used to calculate each statistic.

A - 7

BORDEN CSO QUALITY MONITORING, 2017 – ORGANICS


Grab



HEPH (C19-C32 less PAH) (3)

0.20 mg/L 1 - 1 1 ** 1 0%

LEPH (C10-C19 less PAH) (4)

0.20 mg/L < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 ** 1 100%


2-Methylnaphthalene(5) 0.1 µg/L < 0.1 - < 0.1 < 0.1 ** 1 100%



Acridine (6) 0.05 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Anthracene 0.01 µg/L < 0.01 - < 0.01 < 0.01 ** 1 100%

Fluorene 0.05 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Naphthalene 0.1 µg/L < 0.1 - < 0.1 < 0.1 ** 1 100%

Phenanthrene 0.05 µg/L 0.079 - 0.079 0.079 ** 1 0%

Quinoline(6) 0.02 µg/L 0.044 - 0.044 0.044 ** 1 0%

Low Molecular Weight PAHs 0.1 µg/L 0.12 - 0.12 0.12 ** 1 0%

Benzo(a)anthracene 0.01 µg/L 0.035 - 0.035 0.035 ** 1 0%


Benzo(b&j)fluoranthene 0.03 µg/L 0.058 - 0.058 0.058 ** 1 0%

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.05 µg/L 0.052 - 0.052 0.052 ** 1 0%


Chrysene 0.02 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.003 µg/L < 0.003 - < 0.003 < 0.003 ** 1 100%



Pyrene 0.02 µg/L 0.15 - 0.15 0.15 ** 1 0%


Total PAH = LPAH + HPAH 0.1 µg/L 0.57 - 0.57 0.57 ** 1 0%


Benzene 0.4 ug/L < 0.4 - < 0.4 < 0.4 ** 1 100%

Ethylbenzene 0.4 ug/L < 0.4 - < 0.4 < 0.4 ** 1 100%

Toluene 0.4 ug/L < 0.4 - < 0.4 < 0.4 ** 1 100%

m & p-Xylene 0.4 ug/L < 0.4 - < 0.4 < 0.4 ** 1 100%

o-Xylene 0.4 ug/L < 0.4 - < 0.4 < 0.4 ** 1 100%


Methyl-tert-butylether (MTBE) 4.0 µg/L < 4.0 - < 4.0 < 4.0 ** 1 100%

Styrene 0.4 µg/L < 0.4 - < 0.4 < 0.4 ** 1 100%

VH C6-C10 (7) 300 µg/L < 300 - < 300 < 300 ** 1 100%


** Not applicable




(1) Range, mean standard deviation (not applicable for a single sample) and number of samples (N) are provided. When results are less than detection limit, the

detection limit was used to calculated each statistic. When result was above the maximum reportable limit, the maximum reportable limit was used to

calculate each statistic.



Low

Mo

lecu

lar

Wei

ght

PA

Hs

(LP

AH

)

Hig

h M

ole

cula

r W

eigh

t P

AH

s

(HP

AH

)

Units

A - 8

CASSIAR CSO QUALITY MONITORING, 2017 – MICROBIOLOGY, GENERAL CHEMISTRY & METALS

The Cassiar CSO is located on the 3400 block of Bridgeway directly across the road from the western corner of 3454 Bridgeway in a clearing adjacent to the railway tracks.

Descriptive Statistics (1) Descriptive Statistics (1)

Composite Composite



MICROBIOLOGY ( 3)

TOTAL METALS

E.coli 1800 MPN/100mL 330,000 - 2,100,000 830,000 900,000 4 0% Aluminum 5 µg/L 1200 - 3500 2200 976 4 0%

Enterococci 10 MPN/100mL 200,000 - 690,000 310,000 200,000 4 0% Arsenic 0.5 µg/L 0.9 - 2.2 1.4 0.6 4 0%

Fecal Coliform 18000 MPN/100mL 720,000 - 3,500,000 1,660,000 1,200,000 4 0% Barium 0.5 µg/L 22 - 70 39 22 4 0%

INORGANIC CHEMISTRY and PHYSICAL Boron 10 µg/L 12 - 28 20 7 4 0%

Biochemical Oxygen Demand 10 mg/L 39 - 150 74 51 4 0% Cadmium 0.2 µg/L < 0.2 - 0.3 < 0.23 0.05 4 75%

Chemical Oxygen Demand 20 mg/L 110 - 460 228 158 4 0% Calcium 20 µg/L 7300 - 14000 9750 3073 4 0%

Conductivity 1 umhos/cm 91 - 170 116 37 4 0% Chromium 0.5 µg/L 3.1 - 7.1 4.5 1.8 4 0%

Hardness as CaCO3 0.2 mg/L 23 - 45 31 10 4 0% Cobalt 0.5 µg/L 0.6 - 1.9 1.1 0.6 4 0%

Nitrogen - Ammonia as N 0.2 mg/L 1.8 - 4.8 3.0 1.3 4 0% Copper 0.5 µg/L 32 - 98 54 30 4 0%

Nitrogen - Nitrate as N 0.01 mg/L 0.2 - 0.7 0.4 0.2 4 0% Iron 5 µg/L 1500 - 4800 2775 1452 4 0%

Nitrogen - Nitrite as N 0.01 mg/L 0.04 - 0.07 0.05 0.01 4 0% Lead 0.5 µg/L 4.5 - 17.8 10.9 5.9 4 0%

pH 0.1 pH 6.6 - 7.0 6.8 0.2 4 0% Magnesium 10 µg/L 1200 - 2400 1600 566 4 0%

Total Suspended Solids 10 mg/L 64 - 380 181 138 4 0% Manganese 0.5 µg/L 43 - 130 75 39 4 0%

Volatile Suspended Solids 10 mg/L 45 - 260 118 96 4 0% Mercury 0.05 µg/L < 0.05 - 0.06 < 0.05 0.01 3 67%

Molybdenum 0.5 µg/L 1 - 7.2 2.9 2.9 4 0%

< Indicates results reported were less than detection limit Nickel 0.5 µg/L 2.5 - 6.7 3.9 1.9 4 0%

Phosphorus 20 µg/L 920 - 2800 1530 861 4 0%

Selenium 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - 1 < 0.6 0.3 4 75%

Silver 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - 0.5 < 0.5 0 4 75%

Sodium 50 µg/L 5700 - 12000 7850 2924 4 0%

Zinc 3 µg/L 78 - 190 117 51 4 0%

DISSOLVED METALS

Aluminium 5 µg/L 27 - 59 37 15 4 0%

Arsenic 0.5 µg/L 0.6 - 1 0.8 0.2 4 0%

Barium 0.5 µg/L 7.1 - 17 10.9 4.7 4 0%

Boron 10 µg/L 12 - 26 19 6 4 0%

Cadmium 0.5 µg/L < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 0 4 100%

Calcium 0.2 µg/L 5800 - 12000 8175 2800 4 0%

Chromium 20 µg/L < 0.5 - 1 < 0.8 0.2 4 25%

Cobalt 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 4 100%

Copper 0.5 µg/L 8.9 - 20 11.8 5.5 4 0%

Iron 0.5 µg/L 63 - 220 119 70 4 0%

Lead 5 µg/L < 0.5 - 0.7 0.6 0.1 4 50%

Magnesium 10 µg/L 630 - 1300 903 289 4 0%

Manganese 0.5 µg/L 16 - 64 32 22 4 0%

Molybdenum 0.5 µg/L 0.6 - 6.7 2.3 2.9 4 0%

Nickel 0.5 µg/L 0.7 - 2.7 1.3 1.0 4 0%

Phosphorus 20 µg/L 190 - 580 365 179 4 0%

Selenium 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 4 100%

Silver 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 4 100%

Sodium 50 µg/L 5400 - 12000 7700 3000 4 0%

Zinc 3 µg/L 21 - 32 26 5 4 0%

Units

**Not applicable

(1) Range, mean (geomean for microbiology), standard deviation and number of samples (N) are provided. When results are less than detection limit,

the detection limit was used to calculate each statistic. When result was above the maximum reportable limit, the maximum reportable limit was used

to calculate each statistic.

Analyte Detection Limit Units Analyte Detection Limit



A - 9

CHILCO-BROCKTON CSO QUALITY MONITORING, 2017 – MICROBIOLOGY, GENERAL CHEMISTRY AND METALS

The sampling location for the Chilco-Brockton CSO is located inside the Chilco Pump Station near the seawall entrance to Stanley Park in

Vancouver. This CSO discharges into Burrard Inlet.



Composite Composite



MICROBIOLOGY (3)

TOTAL METALS

E.coli 1800 MPN/100mL 1,700 - 1,700 1,700 ** 1 0% Aluminum 5 µg/L 340 - 340 340 ** 1 0%

Enterococci 10 MPN/100mL 400 - 400 400 ** 1 0% Arsenic 0.5 µg/L 1.3 - 1.3 1.3 ** 1 0%

Fecal Coliform 18000 MPN/100mL 2,400 - 2,400 2,400 ** 1 0% Barium 0.5 µg/L 15 - 15 15 ** 1 0%

INORGANIC CHEMISTRY and PHYSICAL Boron 10 µg/L 13 - 13 13 ** 1 0%

Biochemical Oxygen Demand 10 mg/L < 10 - < 10 10 ** 1 100% Cadmium 0.2 µg/L < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 ** 1 100%

Chemical Oxygen Demand 20 mg/L < 20 - < 20 20 ** 1 100% Calcium 20 µg/L 9600 - 9600 9600 ** 1 0%

Conductivity 1 umhos/cm 240 - 240 240 ** 1 0% Chromium 0.5 µg/L 1.1 - 1.1 1.1 ** 1 0%

Hardness as CaCO3 0.2 mg/L 29 - 29 29 ** 1 0% Cobalt 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

Nitrogen - Ammonia as N 0.2 mg/L < 0.2 - < 0.2 0.2 ** 1 100% Copper 0.5 µg/L 12 - 12 12 ** 1 0%

Nitrogen - Nitrate as N 0.01 mg/L 0.58 - 0.58 0.58 ** 1 0% Iron 5 µg/L 460 - 460 460 ** 1 0%

Nitrogen - Nitrite as N 0.01 mg/L 0.02 - 0.02 0.02 ** 1 0% Lead 0.5 µg/L 2 - 2 2 ** 1 0%

pH 0.1 pH 7.1 - 7.1 7.1 ** 1 0% Magnesium 10 µg/L 1300 - 1300 1300 ** 1 0%

Total Suspended Solids 10 mg/L 11 - 11 11 ** 1 0% Manganese 0.5 µg/L 24 - 24 24 ** 1 0%

Volatile Suspended Solids 10 mg/L 5 - 5 5 ** 1 0% Mercury 0.05 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

**Not applicable Molybdenum 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

< Indicates results reported were less than detection limit Nickel 0.5 µg/L 1.2 - 1.2 1.2 ** 1 0%

Phosphorus 20 µg/L 100 - 100 100 ** 1 0%

Selenium 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

Silver 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

Sodium 50 µg/L 35000 - 35000 35000 ** 1 0%

Zinc 3 µg/L 30 - 30 30 ** 1 0%

DISSOLVED METALS

Aluminium 5 µg/L 31 - 31 31 ** 1 0%

Arsenic 0.5 µg/L 1.1 - 1.1 1.1 ** 1 0%

Barium 0.5 µg/L 12 - 12 12 ** 1 0%

Boron 10 µg/L 13 - 13 13 ** 1 0%

Cadmium 0.5 µg/L < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 ** 1 100%

Calcium 0.2 µg/L 9200 - 9200 9200 ** 1 0%

Chromium 20 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

Cobalt 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

Copper 0.5 µg/L 6.1 - 6.1 6.1 ** 1 0%

Iron 0.5 µg/L 110 - 110 110 ** 1 0%

Lead 5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

Magnesium 10 µg/L 1100 - 1100 1100 ** 1 0%

Manganese 0.5 µg/L 15 - 15 15 ** 1 0%

Molybdenum 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

Nickel 0.5 µg/L 1.2 - 1.2 1.2 ** 1 0%

Phosphorus 20 µg/L 54 - 54 54 ** 1 0%

Selenium 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

Silver 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 100%

Sodium 50 µg/L 34000 - 34000 34000 ** 1 0%

Zinc 3 µg/L 22 - 22 22 ** 1 0%

(1) Range, mean (geomean for microbiology), standard deviation and number of samples (N) are provided. When results are less than detection limit, the

detection limit was used to calculate each statistic. When result was above the maximum reportable limit, the maximum reportable limit was used to

calculate each statistic.


UnitsAnalyte Detection Limit Units Analyte Detection Limit (1)


A - 10

GLENBROOK CSO QUALITY MONITORING, 2017 – MICROBIOLOGY, GENERAL CHEMISTRY & TOXICITY


Grab Composite Total

Range Mean Stdev N Range Mean Stdev N Range Mean Stdev N %ND (3)

MICROBIOLOGY (2)

E.coli 1800 MPN/100mL 1,500,000 - 1,500,000 1,500,000 ** 1 200,000 - 1,200,000 490,000 700,000 2 200,000 - 1,500,000 710,000 700,000 3 0%

Enterococci 10 MPN/100mL 140,000 - 140,000 140,000 ** 1 32,000 - 200,000 80,000 100,000 2 32,000 - 200,000 100,000 100,000 3 0%

Fecal Coliform 18000 MPN/100mL 2,600,000 - 2,600,000 2,600,000 ** 1 330,000 - 2,100,000 830,000 1,300,000 2 330,000 - 2,600,000 1,220,000 1,200,000 3 0%


Biochemical Oxygen Demand 10 mg/L 34 - 34 34 ** 1 15 - 100 58 60 2 15 - 100 50 45 3 0%

Chemical Oxygen Demand 20 mg/L 100 - 100 100 ** 1 53 - 320 187 189 2 53 - 320 158 143 3 0%

Conductivity 1 umhos/cm 210 - 210 210 ** 1 69 - 220 145 107 2 69 - 220 166 84 3 0%

Hardness as CaCO3 0.2 mg/L 18 - 18 18 ** 1 41 - 50 46 6 2 18 - 50 36 17 3 0%

Nitrogen - Ammonia as N 0.2 mg/L 1.6 - 1.6 1.6 ** 1 0.9 - 4.6 2.8 2.6 2 0.9 - 4.6 2.4 2.0 3 0%

Nitrogen - Nitrate as N 0.01 mg/L 2.4 - 2.4 2.4 ** 1 0.55 - 0.65 0.60 0.07 2 0.55 - 2.4 1.2 1.0 3 0%

Nitrogen - Nitrite as N 0.01 mg/L 0.05 - 0.05 0.05 ** 1 0.02 - 0.06 0.04 0.03 2 0.02 - 0.06 0.04 0.02 3 0%

pH 0.1 pH 7 - 7 7 ** 1 6.9 - 7 7 0.07 2 6.9 - 7 6.97 0.06 3 0%

Total Suspended Solids 10 mg/L 43 - 43 43 ** 1 43 - 200 122 111 2 43 - 200 95 91 3 0%

Volatile Suspended Solids 10 mg/L 32 - 32 32 ** 1 23 - 150 87 90 2 23 - 150 68 71 3 0%

96 hrs LC50 Rainbow Trout(4)

** %vol/vol > 100 - > 100 > 100 ** 1


(4) LC50 results represent % survival, therefore 0% mortality was observed in all tested concentration using a 95% confidence limit.




**Not applicable

(1) Range, mean (geomean for microbiology), standard deviation and number of samples (N) are provided. When results are less than detection limit, the detection limit was used to calculate each statistic. When result was above the maximum reportable limit, the maximum

reportable limit was used to calculate each statistic.

A - 11

GLENBROOK CSO QUALITY MONITORING, 2017 – METALS




TOTAL METALS

Aluminum 5 µg/L 990 - 990 990 ** 1 670 - 2200 1400 1100 2 670 - 2200 1287 807 3 0%

Arsenic 0.5 µg/L 0.9 - 0.9 0.9 ** 1 0.8 - 1.6 1.2 0.6 2 0.8 - 1.6 1.1 0.4 3 0%

Barium 0.5 µg/L 14 - 14 14 ** 1 23 - 40 32 12 2 14 - 40 26 13 3 0%

Boron 10 µg/L 20 - 20 20 ** 1 20 - 21 21 0.7 2 20 - 21 20 0.6 3 0%

Cadmium 0.2 µg/L < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 ** 1 < 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 0.1 2 < 0.2 - 0.3 < 0.2 0.1 3 67%

Calcium 20 µg/L 5900 - 5900 5900 ** 1 12000 - 17000 15000 3500 2 5900 - 17000 11600 5600 3 0%

Chromium 0.5 µg/L 2.3 - 2.3 2.3 ** 1 1.2 - 4.1 2.7 2.1 2 1.2 - 4.1 2.5 1.5 3 0%

Cobalt 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 0.5 ** 1 0.5 - 1.1 0.8 0.4 2 < 0.5 - 1.1 < 0.7 0.3 3 33%

Copper 0.5 µg/L 15 - 15 15 ** 1 16 - 47 32 22 2 15 - 47 26 18 3 0%

Iron 5 µg/L 1000 - 1000 1000 ** 1 740 - 3000 1870 1600 2 740 - 3000 1600 1000 3 0%

Lead 0.5 µg/L 3 - 3 3 ** 1 1.7 - 10.3 6.0 6.1 2 1.7 - 10.3 5.0 4.6 3 0%

Magnesium 10 µg/L 800 - 800 800 ** 1 2100 - 2600 2400 354 2 800 - 2600 1800 929 3 0%

Manganese 0.5 µg/L 29 - 29 29 ** 1 78 - 84 81 4 2 29 - 84 64 30 3 0%

Mercury 0.05 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 < 0.05 - < 0.05 0.05 0 2 < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 0 3 100%

Molybdenum 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 1.2 - 1.2 1.2 0 2 < 0.5 - 1.2 < 1.0 0.4 3 33%

Nickel 0.5 µg/L 1.6 - 1.6 1.6 ** 1 1.3 - 3.6 2.5 1.6 2 1.3 - 3.6 2.2 1.3 3 0%

Phosphorus 20 µg/L 300 - 300 300 ** 1 620 - 2000 1300 976 2 300 - 2000 973 903 3 0%

Selenium 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 0.5 0 2 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.50 0 3 100%

Silver 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 0.5 0 2 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.50 0 3 100%

Sodium 50 µg/L 6200 - 6200 6200 ** 1 19000 - 21000 20000 1400 2 6200 - 21000 15400 8000 3 0%

Zinc 3 µg/L 38 - 38 38 ** 1 33 - 130 82 69 2 33 - 130 67 55 3 0%

DISSOLVED METALS

Aluminium 5 µg/L 38 - 38 38 ** 1 35 - 38 37 2 2 35 - 38 37.0 1.7 3 0%

Arsenic 0.5 µg/L 0.6 - 0.6 0.6 ** 1 0.7 - 0.8 1 0.1 2 0.6 - 0.8 0.7 0.1 3 0%

Barium 0.5 µg/L 6 - 6 6 ** 1 13 - 16 15 2 2 6 - 16 12 5 3 0%

Boron 10 µg/L 20 - 20 20 ** 1 18 - 25 21.5 4.9 2 18 - 25 21.0 3.6 3 0%

Cadmium 0.5 µg/L < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 ** 1 < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 0 2 < 0.2 - 0.2 < 0.2 0 3 100%

Calcium 0.2 µg/L 4700 - 4700 4700 ** 1 9700 - 16000 13000 4500 2 4700 - 16000 10100 5700 3 0%

Chromium 20 µg/L 1.1 - 1.1 1.1 ** 1 < 0.5 - 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 < 0.5 - 1.1 < 0.7 0.3 3 33%

Cobalt 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 < 0.5 - 0.5 < 0.5 0 3 100%

Copper 0.5 µg/L 5.7 - 5.7 5.7 ** 1 8.4 - 13 11 3.3 2 5.7 - 13 9.0 3.7 3 0%

Iron 0.5 µg/L 59 - 59 59 ** 1 120 - 130 125 7 2 59 - 130 103 38 3 0%

Lead 5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 < 0.5 - 0.5 < 0.5 0 3 100%

Magnesium 10 µg/L 550 - 550 550 ** 1 1800 - 1900 1900 71 2 550 - 1900 1400 752 3 0%

Manganese 0.5 µg/L 8.9 - 8.9 8.9 ** 1 29 - 35 32 4 2 8.9 - 35 24 14 3 0%

Molybdenum 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 0.7 - 0.9 0.8 0.14 2 < 0.5 - 0.9 < 0.7 0.2 3 33%

Nickel 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 0.7 - 0.8 0.8 0.07 2 < 0.5 - 0.8 < 0.7 0.2 3 33%

Phosphorus 20 µg/L 120 - 120 120 ** 1 370 - 620 495 177 2 120 - 620 370 250 3 0%

Selenium 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 3 100%

Silver 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 3 100%

Sodium 50 µg/L 5800 - 5800 5800 ** 1 18000 - 21000 19500 2100 2 5800 - 21000 14900 8100 3 0%

Zinc 3 µg/L 15 - 15 15 ** 1 16 - 33 25 12 2 15 - 33 21 10 3 0%

** Not Applicable





(1) Range, mean, standard deviation and number of samples (N) are provided. When results are less than detection limit, the detection limit was used to calculate each statistic.

A - 12

GLENBROOK CSO QUALITY MONITORING, 2017 – ORGANICS


Grab



HEPH (C19-C32 less PAH) (3) 0.20 mg/L 0.99 - 0.99 0.99 ** 1 0%

LEPH (C10-C19 less PAH) (4) 0.20 mg/L < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 ** 1 100%





Acridine(6) 0.05 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Anthracene 0.01 µg/L < 0.01 - < 0.01 < 0.01 ** 1 100%

Fluorene 0.05 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%

Naphthalene 0.1 µg/L < 0.1 - < 0.1 < 0.1 ** 1 100%

Phenanthrene 0.05 µg/L < 0.1 - < 0.1 < 0.1 ** 1 100%

Quinoline(6) 0.02 µg/L < 0.02 - < 0.02 < 0.02 ** 1 100%

Low Molecular Weight PAHs 0.1 µg/L < 0.1 - < 0.1 < 0.1 ** 1 100%

Benzo(a)anthracene 0.01 µg/L < 0.01 - < 0.01 < 0.01 ** 1 100%


Benzo(b&j)fluoranthene 0.03 µg/L < 0.03 - < 0.03 < 0.03 ** 1 100%

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.05 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 100%


Chrysene 0.02 µg/L < 0.02 - < 0.02 < 0.02 ** 1 100%

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.003 µg/L 0.0085 - 0.0085 0.0085 ** 1 0%



Pyrene 0.02 µg/L 0.038 - 0.038 0.038 ** 1 0%


Total PAH = LPAH + HPAH 0.1 µg/L < 0.1 - < 0.1 < 0.1 ** 1 100%


Benzene 0.4 ug/L < 0.4 - < 0.4 < 0.4 ** 1 100%

Ethylbenzene 0.4 ug/L < 0.4 - < 0.4 < 0.4 ** 1 100%

Toluene 0.4 ug/L < 0.4 - < 0.4 < 0.4 ** 1 100%

m & p-Xylene 0.4 ug/L < 0.4 - < 0.4 < 0.4 ** 1 100%

o-Xylene 0.4 ug/L < 0.4 - < 0.4 < 0.4 ** 1 100%


Methyl-tert-butylether (MTBE) 4 µg/L < 4 - < 4 < 4 ** 1 100%

Styrene 0.4 µg/L < 0.4 - < 0.4 < 0.4 ** 1 100%

VH C6-C10 (7) 300 µg/L < 300 - < 300 < 300 ** 1 100%


** Not applicable


(3) HEPH = Heavy Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons.

(4) LEPH = Light Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons.

(5) Alkylated Low Molecular Weight PAHs.

(6) N-Heterocycle Low Molecular Weight PAHs.



(1) Range, mean standard deviation (not applicable for a single sample) and number of samples (N) are provided. When results are less than detection

limit, the detection limit was used to calculated each statistic. When result was above the maximum reportable limit, the maximum reportable limit was

used to calculate each statistic.



Low

Mo

lecu

lar

Wei

ght

PA

Hs

(LP

AH

)

Hig

h M

ole

cula

r W

eigh

t P

AH

s

(HP

AH

) B

TEX

A - 13

HEATHER CSO QUALITY MONITORING, 2017 – MICROBIOLOGY & GENERAL CHEMISTRY

The Heather CSO is located on the West 6th Avenue merge onto Cambie Street in Vancouver, directly north of a building at 2211 Cambie Street. The CSO discharges into False Creek.




MICROBIOLOGY ( 2)

E.coli 1800 MPN/100mL < 18 - 66 < 34 34 2 89,000 - 210,000 140,000 90,000 2 < 18 - 210,000 < 2,000 99,000 4 25%

Enterococci 10 MPN/100mL < 10 - < 10 < 10 0 2 77,000 - 130,000 100,000 40,000 2 < 10 - 130,000 < 1,000 64,000 4 50%

Fecal Coliform 18000 MPN/100mL 79 - 330 161 177 2 290,000 - 470,000 370,000 130,000 2 79 - 470,000 8,000 231,000 4 0%


Biochemical Oxygen Demand 10 mg/L < 10 - 10 < 10 0 2 33 - 33 33 ** 1 < 10 - 33 < 18 13 3 67%

Chemical Oxygen Demand 20 mg/L < 20 - 20 < 20 0 2 110 - 110 110 ** 1 < 20 - 110 < 50 52 3 67%

Conductivity 1 umhos/cm 510 - 520 515 7 2 74 - 74 74 ** 1 74 - 520 368 255 3 33%

Hardness as CaCO3 0.2 mg/L 210 - 210 210 0 2 22 - 22 22 ** 1 22 - 210 147 109 3 33%

Nitrogen - Ammonia as N 0.2 mg/L < 0.2 - 0.2 < 0.2 0 2 1 - 1 1 ** 1 < 0.2 - 1 < 0.47 0.46 3 67%

Nitrogen - Nitrate as N 0.01 mg/L 0.17 - 0.26 0.22 0.06 2 0.38 - 0.38 0.38 ** 1 0.17 - 0.38 0.27 0.11 3 33%

Nitrogen - Nitrite as N 0.01 mg/L < 0.01 - 0.01 < 0.01 0 2 0.04 - 0.04 0.04 ** 1 < 0.01 - 0.04 < 0.02 0.02 3 67%

pH 0.1 pH 7.6 - 7.7 7.7 0.07 2 7 - 7 7 ** 1 7 - 7.7 7.4 0.4 3 33%

Sulfate (SO4) 2 mg/L 64 - 64 64 ** 1 ** - ** ** ** 0 64 - 64 64 ** 1 100%

Total Suspended Solids 10 mg/L 2 - 3 2.5 0.7 2 67 - 67 67 ** 1 2 - 67 24 37 3 33%

Volatile Suspended Solids 10 mg/L 2 - 3 2.5 0.7 2 43 - 43 43 ** 1 2 - 43 16 23 3 33%

** Not Applicable


(2) All samples collected for microbiology were done in duplicate. So the result reported is a geomean between the duplicates.

< Indicates results reported were less than detection limit.

(1) Range, mean (geomean for microbiology), standard deviation and number of samples (N) are provided. When results are less than detection limit, the detection limit was used to calculate each statistic. When result was above the

maximum reportable limit, the maximum reportable limit was used to calculate each statistic.



A - 14

HEATHER CSO QUALITY MONITORING, 2017 – METALS




TOTAL METALS

Aluminum 5 µg/L 7 - 14 11 5 2 1200 - 1200 1200 ** 1 7 - 1200 407 687 3 0%

Arsenic 0.5 µg/L 2.2 - 2.4 2.3 0.1 2 1.8 - 1.8 1.8 ** 1 1.8 - 2.4 2.1 0.3 3 0%

Barium 0.5 µg/L 24 - 26 25 1 2 23 - 23 23 ** 1 23 - 26 24 2 3 0%

Boron 10 µg/L 30 - 33 32 2 2 20 - 20 20 ** 1 20 - 33 28 7 3 0%

Cadmium 0.2 µg/L < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 0 2 < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 ** 1 < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 0 3 100%

Calcium 20 µg/L 56000 - 57000 56500 707 2 6700 - 6700 6700 ** 1 6700 - 57000 40000 29000 3 0%

Chromium 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 4 - 4 4 ** 1 < 0.5 - 4 < 1.7 2 3 67%

Cobalt 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 0.7 - 0.7 0.7 ** 1 < 0.5 - 0.7 < 0.6 0 3 67%

Copper 0.5 µg/L 1.4 - 3.4 2.4 1.4 2 40 - 40 40 ** 1 1.4 - 40 14.9 22 3 0%

Iron 5 µg/L 32 - 53 43 15 2 1500 - 1500 1500 ** 1 32 - 1500 528 842 3 0%

Lead 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 6.7 - 6.7 6.7 ** 1 < 0.5 - 6.7 < 2.6 4 3 67%

Magnesium 10 µg/L 17000 - 17000 17000 0 2 1400 - 1400 1400 ** 1 1400 - 17000 12000 9000 3 0%

Manganese 0.5 µg/L 5.4 - 6.7 6.1 1 2 39 - 39 39 ** 1 5.4 - 39 17 19 3 0%

Mercury 0.05 µg/L < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 0 2 < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 ** 1 < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 0 3 100%

Molybdenum 0.5 µg/L 1.4 - 1.5 1.5 0.1 2 0.9 - 0.9 0.9 ** 1 < 0.9 - 1.5 1.3 0.3 3 0%

Nickel 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 2.2 - 2.2 2.2 ** 1 < 0.5 - 2.2 < 1.1 1.0 3 67%

Phosphorus 20 µg/L 54 - 54 54 0 2 610 - 610 610 ** 1 54 - 610 239 321 3 0%

Selenium 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 0.5 0 3 100%

Silver 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 0.5 0 3 100%

Sodium 50 µg/L 25000 - 26000 25500 707 2 5100 - 5100 5100 ** 1 5100 - 26000 19000 12000 3 0%

Zinc 3 µg/L < 3 - 4 < 4 1 2 89 - 89 89 ** 1 3 - 89 32 49 3 33%

DISSOLVED METALS

Aluminium 5 µg/L < 5 - 8 < 7 2 2 39 - 39 39 ** 1 5 - 39 17.3 18.8 3 33%

Arsenic 0.5 µg/L 2.1 - 2.3 2.2 0.1 2 1.5 - 1.5 1.5 ** 1 1.5 - 2.3 2.0 0.4 3 0%

Barium 0.5 µg/L 24 - 26 25 1 2 7.8 - 7.8 7.8 ** 1 7.8 - 26 19 10 3 0%

Boron 10 µg/L 30 - 32 31 1 2 18 - 18 18 ** 1 < 18 - 32 < 26.7 7.6 3 0%

Cadmium 0.5 µg/L < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 0 2 < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 ** 1 < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2 0 3 100%

Calcium 0.2 µg/L 54000 - 55000 54500 707 2 5700 - 5700 5700 ** 1 5700 - 55000 38000 28000 3 0%

Chromium 20 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 1.5 - 1.5 1.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - 1.5 < 0.8 0.6 3 67%

Cobalt 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 3 100%

Copper 0.5 µg/L 0.7 - 2.4 1.6 1 2 12 - 12 12 ** 1 0.7 - 12 5.0 6.1 3 0%

Iron 0.5 µg/L 7 - 11 9 3 2 61 - 61 61 ** 1 7 - 61 26 30 3 0%

Lead 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - 0.5 < 0.5 0 3 100%

Magnesium 10 µg/L 16000 - 16000 16000 0 2 950 - 950 950 ** 1 950 - 16000 11000 8700 3 0%

Manganese 0.5 µg/L 4.8 - 5.4 5.1 0.4 2 13 - 13 13 ** 1 4.8 - 13 8 5 3 0%

Molybdenum 0.5 µg/L < 1.3 - 1.4 < 1.4 0.1 2 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - 1.4 < 1.1 0.5 3 33%

Nickel 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 0.7 - 0.7 0.7 ** 1 < 0.5 - 0.7 < 0.6 0.1 3 67%

Phosphorus 20 µg/L 43 - 45 44 1 2 270 - 270 270 ** 1 43 - 270 119 130 3 0%

Selenium 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 3 100%

Silver 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 2 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 ** 1 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 0 3 100%

Sodium 50 µg/L 24000 - 24000 24000 0 2 4800 - 4800 4800 ** 1 4800 - 24000 18000 11000 3 0%

Zinc 3 µg/L < 3 - 4 < 4 1 2 30 - 30 30 ** 1 < 3 - 30 12 15 3 33%

** Not Applicable





(1) Range, mean, standard deviation and number of samples (N) are provided. When results are less than detection limit, the detection limit was used to calculate each statistic.

A - 15

MACDONALD CSO QUALITY MONITORING, 2016 – MICROBIOLOGY, GENERAL CHEMISTRY AND METALS

Located across from 6633 Macdonald Street in Vancouver and along the North-West corner of the MacLeery Golf Course. This CSO discharges

into the North Arm of the Fraser River.


Composite


MICROBIOLOGY (2)

E.coli 1800 MPN/100mL 120 - 120 120 ** 1 0%

Enterococci 10 MPN/100mL 41 - 41 41 ** 1 0%

Fecal Coliform 18000 MPN/100mL 200 - 200 200 ** 1 0%

** Not Applicable

< Indicates results reported were less than detection limit.

(1) Range, mean (geomean for microbiology), standard deviation and number of samples (N) are provided. When results are

less than detection limit, the detection limit was used to calculate each statistic. When result was above the maximum

reportable limit, the maximum reportable limit was used to calculate each statistic.


(2) All samples collected for microbiology were done in duplicate. So the result reported is a geomean between the duplicates.


APPENDIX B

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality

1

APPENDIX B Recreational Water Bacteriological Quality

30-Day Geometric Means of E. coli Bacteria Levels

Special Considerations

As directed by Vancouver Coastal Health, E. coli was used as the indicator for the years 2013 – 2017.

New sample locations for the year of 2014 include Crab Park, Sandy Cove and Sasamat Lake, White Pine

Beach South.

New beach locations for the year of 2015 include White Rock Beach West and White Rock Beach East.

These beaches are shown with data from White Rock for the years 2013 – 2014.

Location Page Ambleside……………………….…………………………… A-3 Barnet Marine Park……………………….………………… A-6 Bedwell Bay……………………….…………………………. A-4 Belcarra Park (Picnic Area) ……………………….……….. A-5 Brockton Point……………………….………………………. A-7 Cates Park……………………….……………………….….. A-3 Centennial Beach……………………….…………………... A-17 Crab Park……………………….……………………….…… A-6 Crescent Beach……………………….…………………….. A-18 Crescent Beach North……………………….……………… A-17 Deep Cove……………………….……………………….…. A-4 Dundarave……………………….……………………….….. A-2 Eagle Harbour……………………….………………………. A-1 English Bay Beach……………………….…………………. A-8 False Creek, Central……………………….……………….. A-10 False Creek, East……………………….…………………... A-10 False Creek, West……………………….………………….. A-9 Garry Point……………………….………………..…….…... A-16 Iona Beach……………………….……………………….…. A-16 Jericho Beach……………………….………………………. A-12 Kitsilano Beach……………………….……………………... A-11 Kitsilano Point……………………….………………………. A-11 Locarno Beach……………………….……………………… A-12 Old Orchard Park……………………….…………………… A-5 Sandy Cove……………………….……………………….… A-2 Sasamat Lake – Float Walk……………………….……….. A-20 Sasamat Lake – Outdoor Centre………………………….. A-21 Sasamat Lake – White Pine Beach North………………… A-19 Sasamat Lake – White Pine Beach South………………… A-20 Second Beach……………………….………………………. A-8 Spanish Banks……………………….……………………… A-13 Sunset Beach……………………….………………………. A-9 Third Beach……………………….…………………………. A-7 White Rock Beach East..….…….………………………….. A-19 White Rock Beach West…….…………….……………….. A-18 Whytecliff Park……………………….……………………… A-1 Wreck Beach, Foreshore East……………………….……. A-13 Wreck Beach, Foreshore West (Acadia Beach) ………… A-14 Wreck Beach, Trail 4 (Tower Beach) …………………….. A-14 Wreck Beach, Trail 6 (North Arm Breakwater) ………….. A-15 Wreck Beach, Trail 7 (Oasis) ……………………….……… A-15

Beaches According to

Sewerage Area

NSSA VSA FSA LIWSA Belcarra

B - 2

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1-May 16-May 31-May 15-Jun 30-Jun 15-Jul 30-Jul 14-Aug 29-Aug 13-Sep 28-Sep

Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Whytecliff, 2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Eagle Harbour, 2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

B - 3

0

100

200

300

400

500

600


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Sandy Cove, 2014 - 2017

2014 2015 2016 2017

0

100

200

300

400

500

600


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. C

oli B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Dundarave, 2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

B - 4

0

100

200

300

400

500

600


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

LReceiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Ambleside Beach,

2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Cates Park, 2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

B - 5

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Deep Cove, 2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Bedwell Bay, 2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

B - 6

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

LReceiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Belcarra Park - Picnic Area,

2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Old Orchard Park, 2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

B - 7

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

LReceiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Barnet Marine Park,

2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Crab Park, 2014 - 2017

2014 2015 2016 2017

B - 8

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Brockton, 2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Third Beach, 2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

B - 9

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Second Beach, 2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - English Bay, 2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

B - 10

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Sunset Beach, 2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - West False Creek, 2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

B - 11

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

LReceiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Central False Creek,

2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - East False Creek, 2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

B - 12

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Kitsilano Point, 2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Kitsilano Beach, 2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

B - 13

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Jericho Beach, 2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Locarno Beach, 2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

B - 14

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Spanish Banks, 2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Wreck Beach -Foreshore East, 2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

B - 15

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

LReceiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Wreck Beach -

Foreshore West (Acadia Beach), 2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Wreck Beach -Trail 4, 2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

B - 16

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

LReceiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Wreck Beach -

Breakwater - Trail 6, 2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Wreck Beach -Trail 7, 2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

B - 17

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Iona Beach, 2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Garry Point, 2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

B - 18

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

LReceiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Centennial Beach,

2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Crescent Beach North, 2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

B - 19

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Crescent Beach, 2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - White Rock Beach West, 2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

B - 20

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

LReceiving Water Bacteriological Quality - White Rock Beach East,

2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Sasamat Lake, White Pine Beach North, 2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

B - 21

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

LReceiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Sasamat Lake,

White Pine Beach South, 2014 - 2017

2014 2015 2016 2017

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

L

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Sasamat Lake, Float Walk, 2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

B - 22

0

50

100

150

200

250


Geo

metr

ic M

ean

-E

. co

li B

acte

ria/1

00 m

LReceiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Sasamat Lake,

Outdoor Centre, 2013 - 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2017 GVS&DD EMQC Annual Report - Metro Vancouver · Revised Edition July 2019 Wastewater The 2017...

Documents

Transcript of 2017 GVS&DD EMQC Annual Report - Metro Vancouver · Revised Edition July 2019 Wastewater The 2017...