Blackburn Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade Study

BLACKBURN WASTEWATER 

TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE STUDY 

Prepared for: 

The City of Prince George 

1100 Patricia Boulerard 

Prince George, B.C. V2L 3V9 

Prepared by: 

Reid Crotitber & Partners Ltd. 

Consulting Engineering Worldwide 

300 - 4170 StiU Creek Drive 

Burnnby, BC 

V5C 6C6 

Phone: (604) 298-6181 

Far: (604) 294-8597 

November, 1999 

Projwt No. 34918-00 (3)

Blackburn Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade Study 

SECTION 

Table of Contents 

TITLE PAGE NO . 

1 STUDY BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES ................................................... 1-1 

Introduction .................................................................................................... 1-1 

Blackbum WWTP .......................................................................................... 1-2 

Lansdowne Road WWTP .............................................................................. 1-3 

Collection System .......................................................................................... 1-3 

Upgrade Options ............................................................................................. 1-4 

. . 

Ammonia Toxmty Issues .................................................. ............................ 1-4 

. . 

Population and Flow Projechons .................................................................. 1-5 

1.7.1 Outline .......................................................................................... 1-5 

1.7.2 Design Populations ...................................................................... 1-5 

1.7.3 Design Wastewater Flows ............................................................ 1-6 

............................................................ 

1.7.4 Design Wastewater Loads 1-8 

. 1.7.5 Wet Weather Flow Impacts . 1-8 

1.7.6 Wet Weather Flows 1-9 

...................................................................... 

Regulatory Background ............................................................................... 1-10 

......................................... 

1.8.1 Blackbum WWTP Discharge Permit 1-10 

1.8.2 Lansdowne Road WWTP Discharge Pennit 1-10 

1.8.3 BC Municipal 

. 

Sewage 

. 

Regulations ........................................... 1-11 

..................................................................... 

1.8.4 Ammonia Toxlclty 1-12 

2 VI MITGATION MEASURES ..................................................................................... 2-1 

2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 2-1 

2.2 I/I Reduction Plan .......................................................................................... 2-2 

2.2.1 Inflow Reduction ......................................................................... 2-2 

2.2.2 Infiltration Reduction ................................................................... 2-2 

........................................................................ 

2.3 Rehabilitation Cost Estimates 2-3 

3 AUDIT OF EXISTING FACILITIES ......................................................................... 3-1 

3.1 Blackbum Wastewater Treatment Plant ....................................................... 3-1 

3.1.1 Outline .......................................................................................... 3-1 

3.1.2 Preliminary Treatment ................................................................. 3-1 

3.1.3 Secondary Treatment ................................................................... 3-2 

3.1.4 Effluent Disposal ......................................................................... 3-2 

3.1.5 Sludge Treatment ......................................................................... 3-2 

............................................. 

3.2 Lansdowne Road Wastewater Treatment Plant 3-2


SECTION TITLE PAGE KO . 

3.2.1 Outline .......................................................................................... 3-2 

3.2.2 Preliminary Treatment ................................................................. 3-3 

3.2.3 Primary Treatment .................................................................... 3-3 

3.2.4 Secondary Treatment ................................................................ 3-3 

3.2.5 EMuent Disposal ...................................................................... 3-4 

3.2.6 Sludge Treatment ......................................................................... 3-4 

3.3 Operations Staff ............................................................................................. 3-5 

3.4 Concjusion ..................................................................................................... 

3-5 

4 WASTEWATER TREATMENT OPTIONS ........................................................... 4-1 

Option 1 ......................................................................................................... 4-1 

4.1.1 Outline .............. I: .......................................................................... 4-1 

4.1.2 Design Information ...................................................................... 4-2 

4.1.3 Cost Estimate ............................................................................... 4-3 

Option 2 ......................................................................................................... 4-3 

4.2.1 Outline .......................................................................................... 4-3 


4.2.3 Cost Estimate ............................................................................... 4-5 

Option 3 ......................................................................................................... 4-6 

4.3.1 Outline .......................................................................................... 4-6 


4.3.3 Cost Estimate ............................................................................... 4-7 

Option 4 ......................................................................................................... 4-8 

4.4.1 Outline .......................................................................................... 4-8 

4.4.2 Design information ...................................................................... 4-9 

4.4.3 Cost Estimate ............................................................................. 4-10 

Option 5 ........................................................... ........................................... 4-10 

4.5.1 Outline ........................................................................................ 4-10 

4.5.2 Design Information .................................................................... 4-12 

4.5.3 Cost Estimate ............................................................................. 4-12 

Option 6 ....................................................................................................... 4-13 

4.6.1 Outline ........................................................................................ 4-13 


4.6.3 Cost Estimate ............................................................................. 4-17 

Option 7 ....................................................................................................... 4-18 

4.7.1 Outline ........................................................................................ 4-18 


4.7.3 Cost Estimate ............................................................................. 4-23 

Life Cycle Cost Analysis ............................................................................. 4-24 

(ii)


SECTION TITLE PAGE NO . 

5 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS ..................................................................................... 5-1 

. . 

5.1 Decision Cr~ter~a ............................................................................................ 5-1 

5.1.1 Introduction .................................................................................. 5-1 

. . 5.1.2 Cost Cnter~a ................................................................................. 5-2 

. . 

5.1.3 Performance Criter~a .................................................................... 5-2 

. . 

5.1.4 Operational Cntena ...................................................................... 5-3 

5.1.5 Environmental and Aesthetic Criteria .......................................... 5-3 

5.2 Evaluation Techniques ................................................................................... 54 

5.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................... 54 

5.2.2 Weighted Analysis of Evaluation Criteria ................................... 5-5 

5.2.3 Pair-Wise Comparison ................................................................. 5-5 

5.3 Evaluation Results ..............:........................................................................... 

5-6 

6 RECOMMENDED OPTION ........................................................................................ 6-1 

6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 6-1 

6.2 Reduced Inflow/Infiltration .......................................................................... 6-1 

6.3 Existing Downtown Sewerage System .......................................................... 6-2 

6.4 Upgrading Plan ............................................................................................... 6-2 

6.5 Option 1 Design Information ......................................................................... 6-3 

6.6 Project Staging ............................................................................................... 6-4 

6.7 Overall Implementation Program ................................................................... 6-5 

APPENDIX A ............................ STANTEC CONSULTING LTD . STUDY CONCLUSIONS 

APPENDIX B ...................... ESTIMATED CAPITAL AND 25 YEAR LIFE CYCLE COSTS 

APPENDIX C .............................................. 

DECISION WORKSHOP . OCTOBER 19. 1999 

WORKSHOP NOTES 

APPENDIX D .............................................. DECISION WORKSHOP - OCTOBER 19, 1999 

RANKING/COMPARISON RESULTS 

APPENDIX E ...................................... now CALCULATIONS FOR SEWER UPGRADES

SECTION 1 

STUDY BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

SECTION 1.0 

STUDY BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES 

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

Integral to the continued growth and development of the City of Prince George is a 

reliable sewage collection and treatment system that meets current environmental 

standards. Over the years, steady development has taken place in the city central areas 

and the Nechako area to the north of the city core. Within the Blackburn area, which 

is located east of the Fraser River in the east sector of the City, development has been 

curtailed due to limited water supply to this area. In addition to the water supply 

system, irhastructure is in place for sewage collection and treatment. The City of 

Prince George is serviced primarily by one main wastewater treatment facility located 

on Lansdowne Road. Outlying subdivisions or sewage collection areas such as the 

Blackbum area are serviced by small satellite wastewater treatment facilities. 

Until recently, there has been a development moratorium in place in the Blackbum 

area due to inadequate water supply. The water supply system has now been upgraded 

and the moratorium lifted. It is anticipated that the Blackbum area will experience a 

healthy population growth rate and the planned population horizon of 5,000 could be 

realized in the next 25 years. 

With the anticipated growth and development in the Blackbum area, the City now 

wishes to consider the most appropriate and economic option for wastewater 

collection/treatment, as well as being in compliance with the new Municipal Sewage 

Regulations. The issues that drive the evaluation of options are the capacity of the 

existing treatment facility to meet effluent quality criteria; and, the high inflow and 

infiltration @'I) peak flows into the collection system that impart hydraulic limitations 

both at the Mackus Road pumpstation and at the treatment facility. . 

Further to the issues related to the existing sewage collection and treatment system and 

the anticipated population growth projections for the Blackbum area, the City of 

Prince George commissioned Reid Crowther and Partners Ltd. in September 1999, to 

prepare a study to evaluate options on how to manage sewage collected within the 

Blackburn sewerage area. This report presents these f ndings; identifies and evaluates 

options using both economic and non-economic criteria; and recommends an 

implementation plan.

Section 1.0 -Project Background and Objectives 

The overall aim of this study is to develop a long term plan that incorporates the latest 

issues regarding the Blackbum collection, pumping and treatment system, and 

establishes whether the City should proceed with upgrading the Blackbum wastewater 

treatment facility independently or to consolidate Blackbum sewage flows into the 

Lansdowne Road WWTP via connecting purnpinglpipeline infrastructure. Under both 

scenarios implementation of appropriate VI reduction measures is required. 

A brief summary of the existing wastewater treatment facilities and related issues is 

presented in the following sections. 

1.2 BLACKBURN WWTP 

Construction of the Blackbum wasiewater treatment facility commenced early in 1976 

and the facility was commissioned in late 1976 to service a population of 2,500. The 

existing facility is comprised of a bar screen, and aerated primary and secondary 

lagoons. 

The effluent discharge requirements are for BOD5 5 45 mgL, TSS 5 60 mg/L plus a 

fecal colifom limit. Any upgrade to the plant would be based on the new Municipal 

Sewage Regulations. Presently the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are requesting 

an ammonia toxicity limit, which to date has not been required by the Ministry of 

Environment, Lands and Parks. This situation may change in the future. 

The facility is presently at both its hydraulic and organic design capacities. 

Winterlspring thaw conditions and heavy rains contribute high inflow/infiltration peak 

wet weather flows (PWWF). Effluent quality is also impacted during the spring to 

summer transition as the primary and secondary lagoons warm up. Lagoon

Section 1.0 - Proj~t Background and Objectives 

temperatures in the winter drop to between 0°C and 5"C, and in the summer they can 

exceed 20°C. 

The lagoon aeration equipment is also reaching the end of its design life. The facility 

upgrade will be for a population of 5,000, which is equivalent to a 25 year design 

horizon. 

1.3 LANSDOWNE ROAD WWTP 

The Lansdowne Road wastewater treatment facility was recently upgraded to a Year 

2026 design horizon with a contributing population of 115,000 and average dry 

weather flow of 44.5 Mud. The current contributing population is less than 90,000. 

As a result there is adequate design capacity at the plant should the decision be made 

to transfer raw sewage flows fiorn the Blackbum sewerage area to Lansdowne Road 

WWTP. All potential impacts of transporting flows to the Lansdowne Road WWTP 

would, however, need to be considered in detail during this study to ensure viability of 

such an option. 

1.4 COLLECTION SYSTEM 

Most of the construction work on the sewage collection system for the Blackburn 

sewerage area was completed in 1976, and consists of 25 kilometers of both gravity 

and forcemain sewers. The pipe network is mostly PVC pipe with some of the larger 

diameter pipes being concrete. Soil type in the area is mainly clay in nature with the 

pipes laid in sand bedding backfilled with native soils.


The main snowfall in the area occurs from November to April. During winter/spring 

thaw conditions, the collection system experiences high IeveIs of UI, raising flow 

levels above the capacity of the treatment plant. To determine the nature of the Vi 

problem, the City completed a study in June, 1999 to assess the condition of the 

pipework, manholes and connections. Manholes that are located in lowlying areas 

have been found to be the main contributor of inflow. Snowmelt and water that ponds 

around these manholes enters through manhole lids and cracks or deficiencies in the 

manhole itself. The City's rehabilitation program will consider the raising of manhole 

rims, sealing of manhole lids and the grouting of inner walls. Elimination of cross 

connections and repair of sub-standard connection construction that contributes to L'l 

will also be part of the rehabilitation work. 

1.5 UPGRADE OPTIONS 

The principal objective of this study is to examine all issues concerned with the 

Blackburn sewerage area in order to determine if the City should proceed with 

upgradelexpansion of the existing wastewater treatment facility and the Mackus Road 

pumpstation; or, transfer raw sewage flows to and consolidate treatment at the 

Lansdowne Road WWTP. 

For this study, sewer upgrade and treatment expansion options have been identified. 

Assessment of the study options includes an appraisal of both economic and noneconomic 

criteria. Cost analyses includes full life cycle costing of both capital and 

operating/maintenance costs over the planning horizon time-kame of 25 years. 

Frequently, the least capital wst can have the highest long-term life-cycle cost. Noneconomic 

criteria include environmental impacts, ease of operation, system flexibility 

and pubiic/stakeholder preferences. 

1.6 AMMONIA TOXICITY ISSUES 

There are uncertainties as to whether the upgraded Blackburn wastewater treatment 

facility will have ammonia toxicity limits placed on the effluent, \vhich is discharged 

to the Fraser River. This study takes into account this eventuality. 

Ammonia toxicity can place a wastewater treatment emuent in noncompliance with 

Fisheries Act requirements. The requirements of the Act are interpreted to mean that 

emuents discharged into an aquatic environment should be non-toxic, as measured in 

a static bioassay. The Act does not provide for effluent dilution or dispersion to 

mitigate toxicity.

Section k .O - Project Background and Objectives 

Ammonia limits for effluents discharged to aquatic environments, as published by US 

EPA are based on toxicity considerations. These limits can be used to judge the likely 

impact of wastewater treatment plant effluents. The EPA limits are approximately 

based on the toxicity of ammonia to relevant water species, modified by a safety 

factor. Recent modifications of these criteria have been adopted to reflect the findings 

of recent studies. These studies note that cold water toxicity is not as severe as 

previously found and winter limits need not be as restrictive since more sensitive 

juve~le fish are not present during winter months. This study assesses these 

considerations. 

1.7 POPULATION AND FLOW PROJECTIONS 

1.7.1 Outline 

Fundamental to a long-term strategic upgrade plan is a thorough assessment of future 

population growth, and hence, changes in anticipated wastewater flows. Projections 

need to be evaluated in light of the City's Ifl rehabilitation program, Municipal 

Sewage Regulations, the availability of adequate water supply and development plans 

for the area. The estimated existing serviced popuiation is 1,800. However, not all of 

the serviced population is connected to the domestic sewage collection system. The 

estimated population CO~eCted to the collection system is 1,500. It is anticipated that 

the population growth in this area will be vigorous with steady growth estimated at 

approximately 4 percent per annum. 

1.7.2 Design Population 

The City's estimate for the year ending 1998 is a serviced population of 1,800. 

Population growth in the Blackburn area over the past 25 years has been slow, due in 

part to limited water supply. Water supply to the area has been upgraded and there is 

now sufficient capacity to service a fuH development population of 5,000. 

With adequate water supply for the Blackbum area, the projected population growth 

rate is estimated to be approximately 4 percent, which is greater than the projected 

growth rate for the entire City which is 1 percent. Assuming a growth rate of 4.2 

percent, the population will increase from 1,800 to 5,000 in 25 years. 

Population projections for the Blackburn sewage collection area are presented in Table 

1.1.


Tablel.1- Blackburn Sewage Collection Area 

Population Projection 

Design Wastewater Flows 

The flow criteria used in 1976 for the design of the Blackbum WWTP are: 

Population 2,500 

Per capita contribution, Lkapfd 375 

ADWF. m3/d 945 

PWWF, m3/d 4,350 

The design flow criteria us4 in 1993 to plan the Lansdowne Road WWTP upgrade 

and expansion are: 

Population 1 15,000 

Per capita contribution. L/ca~/d


PWWF, m3/d 11 5,000 

Flow records for 1998 for the Blackbum WWTP provide the following information: 


Per capita contribution (calculated), Ucapld 250 

ADWF, m31d 450 

PWWF, m3/d 4,500 

The ADWF flow records for lackb bum indicate a very low per capita contribution. It 

is likely that of the estimated 1,800 population within the Blackbum sewage collection 

area, not all are connected to the collection system. If it is assumed that approximately 

75 percent of the Blackbum population, which is 1,350, is connected to the system, the 

calculated per capita contribution is 335 Ucapld. For this study, the per capita 

contributory flow is assumed to be 350 Llcapld, which is 10 percent lower than the 

design value used for the Lansdowne WWTP. Because of the more rural setting of the 

Blackburn area; the probable lower use of dishwashershome garburators; smaller 

residence size; and, the fact that the sewage pipework is only 25 years old, a 10 

percent decrease in per capita contributory flow from 385 to 350 can be rationalized. 

The following design flow conditions are assumed for 111 development in the 

Blackburn area: 


rn Per capita contribution, LJcapld 350 

ADWF, m3ld 1,750 

The contribution of flow from the Blackbum sewage collection area at full 

development in comparison to the design flow capacity of the Lansdowne Road 

WWTP is calculated at less than 5 percent.

Section 1.0 - Project Background and Objectives 

1.7.4 Design Wastewater Loads 

The design raw sewage BODs and TSS concentration criteria used in 1993 to plan the 

Lansdowne Road WWTP upgrade and expansion is: 

These values have been adopted for this study to permit evaluation of various options. 

The following design raw sewage BODS and TSS annual loadings are assumed at full 

development in the Blackburn area: 

The design raw sewage BOD5 and TSS a~mualoadings for a design population of 

115,000 at the Lansdowne Road WWTP is: 

The present 1999 raw sewage BODs and TSS annual loadings at the Lansdowne Road 

WWTP is estimated at: 

s ,. 

!: 

I 

.-: 

:-,. 

, . 

The proportion of BODs and TSS load h m the Blackburn sewage collection area, at 

full development in comparison to the design load capacity of the Lansdowne Road 

WWTP is calculated at less than 5 percent. 

1.7.5 Wet Weather Flow Impacts 

One factor that governs the need to expand a wastewater treatment plant is the wet 

weather flow component. This component of the flow is dependent on the following: 

Type of sewer system (separatefwmbined). 

Topography of the Seniced area (piping above or below the water table, possibility 

that manhole flooding occurs). 

. 1-8 

Waorrcrs~~~Gsrn 0r.w -.=.a8 

&' 

tI*l.W


Physical characteristics of the underground piping (old/new/materials). 

rn 

Connection policies (roof drain connections, etc.). 

Review of wet weather flow mitigation policies and plans is essential. Should a 

reduction program prove practicable and cost effective, lower peak flows would occur 

after changes are implemented and thereby defer expanding plant infrastructure. 

1.7.6 Wet Weather Flows 

As detailed in the Stantec Consulting Ltd. report completed June, 1999, VI is a serious 

problem in the Blackburn sewage collection area and corrective action is required. 

The original 1976 design information for the Blackbum treatment facility lists the 

following criteria: 

rn Contributing population 2,500 

ADWF, m3/d 945 

In the future, as development exceeds 2,500 population, the facility would be doubled 

in capacity to accommodate a population of 5,000 with ADWF doubling, but PWWF 

remaining constant. 

Based on these design parameters, the lagoon facility would provide an eMuent 

quality of BOD6 20 mg/L and TSS< 20 mfl. Monitoring data from the City 

indicates that the facility up to now has reliably achieved these two targets and is in 

compliance with pennit requirements. 

It is important to note that the original design appears to have taken into consideration 

not only winter operating conditions, but also identified flow variations due to winter 

thaw conditions and spring raidthaw conditions. In the first stage of development, 

during wintedspring thaw conditions, because of the layout and locations of manholes 

and the coliection pipework, PWWF would be high, amounting to nearly 4.5 times 

ADWF, primarily because of inflow due to flooding around manholes adjacent to 

natural drainage streams. A second component would be due to infiltration due to wet 

ground andtor high groundwater conditions in Iow lying areas. In the second stage of 

development, UI would be reduced so that PWWF would remain at 4,350 m3/d and the 

PWWFlADWF ratio reduced to approximately 2.5. 

. . 

1 

,& 1 . 

- 1-9 

H .*mIIrnn>.3C*,,mmId Wnxll m 

mmm


Rewrded results for 1999 indicate ADWF at 450 m3/d and PWWF at 4,500 rn3/d. The 

PWWF/ADWF ratio is 10:1, which is much greater than the design value of 4.6:l. 

The excessive I/I flows consume available capacity of the domestic sewage collection 

system as well as the Mackus Road pumpstation. Also because a large component of 

the flow is snowmelt, these flows measurably reduce sewage temperatures which 

impacts the efficiency of any treatment facility. Without an I/l reduction program in 

place, excessive III would limit future development in the Blackbum collection area 

because of limits on sewer capacity; and, as well jeopardize the operation of the 

treatment facility so that effluent quality is in non-compliance with permit 

requirements. The Stantec Consulting Ltd. report identified these issues. The report 

concluded that the most wst effective plan was to implement a rehabilitation program 

for VI reduction and reammendid as a first step that work be undertaken to seal 

manholes to reduce inflow. 

1.8 REGULATORY BACKGROUND 

1.8.1 Blackburn WWTP Discharge Permit 

The discharge permit for the Blackburn WWTP is covered under Pennit PE-3868. An 

amended permit was issued by BC MOELP on March 23, 1992, which requires that 

the plant eflluent meet the following not to exceed criteria: 

Discharge flow, m3/d 1,375 

The effluent quality must not exceed the above maximums based on a monthly 

composite sample made up of four grab samples taken over a two-hour period at 

maximum flow. The amended permit stipulates that although effluent disinfection is 

not required at this time, the existing chlorination facility must be maintained for use 

in the event that it is required in the future. 

1.8.2 Lansdowne Road WWTP Discharge Permit 

The discharge permit for the Landsdowne WWTP is covered under Permit PE-0146. 

An amended permit was issued by BC MOELP on March 29, 1996, which requires 

that the plant effluent meet the following not to exceed criteria:

Section 1.0 - Project Background and Objectives 

Discharge flow, m3/d 45,000 

The effluent quality must not exceed the above maximums based on a weekly 

composite sample made up of four grab samples taken over a two-hour period at 

maximum flow. The permit stipulates that although effluent disinfection is not 

required at this time, the existing chlorination and dechlorination facilities must be 

maintained for use in the event that faecal coliform contamination of water kom the 

College Heights well becomes evident in the future. 

1.8.3 BC Municipal Sewage Regulations 

The BC MOELP has recently published revised Waste Management Act, Municipal 

Sewage Regulation, which may have a future impact on updated permits for both 

plants. Any plant upgrade after July 15, 1999 will require an application to be made 

under these new regulations, which will impact the collection system, treatment and 

the effluent discharge requirements, indicated as follows: 

No sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) of less than 1 in 5 year return period will be 

allowed after January 1, 2004 unless there has been a liquid waste management 

plan (LWMP) where the population is > 10,000, or a study where the population is 

< 10,000, to quantify and qualify the SSO. 

Similarly for Vi, the maximum day flow should not exceed 2 times ADWF unless 

there has been a LWMP or study to address the issues. 

The aim will be to reduce the SSO's by 10 percent per year. 

Where there will be a treatment plant expansion to accommodate an increase in 

flow greater than 20 percent of the previous maximum authorized flow, an 

environmental impact study will be required. 

Any flow above 2 times ADWF will require primary treatment as a minimum, and 

primary and secondary emuent should be combined for discharge. 

The receiving water would require careful monitoring with a minimum acceptable 

40:l dilution ratio. Appropriate discharge locations would need to be identified 

that comply with regulations. 

The impact of the new Municipal Sewage Regulation on the future upgrading of the 

Blackbum wastewater system infrastructure needs to be considered in detail.


1.8.4 Ammonia Toxicity 

In solution, ammonia exists in two forms, ionized ammonium (NH43, and unionized 

ammonia w3). Fractionation of these two species depends upon the water pH and 

temperature. At higher pH and temperature values, a greater fraction of the effluent 

ammonia will exist in he unionized form. It is this unionizd form which is toxic to 

aquatic life in relatively low concentrations. 

Neither Blackburn nor Lansdowne Road WWTPs are required to achieve an effluent 

ammonia concentration limit in their respective discharge permits. However, the new 

Municipal Sewage Regulation stipulate that the maximum allowable emuent ammonia 

concentration at the "end of pipe" must be determined from a back calculation from 

the edge of the initial dilution zone. The back calculation must consider the ambient 

temperature and pH characteristics of the receiving water and known water quality 

guidelines. 

Furthermore, the new Municipal Sewage Regulation stipulates that a person must not 

discharge effluent, unless "...the discharge passes a 96 hour LC50 bioassay test as 

defined by the Environment Canada's Biological Test Method, Reference for 

Determining Acute Lethality of Effects of Rainbow Trout (Reference Method EPS 

l/RM/13)". 

The above stipulation does not apply if "...the discharge is diluted such that at the 

outside boundary of the initial dilution zone, the dilution ratio exceeds 100:l and the 

discharger demonstrates to the satisfaction of the manager that the discharge does not 

adversely affect the receiving environment." 

Environment Canada's position is based on Section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act (198% 

which states: "No person shall deposit or permit the deposit of a deleterious substance 

of any type on water Wuented by fish. Environment Canada chooses to define 

deleterious substances in large part by means of the whole effluent- test, is. without 

dikution by the receiving water. 

In the event that existing Blackburn WWTP is upgraded or expanded, consideration 

will have to be given to designing the new plant to achieve year round or seasonal 

nitrification to reduce or remove the possibility of ammonia toxicity.

APPENDIX D 

DECISION WORKSHOP - OCTOBER 19,1999 

RANKINGICOMPARISON RESULTS

City of Prince George - Decision Workshop October 19. 1999

City Of Prince George - Decision Workshop Oclober 19, lYnu

City of Prince George - Decision Workshop October 19, 1999 

I I L I I I I 

OVERALL RESULTS' 

I-- -- 

Wei$atlng . .- 

Ciiterin WelgM I 3 -- 

Financial 3.5 7.0 17.5 15.8 

Performance - 2.3 12.8 10.5 

Operational 2.4 15.9 13.4 4.9 

Emriicnmental 1.7 11.2 4.3 5.2

APPENDIX C 

DECISION WORKSHOP - OCTOBER 19,1999 

WORKSHOP NOTES

MINUTES OF MEETING 

PR~ECT NAME: 

Blackburn Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade Study 

LOCATION: PAGE: 10f1 

DATE OF October 19, 1999 OATE: November 1,1999 

MEETING: 

PROJECT NO.: 34918-00 -03 

CONTRACT NO.: 

PRESENT: Andy Ribul (AR)- City of Prince George - Dave Dyer (DD)- City of Prince George 

Norm Gobbi (NG)- City of Prince George - Bany Rabinowitz - RC 

Frank Blues (FB)- City of Prince George - LesNemeth -RC 

Gary Champagne (GC)- City of Prince George - Andy North - RC 

Ritch Girard - MOE 

- Stuart Lawrence - L&M Engineering 

PURPOSE: 

DlSTRlBClTlON TO 

ALL ABOVE AND: 

WRITTEN BY: 

Decision Workshop 

Stuart Lawrence 

DESCRlmlOPl 

Service Area Population - DD stated that the current service area population was 

closer to 1,500. BR stated that for the study an aggressive population growth rate 

has been assured to reach 5,000 population in 25 years = 4.2% growth. 

AR stated that rehabilitation work just started for VI control; 14 manholes done to 

date. 

FB interested in defaults of NPV's of 5 and 10 year yI rehab programs. LN 

handed out tables. 

FB asked if cost estimates for downtown sewer upgrades included cost estimates. 

LN stated that costs included in Options 1 to 5. 

Life cycle costs are all in 1999 dollars. O&M costs are those costs unique to each 

option. 

FB noted that these are slip problems along river banks, especially near correction 

facility. Needs preliminary assessment. Could rule out use of routing? May even 

be a problem along highway. 

Access to manholes along gravity route (road) could be difficult; 4m + turnarounds 

required. 

Land acquisition costs not included. 

Development potential with gravity main along Hwy 16. 

Animonic toxicity not a current issue. 

Mackus Rd. PS pumps need to be replaced now. What is correct pump size? 

These minutes are in the writer's best interpretation of discussions held 

during the meeting. Please inform the writer of any noteworthy omissions or 

errors.

APPENDIX B 

ESTIMATED CAPITAL AND 25 YEAR LIFE CYCLE 

COSTS

Blackburn WWTP Treatment Options 

Option 2 1 

Decommission Blackburn WWTPmransfer Flows to Lamdowoe Road WWTP 

I I I I I

Blackburn WWTP Treatment Options 1 

option 3 1 

.Modify Blackburn WWTP for Storagflransfer Flows to Lansdowne Road WWTP 

I I I I 

I 

I I I I 

Notes: 

Annual C&M cost for Blackbum sewage lagoons 1999-2007 is 545,000-$56,571 

Annual O&M cost for Blackbum storage lagoons 2008-2024 is $20,000 

- 

Incremenlal08rM cost for uealing Blackbum wastewater at Lansdowne Road WWTP2008-2024 

I I I I I I

Nores. 

Annual O&M cost for Blackbum sewage lagoons 1999-2007 is $45,000-$56371 

Annual O M cost for Blackburn sewage lagoons for PWWFueatmenl2008-2024 is $20.000 

Annual O M cmt for pumpstation 2008-2024 is $10,000 1 

- 

Incrementai 0&M cosl for treating Blackbum wastewater at Lansdowne Road WWTP 2008-2024 

I I 1 1 I I

[Blackburn --- 

WWTP Treatment Options 1 -- .- I I 

Option 5 1 1 

blaintain Blackburn WWTP for Flows>2*ADWFmraosfer ElowscZ*ADWF to Lansdowne Road WWTP 

I I I I I I 

Notes: 

Annual O&M oasi for Blackburn sewage lagoons 1999-2007 is $45.000-$56,571 

Annual O M cosl for Blackburn sewage lagoons for PWWF treatment 2008-2024 is $20,000 

incremental O&M cost lor treating Blackburn wastewater at Lansdowne Road WWTP 2008-2024 

I I I I I I

Blackbum WWTP Treatment Options 

Option 6a 

Upgrade and Expand Blackburn WWTP Lagoodo Nitrification 

! I I

Blackburn WWTP Treatment Options 1 

Option 7a 

Decommission Blackburn WWTP ~ @W~CO~S~NC~ 

New Mechanical Secondary Plant/No Nitri6cation 

I I I I I I 

Notes: 1 1 1 1 

Annual O&M cost lor Blackbum sewage lagoons 1999-2007 is %45.OW$56,5?1 

Annual O&M cost for new Blackbum mechanical plant 2008 to 2024 is $129,362-$204,442 

I I I I I

APPENDIX A 

STANTEC CONSULTING LTD. 

STUDY CONCLUSIONS

City of Prince George 

Blackburn Sanitary Sewer 

InfltrationlInflow Studv - 1999 

Prepad lor: 


Prepared by: 

Stantec Comdtiug Ltd. 

June, 1999

5.0 CONCLUSIONS 

I 

'\ 

-. 

5.1 RESULTS OF STUDY 

The study Field investigations included the folfowing works: 

instaliing flow muen in nine manholes, 

installing peak level indicaturs in six manhoIes, 

visd investigations incIuding observing and estimating observed inflow to 

selected doles. 

visual observations depth bf now titcough selected manholes. 

Cornpatisons were made between p ro-h theoretical generated flows at the manholes 

equipped with flow mtm, as well as a comparison of observed inflow estimates to the 

recorded inflow (recorded flow less theoretical gcncrared flows). 

Although estimated observed inflows an only esdmates, it appears that estimated 

observed inflows amounted to only approximately 75% of the recorded inflow. The. 

additional 25% may be h m manholes which were not open4 or may be from leaking 

mains or service connections. The 1991 tefevision camen inspectiom indicate that some 

infiltrarion to piping. either crackad or bmken pipes or service connections. was 

observed at that time. 

Two observed conditions w m 

possible mediation activities. 

of &gnificaot interest in arsessin~infl~wf~ltration and 

On March Zth, bH OKSW was observed to have storm water from a backedvp ditch 

flowing dictly into the rim On March 26th. City crews ched out the ditch and 

diverted stormwater away from this manhole. Flow mettr No. 7, downsaeam. 

immediately recorded a drop in fIow of ;rppmxhtely 400 cu.d&y. This ilfusaatcs 

tbat signifiwnf inflow an occur from only a few manhoIes if the rims are below the 

bund bl or below stonnwarer kvels. either in ditches, creeks oc standing water 

- 

during evly spring snowmelt. 

On Mmh 25. MH EAK43A exhibited inflow from the cover - the rim was below ground 

kvel and had standins W r around ir. On April 9, the sunding water had d-cd to 

below the rim of the manhok, however, leakage was observed from the bax of the 

ma~~hok. A simh situation was observed at MJi NKSjD, where on March 25, there 

was inflow from the rim and bricking and on Aprii 7, there was inflow from the base. 

Observations at these NO Imtions indicate that, although the worn inflows appear to 

occur during the firsr snow-mlt, iflows also continue 3s the thaws. 

I9 

c,lyotRinuetCorge 

Blrlburn Smiury Sever Infilmhdlnllwr Sm& 

,7,".l R m m . llln 19V9

As noted previously, comparisons of recorded flows to theoretical generated flows 

indicates that inflowlinfiluation appears to k the result of snowmelt or rainfall events. 

and does not occur yqr round. This comparison also indicates that, except for 

snowrne1tlr;linfall evenu. then is relatively little year-round infiltration to the Blackburn 

system. 

This is important in understanding and mitigating inflowfinfiitration as both 

identification of problem arcy and monitoring the results of upgradiing works is 

effactiveiy limited to king done during thest events. Si rainfall events occur with on 

an irregular basis. the mos effective time ta identify problems and to manitor rtsSs of 

uppdiig wiil continue to be during the spring snow-melt period. A comparison of the 

1997, 1998 and 1999 snow melt events indicates that sp~g 

snow-melt and it's effect on 

the Blackbum sewer system can also vary widely so care will need to be taken in 

interpreting the results of upgrading activities. 

5.2 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 

UPGRADING 

The recommendations of this study include: 

a) upgrading manholes. including repairs to manhole stmcnucs, cappinglxaling of 

unused connections and Suds and d i g and waterproofing mahhole~ subject to 

being overtopped by srorm wm. See Section 4.1 and 4.3 for derails. 

a) upgrading piping, as determined by the 1991 television camera work (if not already 

done) 

b) thorough cleanins of kouf sscdons of the sanitary sewer system prior to tdevision 

came~ins@o& to determine if inflow from broken pi& is occurring, and repair 

of any infiltratins piping. See Section 4.4 for details. 

C) monitoring of specific areas of the system prior to and during spriag mow melt in 

order to limit inflow from avoidable dirch~creck backup. See Section 4.2 for details. 

d) plumbing insptcrions to determine if basement sump pumps are insnlled and 

connected to the smiwry system. 

e) smoke testingto identify mof dr;lim or parking area drains c onnd to the sanirvy 

system.

CITY OF PRINCE GEORGE 

Forcemain from the existing 

Blackburn WWTP site to the 

high point on Graves Road. 

1,720m of 200 rnm dia. forcemain 

from the intersection of Mackus 

Road and North Blackburn Road 

to a high point on Highway 16. 

3,100rn of 200 mm dia. gravity 

sewer main from the end of the 

forcemain to the Regional 

Correctional Centre tie-in. 

100m of 200 rnm dia. sanitary 

sewer syphon from the Yellowhead 

Bridge to the intersection of 3rd 

Ave. and Taylor Drive. 

1 Wm of 300 mm dia. gravity sewer 

along Taylor Drive to the intersection 

with 15th Ave. 

180m of 300 rnm dia. gravity sewer 

along 15th Ave. from Taylor Drive 

to Birch St. Connect to existing 

525 mm dia. sewer main. 

------ Exist. Sanitary Collection Mains 

Prince George 

Airport 

J 

[J I 

,yJ 

LC' 

Blackbum Sanitary Collection Area 

I 

! City of Prince George 

Blackburn Wastewater Treatment Plant 

Treatment Options Study 

ENGINEERING LIMITED 

RECOMMENDED OPTION - FLOW TRANSFER 

Figure 6.1 

-

Section 6.0 -Recommended Option 

6.3 EXISTING DOWNTOWN SEWERAGE SYSTEM 

Flows transferred from the Blackbum catchment will connect into the existing 

sanitary sewer mains at the Regional Correctional Centre that ultimately 

discharge into the 600rnrn diameter City trunk sanitary sewermain on Taylor 

Drive. 

The estimated future peak pump flow rate h m the Mackus Road sewage lift 

station is 50 Us (4350 m3/d), based on the ultimate 5,000 population. With 

successll implementation of III reduction measures this flow rate could be 

reduced to 40 Us. The following upgrades are based on the more conservative 

50 L/s and should be reviewed at a detailed design stage. The section of 

existing 200mm diameter sewer main from the discharge point of the 200mm 

diameter syphon, at MH ~ ~ 2to 3 the a intersection of the 525mm diameter 

main at Birch Street, will need to be upgraded to a 300mrn diameter pipe at a 

minimum grade of 0.3% to handle the future pumped peak flows of 

approximately 0.05 m3/s. 

The section of gravity sewer main which requires upgrade totals 430 meters in 

length. 

The wst for this upgrading work (which requires significant road restoration) 

at a unit cost of $250 per lineal metre is 430 x 5250 is approximately $107,500. 

This cost includes all associated appurtenances, manholes and restoration 

costs. Pipe bursting could be considered during the predesign stage as an 

alternative to reduce restoration costs. 

Flow capacity of existing mains on the Yellowhead Bridge and within the 

subdivision on the west side of the Fraser River are listed in Appendix E. 

6.4 UPGRADING PLAN 

The City's accelerated 3-4 year implementation plan is to decommission the 

existing Blackbum WWTP by 2003, and all flows transferred for treatment at 

the Lansdowne Road WWTP via a new forcemain and trunk gravity sewer 

from the Mackus Road pumpstation. An accelerated III reduction program is 

to be initiated and completed to reduce the volume of wastewater being 

transferred during wet weather and snowmelt conditions. The existing Mackus 

Road pumpstation is to be upgraded and a new, small pumpstation constructed 

at the Blackburn WWTP site to transfer flows generated in the area adjacent to 

the plant to the Mackus Road pumpstation.


Key activities or capital works associated with the upgrading plan are as 

follows: 

Implement and complete VI reduction program. 

Decommission lagmns and rehabilitate site for other use. 

Upgrade Mackus Road pumpstation to handle projected increasd flows. 

Construct trunk gravity sewer and forcemain to transfer all flows from 

Blackburn sewerage area to Lansdowne Road WWTP. 

Upgrade downtown sewage collection pipework to handle increased flows 

from Slackburn sewerage a&. 

Construct sewage purnpstation at Blackbum W P site and construct 

connecting forcemain discharging to Mackus Road pumpstation. 

6.5 OPTION 1 DESIGN INFORMATION 

Population 

ADWF, m3/d 

PWWF, m3/d 

Pipework 

Forcemain from intersection of Mackus Road and North 

Blackbum Road to a high point on Hwy. 16. 

Diameter, mm 200 

Length, m 1,720 

Gravity sewer main from the end of 200 forcemain to the 

Regional Correctional Centre tie-in 

Diameter, rnrn 300 


Forcemain from the existing Blackburn WWTP site to the high 

point on Graves Road 



Sanitary sewer syphon connecting to downtown sewage 

collection system 

Diameter, mm 

Length, m


Gravity sewer upgrade, along Taylor Drive, 15" Ave, Ash Street 

to Birch Street; connect to 525 diameter sewer. 

Diameter, mm 

Length, m 

Pumpstation 

Upgrade Mackus Road PS for PWWF capacity of 50 Us; 1 

duty/l standby pumps, plus back-up power. 

Suppiy and install PS at existing Blackburn WWTP site to 

service residence along Foreman and Graves Roads; capable of 

pumping 5 US; 1 duty11 standby pumps. 

Miscellaneous 

R&oreflandscape existing Blackbum WWTP site. 

6.6 PROJECT STAGING 

Stage 1 (2000-2001) 

Complete inflow rehabilitation work to reduce flows by 2,170 m3/d. 

Complete accelerated 3 year infiltration rehabilitation work to reduce 

flows by an additional 1,070 m3/d, using the following techniques: 

> Video inspectionkmoke testing of pipelines. 

3 Repair MH's. 

> Repair leaking pipework. 

> Repair private connections. 

9 Repair municipal connections. 

Stage 2 Predaign Option I (2001) 

New forcemain and gravity trunk sewer from Mackus Road PS to 

Regional Correctional Centre tie-in. 

Downtown sewer work 

Mackus Road PS upgrades 

New forcemain from Blackbum JWTF site to connect to Mackus Road 

PS 

Foreman Road PS 

Blackburn WWTP restorationilandscaping 

Stage 3 (2002) 

Complete 111 reduction program so that PWWF/ADWF=2.0 

6-4 

34 ' P%O>ECT~'ZW~~~I~~."JJI~~~~ 

R-',m> h


Complete detailed design Option 1 

Stage 4 (2003) 

Complete construction of Option 1 

6.7 OVERALL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM 

An implementation program and capital expenditure plan have been developed 

to meet the City's wastewater coHection and treatment needs until 2024. The 

plan has been designed to defer capital costs where feasible. A summary of the 

overall implementation program and associated capital expenditures is 

presented in Table 6.1. 

Table 6.1 OveraI1 ~rn~lementation Program 

2001 IInfltration mitigation & predesign Option 1 

2002 lComplete infiltration mitigation & detailed design Option 1 

1 2003 (Complete construction of Option 1

SECTION 6 

RECOMMENDED OPTION

SECTION 6.0 

RECOMMENDED OPTION 


Both economic and non-economic criteria were used to evaluate each of the 

seven upgrarllng options presented in this report. Combining the results of the 

Decision Workshop in the evaluation, the recommended upgrading plan for the 

Blackburn sewerage area is Option 1. Option 1 involves completion of the III 

mitigation measures, decommissioning the Blackbum WWTP and pumping all 

sewage currently treated at the plant to the Lansdowne Road WWTP. A plan 

of the recommended option is presented in Figure 6.1. 

This section outlines the basic requirements for the recommended upgrading 

plan. For this option, sewerage upgrades are discussed with the aim of 

presenting an implementation plan that satisfies the necessary environmental 

requirements while at the same time minimizing capital expenditures by 

adopting a staged upgrade approach. There are significant capital investments 

required to complete yI reduction and transfer Blackburn flows to the 

Lansdowne Road WWTP. However, by adopting a "just-in-time" 

implementation plan, the City should be able to defer required expenditures 

until they are absolutely necessary. This approach will also allow the City to 

consider the impact of population growth projections for the Blackburn area. 

6.2 REDUCED INFLOWflNFILTRATION 

As detailed in Section 2, there are two possible approaches to completing the 

VI rehabilitation program. One is a five year program and the other is a 10 

year program. However, the City plans to adopt an accelerated 3 to 4 year 

program with the goal of meeting BC Municipal Sewage Regulations for 

ADWF and PWWF flow requirements by 2004 and at the same time ensuring 

compliance with the discharge permit for the Blackbum WWTP. 

Recommended MH repair's will be completed by the end of 2000; as well as 

video inspection and smoke testing of pipelines plus complete readily 

repairable VI and complete 'off-street' mode to eliminate VI from roof, 

perimeter foundation and yard connections.

SECTION 5 

EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

SECTION 5.0 

EVALUATION OF OPTIONS 

5.1. DECISION CRITERIA 

5.1.1 Introduction 

The purpose of this section is to establish the framework for a Decision 

Workshop as part of the Blackbum WWTP treatment options study. Under 

consideration are potential options for treating wastewater either at an 

upgraded Blackbum WWTP or by transferring the flows to the larger 


This section presents a process that can assist the decision makers in evaluating 

the recommendations for new projects and programs to meet the hture 

wastewater treatment requirements of the Blackbum sewage collection area. 

The planning framework and model used to evaluate the options and arrive at a 

series of conclusions is presented. It must be noted that this process utilizes a 

series of tools which, when combined with other criteria, will assist the overall 

decision making process. 

The following key elements of the project were addressed during the Decision 

Workshop held with City staffon October 19, 1999: 

A total of 7 potential upgrade options and two sub-options presented for 

evaluation using both economic and non-economic criteria. 

A decision is required about whether to maintain two separate wastewater 

treatment piants or provide one consolidated plant at the Lansdowne Road 

WWTP site. 

If a consolidated plant at Lansdowne Road is selected as the preferred 

option, a decision is required as to the preferred transfer pipeline route and 

configuration between the Blackbum sewage collection area and the 


The issue of ammonia toxicity on the receiving water from a Blackburn 

WWTP discharge needs to be addressed within the workshop process. 

In each of the above four elements, the selection of the most appropriate option 

is not simply an economic issue. Various economic and non-economic factors 

must be taken into consideration. One of the most important elements that 

feeds into the decision process is the establishment of the planning criteria

Section 5.0 -Evaluation of Ootions 

used by stakeholders to compare options. The planning criteria reflect what is 

important to stakeholders when making decisions about wastewater system 

upgrade options. Evaluation criteria that were developed through Reid 

Crowfher's experience on similar projects elsewhere are presented below. The 

list of factors or criteria that form the basis for the comparative evaluation of 

the options have been categorized into the following four criteria: 

Cost criteria 

Technical criteria 

Operational criteria 

Environmental and aesthetic criteria 

Within each category there are many evaluation criteria, however to ensure 

that the process is neither too complex nor time consuming, a specific selection 

of evaluation criteria have been chosen. 

5.1.2 Cost Criteria 

Cost criteria relate to short-term and long-term expenditures. Capital costs and 

operating and maintenance (O&M) costs are the two major components used in 

cost comparisons. Together, these components define the life-cycle cost. 

Capital Cost 

This cost is a measure of the immediate cost that may be subject to 

fmancing. The least risk is attached to this cost; i.e. it will occur regardless 

of long-term variations in plant loads, fmancing, etc. 

Life-Cycle Cost 

Tnis cost is a measure of the total project cost over its design life. It 

includes the capital cost, but also incorporates O&M expenditures and the 

ultimate salvage value. Life-cycle costs are expressed in "present value" 

dollars. 

5.1.3 Performance Criteria 

Generally, criteria falling within this category are related to the ability of the 

facility to meet its objectives consistently. These criteria will be reflected in 

the costs; i.e. where a facility is judged less capable of meeting the 

performance standards, a greater safety factor will be included in the design. 

However, with any facility, there remains some risk that it will not perform up 

to expectations. It is this risk that is reflected in the perfomance criteria. The 

following are the performance criteria suggested for evaluating alternatives:

Section 5.0 -Evaluation of Options 

Reliability and Robustness 

The proven ability of the system upgrade to satisfy design objectives or 

reguiatory requirements and the ability of the system to operate 

successfully under adverse conditions and fluctuating influent 

characteristics. 

FlexibilitylComplexityISophistication 

The ability of the system to be modified or operated in another mode to 

meet short-term or long-term requirements and the amount and frequency 

of control or operator input that will be required to have the facility/system 

be successful in its intended application. 

Ease of Construction and Land Requirements 

The potential impact on existing operations and/or current land ownership 

when new facilities/systemsare built. 

5.1.4 Operational Criteria 

Operational criteria include those that affect the effort of and acceptance by the 

plant's operating and maintenance staff. A system that is difficult to 

comprehend or that requires a significant ongoing labour commitment is less 

likely to be operated with due diligence. When this occurs, notwithstanding 

design intent, a system will not perform to its capabilities. Operational criteria 

used in alternative evaluation include the following: 

Ease of Operation and Maintenance 

The "friendliness" of the system to operator control and the ease with 

which equipmentkystems may be removed from service, maintained, and 

returned to service. In addition, this criterion should reflect the frequency 

and duration of maintenance efforts. 

Safety 

Although wastewater systems design incorporates the necessxy safety 

measures, some facilities are more inherently safe than others. This 

criterion is intended to reflect that characteristic. 

Stamng 

Tne number of operations and maintenance personnel required to operate 

the facility. 

5.1.5 Environmental and Aesthetic Criteria 

Environmental and aesthetic criteria relate to off-site impacts of the 

facilityfsystern. Those relating to receiving water quality are extremely 

important to the success of this project.

Section 5.0- Evaluation of Options 

Effect on Surrounding Area 

The potential for degradation of the surrounding area (e.g. the receiving 

water quality, or transfer pipeline routes) under normal and upset operating 

conditions. 

Odonr PotentiallAir Emission 

The potential for malodorous gas release from a system under normal and 

upset conditions. 

VisuaVNoiselTraffic 

A measure of the visual obtrusiveness of the system or facility, the 

magnitude of noise generation and the amount of buck traffic associated 

with the system. 

The cost criteria for the various options have been developed within this 

document. In cases where there is no significant difference in the life cycle 

costs of two options, the decision regarding the preferred option must be based 

on the non-economic criteria listed above. During the Decision Workshop, the 

key project elements were evaluated using both the economic and noneconomic 

criteria by the technical and administrative personnel from the City, 

a representative from MOE and key project team members from the Reid 

Crowther team. 

5.2 EVALUATION TECHNIQUES 

5.2.1 Introduction 

There are a variety of techniques that can be used to assist decision-makers 

with selacting options. The most usefd technique nil1 depend on the nature 

and magnitude of the trade-offs identified and the stakeholders involved. 

There are a variety of recognized technical methods available, which vaty 

considerably in complexity and include: 

Holistic assessment 

Options are ranked based on structural information, but no formal decision 

model. Trade-offs are implicit using this technique which could be 

considered to be too judgmental for this project. 

Pair-wise comparison 

Each of the criteria b m every option is paired with all other options and 

individually evaluated or scored based on which perfoms best.


Rating and weighting 

The criteria are first technically rated and these scores are modified by 

assigning a weighting determined from the stakeholders preferences to the 

options , to produce a matrix of results. 

Multi-attribute trade-off analysis 

The most complex technique, best suited to a large number of options and 

criteria, but not considered appropriate for this process. 

Based on the options requiring evaluation, the planning team has therefore 

defmed the following two approaches for assisting in option selection: 

5.2.2 Weighted Analysis of Evaluation Criteria 

In this technique the ratings are numerical values to be developed on specific 

quantitative and qualitative results at the workshop. In the first step, 

participants are asked to weight the relative importance of the four criteria, i.e. 

cost criteria, technical criteria, operational criteria, and environmentaVaesthetic 

criteria, using a total of 10 points, see Form 5.1. In the second step, 

participants are asked to weight each of the criteria using a 10-point scale, see 

Form 5.2. These two initial steps help to identify the overall level of 

importance that participants place on individual criteria. Each option can then 

be ranked for each criterion on a score of 1 to 5 (poor to excellent) and then the 

weights are applied to the results of the ranking exercise, see Form 5.3. 

5.2.3 Pair - Wise Comparison 

A oneon-one decision matrix comparison process is utilized to establish the 

individual criteria rankings of each of the options, see Form 5.4. Within each 

criteria matrix, each option is paired with every other option and evaluated 

against each of the criteria. The option that performs best is assigned a value 

based on a 'pass - fail' as follows: 

if the option is better, a score of 1 is assigned; 

if the option is worse, a score of 0 is assigned; and 

if the option is no better or no worse, a score of 0.5 is assigned. 

By summing up the values for each option, this approach provides an 

indication of which option is technically superior. The drawback of this 

approach is that it does not take into account the magnitude or extent of the 

performance of one option versus another. It also does not take into account


part, be addressed by adding the weighting factors to the results and by using 

the following approach in parallel. 

5.3 EVALUATION RESULTS 

Attached as Appendix C and D are the results of the October 19, 1999 

Decision Workshop. Attending this workshop were the following individuals: 


Gary Champagne 

Andy Zbul 

DaveDyer 

Frank Blues 

Norm Gobbi 

MOELP 

Ritch Girard 

L&M Engineering 

Reid Crowther 

Bany Rabinowitz 

LesNemeth 

Andy North 

Form 5.1 was completed by each member of the Decision Workshop. A 

weighting number for cost, technical, operational and mvironmentaVaesthetic 

factors was developed based on the averaged group scores. Cost was weighted 

highest followed by operational and technical criteria, with environmental and 

aesthetic criteria weighted lowest. Form 5.2 was similarly developed from 

individual scores to weight the individual evaluation criteria. 

Form 5.3 lists the ranking of each of the options 1 to 7 based on the weighting 

numbers developed in Form 5.2. The ranking results for the options indicates 

that Option 1 (score 268) and Option 2 (score 286) are the most favoured 

options, options 3 to 6 score similarly (in the range 227 to 238), and the least 

favoured option is Option 7 (score 175).


Subsequent to the ranking results developed in Form 5.3, the participants 

completed Form 5.4, by using the pair-wise comparison technique, with the 

scores modified by incorporating the weighting results &om Form 5.1. The 

overall results were similar to the r;lting/weighting exercise as these results 

indicated that the preferred options are Option 1 (score 46.9) and Option 2 

(score 44.2), and the least preferred option is Option 7 (score 10.8). 

The similarity in the results provides a level of confidence that the decision 

techniques are robust. As Options 1 and 2 scored the highest in both 

techniques, discussion at the workshop then concentrated on identifying the 

preferred option for recommendation. As identified in the earlier sections both 

options achieve similar objectives primarily through alternative flow transfer 

routes. Consensus at the workshop was that the certainty of the route from 

Option 1 was greater than that for Option 2, and the construction of the Option 

1 alignment was likely to have more potential to encourage further 

development. 

The recommendation of the Decision Workshop members based on the ranking 

and comparison results is therefore to pursue Option 1.


FORM 5.1 

Relative Weightings of the Decision Criteria 

Groupings to be Used in the Evaluation 

Cost Criteria 

Technical Criteria 

Operational Criteria 

Environmental and Aesthetic Criteria 

Total 10

Section 5.0 - Evahation of Options 

FORM 5.2 

Specific Weighting of the Decision Criteria 

to be Used in the Evaluation 

Cost Criteria (Max = 10) 

Ca~ital Cost 


Technical Criteria I (Max. = 10) 

ReliabilityRobustness 

Flexibility I complexity / 

Sophistication 

Ease of Construction j~and 

Requirements 

I 

I 

Operational Criteria (Max. = 10) 

Ease of Operation and 

Maintenance 

Safety 

Staffing 

Environmental and Aesthetic Criteria I (Max. = 10) 

Effect on Surrounding Area I I 

Visual / Noise I Traffic


FORM 5.3 

Non-Economic Comparison between Options 

I Cost Criteria 1 (Max.=5) 1 (Max. =5) 1 

I Capital cost I I I 


Technical Criteria 

(Max- = 5) (Max. = 5) 

I 

Flexibility I Complexity / 

Souhistication 

Ease of Construction I Land 

Requirements 

I Operational Criteria I (Max. = 5) [ (Max. = 5) 1 

I 

Ease of Operation and 

Maintenance 

I safety I I I 

I Staffing I I I 

Environmental and Aesthetic Criteria 

Effect on Surrounding Area 

Odours/Emissions 

Visual / Noise / Trafic 

fi 

Totals I 

(Max. = 5) (Max. = 5)

Section 3.0 - Evaluation of Options 

FORM 5.4 

Example Pair-Wise Comparison Matrix 

I Total 

I

SECTION 4 

WASTEWATER TREATMENT OPTIONS

SECTION 4.0 

BLACKBURN TREATMENT OPTIONS 

The following seven options have been identified for upgrading the Blackburn 

sewage collection area and WWTP: 

4.1 OPTION 1 - DECOMMISSION EXISTING BLACKBURN WWTP AND 

ROUTE ALL FLOW TO LANSDOWNE ROAD WWTP MA 

FORCEMAINlGRAVITY SEWER CONNECTION 

4.1.1 Outline 

In this option the existing sewage lagoons would be decommissioned and all 

flows transferred for treatment at the Lansdowne Road WWTP via a new 

forcemain and trunk gravity sewer from the Mackus Road pumpstation. A 

schematic representation of this option is presented in Figure 4.1. An I/l 

reduction program is to be initiated and completed to reduce the volume of 

wastewater being transferred during wet weather and snowrnelt conditions. 

The existing Mackus Road pumpstation would be upgraded and a new , small 

purnpstation would be constructed at the Blackbum WWTP site. It is believed 

that he hdowne Road WWTP has sufficient capacity to handle the 

projected future hydraulic and BODOSS Ioadings from the Blackbum sewage 

collection area. 

Key activities or capital works associated with this option are as follows: 

Implement and complete I/I reduction program. 

Decommission lagoons and rehabilitate site for other use. 

Upgrade Mackus Road pumpstation to handle projected increased flows. 

Construct trunk gravity sewer and/or forcemain to transfer all flows from 

Blackbum sewerage area to Lansdowne Road WWTP. 


from Blackbum sewerage area. 

Construct sewage purnpstation at Blackburn WWTP site and construct 

connecting forcemain discharging to Mackus Road pumpstation.

Initiate 1 reduction program and 

complete over 5/10 years; 

assess PWWF based on results. 

0 Decommission existing Blackburn 

WWTP and restorellandscape site. 

a Route all flow to Lansdowne Road 

WWTP. 

Pipeline route (m n B) from Mackus 

Road PS to Correctional 

. 

Centre tie-in. 

Pipeline route ( m .)from new PS at 

decommissioned Blackburn WWTP 

site to Mackus Road PS. 

a Assess conditionlcapacity of existing 

Mackus Road PS. 

e Assess conditionlcapacity of existing 

sewage conveyance system through 

downtown area. 

Assess impact of added sewage flow 

on Lansdowne Road WWTP 

capacityloperation. 

LEGEND: 

. - - - - - - Exist. Sanitary Collection Mains 

Bbckburn Sanitary Collection Area 


Wastewater Treatment Plant 


OPTION 1 

Figure 4.1

Section 4.0 - Blackbum Treatment Options 

Key technical issues associated with this option are as follows: 

Extent to which the VI reduction program is able to reduce peak wet 

weather flows must be evaluated. 

City need operate only one wastewater treatment and disposal facility. 

Major capital works needed to transfer flows to Lansdowne Road WWTP. 

Condition and capacity of the existing Mackus Road pumpstation must be 

evaluated. 

Details for pipeline routes for transferring Blackbum sewage flows to 

Lansdowne Road WWTP must be evaluated. 

Impact of added flow on capacityloperation of Lansdowne Road WWTP 

needs to be evaluated. 

Ammonia toxicity issue addressed at Lansdoume Road WWTP. 

4.1.2 Design Information 

Population 

ADWF, m3/d 

PWWF, m31d 

Pipework 

Forcernain from intersection of Mackus Road and North 

Blackburn Road to a high point on Hwy. 16. 

Diameter, mm 

Length, m 

Gravity sewer main from the end of 200 diameter forcemain to 

the Regional Correctional Centre tie-in 

Diameter, rnrn 

Length, m 

Forcemain from the existing Blackbum WWTP site to the high 


Diameter, mrn 

Length, m 

Sanitary sewer syphon from Yellowhead Bridge connecting to 

downtown sewage collection system 

Diameter, mm 

Length, m 

Gravity sewer to intersection of isth Ave. and Taylor Drive; 

construct new manhole

Section 4.0 - Blackbum Treatment Ovtions 

Diameter, mrn 300 

Length, m 100 

Gravity sewer along l5Ih ~ ve. from Taylor Drive to Birch Street; 

connect to 525 diameter sewer 


Length, m 180 

Pumpstation 

Upgrade Mackus Road PS for PWWF capacity 

Supply and install PS at existing Blackbum WWTP site to 

senice residence along Graves and Foreman Roads; capable of 

pumping 10 percent of PWWF. 

Miscellaneous 

Restordlandscape existing Blackbum WWTP site. 

4.1.3 Cost Estimate 

Pipework 

1 5 0 forcemain, S 1 00/m 

200 forcernain, $1 8O/m 

200 syphon, $200/m 

300 gravity sewer 

Blackburn, $1 60/m 

Downtown, $250/m 

Pumpstation 

Mach Road PS, LS 

Foreman Road PS, LS 

Miscellaneous 

Blackbum WWTP site restoration/lmdscaping, LS 

Subtotal 

Contingencies (15 percent) 

EngineeringIAdministration (20 percent) 

GST (3 percent) 

TOTAL 

4.2 OPTION 2 - DECOMMISSION EXISTING BLACKBURN WVTP AND 

ROUTE ALL FLOW TO LANSDOWNE ROAD WWTP VIA GRAVITY 

SEWER CONNECTION 

4.2.1 Outline 


flow transferred for treatment at the Lansdowne Road WWTP via a new trunk 

gravity sewer. A schematic representation of this option is presented in Figure


4.2. An UI reduction program is to be initiated and completed to reduce the 

volume of wastewater being transfmed during wet weather and snowmelt 

conditions. The existing Mackus Road pumpstation would be upgraded. It is 

believed that the Lansdowne Road WWTP has sufficient capacity to handle the 

projected future hydraulic and BOD5tTSS loadings from the Blackbum sewage 





Upgrade Mackus Road pu&pstation to handle projected increased flows. 

Construct trunk gravity sewer to transfer all flows from Blackburn 

sewerage area to Lansdowne Road WWTP. 


from Blackburn sewerage area. 


Extent to which the If1 reduction program is able to reduce peak wet 





evaluated. 

Details for pipeline routes for transferring Blackburn sewage flows to 


Ammonia toxicity issue addressed at Lansdowne Road WWTP. 


Population 

ADWF, m3/d 

PWWF, m3/d

Initiate I11 reduction program and 

complete over 5110 year period; 


Decommission existing Blackbum 


Route all flow to Lansdowne Road 

WWTP. 

Pipeline route (a m rn a) from Blackbum 

WWTP site to Correctional Centre tie41 

Assess conditionlcapacity of existing 


Assess conditionlcapaciiy of existing 






LEGEND: 

Exist. Sanitary Collection Mains 





OPTION 2 

Figure 4.2

Section 4.0 - Blackburn Treatment Options 

Pipework 

Gravity sewermain from the existing Blackbum WWTP site to 


Diameter, mm 

Length, m 



Diameter, mm 

Length, m 

Gravity sewer to intersection of l5Ih Ave. and Taylor Drive; 

construct new manhole 

Diameter, mm 

Length, m 

Gravity sewer along 15" Ave. from Taylor Drive to Birch St.; 


Diameter, mm 

Length, m 

Pumpstation 


Miellaneous 

Restoreflandscape existing Blackburn WWTP site. 

4.23 Cost Estimate 

Pipework 

200 syphon, $200/m 


Blackburn, $160/m 


Pumpstation 

Mackus Road PS, LS 

Miscellaneous 

Btackburn M P site restoratiodandscaping, LS 

Subtotal 


EngineerindAdministration (20 percent) 


TOTAL


4.3 OPTION 3 - USE EXISTING BLACKBURN WWTP FOR 

EOUALIZATIONlSTORAGE AND TRANSFER ALL FLOWS TO 

4.3.1 Outline 

In this option the existing sewage lagoons would be converted to flow 

equalization/storage basins, and all flows transferred for treatment at the 

Lansdowne Road WWTP. A schematic representation of this option is 

presented in Figure 4.3. The principal beneiit of this option is that the peak 

flows being transferred from the Blackbum sewage collection area to the 

Lansdowne Road WWTP would be attenuated somewhat. An I/I reduction 

program is to be initiated and completed to reduce the volume of wastewater 

being transferred during wet ieather and snowmelt conditions. Tne existing 

Mackus Road pumpstation would be upgraded. It is believed that the 

Lansdowne Road WWTP has sufficient capacity to handle the projected future 

hydraulic and BODDSS loadings from the Blackburn sewage collection area. 


Implement VI reduction program. 

Modify lagoons for use as flow equalizationk.torage basins. 


Construct trunk gravity sewer to transfer all flows fiorn Blackbum 


Upgrade downtown sewage collection system to handle increased flows 



Extent to which the LfI reduction program is able to reduce peak wet 


City must maintain operation of storage basins; O&M costs of 

equalizationktorage basins are only slightly lower than O&M costs for the 

existing treatment lagoons. 

Major capital works needed to transfer flows to Lansdowne WWTP and 

modify lagoons.

Initiate llt reduction program and 

complete over 511 0 year period; 


Modify existing Blackbum WWTP 

to operate as storage basins. 

Route all flow to Lansdowne Road 

WWTP. 

Pipeline route (m m m) from Blackburn 

storage basins to Correctional 

Centre tie-in. 






Assess impact of added sewage 

flow on Lansdowne Road WWTP 


I. 

I/ 

I. 

li 

i I 

! 

LEGEND: 

! ------ Exist. Sanitary Collection Mains 





OPTION 3 

Figure 4.3



evaluated. 





Population 

ADWF, m3/d 

PWWF, m3/d 

Pipework 



Diameter, mm 

Length, m 



Diameter, rnrn 

Length, m 

Gravity sewer to intersection of 15' Ave. and Taylor Drive; 


Diameter, mm 

Length, m 

Gravity sewer along 1 5 Ave. ~ from Taylor Drive to Birch St.; 


Diameter, rnm 

Length, m 

Pumpstation 


MisceIlaneous 

Modifications to Blackbum WWTP to operate as storage basin 


Pipework 

200 syphon, $200/m 


Blackbum, $160/m 


Pumpstation 

Mackus Road PS, LS


Miscellaneous 

Blackbum WWTP modifications to allow lagoons 

to operate as storage basins, LS 100,000 

Subtotat 1,165,000 

Contingencies (1 5 percent) 

EngineeringlAdminisWion (20 percent) 


TOTAL 

4.4 OPTION 4 - TRANSFER ALL FLOW < 2*ADWF TO LANSDOWNE 

ROAD WWTP AND USE THE EXISTING BLACKBURN WWTP TO 

TREAT FLOWS > 2*ADWF 

4.4.1 Outline 

In this option all flows up to 2*ADWF would be transferred &om the 

Blackburn sewage collection area for treatment at the Lansdowne Road 

WWTP. The existing sewage lagoons would be used only to treat wet weather 

flows > 2*AI)WF. A schematic representation of this option is presented in 

Figure 4.4. An It1 reduction program is to be i~tiated and completed to reduce 

the volume of wastewater being treated in the lagoons during wet weather and 

snowmelt conditions. The existing Mackus Road pumpstation would be 

upgraded and a new purnpstation constmcted to handle excess flow 

>2*ADWF. It is believed that the Lansdowne Road WWTP has sufficient 

capacity to handle the projected future 2*ADWF hydraulic and BODjtTSS 

loadings fkom the Blackbum sewage collection area. All wet weather flow > 

2*ADWF will be pumped to the existing Blackbum WWTP for treatment. 

Key activities or capitat works associated with this option are as follows: 


Upgrade Mackus Road purnpstation to handle project4 increased flows. 

All dry weather flows < 2'ADWF are to be pumped to Lansdowne Road 

WWTP; all wet weather flows > 2*ADWF are to be pumped to Blackburn 

WWTP. 

Construct trunk gravity sewer and/or forcemain to transfer all flows 

Initiate Ill reduction program and 



0 Maintain existing Blackburn WWTP 

for flows > 2(ADWF). 

Route Rows s 2(ADWF) to Lansdowne 

Road WIKTP. 

Pipeline route ( 

m) from 

Mackus Road PS to Correctional 

Centre tiein. 

Route flow > 2(ADWF) to Blackburn 

WWTP using existing pipeline; 

provide primary treatment and 

discharge to Fraser River. 

Road 


Mackus Road PS; provide PS to pump 

flows > 2(ADWF) to Blackburn WWTP. 




Assess impact of added 2(ADWF) 

sewage flow on Lansdowne Road 

WWTP capacityloperation. 

I 

LEGEND: 

. - - - - - - Exist. Sanitary Collection Mains 



Black ;bum Wastewater Treatment Plant 


OPTION 4 

Figure 4.4

Section 4.0 - Blackbm Treatment Options 


Extent to which the I/I reduction program is able to reduce peak wet 


City must maintain operation of Blackbum WWTP; O&M costs associated 

with lagoon operation will not be significantly lower that for current 

operation. 

Expansion of the existing lagoons will not be required. 

Ammonia toxicity of lagoon emuent needs to be addressed. 

Major capital works required to transfer and proportion flows to 

Lansdowne Road WWTP and to Blackburn WWTP. 


evaluated. 


Lansdowne Road WWTP must be evaluated, as well as, pumping of wet 

weather flows to Blackburn WWTP. 

Ammonia toxicity issue partialIy addressed at Lansdowne Road WWTP for 

2*ADWF 


Population 

ADWF, m3/d 

PWWF, m3/d 

Pipework 

Forcemain fiom intersection of Mackus Road and North 

Blackbum Road to a high point on Hwy. 16 



Gravity sewermain fiom the end of 200 diameter forcemain to 







Length, m 100


Gravity sewer to intersection of 15" Ave. and Taylor Drive; 



Length, m 100 

Gravity sewer along 15' Ave. from Taylor Drive to Birch St.; 



Length, m 180 

Pumpstation 

Upgrade Mackus Road PS for 2*AD WF capacity 

w 

Supply and install PS and construct overflow wet well to handle 

flows > 2 * m 

Miscellaneons 

Modifications to existing BIackbwn WWTP to provide primary 

treatment for flows > 2*ADWF 


Pipework 

200 forcemain, $180/m 

w 200 syphon, $200/m 


Blackburn, $l6O/m 


Pumpstation 


Mackus Road Overflow PS, LS 

Miscellaneous 

Blackbum WWTP modifications, LS 

Subtotal 


Engineering/Adminishtion (20 percent) 


TOTAL 


ROAD W TP AND USE THE EXISTING BLACKBURN WWTP TO 


4.5.1 Outline 

In this option all flows up to 2*ADWF would be transferred from the 

Blackburn sewage collection area for treatment at the Lansdowne Road 

WWTP. The existing sewage lagoons would be used only to treat wet weather


flows > 2*ADWF. A schematic representation of this option is presented in 

Figure 4.5. An VI reduction program is to be initiated and completed to reduce 


snowmelt conditions. The existing Mackus Road purnpstation would be 

upgraded and modifications constructed at the Blackburn WWTP to handle 

excess flow >2*ADWF. It is believed that the Lansdowne Road WWTP has 

sufficient capacity to handle the projected future 2*ADWF hydraulic and 

BODOS loadings hm the Blackbum sewage collection area. All wet 

weather flow > 2*ADWF will be diverted to the existing Blackbum WWTP 

for treatment. 


Implement VI reduction prbgram. 

Upgrade Mackus Road purnpstation to handle projected increased flows. 

Construct trunk gravity sewer to transfer dry weather flow from Blackbum 


Upgrade downtown sewage collection system to handle 2*AD\VF h m 

Blackbum sewerage area. 


Extent to which the I/l reduction program is able to reduce peak wet 


City must maintain Blackbum WWTP; O&M costs associated with lagoon 

operation will not be significantly lower than for current operation. 

0 Expansion of the existing lagoons will not be required. 

Ammonia toxicity of lagoon effluent needs to be addressed. 

Major capital works needed to transfer flows to Lansdowne Road WWTF'. 

0 Condition and capacity of the existing Mackus Road pumpstation must be 

evaluated. 


Lansdowne Road WWTP must be evaluated, as well as modifications 

required to divert wet weather flows to Blackbum WWTP. 

Ammonia toxicity issue partially addressed at Lansdowne Road WWTP.




0 Maintain existing Blackburn WWTP 

for flows > 2(ADWF). 

Route all flow to Blackburn WWTP 

using existing pipeline. 

Route flows s 2(ADWF) to Lansdown 

Road WWTP for treatment. 

Pipeline route (= =) from Blackbun 

WWTP to Correctional Centre tie-in. 

8 Provide primary treatment for flows 

> 2(ADWF) at Blackbum WWTP and 

discharge to Fraser River. 

Assess conditionlcapacity of existin: 


Assess conditionkapacity of existins 

sanitary conveyance system through 


Assess impact of added 2(ADWF) 

sewage flow on Lansdowne Road 

WWTP capacityloperation. 

LEGEND: 

. - - - - - - Exist. Sanlary Collection Mains 

Blackbum Sanitary Collectjon Area



Population 

ADWF, m3/d 

PWWF, m3/d 

Pipework 



Diameter, mm 

Length, m 

Sanitary sewer syphon connecting to downtown sewage 

collection system 

Diameter, mm 

Length, m 



Diameter, mm 

Length, m 

Gravity sewer along 15'~ Ave. hm Taylor Drive to Birch St.; 


Diameter, mm 

Length m 

Pumpstation 

Upgrade Mackus Road PS for 2*ADWF capacity 

Miscellaneous 


Modifications to existing Blackbum WWTP to provide primary 

tre-ent for flows > 2*ADWF 

Pipework 

200 syphon, $200/m 


Blackbm, $160/m 


Pumpstation 


Miscellaneous 

Btackburn WWTP modifications, LS 

Subtotal 


Engineering/ Administration (20 percent) 


TOTAL


4.6 OPTION 6 - UPGRADE AND EXPAND BLACKBURN WWTP TO 

TREAT PROJECTED FLOWS AND LOADS 

4.6.1 Outline 

In this option the existing sewage lagoons would be upgraded and expanded to 

handle projected flows and loads from the Blackburn sewage collection area, 

for an ultimate population of 5,000 persons, and to meet required effluent 

standards. The existing treatment system consists of two aerated lagoons, 

sized to accommodate a contributing population of 2,500. Expanding the 

lagoon system to handle the ultimate population of 5,000 would involve 

doubling its present size. The expanded lagoon system will address 

conventional treatment requirements for BODs and TSS removal. However, 

the lagoon system must also ahress removal of ammonia toxicity. Because of 

the winter and early spring weather conditions experienced in the Prince 

George area, it is practically impossible to achieve ammonia removal by 

nitrification in an aerated lagoon system. The issue of ammonia toxicity 

removal would have to be addressed by considering the addition of a tertiary 

rotating biological contactor (RBC) process to provide nitrification of the 

lagoon emuent. A schematic representation of this option is presented in 

Figure 4.6. An VI reduction program is to be implemented to reduce the 

volume of wastewater being treated in the lagoons during wet weather and 


upgraded. 


Implement I/I reduction program. 

Rehabilitate existing lagoons. 

Double lagoon capacity. 


Address ammonia toxicity issue by considering the use of a tertiary 

nitrifying RBC. 


Extent to which the VI reduction program will reduce peak wet weather 

flows must be evaluated.

CITY OF PRINCE GEORGE 

Scale= $:I00 

f 

Existing Chlorine 

Contact Tank 


complete over 5/10 year period; 


0 Upgrade and expand Blackbum 

WWTP lagoon facility; provide 

treatment capability for ammonia 

reduction to address toxicity concerns. 

No routing of flow to Lansdowne Road 

WWT P. 



Existing 

Operations 

Building 

lsM 



Blackburn Wastewater Treatment Planl 


OPTION 6 

Figure 4. t


* The City must maintain the Blackbum WWTP; O&M costs associated with 

expanded lagoon operation will be higher than for current operation. 

Additional land area must be identified if further expansion is 

contemplated. 

Ammonia toxicity of the lagoon effluent needs to be addressed. 

Incorporation of a tertiary nitrification stage will significantly increase the 

capital and O&M costs of the facility. 

The issue of whether nitrification can reliably be achieved in an add-on 

RBC process at temperatures below P C needs further investigation. 

No transfer of flows and loads, or ammonia toxicity issue to Lansdowne 

Road WWTP. 

Existing excess capacity at the Lansdowne Road WWTP would not be 

utilized. 


evaluated. 


Population 

ADWF, m3/d 

P W , m3/d 

Stage 1 (existing) 

Lagoon l (primary) 

Number 

Volume, m3 

FRT (@ ADWF = 900 m3/d), d 

Lagoon 2 (secondary) 

Number 

Volume, m3 

HRT (@ ADWF = 900 m3/d), d 

Aeration Blowers 

Number 

Power, hp 

Stage 2 (expanded) 

Lagoon 1MlB (primary) 

Number 

Volume, in3


HRT (@ ADWF = 1,750 m3/d), d 

Lagoon 2N2B (secondary) 

Number 

Volume, rn3 

HRT (@ ADWF = 1,750 m3/d), d 

0 Aeration Blowers 

Number 

Power, hp 

Headworks 

According to original design data presented on AESL as-built drawing 4102- 

01-S-102, the influent works (channels and screens) are adequately sized to 

accommodate Stage 2 flows. No major modifications are required in this area. 

Aerated Lagoons 

The aerated lagoon system will need to be twinned to accommodate the design 

ADWF of 1,750 m3/d. Construction work involves the following: 

Excavation of two lagoons to the east of the existing two. The dimensions 

will be identical to the existing lagoons. The total volume to be excavated 

is approximately 23,000 m3. It is assumed some of the excavated material 

can be used to extend the berm and no material needs to be imported to 

complete construction. 

Replacement of both existing 60 hp aeration blowers. Depending on the 

mode of operation, the plant presently requires either 1 or both blowers 

running; series operation requires 60 hp, and parallel requires 120 hp. Stage 

2 requires 150 hp for series and 225 hp for parallel. There is presently 

room for three blowers in the existing building. Assuming present 

operating practice of no standby capacity during parallel operation is 

maintained, three 75 hp (nominal) aeration blowers will be required. 

Duplication of the air distribution system (34 "aeration guns" in each 

lagoon for a total of 68 new units). If is assumed the air distribution 

pipework will be mirrored. 

Additional emuent and drain piping will be required to connect the new 

lagoons to the chlorine contact chamber. The chlorine contact chamber is 

adequate for Stage 2 flows. It is assumed the new emuent pipework will be 

of similar configuration to the existing, with approximately 350 m of 300 

mm pipe, 2 manholes, and 3 concrete chambers.


Nitrifying RBCs 

The above aerated lagoon system will be unable to produce a nitrified effluent. 

Therefore, if ammonia removal is required, a mechanical process such as a 

rotating biological contactor (RBC) must be added to treat the lagoon effluent 

to reduce the levels of ammonia. The process would be smaller than one 

needed to treat raw wastewater, as the organic loads in the lagoon emuent are 

significantly reduced. 

An RBC consists of a series of discs on which a fixed film of biological 

material is grown and maintained. The discs are mounted on a driveshaft, 

which rotates the discs through the wastewater. Oxygen is transferred to the 

biomass from the atmosphere during the time that the disc is out of the 

wastewater. 

An RBC can be hydraulically loaded at 0.03 - 0.08 m3/m2/d for combined BOD 

removal and nitrification. For separate nitrification, the hydraulic loading can 

be increased slightly to 0.04 - 0.10 m3/m2/d. To treat the anticipated ADWF of 

1,750 m3/d, approximately 16,700 m2 of media is required. 

At wastewater temperatures below 12S°C, the size of the RBC must be 

adjusted to achieve the same levels of performance. If the wastewater 

temperature is as low as 4OC (lagoon effluent could conceivably be lower in 

this climate), the area of the media must be increased by a factor of at least 2.5. 

Therefore a total area required to achieve nitrification at 4OC is in the order of 

42,000 m2. As the wastewater spends upwards of 20 days in a relatively 

shallow lagoon, the temperature of the effluent entering the RBC during the 

coldest periods is likely to approach 0°C. The surface area correction curves 

for media, below 4OC are quite steep, and it appears impractical to size an R3C 

in this temperature range. 

Nitrifying RBC 

Hydraulic loading rate, m3/m2/d 

Temperature correction factor 

Surface area, m2 

Without temperature correction 

With temperature correction 

Number 

Disc diameter, m



Lagoon System Without RBCYs 

Sitework 

Excavationberm construction, LS 

Manholes/chambers/pipes, LS 

Equipment 

Headworks, lagoons, chambers, LS 

Mechanical 


ElectricallInstrumeotation 


MisceUaneous 

Pumpstation 


Subtotal 


Engineering/Administration (20 percent) 


Total (without RBC) 

Lagoon System with RBC's for Nitrification 

The following listing of costs is the extra capital cost requird to include a 

nitrifiying R8C process at lagoon effluent temperature of 4OC. 

Structural 

TanklFRP covers, LS 

Equipment 

RBC's 

Mechanical 

Interconnecting pipework, etc. 

ElectricallInstrumeotation 

RBC motors and controls 

Miscellaneous 

Subtotal @BC) 

Subtotal (Lagoons) 




Total (with RBC)


When compared to the use of lagoons only, the inclusion of nitrifying RBCs 

into the process train increases the capital cost of this option by approximately 

$1 .O M, or 75 percent. 


REPLACE WITH A NEW SECONDARY TREATMENT PLANT 

4.7.1 Outline 

In this option the existing sewage lagoons would be decommissioned and 

replaced with a new secondary wastewater treatment plant with an ultimate 

design population of 5,000 persons. It is expected that conventional secondary 

treatment technology (either extended aeration, RSCs or SBRs) would be 

required. For the purpose -of this analysis, it has been assumed that a 

conventional activated sludge process will be used to achieve BODS and TSS 

removal. The issue of ammonia toxicity would be addressed by incorporating 

year-round nitrification into the process design using an extended aeration 

oxidation ditch process. A schematic representation of this option is presented 

in Figure 4.7. An yI reduction program is to be implemented to reduce the 

volume of wastewater being treated during wet weather and snowmelt 

conditions. The existing Mach Road pumpstation would be upgraded. 



Decommission Blackbum sewage lagoons and replace with new 

mechanical wastewater treatment plant. 

Upgrade Mackus Road pumpstation to handle projected flows. 

Address ammonia toxicity issue by incorporating nitrification into the 

process design. 


Extent to which the I/I reduction program will reduce peak wet weather 

flows must be evaluated. 

City must maintain the Blackbum WWTP; capital and O&M costs 

associated with a new mechanical plant at Blackbum will be significantly 

greater than for current lagoon operation.

:ITY Of PRINCE GEORGE 

Existing Chlorine 

Contact Tank 

Initiate UI reduction program and 



0 Decommission exisitng Blackburn 

WWTP and restorellandscape site as 

required. 

Sludge Storage 

I 

7 ( 

T, 

Secondary Clarifiers 

a Replace lagoon system with new 

secondary treatment plant; evaluate 

SBR, RBC and extended aeration 

process; provide treatment 

capability for ammonia reduction to 

address toxicity concerns. 

No routing of flow to Lansdowne 

Road WWTP. 

Asses conditionlcapacity of existing 


Anoxic delector 

I 

,-- Concrete 

Ditch 

Existing Lagoons 

- Existing Operations Building 

(clw New Screens, Blowem) 


Blackburn Wastewater Treatment Plan! 



OPTION 7 

Figure 4. i

Section 4.0 - Blackburn Treatment Ootions 

Proposed mechanical treatment plant will be more reliable in achieving 

nitrification than lagoodRJ3C combination. 

The incorporation of nitrification into the process design will significantly 

increase capital cost and marginally increase O&M costs. 

No transfer of flows and loads, or ammonia toxicity issue to Lansdowne 

Road WWTF'. 

Existing excess capacity at the Lansdowne Road WWTP would not be 

utilized. 


evaluated. 


Population 

ADWF, m3/d 

PWWF, m3/d 

Preliminary Treatment 

Preliminary treatment removes coarse soli ds from the incoming wz tewater, 

which has a deleterious effect on downstream processes (pump clogging, 

abrasion, etc). At the very minimum, fme screening is required in front of a 

secondary process to remove bulky solids, and other inorganic materials. Grit 

removal is sometimes included, but the proposed secondary process (oxidation 

ditch) does not absohtely require it. 

The existing screening room has three channels: two 600 mm channels (one 

equipped with a 75 mm trash rack, one bypass) and a central 450 mm channel 

with a cornminutor. A mechanically cleaned screen can be installed into one 

of the 600 mm channels. 

Number 

Opening size, mm 

ADWF, Us 

Velocity through screen @ ADWF, mfs 

Depth of flow, rnm 

Width of channel (min), mm


Secondary Treatment 

Secondary activated sludge processes involve aeration basin(s) and clarifiers. 

Wastewater enters the basins where it is aerated and mixed with a population 

of preconditioned microorganisms. Soluble organic material is removed from 

the wastewater by biological oxidation, and the insoluble material is removed 

by physical entrapment and adsorption within the floc. This mixture of 

microorganisms and organic matter is called mixed liquor suspended solids, or 

activated sludge. AAer leaving the aeration basin, the mixed fiquor is 

separated into a clear supernatant fraction (secondary effluent) and settled 

solids (return activated sludge). The return activated sludge is pumped back to 

the aeration basin and mixed with the raw influent to maintain the microbial 

population. The solids retentmn time (SRT) or sludge age, is controlled by 

daily wasting a fraction of either the mixed liquor or the return activated 

sludge. This serves to offset excessive microbial growth in the aeration basin. 

Conventional activated sludge processes are designed solely for BOD and TSS 

reduction; an hydraulic retention time of only 7 h, and a sludge age of 4 to 7 d 

are required for this. If ammonia toxicity in the effluent is an issue, the 

retention times must be increased to foster nitrification, which is the 

conversion of ammonia to nitrites and nitrates. Organisms, which perform this 

reaction generally, grow at a slower rate. This modification is called extended 

aeration, and involves doubling the hydraulic and solids retention times. A 

small non-aerated compartment known as an anoxic selector is usually 

included at the inlet to the aeration tank. This environment favours the growth 

of flac-forming organisms over filamentous organisms, which enhance the 

settleability of the mixed liquor, which in turn improves the quality of the 

secondary effluent. In addition, it reduces some of the nitrates produced in the 

nitrification reaction. Nitrates are converted to dissolved nitrogen, which 

evolves as nitrogen gas to the atmosphere. 

In the event that primary treatment is not included, the secondary treatment 

parameters described above would require further increase by a factor of 

approximately 1.5 to 2.0. A process flow diagram of the activated sludge 

process as it may be applied at this site is described below. Screened 

wastewater is combined with return activated sludge and enters an anoxic cell, 

which in turn discharges to an oxidation ditch equipped with fine bubble 

diffusers and mixers to drive the flow around the circuit. Due to the absence of 

primary clarifiers, the oxidation ditch will be sized for a hydraulic retention 

time of 24 h to ensure nitrification. The mixed liquor then flows to two 

secondary clarifiers, each sized for 50 percent of the total flow. Emuent from


the clarifier discharges directly to the river. The settled sludge is pumped back 

to the aeration basins at a rate approximately equal to the influent ADWF. 

Excess sludge is wasted from the return activated sludge and diverted to a vault 

where it is allowed to settle further. The supernatant from this vault is decanted 

back to the plant headworks. Thickened sludge is transported off-site for 

disposal. 

Non-nitrifying bioreactor 

HRT, h 

SRT, d 

Anoxic cells 

Volume (anoxic cell), m3 

Power (anoxic cell mixer)!hp 

Aerobic cells 

Volume (aerobic cell), m3 

Plan dimensions, m 

SWD,m 

MLSS, mglL 2,200 

Type of aeration 

Blowers 

Power (aeration blowers), hp 

fine bubble dif!%sers 

2 

40 

Mixers (aerobic cell) 

Power (aerobic cell mixers), hp 

Waste activated sludge storage 

Waste RAS (@ 8,000 ma), m3fd 

WAS storage capacity, d 

Volume (WAS tank), m3 

Plan dimensions, m 

SWD,m 

WAS tank aerator 

Power (tank aerator), hp 

Secondary Clarifiers 

Secondary clarification is required to remove the bulk of solids !?om the mixed 

liquor before final discharge, and to return the separated biological solids to the 

bioreactor. The secondary clarifiers will be sid to process 50 percent of 

ADWF each at a relatively low overflow rate, thereby allowing one to be taken


out of senice for maintenance and emergencies while allowing the other to 

perform adequately. Only one clarifier would be provided at first; the second 

would be installed when flows and populations warrant. 

Secondary Clarifier 

Clarifiers 

Overflow rate, m3/m2/d 

Surface area, m2 

Diameter, rn 

SWD,m 

2 (1 now; 1 future) 

10 

85 

10 

4.0 

RAS Pumps 

b p s 

Capacity, Lls 

TDH,m 

Power, hp 

Nitrifying Activated Sludge Process 

The above activated sludge process will not be able to produce a nitrified 

effluent. If nitrification is required, the HRT of &he bioreactor will have to be 

increased to approximately 24 h by increasing the volume from 500 m' to 

1,700 m3. The ancillary processes included with this option with nitrification 

are essentially identical to those described above, i.e. the headworks, 

secondary clarifiers, etc. will be the same size. The mechanical components 

(mixers, pumps, etc) should be of similar size and quantity. The aeration 

system, however, will be larger to meet the oxygen requirements for 

nitrification. The blowers will be more powerful and the size of the aeration 

diffuser grids will be increased proportionally. 

The major cost increase will be in construction costs rather than mechanical 

furnishings. The amount of excavation, concrete, and other structural elements 

required for the bioreactor will be increased by a factor of at least two. 

Nitrifying Bioreactor 

HRT,h 

SRT,d 

Anoxic cells 

Volume (anoxic selector cell) m3 

Power (anoxic cell mixer), hp 

Aerobic cells


Volume (aerobic cells), m3 

Plan dimensions, rn 

SWD,m 

Type of aeration 

Blowem 

Power (aeration blower), hp 

fine bubble diffusers 

2 

60 

Mixers 

Power (mixers), hp 


Conventional activated sludge plant 

Sitework 

Excavation, preparation, backfill, etc. LS 

Structural 

HeadworMlower bldgJsludge vault, LS 

Bioreactor, LS 

Clarifiers,LS 

Equipment 

Headworkshlower bldg./sludge vault, LS 


Clarifiers,LS 

Mechanical 

Headworkshlower bldg./sludge vault, LS 


Clarifiers, LS 

ElectricaVInstmmentation 

Headworks/blower bldg./sludge vault, LS 



Miscellaneous, LS 

Pumpstation 

Makus Road PS, LS 

Subtotal 


EngineeringtAdministration (20 percent) 


Total


Extended Aeration Plant 

Sitework 

Excavation, preparation, backfill, etc., LS 

Structural 

Headworks/blower bldg./sludge vault, LS 



Equipment 

Headworkshlower bldg.lsludge vault, LS 



Mechanical 

Headworkslblower bldg.ls1udge vault, LS 


Clarifiers,LS 

ElectricallInstrumentation 

Headworkdblower bldg./sludge vault, LS 



MisceUaneous, LS 

Pumpstation 

Makus Road PS, LS 

Subtotal 


EngineeringtAdministration (20 percent) 


Total 

When compared to the conventional activated sludge option, the incorporation 

of nitrification into the process design increases the capital cost of this option 

by over $0.5 M, or approximately 35 percent. 

4.8 LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS 

Seven basic options were identified in the previous sections as being 

appropriate for evaluation. Two of the options, Options 6 and 7, are based on 

maintaining full secondary treatment at the Blackbum WWTP site. These two 

options have been further subdivided into Options 6a and 6b, and 7a and 7b, 

respectively, to address the issue of ammonia toxicity removal. Conceptual 

level costing has been developed for each of the options as well as detailed


descriptions to assist with the decision making process. These seven basic 

wastewater treatment andor transfer options and the two sub-options will be 

evaluated against both economic and non-economic criteria. 

The non-economic analysis is described in Section 5.0, and was completed at 

the Decision Workshop held with City staff on October 19, 1999. 

The economic analysis is based on preliminary capital cost estimates and 

ongoing operating and maintenance (O&M) cost estimates for the above nine 

options. Estimates were also made of the approximate timing of the required 

capital expenditures. These values were used to generate 25-year life cycle 

wst estimates for the nine options using a net present value (NPV) analysis at 

a discount rate of 6 percent. : 

In all nine options, it was assumed that the major capital expenditure would 

occur in 200612007, so that the upgrades would be fully operational when the 

existing sewage lagoons at the Blackbum WWTP are at capacity. The existing 

lagoons will be operated until that time. Implicit in this assumption is that the 

L'I mitigation measures will be successhlly completed in the next five years. 

In all options involving the transfer of wastewater from the Blackburn 

colIection area to the Lansdowne Road W P , which are Options 1 to 5, a 

small incremental O&M cost allowance was made for treating the additional 

wastewater at the Lansdowne Road WWTP. However, no allowance was 

made for the fact that this transfer may require & earlier upgrade at 

Landsdowe Road WWTP as the Blackburn sewage flows are less that 4 

percent of the existing capacity at Lansdowne Road WWTP, and the effect of 

such a small incremental increase is outside the accuracy of this analysis. 

The estimated capital and 25-year life cycle costs for the nine wastewater 

treatment options are presentd in Appendix B, and are summarized in Table 

4.1 below. 

TabIe 4.1: 25-year Life Cycle Costs


Option 

7a 

7b 

Capital Cost 

1999 

1,785,000 

2,315,000 

NT'V 

Capital Cost 

1,155,000 

1,495,000 

NPV 

O&M Costs 

1,840,0000 

1,840,0000 

XPV 

Total 

2,995,000 

3,335,000 

The above life cycle cost summary shows that the NeV of Options 1,2, 3,4, 5, 

and 6a are all within approximately 20 percent of each other, with Option 2 

(decommission Blackbum WWTP and transfer all flows by gravity sewer to 

the Lansdowne Road WWTP) having the lowest overall cost. All options 

involving the installation of a mechanical secondary treatment plant at the 

Blackburn site (Options 6b, 7a and 7b) have a significantly higher cost than the 

flow transfer options.

SECTION 4 

WASTEWATER TREATMENT OPTIONS

SECTION 4.0 

BLACKBURN TREATMENT OPTIONS 

The following seven options have been identified for upgrading the Blackburn 

sewage collection area and WWTP: 


ROUTE ALL FLOW TO LANSDOWNE ROAD WWTP MA 

FORCEMAINlGRAVITY SEWER CONNECTION 

4.1.1 Outline 


flows transferred for treatment at the Lansdowne Road WWTP via a new 

forcemain and trunk gravity sewer from the Mackus Road pumpstation. A 

schematic representation of this option is presented in Figure 4.1. An VI 

reduction program is to be initiated and completed to reduce the volume of 

wasfewater being transferred during wet weather and snowmelt conditions. 

The existing Mackus Road pumpstation would be upgraded and a new, small 

pumpstation would be constructed at the Blackbum WWTP site. It is believed 

that the Lansdowne Road WWTP has sufficient capacity to handIe the 

projected future hydraulic and BODflSS loadings from the Blackbum sewage 



Implement and complete I/I reduction program. 



Construct t ~nk gravity sewer and/or forcemain to transfer all flows from 

Blackbum sewerage area to Lansdowne Road WWTP. 


from Blackbum sewerage area 

Construct sewage pumpstation at Blackbum WWTP site and construct 

connecting forcemain discharging to Mackus Road pumpstation.

1 

Initiate In reduction program and 

complete over 5/10 years; 


0 Decommission existing Blackburn 



Pipeline route (8 8 rn 8) from Mackus 

Road PS to Correctional Centre tie-in. 

Pipeline route (8 8 rn .)from new PS at 

decommissioned Blackburn WWTP 

site to Mackus Road PS. 







Exist. Sanitary Collection Mains 



ckburn Wastewater Treatment Plant 


I


Key technical issues associated with this option are as folIows: 

Extent to which the I/i reduction program is able to reduce peak wet 





evaiuated. 



Impact of added flow on capacity/operation of Lansdowne Road WWTP 

needs to be evaluated. 



Population 

ADWF, m3/d 

PWWF, m3/d 

Pipework 

Forcemain from intersection of Mackus Road and North 

Blackburn Road to a high point on Hwy. 16. 

Diameter, mm 

Length, m 

Gravity sewer main from the end of 200 diameter forcemain to 


Diameter, mm 

Length, m 

Forcemain from the existing Blackburn WWTP site to the high 


Diameter, mrn 

Length, m 



Diameter, mm 

Length, m 


construct new manhole

Section 4.0 - Blackbum Treatment O~tions 


Length, m 100 

Gravity sewer along 15' Ave. from Taylor Drive to Birch Street; 



Length, m 180 

Pumpstation 


Supply and install PS at existing Blackbum WWTP site to 

service residence along Graves and Foreman Roads; capable of 

pumping 10 percent of PWWF. 

Miscellaneons 

Restorellandscape existing Blackbum WWTP site. 


Pipework 

150 forcemain, $100/m 

200 forcemain, $1 8Olm 

200 syphon, $200/m 


Blackburn, $160/m 

Downtown, S250lm 

Pumpstation 


Foreman Road PS, LS 

Miscellaneous 

Blackburn WWTP site restorationflandscaping, LS 

Subtotal 




TOTAL 


ROUTE ALL FLOW TO LANSDOWNE ROAD \ m P VIA GRAVITY 

SEWER CONNECTION 

4.2.1 Outline 


flows transferred for treatment at the Lansdowne Road WWTP via a new trunk 

gravity sewer. A schematic representation of this option is presented in Figure


4.2. An H reduction program is to be initiated and completed to reduce the 

volume of wastewater being transferred during wet weather and snowmelt 

conditions. The existing Mackus Road pumpstation would be upgraded. It is 

believed that the Lansdowne Road WWTP has sufficient capacity to handle the 

projected future hydraulic and BOD5/TSS loadings from the Blackbum sewage 


Key activities or capital works assmiated with this option are as follows: 



Upgrade Mackus Road pdpstation to handle projected increased flows. 

Construct trunk gravity sewer to transfer all flours hrn Blackbum 





Extent to which the VI reduction program is able to reduce peak wet 





evaluated. 





Population 

ADWF, m3/d 

PWWE, m3/d

'IN - OF PRINCE GEORGE 

I 




Decommission existing Blackburn 



WWT P. 

Pipeline route (m m m) from Blackbum 

WWTP site to Correctional Centre tie-in. 






. . . . . - - 

~rin ~... 

, - ..c4 a Assess impact of added sewage flow 

citydf" . 

cg~- ~ed@e 

: / Road 

L ---- - . . 



.- ~ 

..-. - --~ 

LEGEND: 


Blackburn Sanitary Collection Area 




OPTION 2 

ENGINEERING LIMITE; Figure 4.2 

I


Pipework 

Gravity sewermain fiom the existing Blackburn WWTP site to 


Diameter, mm 

Length, m 



Diameter, mm 

m 

Gravity sewer to intersection of 1 5 Ave. ~ ~ and Taylor Drive; 


Diameter, mm 

Length, m 

Gravity sewer along 15Ih Ave. from Taylor Drive to Birch St.; 

connect to 525 diameter s&er 

Diameter, mm 

ten&, m 

Pumpstation 

Upgrade Mackus Road PS for P WWF capacity 

Miscellaneous 

Restore/landscape existing Blackbum WWTP site. 


Pipework 

200 syphon, $200/m 




Pumpstation 

Mach Road PS, LS 

Miscellaneous 

Blackburn WWTP site restorationtlandscaping, LS 

Subtotal 


Engineering/Adrninistration (20 percent) 


TOTAL

Section 4.0 - Blackbm Treatment Options 

4.3 OPTION 3 - USE EXISTING BLACKBURN WWTP FOR 

EQUALIZATIONlSTORAGE AND TRANSFER ALL FLOWS TO 

LANSDOWNE ROAD WWTP 

4.3.1 Outline 

In this option the existing sewage lagoons would be converted to flow 

equalizationktorage basins, and all flows transferred for treatment at the 

Lansdowne Road WWTP. A schematic representation of this option is 

presented in Figure 4.3. The principal benefit of this option is that the peak 

flows being transferred from the Blackburn sewage wllection area to the 

Lansdowne Road WWTP would be attenuated somewhat. An VI reduction 

program is to be initiated and completed to reduce the volume of wastewater 

being transferred during wet weather and snowmelt conditions. The existing 

Mackus Road pumpstation would be upgraded. It is believed that the 

Lansdowne Road WWTP has sufficient capacity to handle the projected future 

hydraulic and BODflSS loadings from the Blackburn sewage wllection area. 


Implement L'l reduction program. 

0 Modify lagoons for use as flow equalizatiodstorage basins. 

0 Upgrade Mackus Road pumpstation to handle projected increased flows. 

Construct trunk gravity sewer to transfer all flows ihm Blackburn 


Upgrade downtown sewage collection system to handle increased flows 

from Blackburn sewerage area. 

Key technical issues assmiated with this option are as follows: 

Extent to which the I/I reduction program is able to reduce peak wet 


City must maintain operation of storage basins; O&M costs of 

equalizatiodstorage basins are only slightly lower than O&M costs for the 

existing treatment lagoons. 

Major capital works needed to transfer flows to Lansdowne WWTP and 

modify lagoons.




0 Modify existing Blackburn WWTP 

to operate as storage basins. 


WWT P. 

Pipeline route (m m) from Blackbum 

storage basins to Correctional 

Centre tiein. 



@ Assess conditionlcapacity of existing 



a Assess impact of added sewage 

flow on Lansdowne Road WWTP 

/Ti 

LEGEND: 






I 

OPTION 3 

Figure 4.3



evaluated. 

Details for pipeline routes for transfening Blackbum sewage flows to 



43.2 Design Information 

Population 

ADWF, m3/d 

PWWF, m3/d 

Pipework 

Gravity sewermain hm 

the existing Blackbum WWTP site to 


Diameter, mm 

Length, m 

Sanitary sewer syphon hm Yellowhead Bridge connecting to 


Diameter, mm 

Length, m 

Gravity sewer to intersection of 15" Ave. and Taylor Drive; 


Diameter, mm 

Length, m 

Gravity sewer along lSfh ~ ve. from Taylor Drive to Birch St.; 


Diameter, mm 

Length, m 

Pompstation 

UpgradeMackusRoadPSforPWWFcapacity 

Miscellaneous 

Modifications to Blackbum WWTP to operate as storage basin 

43.3 Cost Estimate 

Pipework 

200 syphon, S2OOJm 



Downtown, S250/m 

Pumpstation 

Mackus Road PS, LS


Miscellaneous 

Blackburn WWTP modifications to allow lagoons 

to operate as storage basins, LS 100,000 

Subtotal 1,165,000 

Contingencies (15 percent) 175,000 

EngineerindAdministration (20 percent) 235,000 

GST (3 percent) 35,000 

TOTAL 1,610,000 


ROAD WWTP AND USE THE EXISTING BLACKBURN WWTP TO 


4.4.1 Outline 

In this option all flows up to 2*ADW would be transferred &om the 

Blackbum sewage collection area for treatment at the Lansdowne Road 

WWTP. The existing sewage lagoons would be used only to treat wet weather 

flows > 2*ADWF. A schematic representation of this option is presented in 

Figure 4.4. An yI reduction program is to be initiated and completed to reduce 



upgraded and a new pumpstation constructed to handle excess flow 

>2*ADWF. It is believed that the Lansdowne Road WWTP has sufficient 

capacity to handle the projected future 2*ADWF hydraulic and BODnSS 

loadings f7om the Blackburn sewage collection area. All wet weather flow > 

2*ADWF will be pumped to the existing Blackbum WWTP for treatment. 


Implement III reduction program. 


Ail dry weather flows < 2*ADWF are to be pumped to Lansdowne Road 

WWTP; all wet weather flows > 2*ADWF are to be pumped to Blackburn 

WWTP. 

Construct trunk gravity sewer and/or forcemain to transfer all flows 

SECTION 3 

AUDIT OF EXISTING FACILITIES

SECTION 3.0 

AUDIT OF EXISTING FACILITIES 

3.1 BLACKBURN WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 

The Blackburn WWTP is adjacent to Foreman Road and treats wastewater 

from the Prince George Airport, Airport Hill, Aitcheson and Blackbum areas. 

The plant was constructed in 1976 for a design population of 2,500, and 

consists of an inlet works, two aerated lagoons with coarse bubble aeration, 

and a chlorination facility. h e plant is presently close to both its design 

hydraulic and organic loading capacity. Its hydraulic capacity is often 

exceeded during wet weather and winterkpring thaw conditions, which 

contribute high levels of III to the wastewater flows. Emuent quality is also 

impacted during the spring to summer transition as the lagoons warm up. 

Lagoon temperatures in the winter are in the order of 0°C to 5"C, and in the 

summer they can exceed 20°C. 

At the time of the site visit in September 1999, the lagoon system was 

producing an emuent quality of BOD5 < 15 mgiL and TSS < 5 mgL. On 

average, the lagoon emuent BODj/TSS concentrations are approximately 

20120 mgL, with occasional pmit exceedences during high flows in the 

spring. During high flow periods, the plant also regularly exceeds the 

maximum allowable daily flow stipulated in the discharge permit. 

There are also a number of reported operating problems with the plant. These 

include the "freezing" of inlet control valves to the lagoons due to corrosion, 

and odour generation during the late spring and early summer. The nearest 

houses are approximately 100 m away korn the lagoons. Occasional odour 

complaints are received, particularly during the spring breakup when the 

lagoon temperature increases, anaerobic biological activity increases and rising 

sludge is observed. The operators address the problem by pumping sludge 

from the primary lagoon to the secondary lagoon over a 6 week period during 

this time. 

3.1.2 Preliminary Treatment 

The existing screening room has three influent channels: two 600 mm wide 

channels (one equipped with a 75 mm trash rack, one bypass) and a central 450

Section 3.0 -Audit of Existing Facilities 

mm wide channel equipped with a cornminutor. The wmminutor is operated 

once per day manually, and three times per day automatically. For each of 

these cycles, the comminutor is run for approximately 5 minutes. 

3.1.3 Secondary Treatment 

The screenedtmacerated wastewater flows by gravity to a series of two unlined 

aerated lagoons. The primary lagoon (Lagoon 1) has a volume of 

approximately 4,500 m3. The secondary lagoon (Lagoon 2) has a volume of 

approximately 14,000 m3. The design mTs of the two lagoons are 

approximately 5 days and 15 days, respectively. Both lagoons are equipped 

with vertical tube coarse bubble aeration diffusers. The aerators are located in 

the centre of Lagoon 1, and in the upstream half of Lagoon 2. The downstream 

half of Lagoon 2 serves as a sludge settling zone. Air to the lagoons is 

supplied by two 60 hp multistage centrifugal blowers. There is some evidence 

of rising sludge and excessive surface foarn/scum in Lagoon 1, and abundant 

surface algae growth on the downstream half of Lagoon 2. 

3.1.4 Effluent Disposal 

The plant is equipped with a chlorine contact tank and chlorination equipment. 

However, the City has had an exemption from eMuent chlorination at the plant 

since 1983. The outlet of the chlorine contact tank is equipped with a V-notch 

weir and Miltronics ultrasonic level sensor, which serve as the principal flow 

measuring device. Effluent from the plant flows through a 300 mm diameter 

outfall pipe to the Fraser River, where it is discharged just below the river low 

water mark. 

3.1.5 Sludge Treatment 

The plant is not equipped with sludge removal or handling equipment. 

Temporary pumps and piping are used to transfer sludge from -Lagoon 1 to 

Lagoon 2 during the spring break-up. Buildup of sludge has not been a 

problem during 25 years of operation and consequently removal of sludge from 

Lagoon 1 or 2 has not been required. 

3.2 LANSDOWNE ROAD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 

3.2.1 Outline 

The Lansdowne Road WWTP is the City's main wastewater treatment facility 

and treats wastewater from all sewered areas within the City with the exception

Section 3.0 -Audit of exist in^ Facilities 

of two industrial subdivisions, Western Acres subdivision and the Blackburn 

area The plant was originally constructed as a high rate activated sludge 

process. In 1996, the plant was upgraded to a trickling filter/solids contact 

(TFISC) process by the addition of trickling filters and new secondary 

clarifiers. The most recent upgrade of the plant was designed for population of 

115,000 and an average dry weather flow (ADWF) of 44.5 MLld. 

Waste primary and secondary sludge from the plant is stabilized by mesophiIic 

anaerobic digestion. The digested sludge is dewatered and stored on the plant 

site before being trucked off-site for application to agricultural and forested 

land. 

At the time of the plant visit in September 1999, the plant was treating about 

30 ML/d, which is approximately 67 percent of its design capacity. There are 

no reported serious operating or odour problems at the plant. 

3.2.2 Preliminary Treatment 

Wastewater entering the plant is screened on two 1,500 mm wide Envirex 

mechanically raked bar screens. The screens have a bar spacing of 19 mm. 

Screenings are removed on a belt conveyor to a pneumatic ejector. Each 

screen is followed by a 900 mm parshall flume, and Fisher and Porter 

ultrasonic level sensor, which serve as the principal flow measuring devices. 

The screened wastewater enters two aerated grit removal chambers (only one 

unit is normally in service at a time). The grit and scum is dewatered and 

trucked off site for disposal at the Regional sanitary landfill. 

3.2.3 Primav Treatment 

The screened degriaed wastewater enters two covered rectangular primary 

sedimentation tanks. The tanks are equipped with plastic chain and flight, and 

cross collector mechanisms. As well, the tanks are equiped with scum removal 

devices. Effluent from the sedimentation tanks is collected through a system 

of submerged launders and flows into a wet well. 

3.2.4 Secondary Treatment 

Secondary treatment consists of biofilters (trickling filters), a solids contact 

tank and two circular secondary clarifiers. Primary eMuent from the wet well 

is pumped to a series of headers for distribution over the top of the biofilters by 

three (2 duty; 1 standby) 60 hp Flygt pumps located in the main pumpstation. 

The biofilter pumps for the pumping of primary effluent to the biofilters are


equipped with VFD's, and are controlled to maintain a given water level in the 

primary effluent channel. The biofilters are equipped with medium density 

Brentwmd crossflow media 6 m deep. Odours emanating from the biofilter 

are controlled using a cocurrent ventilation system. Aithough the biofilters are 

covered, some algae problems have been experienced. However, there does 

not appear to be fly or snail problems typically associated with trickling filters. 

Effluent kom the biofilters is pumped to the solids contact tank by three (2 

duty; 1 standby) 60 hp Flygt pumps located in the main pumpstation. The 

biofilter underflow pumps are equipped with VFD's. The solids contact tank is 

equipped with Wyss rubber sheath diffusers manufactured by Parkson. 

Aeration air is supplied by two (1 duty; 1 standby) 50 hp Aerzen positive 

displacement blowers. Mixed liquor in the solids contact tank appears to have 

good sludge settling properties, with SVI's generally between 65 and 75 mL/g. 

Mixed liquor from the solids contact tank flow by gravity to two 29 m 

diameter secondary clarifiers. The clarifiers are equipped with double sided 

inboard emuent launders and "Tow-Bro" rapid sludge removal mechanisms 

manufactured by Envirex. Return biological solids (RBS) are pumped from 

the secondary clarifiers to the solids contact tank by thee (2 duty; 1 standby) 

30 hp Flygt pumps located in the main pumpstation. 

3.2.5 Emnent Disposal 

The plant is equipped for effluent disinfection and dechlorination using 

gaseous chlorine and sulphur dioxide. However, these facilities are not 

currently in use as the City has an exemption h m effluent chlorination. 

Effluent from the plant discharges to the Fraser River through a 900m diameter 

outfall pipe. 

3.2.6 Sludge Treatment 

Approximately 2.5 L/s of waste secondary sludge is continuously bled off the 

RBS line and returned to the inlet of the primary sedimentation tanks for cothickening 

with the primary sludge. The waste primary and secondary sludge 

mixture is pumped to two mesophilic anaerobic digesters for stabilization. The 

two digesters are operated in series, one as a primary and the other as a 

secondary digester. Both digesters are equipped with floating covers. Digester 

heating is provided by 2 (1 duty; 1 standby) low pressure boilers. Digester gas 

is also used to power a 250 hp cogeneration unit manufactured by Caterpillar. 

The primary digester is reseeded every 2 weeks using sludge from the


secondary digester. Sodium percarbonate is added to the digesters for 

hydrogen sulphide and odour control. 

The digested sludge is dewatered on belt filter presses manufactured by 

Envirex. Each press has a 2 rn wide gravity section, and a 1 m wide pressure 

section. The presses are operated for 7 h/4 4 to 5 &week. Percol757 polymer 

and a potato starch based product (Raifix) are used as coagulants. The presses 

produce a sludge cake with a dry weight solids content of approximately 22 

percent. 

3.3 Operations Staff 

The Blackburn and Lansdowne Road WWTPs are operated by a full time sta!T 

of eight persons consisting of one Class IV chief operator, a laboratory 

technician, 2 Class I1 operators, and 4 Class I operators. The operating staff 

are all based at the Lansdowne Road facility, where most of their duties are 

carried out. One operator spends 1 hld, 7 dweek to do a daily inspection at the 

Blackburn WWTP, and 4 hours once monthly to do the effluent composite 

sampling and preventive maintenance. Other City tradespeople (millwright, 

electrician, instrument technician) are called to the plants on an "as required" 

basis. 

3.4 Conclusion 

The existing Lansdowne Road WWTP was designed for an ADWF of 44.5 

Mud and a PWWF of 115 Mud. The plant is currently treating 

approximately 30 MU& or 67 percent of its design flow and load, and does not 

appear to have any unit processes in either the liquid or sludge treatment 

streams that are close to capacity and may serve as a "bottleneck" if flows to 

the plant were increased by a modest amount. The current dry weather flows 

and loads h m the Blackbum catchment represent less than 2 percent of the 

design capacity of the Lansdowne Road WWTP. The current wet weather 

flows (i.e. prior to implementation of the VI mitigation measures) represent 

less than 5 percent of the hydraulic capacity of the Lansdowne Road WWTP. 

Even with the expected increase in flows and loads from Blackbum sewage 

collection area as a result of increasing the serviced population to 5,000, these 

flows and loads represent less than 4 percent of the design capacity of the 

Lansdowne Road WWTP.

SECTION 2 

I/I MITIGATION MEASURES

SECTION 2.0 

III MITIGATION MEASURES 


Snowmelt and rainfall that enters a sanitary sewer during wet weather periods can be 

categorized as either inflow or infiltration. Inflows are due to direct connections of 

rainfall and/or snowmelt and contribute to rapid flow increases, whereas infiltration is 

due to indirect sources and produces delayed flows and extended flow increases. 

Therefore, inflows are critical for short high intensity as well as for long duration 

storms; infiltration would be critical for Iong duration events. Since prolonged wet 

weather, due to winter thaws and spring raidthaw conditions, is quite normal in the 

BIackbum area, both inflow and infiltration (III) contribute significantly to the 

overloading of sanitary sewers. 

Excessive H places significant peak flow demands on the sanitary sewer system. 

Retrofit measures such as upgrading capacity of pipes, pumpstations, and treatment 

facilities can substantially increase the cost of providing sewer service. On the other 

hand, realizing the significance of yI and impIementing a program of L'l reduction can 

extend the life of facilities by deferring the need to upgrade hydraulic capacity. 

Controlling excessive amounts of VI is the single largest demand-side management 

issue for any wastewater collection system. Therefore, a planned yI investigation and 

analysis methodology can be adopted to: detect and identify these It1 sources on a site 

specific basis; quantify their comparative impacts; find appropriate mitigative 

measures on a prioritized basis; and implement policies that promotes the reduction of 

excessive UI. 

A Mica1 I/I mitigation work plan methodology recognizes that: 

Within the sewer network, major VI sources can be 'leaky' manholes, poor pipe 

joints, poor senice connections, and failed pipes. 

High ground water table during wet weather periods can create high hydraulic 

heads, which result in continuous UI through the defective components of the 

sewer network. 

A significant portion of UI is often generated within private property. 

Since a major source of the UI can be generated on individual lots, the potential 

costbenefits of implementing I/l reduction measures on private property should be 

part of the solution.

Section 2.0 - III Mitigation Measures 

The I/I control program should incorporate ongoing performance monitoring by 

collecting additional performance data to monitor the cost effectiveness of the 

various rehabilitation techniques. 

It is important to control both the "on-lot" UI and "on-street" I/I by developing a 

public information/participation component into the IT management strategy. Control 

of "on lot" V1 has significant merit as it is a 'source control' at the top end which 

eliminates entry into the sewer network. However, it can be hught with the often 

challenging need to get the homeowner's buy-in. This would need a review of the 

service connection and lot grading practiceshy-laws applicable to existing lots as well 

as future developments. 

The City commissioned Stantec Consulting Ltd. to complete a study on Vl in the 

Blackburn sewage collection area Ad present conclusions and recommendations. The 

final report was submitted June, 1999. Attached as Appendix A are the conclusions of 

this report. In short, the Stantec Consulting report recommended that the most cost 

effective approach to the VI problem was to implement a rehabilitation program for 

manholes and the collection pipework. 

Based on the Stantec Consulting report recommendations, the City plans to implement 

during the operating year of 1999 a manhole rehabilitation program and attempt to 

reduce by the end of 2000, PWWF by nearly 50 percent. Over the following 5 to 10 

years, the VI reduction program would be ongoing. 

2.2 IA REDUCTION PLAN 

2.2.1 Inflow Reduction 

The manhole rehabilitation work, set out by Stantec Consulting Ltd., has been 

predicted to reduce the volume of inflow by 2,170 m3/d. Tnis brings the peak wet 

weather flow (PWWF) down from 4,500 m3/d to 2,330 m3/d. However, this still 

exceeds the limits of the discharge permit. Tberefore, Wher reduction of Ill is 

required to meet design and permit requirements. 

2.2.2 Infiltration Reduction 

Population 

Currently, the population for the Blackbum sewerage area is estimated to be 1,800. A 

population growth rate of approximately 4.2 percent is assumed for the area and based 

on this growth rate the population in 25 years will be 5,000. See Table 2.1.

Section 2.0 - UI Mitigation Measures 

Sanitary Design Flow 

Using a sanitary design flow value of 350 L/cap/d and contributing population of 

1,800, the current average dry weather flow (ADWF) can be calculated as 630 m3/d. 

The design allowable PWWF can then be determined at 2 x ADWF as 1,260 m3/d. 

Using this calculation, the discharge permit limit of 1,375 m3/d at the Blackbum 

WWTP would be exceeded in the year 2002 assuming apopulation of 2,035. 

Projected PWWF 

Projected PWWFs are calculated on the basis of the PWWF volume recorded during 

the March 25,1999 period. As discussed above, the manhole rehabilitation program is 

predicted to reduce the inflow portion of M, decreasing the PWWF kom 4,500 m3/d to 

2,330 m3/d. In order to reduce this flow to the PWWF permit allowable requirements, 

infiltration will have to be reduced. The infiltration portion of UI is calculated as: 

Infiltration (1999), m3/d = P W -Inflow - Design PWWF (1999) 

- 4,500-2,170- 1,260 

- 1,070 

The reduction of infiltration could be accomplished by rehabilitating pipes, pipe joints, 

manholes, and service connections over a 5 or 10 year implementation period. 

5 Year Rehabilitation Plan 

The 5-year plan investigates the reduction of 1,070 m3/d over a 5 year period. This 

equates to a reduction of approximately 215 m31dly assuming a PWWF (2004) of 

1,545 m3/d. Table 2.1 lists PWWF reductions over a 5 year period. 

10 Yar Rehabilitation Plan 

Much like the 5 year plan, the 10 year plan investigates the reduction of 1,070 m3/d 

over a 10 year period. This equates to a reduction of approximately 105 m3/ay, 

assuming a PWWF (2009) of 1,895m3/d. Table 2.1 lists PWWF reductions over a 10 

year period. 

Figure 2.1 compares the projected PWWF to the design P IW over a 25 year period. 

2.3 REHABILITATION COST ESTIMATES 

As described previously, the volume of inflow is estimated as 2,170 m3/d and the 

volume of infiltration as 1,070 m3/d. The ratio of inflow to total VI is 67 percent; and 

for infiliration 33 percent.

Section 2.0 - UI Mitigation Measures 

Infiltration can enter a sewer system through deficiencies or cracks in 3 categories of 

the sewer line: connections, in-street pipes including joints, and manholes. Infiltration 

that can be expected to result from each of the 3 categories is calculated on a mmdiameter-m 

basis. Other assumptions involved in the proportioning of infiltration 

amongst pipes, manholes, and connections is the lower construction standards of 

connection installment (45 percent), and the 7 mt10 m split of municipaVprivate 

connection length. 

Table 2.2a calculates that of the 33 percent of III that is infiltration, approximately 21 

percent is from pipes, 3 percent from manholes, 4 percent from municipal connections, 

and 5 percent from private connections. 

Table 2.2b and Table 2.2~ calculate the percent infiltration reduction required from 

pipes including joints, manholes, and connections in order to reach the required yearly 

reduction as previously described in Table 2.1. The amount of physicaf rehabilitation 

is based on the assumption that grouting a section of pipe will only reduce its 

contribution to infiltration by a maximum of 75 percent. Therefore, the percent of 

rehabilitation must be higher in order to achieve the required percent of infiltration 

reduction. For example, during the first year (2000) of the 5 year plan, about 6 percent 

of the infiltration in pipes must be reduced. This means that approximately 8 percent 

ofpipes must be grouted to achieve the required reductions in infiltration. 

Table 2.3a and Table 2.3b estimates the cost of rehabilitation based on the grouting of 

each sewer element. The cost of grouting is assumed as follows: 

Pipes, $/m 

Manholes, $/unit 

Connections, $/m 

The total cost for the 5 year and 10 year rehabilitation plans are $1,580,000 and 

$1,120,000 respectively. The Net Present Value (NPV) is calculatd in Table 2.4. 

Based on an annual discount rate of 6 percent, the NPV for the 5 and 10 year plans are 

$1,319,000 and 5815,000 respectively. 

The 10 year plan requires less work to be done as it is based on the percentage of flow 

reduction each year to the previous year. Therefore, the overall capital cost is 

$460,000 less than the 5 year plan. However, it should be noted, that by committing 

to a 10 year plan, the City of Prince George is not meeting the 2 x ADWF criteria for 

the Blackbum sewerage area for an additional 5 years. This makes the 5 year plan a 

flow based benefit plan, and the 10 year plan a cost based benefit plan.

APPENDIX E 

FLOW CALCULATIONS FOR SEWER UPGRADES

. 

Date: 23 December 1999 

File: 1174-01-01 

Reid Crowther & Partners Ltd. 

Consulting Engineers 

300, 41 70 Still Creek Drive 

Burnaby, British Columbia 

V5C 6C6 

Attention: 

Mr. Andv North. P.Ena. 

Dear Andy, 

AS recently requested by Les Nemeth. P.Eng.. please find attached our flow calculatio'n - , 

, 

... 

spreadsheet showing the capacity of the existing sanitary sewer mains from the ~e~ional , ' - 

. . 

Correctional Centre to tlie discharge into the 600mm diameter City trunk sanitary . . 

. . 

. . . . 

sewermain on Taylor Drive. - 

. . 

. ........ 

. . 

. . .. - 

,- 

.. 

The estimated future peak PU~P~IOW 

rate.from the Mackus Road sewage lift station is - 

..... 

..- . 

50 Lls (0.05 mals). The section :of existing 200mm diameter sewer main from the I' ~ ., 

. ~ 

discharge point of the 200mm diameter syphon, at MH KL23a to the intersection'of the ...... 

525 mm diameter main at Birch Street, will need to be upgradbd,to a 300mm diameter . . , 

pipe at a-minimum. grade of 0.3% to handle the futire pumped peak flows'of ':

Blackburn Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade Study

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?