WC142 MayJune 2025 - Magazine - Page 25
The design of the WWTP followed a model with enhanced
collaboration between the owner, engineer, and contractor.
The primary goal was to reduce capital costs after the original
design, tendered during the COVID-19 pandemic, was unable
to proceed to construction due to budget constraints. The result
was a cost-optimized design that reduced treatment infrastructure—developed collaboratively by WSP, the contractor, and their
equipment vendors.
Tofino was a challenging place to live and work due to its
remote location on Vancouver Island. Over the past two years, we
experienced forest fires and landslides that closed the only highway
into town. During these times, there were near-immediate food
and gas shortages, which was especially difficult for local businesses
dependent on tourism. In the winter months, that highway can
be a dangerous commute, as it passes through a winding mountain corridor with sudden changes in weather. Otherwise, there’s
a float plane at the harbour and a regional airport offering flights
out of Tofino, but these were heavily weather-dependent and often
cancelled. Our travel plans were frequently delayed, altered, or
extended because of Tofino’s location.
Due to Tofino’s remoteness, it wasn’t feasible for different engineering disciplines to visit the site often. While remote capabilities
have come a long way, there’s still something to be said for making
decisions based on firsthand observation. This meant slower response times and delayed decision-making. Coordinating between
disciplines, with offices across Canada, was often a challenge.
The location also increased costs for transporting materials to
the site. Whenever possible, local suppliers and contractors were
used. But when forest fires and landslides occurred, deliveries
were delayed. Getting key personnel or vendor reps to the site on
short notice was another challenge. Additionally, the facility had
to be designed with both the marine environment and seismic
considerations in mind.
WAT E R C A N A D A . N E T
Ensuring construction meets design
Providing quality assurance (QA) during construction
came with many challenges. Above all, it required uncompromising ethics to ensure the project was safe and adhered
to contract documents (drawings and specifications).
Being young and less experienced, we sometimes had
to reject work or instruct crews to redo something—even
when they had 30+ more years of industry experience.
We had to trust our training as engineers and push back
against the mentality of “we’ve always done it this way.”
Times change, technology advances, regulations are updated—and with that comes higher expectations for quality
and safety. Not everyone shared this mindset, which posed
challenges.
It’s impossible to be an expert in everything happening
on-site. As a process engineer, there were always a thousand things to learn in other disciplines—civil, structural,
mechanical, architectural, etc.
Plus, we had two projects running simultaneously:
the conveyance portion, which involved installing forcemains and gravity sewers throughout the District, and the
WWTP site itself. We couldn’t be in two places at once,
and the projects weren’t always synchronized in terms of
inspections. It often felt like there wasn’t enough time to
see everything or be everywhere at once. And we didn’t always have the experience to answer specific field questions,
which meant more time making calls and seeking advice.
There’s a fine balance between efficiency and perfection.
We learned to manage time and resources to prioritize
issues that would have significant financial or operational
impacts down the line.
We also learned the importance of staying constantly aware
of construction activities and upcoming work, to ensure
WATER C AN ADA • M AY/JUNE 2025
25
