Port Hadlock Sewer Facility Plan 0908

8/14/2019 Port Hadlock Sewer Facility Plan 0908

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/port-hadlock-sewer-facility-plan-0908 1/387

Jefferson County

Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility Plan

September 2008

Volume 1 of 2



Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility Plan…

Climate.........................................................................................................................2-13

Surface Water/Wetlands..............................................................................................2-13

Groundwater ................................................................................................................2-13

Related Studies ............................................................................................................2-16

3. Permits, Requirements and Regulations ......................................................3-1

Federal Regulations .....................................................................................................3-1Federal Water Quality Acts ...............................................................................3-1

Federal Effluent Limitations..............................................................................3-2

National Environmental Protection Act.............................................................3-3

Federal Standards for Use or Disposal of Sludge ..............................................3-3

Clean Air Act .....................................................................................................3-5

EPA Reliability Criteria.....................................................................................3-5

Historical and Archaeological Sites...................................................................3-8

Floodplains, Wetlands, and Flood Insurance.....................................................3-9

Agricultural Lands .............................................................................................3-9

Coastal Zone Management ................................................................................3-9

Wild and Scenic Rivers......................................................................................3-9

Fish and Wildlife Protection ..............................................................................3-9Endangered Species Act ....................................................................................3-9

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ......................3-10

Public Participation............................................................................................3-10

State Policies................................................................................................................3-11

Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters.....................................................3-11

State Environmental Policy Act.........................................................................3-12

State Environmental Review Process; Department of Ecology

Documentation ............................................................................................3-12

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit.................................3-13

State Waste Discharge Permit, Wastewater Effluent.........................................3-13

Washington State Standards for Use and Disposal of Sludge ...........................3-13

Washington Department of Ecology Criteria for Sewage WorksDesign..........................................................................................................3-13

Standards for Water Reclamation ......................................................................3-14

Washington Department of Natural Resources/Shellfish Closure

Zone.............................................................................................................3-15

Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Approval..............................3-15

Local Policies ..............................................................................................................3-16

SEPA Review ....................................................................................................3-16

Critical Areas Review........................................................................................3-17

Shoreline Management Program........................................................................3-17

International Fire Code / National Fire Protection Association.........................3-17

International Building Code / International Building Code /

Washington State Energy Code...................................................................3-18Olympic Region Clean Air Agency...................................................................3-18

Jefferson County Solid Waste Division.............................................................3-18

4. Population, Flow and Loads...........................................................................4-1Population Forecasts....................................................................................................4-1

Background........................................................................................................4-1

Data Elements Used for Population Forecasting ...............................................4-1

Planning Horizons..............................................................................................4-6

ii



...TABLE OF CONTENTS

Population Projections .......................................................................................4-7

Projected Wastewater Flows........................................................................................4-8

Flow Generation Criteria ...................................................................................4-8

Wastewater Flow Projections ............................................................................4-13

Wastewater Loading Projections .................................................................................4-15

Load Generation Criteria ...................................................................................4-15

Solids Loading Projections ................................................................................4-16

5. Collection System Alternatives......................................................................5-1Wastewater Collection Alternatives ............................................................................5-1

Alternatives Considered.....................................................................................5-1

Rejected Alternatives.........................................................................................5-1

Alternatives Considered for Further Evaluation..........................................................5-2

Conventional Gravity Sewers ............................................................................5-2

Pressurized Wastewater Collection Systems (STEP & Grinder Pumps)...........5-6

Evaluation of Collection System Alternatives.............................................................5-9

Collection System Alternatives..........................................................................5-9

Evaluation Criteria.............................................................................................5-9

Life Cycle Cost Estimating..........................................................................................5-11Cost Assumptions ..............................................................................................5-11

Cost Assumptions for Pressurized Sewers: STEP and Grinder Pump

Systems........................................................................................................5-11

Evaluation of Alternatives .................................................................................5-12

Recommended Collection System Alternative............................................................5-14

Stakeholder Workshop Process..........................................................................5-14

Recommendation ...............................................................................................5-14

Population and System Phasing...................................................................................5-15

6. Effluent Discharge/Reuse Alternatives .........................................................6-1Treatment Plant Effluent – Discharge vs. Re-Use.......................................................6-1

Surface Water Discharge vs. Land Application.................................................6-1Discharge and Reuse Systems – Treatment Requirements ................................6-1

Discharge/Re-Use Alternatives....................................................................................6-2




Irrigation at Agronomic Rates ...........................................................................6-3

Groundwater Recharge by Surface Percolation – Slow-Rate Infiltration..........6-5

Groundwater Recharge by Surface Percolation – Rapid-Rate Infiltration.........6-6

Constructed Wetlands........................................................................................6-7

Evaluation of Discharge/Reuse Alternatives ...............................................................6-8


Life Cycle Cost Estimating..........................................................................................6-8Cost Assumptions ..............................................................................................6-8

Summary of Life Cycle Costs............................................................................6-10

Summary of Evaluation of Disposal/Reuse Alternatives.............................................6-10

Recommended Re-Use Alternative .............................................................................6-13


Recommendation ...............................................................................................6-13

7. Wastewater Treatment Alternatives.............................................................7-1

iii




Liquid Process Treatment Requirements.....................................................................7-1

Discharge/Reuse Method Determines Treatment ..............................................7-1

Levels of Treatment ...........................................................................................7-1

Reliability and Redundancy Requirements........................................................7-2

Wastewater Treatment Alternatives.............................................................................7-3


Rejected Alternatives.........................................................................................7-4Alternatives Considered for Further Evaluation..........................................................7-5

Sequencing Batch Reactor + Filter ....................................................................7-5

Membrane Bioreactor ........................................................................................7-7

Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Alternatives......................................................7-9


Life Cycle Cost Estimating..........................................................................................7-10

Cost Assumptions ..............................................................................................7-10

Summary of Life Cycle Costs............................................................................7-11

Summary of Wastewater Treatment Evaluation ................................................7-11

Recommended Wastewater Treatment Alternative .....................................................7-11


Recommendation .........................................................................................................7-11Disinfection Alternatives.............................................................................................7-12




Liquid Sodium Hypochlorite .............................................................................7-13

UV Disinfection.................................................................................................7-15

Evaluation of Disinfection Alternatives ......................................................................7-16


Summary of Disinfection Evaluation.................................................................7-16

Recommended Disinfection Alternative......................................................................7-17


Recommendation .........................................................................................................7-18Solids Handling/Reuse Alternatives............................................................................7-18




Storage and Decanting .......................................................................................7-19

Thickening .........................................................................................................7-20

Dewatering.........................................................................................................7-21

Haul Locally to Port Townsend.........................................................................7-22

Haul Remote to Port Angeles WWTP ...............................................................7-22

Contracted Haul and Reuse................................................................................7-23

Evaluation of Solids Handling/Treatment/Reuse Alternatives....................................7-24

Evaluation Criteria.............................................................................................7-24Summary of Solids Handling/Treatment/Reuse Evaluation ..............................7-24

Recommended Solids Handling and Treatment/Reuse System...................................7-26

8. Recommended Alternative and Implementation.........................................8-1Summary of Recommendations...................................................................................8-1

Gravity Collection System.................................................................................8-1

Effluent Reuse: Ground Water Recharge by Rapid-Rate Surface

iv




Percolation...................................................................................................8-1

Wastewater Treatment – Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)....................................8-2

Effluent Disinfection – Sodium Hypochlorite ...................................................8-2

Solids Handling – Decanting Contracted Haul and Reuse ................................8-3

Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Plant Locations.................................................8-5

Locations Considered ........................................................................................8-5

Evaluation Criteria.............................................................................................8-7Summary of Treatment Plant Location Evaluation............................................8-7

Recommended Treatment Plant Location..........................................................8-7

Candidate Treatment Plant Sites........................................................................8-9

Proposed Site Layout...................................................................................................8-9

Process Diagram and Site Layout ......................................................................8-9

Hydraulic Profile................................................................................................8-9

Land Needs Estimates for Recommended Treatment & Reuse System ............8-14

Summary of Estimated Costs.......................................................................................8-14

Planning level Costs vs. Life Cycle Costs .........................................................8-14

Planning Level Cost Summary ..........................................................................8-14

Staffing Requirements .......................................................................................8-15

Implementation Schedule ............................................................................................8-15

9. Cost and Financing .........................................................................................9-1Financial Program........................................................................................................9-1

Sources of Capital Funding .........................................................................................9-1

Types of Capital Funding Sources...............................................................................9-1

Grants.................................................................................................................9-1

Low-Interest Loans ............................................................................................9-3

Bonds .................................................................................................................9-3

Other Sources.....................................................................................................9-4

Users ..................................................................................................................9-5

Funding Initial Capital Costs.......................................................................................9-6

Funding Example – Shared Capital Costs ...................................................................9-8Strategies for Recovering Capital Cost from Users.....................................................9-10

Cost Implications of User Recovery Strategies...........................................................9-12

When to Pay for Sewer................................................................................................9-13

Current Sewer Expansion Examples ...........................................................................9-14

Operations and Maintenance Cost – Monthly Rates ...................................................9-15

What Does It Mean?....................................................................................................9-16

How to Continue to Move Forward and Reduce Costs ...............................................9-16

Policy Issues for Future Discussion.............................................................................9-17

10. Public Involvement and Outreach.................................................................10-1Stakeholder Workshop Process ...................................................................................10-1

Public Meetings ...........................................................................................................10-1Project Website............................................................................................................10-2

Project Mailings...........................................................................................................10-2

Comment Tracking and Response Process..................................................................10-3

v




Appendices

A. Hydrogeological Evaluation Report

B. Public Outreach – Meeting Summaries

C. Comparative Life Cycle Cost Estimates

D. Planning Level Cost Estimates for Recommended Alternative

E. Reliability and Redundancy Requirements for Reclamation and Reuse Standards

vi




LIST OF TABLES

No. Title

ES-1 Phasing Areas within the Port Hadlock/Irondale UGA...............................................ES-4

ES-2 Estimated Land Areas for Wastewater Facilities.........................................................ES-12

ES-3 Initial Capital Costs through 2015 (in thousands) .......................................................ES-12

ES-4 Capital Recovery Strategies.........................................................................................ES-17

ES-5 Estimate Monthly Sewer Rate .....................................................................................ES-18

ES-6 Implementation Schedule ............................................................................................ES-19

2-1 Irondale and Port Hadlock UGA Land Use and Zoning Districts ...............................2-5

2-2 Jefferson County and City of Port Townsend 20-Year Population

Projection and Distribution..........................................................................................2-7

3-1 Ceiling Concentrations for Metals in Land-Applied Sludge .......................................3-4

3-2 Metal Concentration Limits for Bulk Sewage Sludge Land Application....................3-5

3-3 Summary of EPA Design Criteria for System and ComponentReliability ....................................................................................................................3-6

3-4 Reliability Class System in the Orange Book..............................................................3-14

4-1 Planning Zone Designations within the Port Hadlock/Irondale UGA.........................4-2

4-2 Land Area by Planning Zone within the Port Hadlock/Irondale UGA........................4-4

4-3 Phasing Areas within the Port Hadlock/Irondale UGA...............................................4-6

4-4 Summary of Population Projections within the Port Hadlock/Irondale Sewer

Service Area ................................................................................................................4-9

4-5 Service Area and Estimated Population Equivalents...................................................4-11

4-6 Wastewater Peaking Factors........................................................................................4-12

4-7 2010 Wastewater Flow Projections .............................................................................4-13

4-8 2024 Wastewater Flow Projections .............................................................................4-144-9 2030 Wastewater Flow Projections .............................................................................4-15

4-10 Year 2010 Condition Solids Loading Projections .......................................................4-17

4-11 Year 2024 Condition Solids Loading Projections .......................................................4-18

4-12 Year 2030 Condition Wastewater Loading Projections ..............................................4-19

5-1 Summary of 20-Year Life Cycle Costs........................................................................5-12

5-2 Summary of Alternatives Evaluation...........................................................................5-13

5-3 Expected Number of Sewer System Connections by Phase ........................................5-15

6-1 Water Quality Requirements for Reuse Projects .........................................................6-2

6-2 Treatment and Quality Requirements for Reclaimed Water Used for

Irrigating Crops............................................................................................................6-46-3 Criteria used for Estimating Cost Quantities ...............................................................6-9

6-4 Summary of Alternatives Evaluation...........................................................................6-11

7-1 Summary of Treatment Requirements for Various Disposal/Reuse Options ..............7-1

7-2 Water Quality Requirements for Reuse Projects .........................................................7-2

7-3 Criteria Used for Estimating Treatment Plant Cost Quantities....................................7-10

7-4 Summary of Wastewater Treatment Alternatives Evaluation......................................7-12

7-5 Summary of Disinfection Alternatives Evaluation......................................................7-17

vii




7-6 Summary of Solids Handling/Treatment/Reuse Alternatives Evaluation....................7-25

8-1 Design Data for Membrane Bioreactor Alternative.....................................................8-5

8-2 Summary of Wastewater Treatment Plant Site Evaluation..........................................8-8

8-3 Summary of Wastewater System Costs .......................................................................8-16

8-4 Implementation Schedule ............................................................................................8-15

9-1 Initial Capital Costs through 2015 (in thousands) .......................................................9-6

9-2 Initial Capital Cost through 2015 ................................................................................9-7

9-3 Financing Common/Shared Costs (General and Local) through 2015........................9-8

9-4 Example of Mixing Funding Sources ..........................................................................9-10

9-5 Estimated Repayment Stream through 2024 and 2025-2030 ......................................9-11

9-6 Compare User Recovery Strategies .............................................................................9-12

9-7 Compare Alternatives – When to Pay for Sewer.........................................................9-14

9-8 Current Sewer Expansion Examples ...........................................................................9-14

9-9 Estimated Monthly Sewer Rate ...................................................................................9-15

viii




ix

LIST OF FIGURES

No. Title

ES-1 Vicinity Map................................................................................................................ES-1

ES-2 Service Area Boundaries and Land Use/Zoning..........................................................ES-3

ES-3 Sewer Phasing and Implementation.............................................................................ES-6

ES-4 Alternative Treatment Plant and Effluent Locations Evaluation.................................ES-10

ES-5 Candidate Sites for Wastewater Treatment Plant ........................................................ES-11

ES-6 Liquids and Solids Stream Process Diagram...............................................................ES-14

ES-7 Site Development Plan ................................................................................................ES-15

ES-8 Hydraulic Profile .........................................................................................................ES-16

2-1 Vicinity Map................................................................................................................2-2

2-2 Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Service Area and Zoning Map........................2-4

2-3 Topographic Map ........................................................................................................2-9

2-4 Soils Map of the Port Hadlock Area............................................................................2-11

2-5 Erosion and Slide Hazard Areas ..................................................................................2-12

2-6 Seismic Hazard Areas..................................................................................................2-14

2-7 Wetlands and Environmentally Sensitive Areas..........................................................2-15

2-8 Wellheads Protection...................................................................................................2-17

2-9 CARA Locations .........................................................................................................2-18

4-1 Pt. Hadlock Future Land Use and Zoning Map...........................................................4-3

4-2 Sewer Phasing and Implementation Areas ..................................................................4-5

4-3 Graph of Population Projections for the Pt. Hadlock/Irondale Sewer Service Area ...4-10

5-1 Conventional Gravity Sewer System Service Connection ..........................................5-3

5-2 Proposed Gravity Collection System...........................................................................5-5

5-3 Septic Tank Effluent Pump (STEP) System Service Connection................................5-6

5-4 Proposed Pressurized Collection System.....................................................................5-85-5 Proposed Dual Technology (Gravity/Pressurized) Collection System........................5-10

7-1 Sequencing Batch Reactor + Filter ..............................................................................7-5

7-2 Membrane Bioreactor Process Schematic and Example Facility in

Bandon Dunes, Oregon................................................................................................7-8

7-3 Sodium Hypochlorite Feed Pumps at Vashon Island, Washington (left) and

Chlorine Contact Tank at Marysville, Washington .....................................................7-14

8-1 Alternative Treatment Plant & Effluent Reuse Locations ...........................................8-6

8-2 Candidate Sites for Wastewater Treatment Plant ........................................................8-10

8-3 Process Flow Diagram.................................................................................................8-11

8-4 Site Development Plan ................................................................................................8-128-5 Hydraulic Profile .........................................................................................................8-13



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The following firms, individuals, and citizen advisory groups have contributed to the

preparation of this report:

Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners

Phil Johnson (District 1), David Sullivan (District 2), John Austin (District 3)

Irondale/Port Hadlock Sewer Project Stakeholders Group

Jefferson County Administration

Interim County Administrator, Dennis Richards

Allen Sartin, Central Services Director

Jefferson County Public Works Department

Frank Gifford, Public Works Director

Jefferson County Department of Community Development

Al Scalf, Community Development Director

Tetra Tech, Inc.

Kevin Dour, Project Manager

James Santroch, Sr. Project Engineer

Raymund Vargas, Project Engineer

Triangle Associates, Inc.

Bob Wheeler, Project Manager

Ellen Blair, Project Assistant

Katy Isaksen & Associates

Katy Isaksen, Financial Analyst

HWA GeoSciences Inc.

Arnie Sugar, Environmental Geologist

x




Figure ES-1. Vicinity Map

ES-2



…EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

F i g u r e E S - 2 . S e r v i c e A r e a B o u n d a r i e s a n d L a n d / U s e Z o n i n g

ES-3




PERMITS, REQUIREMENTS, AND REGULATIONS

Regulations with which the sewage facilities must comply include the following:

• Federal Water Quality Acts

• Federal and state National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System effluent limitations

• National and state Environmental Policy Acts

• Federal and state standards for use or disposal of sludge

• Federal and state reliability criteria

• Endangered Species Act and other federal environmental regulations

• Washington Department of Ecology Criteria for Sewage Works Design

• Washington Department of Ecology and Department of Health Water Reclamation and ReuseStandards

• Washington State Waste Discharge Permit

• Uniform Fire Code / National Fire Protection Association Standards• Uniform Building Code / International Building Code / Washington State Energy Code

• Local permits and reviews

• Olympic Region Clean Air Agency.

FLOW AND LOAD ANALYSIS

Future (design) flows and loads were determined using population projections, unit flow and loadingrates, and peaking factors.

Population, Flow and Loading Projections

Tt staff prepared population and wastewater flow and loading projections for a 6-year horizon, a 20-yearhorizon, and a buildout condition. Tt developed estimates of wastewater flows, loads, and peaking factorsanticipated for the Port Hadlock and Irondale study area using population data provided by JeffersonCounty. These estimates include flows from residential, commercial, and institutional sources.

Commercial Flow and Loading Projections

Tt developed projected commercial flows, loads, and peaking factors based on recent commercial watermeter data provided by Jefferson County PUD No. 1, planned commercial acreage within the sewerboundary, and flow generation factors based upon data from similar communities.

SEWER SYSTEM PHASING

Wastewater flows and loads were estimated for a sewer system developing and expanding in phases.These phases are based upon sub-areas within the 20-year sewer boundary described in Table ES-1 andshown in Figure ES-3.

ES-4




TABLE ES-1.PHASING AREAS WITHIN THE PORT HADLOCK/IRONDALE UGA

Phasing Area Description Total Acres

Core Area Initial Commercial Area within the 6-year planning boundary. This

will be the first area to be implemented.

298

Alcohol Plant Area Area east of the Core Area, area known as the Old Alcohol Plant.Location of the Hadlock Inn. This area is included in the initial 6-yearboundary and would be part of the initial implementation.

53

Rhody Drive Area Area along SR-19 from Somerville Road to approximately theintersection with Irondale Road. It is anticipated that this area wouldimplement sewers after the completion of the initial phase within the6-year boundary.

187

Residential Area #1 This area is located northeast of the Core Area. It is anticipated sewerswould extend from the Core Area to these residential areas first. Thisarea is along Irondale Road from Matheson Street to Maple Street.

109

Residential Area #2 This area is located south of the Core Area. It is anticipated sewerswould extend from the core area into this residential area as itdeveloped and as the need for sewers increased due to existing septicsystems failing. This area is south of SR 116 from Hunt Road toChristney Road.

138

Residential Area #3 This area is located north of the Core Area and extends to ChimacumCreek. It is anticipated sewers would extend north from the Core Areaalong Cedar Avenue and Mason Street. This area would develop as theresidential area continues to develop and existing septic systems fail.

505

Total 1290

A summary of estimated residential and commercial population projections for year 2010, 2024 (theCounty Comprehensive Plan 20-year planning horizon), and 2030 (the Wastewater Facilities Plan 20-yearplanning horizon) are presented in Chapter 4 of the master document, Table 4-5, but are not included inthis Executive Summary.

Projections were generated for conventional gravity sewers and for septic tank effluent pump systems(STEP). The systems differ in the amount of inflow and infiltration as well as the concentrations of pollutants, such as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS). The projectionsfor flow, BOD, TSS, and nitrogen (TKN) are summarized in Chapter 4 of the master document,Tables 4-7, 4-8 and 4-9, but are not included in this Executive Summary.

ES-5




F i g u r e E S - 3 . S e w e r P h a s i n g a n d I m p l e m e n t a t i o n

A r e a s

ES-6




COLLECTION SYSTEM

Tt evaluated five different types of collection systems: conventional gravity sewers, small-diametergravity (SDG) sewers, vacuum sewers, septic tank effluent pumping (STEP) sewers, and grinder pumpsewer systems. An initial screening shortlisted three alternatives: conventional gravity, STEP sewers, andgrinder pumps. The present worth cost of each shortlisted alternative was estimated in addition to an

evaluation of qualitative factors.

Following this analysis, Tt and County staff participated in a stakeholder workshop on collection systemalternatives where the results of the analysis were presented and questions were taken from staff and thepublic. Based on the results of the analysis and input received at this workshop, the recommendedcollection system strategy is conventional gravity. The detailed discussion of alternatives and analysis of the collection system evaluation is located in Chapter 5 of the master document.

EFFLUENT DISCHARGE/WATER RECLAMATION

Only one alternative was considered for effluent discharge: a marine outfall to Port Townsend Bay.Alternatives considered for effluent reuse (beneficial water reclamation) included irrigation at agronomicrates, natural wetlands, constructed beneficial use wetlands, groundwater recharge by surface percolation– slow rate, groundwater recharge by surface percolation – rapid rate, and a salinity barrier.

Alternatives removed from further consideration included the marine outfall, natural wetlands, and asalinity barrier. These were eliminated because they were not feasible for either regulatory orenvironmental reasons.

All remaining reclamation alternatives assumed that effluent would meet at least Washington Statereclaimed water standards for Class A reclaimed water, based on discussions with the Departments of Ecology and Health.

Irrigation at agronomic rates (with winter-time storage), groundwater recharge by surface percolation(both slow-rate and rapid-rate), and constructed wetlands were evaluated. The results of the evaluation

and life cycle cost analysis recommended groundwater recharge by surface percolation – rapid rate foreffluent reuse. The detailed discussion of alternatives and analysis of the effluent discharge/waterreclamation alternatives is located in Chapter 6 of the master document.

It should be noted that in water reclamation facilities, the reclaimed water can be used for a beneficialpurpose. The identified beneficial reuse is groundwater recharge. The generator of the reclaimed watermay retain the ownership rights for this useful resource. Jefferson County intends to retain the ownershiprights to any reclaimed water generated as part of the work described in this document.

Specific design of any percolation systems would be contingent upon results of a detailed hydrogeologicand water quality study, to be performed during later predesign efforts.

TREATMENT PROCESSESSeveral treatment processes were considered for a new treatment plant for Pt. Hadlock. The detaileddiscussions of alternatives and analyses of each process is located in Chapter 7 of the master document.

Liquid Treatment Process

Alternatives considered for the liquid treatment process were suspended growth, fixed-film, and physical-chemical treatment. All alternatives had to be able to meet Class A reclaimed water standards. Two short-

ES-7




list alternatives were developed for detailed analysis: Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) plus Filter andMembrane Bioreactor (MBR).

The final analysis of treatment process alternatives included an evaluation of qualitative criteria and lifecycle costs. A stakeholder workshop was held with County staff and the public to review the varioustreatment processes being considered, identify advantages and drawback, and to take feedback. Based on

the results of the evaluation process and the stakeholder workshop, an MBR system for the liquidtreatment process is recommended.

Disinfection Alternatives

Several disinfection alternatives were evaluated:

• Hypochlorite disinfection using 12-percent liquid hypochlorite and chlorine contact basins

• On-site generation of 0.8-percent hypochlorite using salt, water, and electricity and chlorinecontact basins

• Chlorine Gas

• Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection (several types evaluated).

Because Class A Reclaimed Water Standards require a chlorine residual in the reclaimed water piping, allalternatives were assumed to have some minimal hypochlorite feed equipment.

Chlorine gas and on-site generation of sodium hypochlorite were eliminated from consideration. Chlorinegas because of safety and sodium hypochlorite generation because of operational costs. UV disinfectionwas eliminated from consideration due to the high initial capital costs, high O&M costs and therequirement for chlorine residual discussed above.

The recommended disinfection alternative is hypochlorite feed using 12-percent liquid hypochlorite andchlorine contact basins. This recommendation is based on cost and the requirement of maintaining achlorine residual in the reclaimed water piping.

Solids Handling and Treatment Alternatives

Based on the small size of the system, relatively simple solids handling alternatives were considered.More complex alternatives, such as on site digestion, require expensive solids handling equipment andstringent recordkeeping and monitoring; therefore, they were not short-listed. The following alternativeswere short-listed for solids handling:

• Decanting

• Thickening

• Dewatering.

The following alternatives were short listed for solids treatment or reuse to be implemented inconjunction with a recommended solids handling strategy:

• Haul Locally to Port Townsend Composting

• Haul Remote to Port Angeles WWTP

• Contracted Haul and Reuse.

Based upon the results of the alternative evaluation, the Storage and Decanting alternative for SolidsHandling is recommended and the Contract Haul/Reuse alternative for Treatment/Reuse is recommended.

ES-8




These recommendations are based upon the simplicity of the processes, the lowest initial capital cost, andthe flexibility to switch to another system for handling and/or reuse in the future.

Each of the two recommendations has the lowest 20-year life cycle cost based upon today’s available costdata. This is a “pay-as-you-go” system. If the economics of these options change in the future, the Countywill have very little capital investment in solids handling/reuse equipment and can comfortably explore

other options.

Wastewater Treatment Plant Location

Alternative Treatment Plant Locations Considered

An evaluation of alternative wastewater treatment plant locations and effluent reuse sites was conducted.These alternative locations included a the central service area, south of the service area, adjacent to H.J.Carroll Park, the airport, and the Chimacum High School vicinity. The alternative locations evaluated areshown in Figure ES-4.

Candidate Treatment Plant Sites

An evaluation of qualitative criteria and comparative life cycle costs recommended that a location southof the service area be chosen for the treatment plant and effluent reuse site. Figure ES-5 shows candidatetreatment plant sites south of the service area. It is recommended the County continue to work tonegotiate a land purchase agreement and/or procure a site prior to the beginning of final design.

IMPLEMENTATION

The recommended plan includes the following:

• Collection System—Gravity Collection System through the service area with local pumpstations.

• Treatment—Membrane bioreactor treatment plant with anoxic basins for nitrogen removal,aerobic basins for biological oxidation, and immersed membranes for clarification.Disinfection using 12-percent sodium hypochlorite and chlorine contact basins. Solidshandling using decanting and storage on-site, and solids treatment using contracted haultreatment and disposal.

• Storage—3-days’ emergency/wintertime storage for effluent reuse and 3-days’ emergencystorage for WWTP using open earthen basins. Lined basins for emergency storage andunlined basins for wintertime storage.

• Conveyance—Pumps and piping from the collection system to the treatment plant through amain influent pump station near the intersection of Ness’ Corner Road and Shotwell Road.Effluent pumping from the treatment plant to surface percolation basins.

• Reuse—Land application using rapid rate surface percolation basins.

ES-9




F i g u r e E S - 4 . A

l t e r n a t i v e T r e a t m e n t P l a n t a n d E f f l u e n t L o c a t i o n s E v a l u a t e d

ES-10




F i g u r e E S - 5 . C

a n d i d a t e S i t e s f o r W a s t e w a t e r T r e a t m e n t P l a n t

ES-11




The estimated land needs for the recommended facilities is shown in Table ES-2.

TABLE ES-2.ESTIMATED LAND AREAS FOR WASTEWATER FACILITIES

Description Estimated Land Area (acres)

Wastewater Treatment Plant:

2030 Treatment Plant Footprint 3 acres

Area for Future Expansion 2 acres

Buffer/Setback 1 acre

Total, Wastewater Treatment Plant 6 acres

Effluent Reuse Area:

Infiltration Basin (Sized for 2030 Flow) 3 acres

Reserve/Redundancy 3 acres

Buffers 3 acres

Total, Effluent Reuse Area 9 acresInfluent Pump Station:

Pump Station Site 1 acre

Total Estimated Land Need 16 acres

The recommended plan accounts for phased growth in the service area. It also provides flexibility toJefferson County to accommodate a wide range of future possibilities with the reclaimed water from thetreatment plant, such as in-town irrigation systems, nearby forest irrigation, additional land application assites are identified in the future, and summertime irrigation at the nearby Little League fields and/or H.J.Carroll Park. Any of these strategies would benefit the local environment by reducing the amount of

groundwater pumped out of the local aquifer and/or helping to replenish the groundwater. Estimatedcapital costs for the initial facilities through the year 2018 are presented in Table ES-3

TABLE ES-3.INITIAL CAPITAL COSTS THROUGH 2015 (IN THOUSANDS)

Est. Capital (2008estimates escalated to$2009) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

General 19,467 - 1,337 2,206 - -

Local 6,418 - - 3,140 - -

On-site Conn. 1,412 247 282 321 367 490

Total Capital By Year 27,297 247 1,619 5,667 367 490

Cumulative Capital 27,297 27,544 29,163 34,830 35,197 35,687

No. of ERU's: 432 502 584 679 789 918

ES-12




Figure ES-6 shows the liquids and solids-stream process flow schematics for the recommendedalternative. Figure ES-7 shows the site plan of the recommended treatment plant. Figure ES-8 shows thehydraulic profile for the recommended alternative. These planning-level figures may change duringdetailed design.

ES-13




F i g u r e E S - 6 .

L i q u i d s a

n d S o l i d s S t r e a m P r o c e s s D i a g r a m

ES-14




F i g u r e E S - 7 .

S i t e D e v e

l o p m e n t P l a n .

ES-15




FINANCING CONSIDERATIONS

Financing for the new wastewater system will likely be funded from a variety of sources. Sources of funding may include grants, low-interest loans, bonds, utility local improvement districts (ULID),connection charges, and developer extensions. Refer to Chapter 9 for more details on financing, includinghow costs vary with each phase of implementation.

During the financial analysis, capital costs were separated into three distinct categories when evaluatingmethods for financing and repayment. These costs were as follows:

• General Costs: These are costs for facilities that are used by all users or a majority of theusers. These typically include costs for the treatment plant, disinfection, effluent reuse, solidsreuse, influent pump station and oversizing of collection system mainlines to accommodatefuture flows. Oversizing of capital facilities is described as the amount of additional capacityneeded to accommodate flows from upstream areas which is beyond the minimum capacitythat would be needed to provide service to the local area.

• Local Costs: These costs include local gravity collection system lines of minimum diameter(less than 8-inches), and any local pump stations that may be required to serve a particular

area.• On-Site Costs: These include the costs to connect a home or building to the sewer system.

These usually include a service connection which is located on private property.

The financial analysis evaluated several strategies for recovering capital costs from users and focused onthe two most typical approaches. These included 1) connection charges to recover general and local costs,and 2) ULID for local costs and connection charges for general costs. Table ES-4 shows the results of theconnection charge strategy and the ULID plus connection charge strategy for funding the projected capitalcosts. These costs are presented per equivalent residential unit (ERU). This table also assumes 45 percentgrant funding for residential connections which may be procured through a number of funding programsincluding USDA-RD.

TABLE ES-4.CAPITAL RECOVERY STRATEGIES

Residential Commercial

When To Pay For Sewer

Assessed WhenULID Comes toNeighborhood

+ Pay WhenConnect


+ Pay WhenConnect

1. Conn. Chg. for GENERAL & LOCAL

Pay GENERAL & LOCAL When Connect $9,570 $17,400

+ On-site to connect $3,500 $3,500

Est. New Connection $13,070 $20,900

2. ULID for LOCAL + Conn. Chg. for GENERAL

Pay LOCAL When ULID Comes to Neighborhood $4,455 $8100

+ Pay GENERAL upon connection $5,115 $9,300


Est. New Connection $4,455 $8,615 $8,100 $12,800

* Assumes 45% Grant for Residential

ES-17




Customer rates required to fund the annual O&M costs are shown in Table ES-5. This is the estimatedbeginning monthly rate for the first several years. As the number of customers increase, a reserve forreplacement will be set aside. The rates should be reviewed in three to five years to ensure costs arebeing met and to further develop a replacement funding strategy.

TABLE ES-5.ESTIMATE MONTHLY SEWER RATE

Estimated Monthly Rate For O&M/Admin Costs

O&M per ERU per Mo $50.00

Add Billing/Collection/State Tax/ Administration $10.00

= Estimated Monthly Sewer Rate $60.00

Next Steps

Recommended next steps are as follows:

• Actively pursue grant, low-interest loan and legislative funding options for implementing andfinancing the recommended improvements.

• Conduct a detailed hydrogeological analysis for the recommended land application site(s), asdescribed at the end of Chapter 8.

• Conduct detailed financial and implementation analysis.

• Develop sewer policies for implementing the system, distributing costs, provide incentive for

early participation, and recovering capital costs.

ES-18




ES-19

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Table ES-6 shows the estimated schedule for the wastewater facilities implementation. Phasing of implementation is the most significant driver for the schedule. The schedule is subject to change and willbe revised throughout the course of the project.

TABLE ES-6.IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Item/Activity Estimated Date of Completion

Wastewater Facility Plan Approval (Dept. of Ecology & Dept.of Health)

October 2008

Complete Site Procurement Finalize Environmental Review July 2009

Agency Planning for Implementation September 2009

Wastewater Facilities Implementation

Permitting September 2009

Detailed Hydrogeological Analysis and Facilities Design June 2009DOE Approval of Plans and Specs; Application for DOE

grant/loan fundinga

October 2009

Phase I Construction October 2009 - December 2010

a. Plans and Specs must be approved by DOE by October 31 in order to apply for DOE funding at the sametime, with funds to be available the following June or later in the year.



CHAPTER 1.

INTRODUCTION

As part of its Growth Management Act (GMA) planning activities, Jefferson County (County) hasdesignated the Port Hadlock and Irondale sewer service area as a potential center for County growth. Per

the 1990 GMA, the County pursued the designation of an Urban Growth Area (UGA) in the Port

Hadlock/Irondale service area. As part of the requirements for establishing an UGA, Jefferson County

contracted with Tetra Tech (Tt) on December 5, 2005 to prepare a Sewer Facility Plan to study

alternatives for developing a sewer system and identify the sewer planning boundary. This sewer planning

boundary will likely coincide with the UGA boundary since urban services must be provided within an

urban growth boundary and sanitary sewers are considered a key urban service.

The proposed Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (PHUGA) is an unincorporated area locatedapproximately six miles south of the City of Port Townsend, Washington, as shown in Figure 2-1.

Currently, the PHUGA is served by public water, but no sewer facilities exist. On-site treatment anddisposal systems serve the existing dwellings and commercial establishments. This report is intended to

assist the County in planning for sewer capacity to match their population growth targets. Planning for

collection, treatment, and discharge or reuse facilities will allow sewer capacity to match population

growth in a cost-effective manner that minimizes potential harm to the environment.

AUTHORIZATION AND SCOPE

Jefferson County contracted with Tetra Tech to prepare a Sewer Facility Plan that meets the Washington

Administrative Code requirements for comprehensive sewer plans and engineering reports (WAC 173-

240-050 and 173-240-060). This document will also meet the requirements for facilities plans established

in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 35.2030). Under the project scope, the document is to

address the following:

• Facilities planning constraints

• Planning area description

• Regulatory requirements

• Population, flow, and load analysis

• Collection system alternatives

• Wastewater treatment alternatives

• Disposal and reuse alternatives

• Alternatives evaluation and recommended facilities

• Public participation

• Implementation program

• Environmental documentation.

1-1

http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/Irondale%20Hadlock%20UGA%20Page.htm

http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/Irondale%20Hadlock%20UGA%20Page.htm




1-2

OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION OF PROPOSED FACILITIES

The owner of the proposed wastewater facilities described in this plan is Jefferson County Department of

Public Works, P.O. Box 2070, Port Townsend, WA 98368. The owner’s representative is Frank Gifford,

Jefferson County Public Works Director (360) 385-9160.

The County will operate the proposed wastewater facilities described in this plan.

The County will retain ownership rights of the treated effluent from the proposed wastewater facilities

described in this plan.

GOALS

The following goals were established for preparation of this Sewer Facility Plan:

• To identify the sewer planning boundary

• To develop and evaluate alternatives for wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal or

reuse facilities to provide adequate hydraulic and treatment capacity for the planning period;

provide planning level cost estimates for each; and recommend a preferred alternative.

• To estimate rate impacts for development of the recommended capital facilities.

• To evaluate implementation strategies for the recommended capital facilities.

• To develop a strategy for phased implementation of the recommended plan that will ensure

adequate capacity throughout the planning period.



CHAPTER 2.BACKGROUND

As part of the requirements for establishing a UGA, this Sewer Facility Plan was prepared to evaluatealternatives for developing a sewer system in the Port Hadlock/Irondale area. The goal of this Sewer

Facility Plan is to assist the county in planning for growth in the area in accordance with the county’s

comprehensive planning efforts; to satisfy RCW 36.94 concerning county’s sewerage, water, and

drainage system responsibilities; and to gain approval from the Washington State Department of Ecology

and the Washington State Department of Health.

Figure 2-1 shows a vicinity map of Port Hadlock. The proposed extent of sewer service is described later

in this chapter.

JEFFERSON COUNTY VISION STATEMENT

The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan contains the following vision for the area:

• Maintain and preserve the natural beauty, rural character, and variety of life styles that make

up the intrinsic character of this community.

• Support a healthy, diversified, and sustainable local and regional economy by recognizing

existing local businesses, making prudent and appropriate infrastructure investments, and

encouraging new business start-ups and recruitment which are compatible with and

complementary to the community.

• Protect and conserve the local natural resource base, balancing both habitat and economic

values.

• Reinforce and enhance the historic sense of "place" or "community" around traditional

population centers.

• Prevent the inappropriate or premature conversion of undeveloped land in favor of infill and

the strengthening of local communities.

• Provide a degree of flexibility and autonomy for local communities to address their own

unique needs.

• Encourage yet unrealized opportunities in community education, technology, transportation

alternatives, habitat restoration and economic diversification.

2-1




Figure 2-1. Vicinity Map

2-2



…2. BACKGROUND

SEWER PLANNING AREA AND URBAN GROWTH AREA (UGA)

This facility plan identifies two distinct areas as related to urban planning and sewer system development

within the Port Hadlock/Irondale area. These are the Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (PHUGA) and the

Port Hadlock Sewer Planning Area (PHSPA) sewer planning area. The PHUGA is the planned urban

growth area as identified by the Jefferson County Department of Community Development and represents

the existing urban planning element for the Port Hadlock/Irondale area within the county’sComprehensive Plan through the year 2024. The PHSPA is coincident with the PHUGA and provides for

sewer service availability by the year 2024. A more detailed discussion regarding sewer planning

horizons and the planning horizon used in the county’s Comprehensive Plan is presented in Chapter 4 of

this document.

The coincident PHUGA and PHSPA are shown in Figure 2-2.

The sections below describes these areas and their important distinguishing characteristics as related to

urban planning and sewer facility planning.

Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (PHUGA)

The PHUGA is an unincorporated UGA, located approximately six miles south of the City of Port

Townsend, adjacent to Port Townsend Bay. This unincorporated UGA is subject to the Jefferson County

Comprehensive Plan (CP) and implementing regulations. Figure 2-2 shows anticipated 6-year and 20-year

sewer service area boundaries within the PHUGA. These boundaries represent the near term plan and the

long term plan to provide sewer service availability within the sewer planning area.

PHUGA Land Use and Zoning

Per the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the PHUGA encompasses approximately 1290 acres.

Population projections in this document are based on the 2000 census which showed a residential

population of 2,553 persons. The existing land use pattern is characterized by commercial development

concentrated along the major highway corridors (Rhody Drive, Ness’ Corner Road, and Chimacum Road)

and existing developed single-family neighborhoods northeast and south of the commercial core area.There are scattered multi-family apartment complexes mostly located at the fringe of the Port Hadlock

commercial core area.

Land use in the PHUGA includes commercial, public and quasi-public uses. These include facilities such

as churches, the County Library and Chimacum Creek Elementary School, the Jefferson County Sheriff’s

Office and Jail, Jefferson County Public Works Department Maintenance Yard, and the PUD’s Sparling

Well facility along Rhody Drive and the Kively Well along Chimacum Road. In addition, there are

several neighborhood parks and open space areas.

Future land use and zoning designations for the PHUGA are shown in Table 2-1 and are illustrated in the

Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA Zoning Map (Figure 2-2). Land use districts correspond to the CP general

urban land use designations and zoning districts illustrate the site-specific designations implemented bythe Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA Implementing Regulations adopted as Title 18 of the Jefferson County

Code.

2-3




F i g u r e 2 - 2 .

I r o n

d a l e & P o r t H a d l o c k U G A S e w e r S

e r v i c e A r e a a n d Z o n i n g M a p

2-4



…2. BACKGROUND

TABLE 2-1.IRONDALE AND PORT HADLOCK UGA LAND USE AND ZONING DISTRICTS

Land Use

Designation Zoning District

Total

(Gross)

Acres

Net

Developable

Acresa

Net

Developable

AcresPercent of

Total

Urban Residential

Urban Low Density Residential 801 449 56%

Urban Moderate Density Residential 66 50 86%

Urban High Density Residential 50 31 62%

Urban Commercial

Urban Commercial 263 161 61%

Visitor-Orientated Commercial 14 8 57%

Urban IndustrialUrban Light Industrial 25 15 60%

Public

Public 72 1 1%

TOTALS 1,290 715 55%

Source: Jefferson County Central Services, Jefferson County Department of Community Development

a. Net developable area is the total area on which development, residential or commercial, can take place. It is

the Total (Gross) Acres minus critical areas (environmentally sensitive areas), market factor area (land under

private ownership which is assumed to remain undeveloped by the owner’s choice), and roads and reduction

factor area (area for roads, buffers, easements, etc., that will not be built upon).

Port Hadlock Sewer Planning Area (PHSPA)

As mentioned above, the PHSPA is coincident with the PHUGA. The proposed capital facility plan

outlined in this document will demonstrate the availability of sewer service throughout the sewer planning

area within the county’s Comprehensive Plan’s 20-year planning horizon (i.e.), by the year 2024.

Sewer Planning Area Land Use and Zoning

The predominant land use type by area in the sewer planning area is single-family residential

development. It accounts for close to one-half of the existing land area. Most of the residential

neighborhoods south of Irondale Road are largely built-out, although there are a significant number of

pre-existing platted lots (from early in the 20th

century) that remain undeveloped. In fact, vacant lands

constitute about one-third of the UGA—most of which are concentrated north of Irondale Road and southof Chimacum Creek. Many of these lots are “substandard”— meaning that they cannot meet minimum lot

size requirements for on-site septic systems—and therefore must be combined through restrictive

covenant or lot consolidation in order to build upon. Under current regulations, the county may authorize

single-family home development on pre-existing platted lots provided they meet Jefferson County

Environmental Health Department standards for on-site septic systems and drainfields— usually requiring

a minimum 12,500 square foot lot (if served by a public water system). Current developed single-family

residential lots in the UGA range from 2,500 to 20,000 square feet in size and average about 13,000

square feet.

2-5




Summary of Land Use and Zoning

Figure 2-2 and Table 2-1 summarize the land use designations and area totals for the PHUGA and sewer

planning area. Also presented below are descriptions of the various land use designations identified.

Urban Residential. The Urban Residential land use designation accounts for the largest share of land use

in the UGA. The Urban Low Density Residential (ULDR) zone will allow housing density from four (4)to six (6) dwelling units per acre, except, as previously noted, for parcels both outside the planned sewer

service area and within a designated Critical Aquifer Recharge Area where the maximum density may not

exceed 3.5 units per acre. This zone accounts for more than 800 acres although only about one-third of

those acres are undeveloped (including mostly vacant platted lots). Moderate Density Residential (MDR)

zoning will allow housing at a density of 7-14 units per acre and accounts for 66 total acres within the

UGA. The High Density Residential zone will allow housing at a density of 14-24 dwelling units per acre.

Urban Commercial. Almost one-quarter of the total UGA is designated for commercial land use. Several

different commercial zoning districts may implement this land use designation. The Urban Commercial

(UC) zone is the largest constituting approximately 263 acres. It covers both the existing and planned

future commercial development in the Port Hadlock core area and along Rhody Drive between Ness’

Corner and the “Dogbone.” The Visitor-Oriented Commercial (VOC) zone is applied to the tourism-oriented potential development area around the Old Alcohol Plant.

Urban Industrial. Approximately 25 acres of land are designated as an Urban Light Industrial (ULI)

zone in the UGA. These uses are located in the southwest corner of the UGA well buffered from the bulk

of the residential neighborhoods in the community.

Public Facilities. Public facilities (P) comprise 72 acres, including public park and open space areas, the

Library and Chimacum Creek Elementary School, the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office and Jail,

Jefferson County Public Works Department Maintenance Yard, and the PUD’s Sparling Well facility

along Rhody Drive and the Kively Well in Port Hadlock.

POPULATIONThis section describes countywide population; population within the proposed Port Hadlock UGA area is

described in Chapter 4. The Office of Financial Management (OFM) publishes population projections for

cities and counties for use with planning under GMA. OFM published Population Trends in April 2001 as

Washington State’s official population figures. These estimates are cited in numerous statutes using

population as a criterion for fund allocations, program eligibility, or program operations and as criteria for

determining county participation in the Growth Management Act.

The City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County developed a population projection and urban population

allocation for the City of Port Townsend, Irondale/Hadlock UGA, and the Port Ludlow MPR based on the

OFM projections. The county passed Resolution #55-03 on September 22, 2003, adopting the Updated

Population Forecast. The population forecast is summarized in Table 2-2.

2-6



…2. BACKGROUND

TABLE 2-2.JEFFERSON COUNTY AND CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND

20-YEAR POPULATION PROJECTION AND DISTRIBUTION

2000

Population

Anticipated

Growth (2000-

2024)

Projected 2024

Population

Percentage of

TotalCountywide

Growth

Compound

Growth Rate

Port Townsend

UGA

(incorporated)

8,344 4,985 13,329 36% 1.97%

Irondale/Hadlock

UGA

(unincorporated)

2,553 2,353 4,906 17% 2.76%

Port Ludlow

MPR

(unincorporated)

1,430 2,353 3,783 17% 4.14%

Unincorporated

Rural &

Resources Areas

13,972 4,149 18,121 30% 1.09%

County-wide

Total

26,299 13,840 40,139 100% 1.78%

Sources: 2000 US Census and 2002 Washington State OFM Population Forecasts

The only incorporated city in the county is Port Townsend. Approximately thirty percent of the county’s

population is incorporated, with the remaining areas unincorporated.

UTILITY SERVICESNearby Water Systems

There are several water purveyors in eastern Jefferson County. The large Group A Systems include: Cape

George Colony Club, Inc.; Kala Point Water System; Ludlow Water Company; the Jefferson County

PUD; and the City of Port Townsend.

Jefferson County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) provides water to customers in the PHUGA. The

supply is from ground water wells located within the PHUGA. The Sparling Well is located near the

intersection of Rhody Drive and Kennedy Road, while the Kively Well is located just east of Chimacum

Road.

The PUD wells have annual water rights equivalent to 1.14 million gallons per day (mgd). Currentaverage day water demands are approximately 0.72 mgd for the entire area served by the PUD wells. This

includes contracted amounts of approximately 0.114 mgd for Indian Island and 0.057 mgd for

Marrowstone Island customers (Fort Flagler and a federal fish hatchery). Current peak day demands are

approximately 1.56 mgd.

2-7




Nearby Wastewater Facilities

Currently, there is no public sewer service within the PHUGA. All wastewater treatment is provided by

either individual on-site septic systems or small community-based on-site systems.

Existing sewer systems within approximately 20 miles of the planning area include: the Naval facility at

Indian Island, City of Port Townsend, City of Sequim, and Port Ludlow resort area.. The Port Ludlowfacility is privately owned and is not available for municipal service. The City of Port Townsend

treatment facility is located approximately eight miles north of the PHUGA, while the City of Sequim

treatment plant is located more than 15 miles from the PHUGA.

TOPOGRAPHY, SOILS AND HYDROGEOLOGY

Topography

Ground elevations in the Port Hadlock area range from zero to approximately 100 feet above sea level.

The terrain consists of the relatively flat Chimacum Creek valley, incised areas immediately adjacent to

the Creek, and upland areas surrounding the valley reaching elevations of over 400 feet above sea level.

Some areas near the coastline and valley walls have slopes greater than 15 percent. Figure 2-3 shows a

topographic map of the area.

Soils

Per Simonds, et al. (2004) Gayer (1975) and Grimstad (1981), most of the study area is underlain by

Quaternary Vashon Recessional Outwash, which generally consists of loose, clean, stratified sands and

gravels deposited by meltwater streams emanating from retreating glaciers. Recessional outwash was not

glacially overridden, and has lower densities than advance outwash or lodgement till. Typically outwash

deposits exhibit moderate to high permeabilities and infiltration rates depending on silt content.

There is some Quaternary Vashon Till in the southern portion of the study area, west of the southern cove

in Port Townsend Bay. Vashon till deposits generally consist of a compact unsorted mixture of clay to

boulder size particles, deposited at the base of the Cordilleran ice sheet during the latest glaciation.Occasional sand and gravel lenses may be present. Till is commonly referred to as “hardpan” due to its

cement-like texture. Till does not provide a favorable infiltration medium. Till acts as an aquitard that

inhibits the flow of ground water, perches water on top of it in the recessional outwash, and also confines

water below it in the advance outwash. In general, the permeability of till ranges from low in weathered

surficial deposits to relatively impermeable in very dense non-weathered materials.

A geologic map provided by Jefferson County (1995) also indicates Vashon Recessional Outwash over

much of the study area, with a large area of Vashon Lacustrine Deposits in the area bounded by the

northern reach and mouth of Chimacum Creek and the coastline (Jefferson County, 1995). Lacustrine

deposits are typically fine-grained (silt and clay) lake-bottom deposits.

2-8



…2. BACKGROUND

F i g u r e 2 - 3 .

T o p

o g r a p h y M a p

2-9




Figure 2-4 shows an excerpt of the soil survey map for the study area (McCreary & Raver, 1975). Soil

maps indicate much of the study area is underlain by three major soil types: Cassolary sandy loam, Dick

loamy sand, and Hoypus gravelly sandy loam. The Cassolary series consists of well-drained soils on

upland terraces, formed in reworked glacial and marine sediments. The Dick series consists of somewhat

excessively drained, sandy soils, formed in glacial outwash on plains and terraces. The Hoypus series

consists of somewhat excessively drained, gravelly soils, formed in glacial outwash on terraces.

Preliminary review of selected well logs in the study area on file at the Washington State Department of

Ecology suggest sand and gravel deposits near the surface over most of the study area, although some

well logs indicate clay or “hardpan.”

Hydrogeological Evaluation

A hydrogeological data review was conducted by HWA Geosciences Inc. to evaluate general

hydrogeologic and soil conditions throughout the area for potential land application or rapid rate

percolation sites for reclaimed water discharge. The study found that much or all of the study area is

underlain by relatively well-drained, granular soils, with few areas of steep slopes or wetlands. Based on

this information and other factors, such as property availability and distance to wastewater infrastructure,

several potential sites may be selected. Hydrogeological testing was conducted on a site south of theservice area boundary. The report is included as Appendix A.

HAZARD AREAS

Some geologically hazardous areas are also present in the PHUGA. These are areas particularly

susceptible to erosion, sliding, earthquakes, or other geological events. Steep slopes and marine bluffs

adjacent to Port Townsend Bay and lower Chimacum Creek are prone to impacts related to erosion,

seismic events and landslides. Protection of these areas is regulated under UDC Section 3.6.7

(Geologically Hazardous Areas).

Erosion and Landslide Hazard

Erosion hazard areas contain soils that, according to the SCS Soil Classification System, may experiencesevere to very severe erosion. The erosion hazard for any given soil type increases as slope increases.

Erosion hazard includes the transport of soil by wind and water. The susceptibility of soil to erosion

depends on the size of the soil particles, the amount of precipitation, topography, and the type and density

of vegetation. Slopes greater than 15 percent are found along the coastline, and are generally not suitable

for percolation sites. Percolation near steep slopes may impact slope stability, or may cause undesirable

discharge (daylighting) at the base of the slope or on slope faces. These steep slopes (mostly along the

coastline) are shown on Figure 2-5. Slopes less than 15 percent predominate within the area of interest

and will generally be suitable for percolation sites provided that adequate erosion control measures be

taken during construction and site use.

Landslide hazard areas are areas potentially subject to landslides based on geologic, topographic and

hydrological factors, including bedrock and soil characteristics and stratigraphy, slope, and hydrology.Areas with significant slopes in the PHUGA are located along the coastline and moderate slopes near the

northern boundary of the area are also indicated on Figure 2-5.

2-10



…2. BACKGROUND

F i g u r e 2 - 4 .

S o i l s M a p o f t h e P o r t H a d l o c k A r e a

2-11




F i g u r e 2 - 5 .

E r o

s i o n & S l i d e H a z a r d A r e a s

2-12



…2. BACKGROUND

Seismic Hazard

Seismic hazard areas are areas associated with active faults and earthquakes. The potential for ground-

shaking, differential settlement, or soil liquefaction in these areas poses significant, predictable hazards to

life and property. Seismic-induced events also include tsunamis, surface faulting or seiches. Jefferson

County and all of Western Washington is at risk of seismic activity.

The International Building Code (IBC) requires that a structure be designed for “site-specific” earthquake

motions, and is no longer given a seismic zone value as in older code such as the Uniform Building Code

(UBC). A particular project site is assigned a seismic design category which determines the severity of

the design earthquake. This category is based on both the short period and one-second period response

accelerations for that particular site determined by a geotechnical engineer, and its seismic use group

based on occupancy of the facility. The Jefferson County Area is located in a region of historically high

seismic risk; therefore the seismic design category would be expected to reflect a more severe earthquake

occurrence. Figure 2-6 shows seismic hazard areas within the PHUGA.

CLIMATE

The climate of the Port Hadlock area is mid-latitude “West Coast Marine,” a climate influenced by moist

air originating from the Pacific Ocean. The high summer temperatures in the area are in the range of 60 to

70º Fahrenheit (F). Low winter temperatures are in the range of 30 to 40ºF. The greatest amount of days

in a year that have been recorded as having sub-freezing maximum temperatures is 20, or approximately

three weeks.

Due to the “rain-shadow” effect from the Olympic Mountain Range, annual rainfall averages

approximately 30 inches per year, while average potential and actual evapotranspiration are

approximately 25.2 and 17.7 inches per year, respectively.

SURFACE WATER/WETLANDS

Percolation near surface water drainages or wetlands may increase stream base flows or wetland water

levels. Increased base flows may have negative impacts on stream or wetland hydrology, including:increased flow volume, decreased time to reach receiving water, increased frequency and duration of high

stream flows, and greater stream velocities (Ecology, 2005).

No major surface water bodies other than Chimacum Creek and Port Townsend Bay are present within

the study area.

Figure 2-7 illustrates the wetlands within the PHUGA.

GROUNDWATER

The entire UGA is served by a public water system now owned and operated by Public Utility District

No. 1 (PUD) of Jefferson County. The water source is groundwater acquired by two separate wells. The

primary source is the Sparling Well located at the intersection of Rhody Drive and Kennedy Road on the

western border of the PHUGA. A secondary well, the Kivley Well, is located just southeast of the Port

Hadlock core area.

2-13




F i g u r e 2 - 6 .

S e i s m i c H a z a r d A r e a s

2-14



…2. BACKGROUND

F i g u r e 2 - 7 .

W e t l a n d s a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l l y S e n s i t i v e A

r e a s

2-15




Criteria which should be evaluated for potential wastewater infrastructure sites, include:

• Nearby domestic or multiple use water wells

• Nearby municipal wells, and associated wellhead protection areas

• Designated critical aquifer recharge areas

• Contaminated sites.

Portions of the PHUGA are vulnerable to groundwater pollution and are designated as a Critical Aquifer

Recharge Area (CARA) due to their hydrogeologic soil characteristics and the presence of public water

supply wellheads. The Jefferson County Public Utility District owns the water system that serves the

UGA. The water system relies on groundwater wells. There is a designated wellhead protection area

around the PUD’s Sparling Well and the Kivley Well. Figure 2-8 shows wellhead protection areas, from

the Washington State Department of Ecology Facility/Site Identification System. Figure 2-9 shows

critical aquifer recharge areas (CARA), from the Jefferson County GIS database. The treatment method

selected will impact the degree to which receptor water quality issues are considered.

The CARA is subject to enhanced wastewater treatment standards which, among other requirements, limit

land use activities; establish minimum lot sizes for uses dependent upon on-site septic systems forwastewater treatment and disposal; and requires “best management practices” for siting such

development—according to Jefferson County UDC Sections 3.6.5 (Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas);

6.18 (On- Site Sewage Disposal Best Management Practices in CARAs); and Jefferson County Code

Chapter 8.15 (On- Site Sewage Disposal Systems).

RELATED STUDIES

The following plans, studies, and other documents were reviewed as background for the current study:

• Economic and Engineering Services Inc., 2004. General Sewer Plan for the Irondale and Port

Hadlock Urban Growth Area

• Jefferson County, 2004 Update. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan.

• Jefferson County Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 3.6.7 (Geologically Hazardous

Areas).

• U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1958. Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey, Jefferson

County, Washington.

2-16



…2. BACKGROUND

F i g u r e 2 - 8 .

W e

l l h e a d P r o t e c t i o n

2-17




F i g u r e 2 - 9 .

C A R A L o c a t i o n s

2-18



CHAPTER 3.PERMITS, REQUIREMENTS AND REGULATIONS

Wastewater must be collected, treated, and disposed of or reused in a way that protects public health andreceiving water quality, generates no objectionable off-site odors or aesthetic nuisances, and complies

with all applicable regulations. Wastewater treatment facilities must meet the regulations and

requirements of many federal, state, and local regulatory agencies. This chapter summarizes applicable

rules and regulations that typically apply to wastewater projects.

FEDERAL REGULATIONS

Federal Water Quality Acts

Programs and policies designed to protect water quality were first initiated on a nationwide scale by the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956. This act was amended by the Water Quality Act of 1965,

the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966, and the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970. The Federal

Water Pollution Act Amendment of 1972 (Public Law 92-500) replaced the previous language of the Actentirely. This Act requires states to establish water quality standards for all of their water bodies. The

standard must consist of two parts: a designation of the use of the water body; and the water quality

criteria that water body must maintain to protect the designated uses from pollution. The State of

Washington complies with this regulation through WAC 173-201A, which is described later.

The Clean Water Act of 1977, in further amending the Act, required any agency conducting an activity

that may result in a discharge into navigable waters to obtain certification from the appropriate water

pollution control agency, verifying that the discharge complies with applicable effluent limitations and

water quality standards. Further, these amendments established the National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permits, which regulate point discharges into water, and required varioustypes of water quality planning by states. Grants for facilities and training were also authorized under

these amendments.

With increased environmental awareness of the extent and effects of nonpoint pollution, including

stormwater, additional amendments to the Federal Clean Water Act were passed by Congress in early

1987. These amendments, referred to as the Water Quality Act of 1987, and especially Section 319, direct

the states in developing programs designed to reduce nonpoint source pollution. These sources of

pollution have become increasingly evident over the past 25 years as abatement of source pollution has

occurred. The Amendments required each state to do the following:

• Submit a report identifying navigable waters that cannot meet water quality standards without

action to control pollution.

• Identify the categories of pollution sources.

• Describe processes for identifying best management practices and control strategies.

• Identify state and local programs for controlling pollution from both point and nonpoint

sources.

These amendments resulted in the formation of the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (PSWQA) and

the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan.

3-1




Puget Sound Estuary Program

The Water Quality Act of 1987 formally established the National Estuary Program and declared that the

increase in coastal population, demands for development, and other direct and indirect uses of estuaries

threaten these unique bodies of water. The law further states that it is in the national interest to maintainthe ecological integrity of the nation’s estuaries through long-term planning and management. The EPA’s

designation of Puget Sound as an estuary of national significance is the federal government’s formalrecognition that Puget Sound is a resource of vital importance to fish and wildlife, to recreation, and to

commerce and trade.

The Puget Sound Estuary Program, which is co-managed by the EPA, the Washington State Department

of Ecology, and the Puget Sound Action Team (formerly the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority), has

been designated as the management conference for Puget Sound. The Puget Sound Action Team is

supplanted by the Puget Sound Partnership in 2007 legislation. The management conference is

responsible for the development and implementation of a site-specific “Comprehensive Conservation and

Management Plan” (CCMP). Under the law, the management plans developed by each conference must

do the following:

• Assess trends in water quality, natural resources, and uses of the estuary.

• Collect, characterize, and assess data on toxics, nutrients, and natural resources within the

estuarine zone to identify the causes of environmental problems.

• Develop the relationship between the in-place loads and point and nonpoint loadings of

pollutants to the estuarine zone and the potential uses of the zone, water quality, and natural

resources.

• Develop a comprehensive conservation and management plan that recommends priority

corrective actions and compliance schedules addressing point and nonpoint sources of

pollution.

• Develop plans for the coordinated implementation of the plan by the states as well as federal

and local agencies participating in the conference.

• Monitor the effectiveness of the actions taken pursuant to the plan.

• Review all federal financial assistance programs and federal development projects to

determine whether such assistance program or project would be consistent with and further

the purposes of the plan.

The 1987 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan developed by the Authority is recognized as

being a partial CCMP by the National Estuary Program. Successive updates complete the requirements

for a CCMP.

Federal Effluent Limitations

Section 301 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act requires all publicly owned wastewater treatment

facilities to provide a minimum of secondary treatment unless a special waiver is obtained. This act

requires the following:

• The monthly average of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids

(TSS) concentrations shall not exceed 30 milligrams per liter (mg/L).

• The weekly average of BOD and TSS concentrations shall not exceed 45 mg/L.

• The monthly average removal of BOD and TSS shall be at least 85 percent.

3-2



…3. PERMITS, REQUIREMENTS AND REGULATIONS

• The pH of the effluent shall be between 6.0 and 9.0.

There can be exceptions to these regulations when treatment works receive combined sewer flows or

certain industrial wastes. However, in general, these are the minimum federal requirements for effluent

quality. The Washington State Department of Ecology administers these regulations under the NPDES.

National Environmental Policy ActThe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires appropriate environmental documentation for

projects that could have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the natural and human environment.

The EPA can declare that a proposed action is categorically exempt from these requirements. Otherwise,

the proposing agency must prepare an Environmental Information Document (EID), commonly referred

to as an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Report. An Environmental Report has been

prepared for this project (Tt/KCM, 2007). An Environmental Report looks at various elements of the

environment such as soils, water quality, and air quality. In addition, the document addresses how the

proposed project complies with federal and state regulations. Letters were sent to various regulatory

agencies requesting input and comments regarding the proposed action. The EPA uses the Environmental

Report to determine whether to issue a “finding of no significant impact” or to require an environmental

impact statement.

Federal Standards for Use or Disposal of Sludge

The federal document that regulates the use and disposal of sewage sludge is the Code of Federal

Regulations, Part 503 (40 CFR 503, EPA 1993). These regulations, published in February 1993, address

three main sludge disposal options:

• Land application

• Surface disposal

• Incineration.

Land-applied sludge must meet requirements in the 503 regulations for pathogen and vector attractionreduction. Two basic classes for pathogen reduction are established in the regulations. In general, sludge

distributed in bagged form must meet Class A requirements. Sludge applied to the land in bulk form must

meet Class B requirements. The discussion below focuses on the regulations applicable to bulk land

application because that is the only disposal option evaluated in this report.

Pathogen Reduction

Class A sludge must have levels of fecal coliform organisms below 1,000 per gram of total solids and

meet other time and temperature requirements, or the sludge must have been treated with an EPA-defined

“process to further reduce pathogens.” These processes include composting, heat drying, heat treatment,

thermophilic aerobic digestion, irradiation, and pasteurization.

Class B sludge must have levels of fecal coliform organisms less than 2 million per gram of total solids,or meet other requirements, or the sludge must have been treated with an EPA-defined “process to

significantly reduce pathogens.” These processes include aerobic digestion for a mean cell residence time

greater than 40 days at 20ºC or 60 days at 15ºC, air drying, anaerobic digestion, composting, or lime

stabilization.

3-3




Vector Attraction Reduction

The regulations require that land-applied sludge be processed to reduce its “vector attraction.” This means

that the sludge should be stabilized sufficiently to not be an attraction to rodents or birds that could spread

pathogens contained in the sludge and thereby increase the risk of human exposure. The basic measure of the adequacy of sludge stabilization in the regulations is that the volatile solids concentration in the sludge

be reduced through processing by at least 38 percent. A series of alternative procedures are provided forreducing vector attraction, including injection below the ground surface.

Metals

Limits are specified for the concentration of various metals in the sludge and for the cumulative loading

of these metals on the land used for its application. Table 3-1 lists the concentration limits for any sludge

that is land applied. Table 3-2 lists further guidelines for sludge that is land applied in bulk. Either the

monthly average concentration criteria or the cumulative pollutant loading rate criteria must be met.

Other Measures

In addition to regulating the quality of biosolids, the regulations require specific management measures,

including the following:

• Record-Keeping and Reporting—Records must be kept by the producer describing the

quantity and quality of the biosolids that have been applied to specific sites for up to five

years. Even if the producer has a contract for biosolids disposal with a private contractor, the

producer is ultimately responsible for the record-keeping and reporting.

• Monitoring—The producer is responsible for monitoring the biosolids for metals and specific

pathogens on a regular basis.

• Management Practices—Biosolids should not be applied to flooded, frozen, or snow-covered

ground, so that biosolids do not enter surface waters.

TABLE 3-1.CEILING CONCENTRATIONS FOR METALS IN

LAND-APPLIED SLUDGE

Parameter Ceiling Concentration Limit (mg/kg)

Arsenic 75

Cadmium 85

Copper 4,300

Lead 840

Mercury 57

Molybdenum 75Nickel 420

Selenium 100

Zinc 7,500

3-4




TABLE 3-2.METAL CONCENTRATION LIMITS FOR BULK SEWAGE SLUDGE

LAND APPLICATION

Parameter

Monthly Average Concentration

Limit (mg/kg)

Cumulative Pollutant

Loading Rate (kg/hectare)

Arsenic 41 41

Cadmium 39 39

Copper 1,500 1,500

Lead 300 300

Mercury 17 17

Nickel 420 420

Selenium 100 100

Zinc 2,800 2,800

Clean Air ActThe Federal Clean Air Act of 1992 requires that all federally funded projects be in compliance with state

and regional air quality plans. The local air-quality authority for Jefferson County is the Olympic Region

Clean Air Agency; agency requirements are discussed later in this chapter.

EPA Reliability Criteria

An important reference for wastewater treatment plant reliability is the EPA’s Design Criteria for

Mechanical, Electric, and Fluid System and Component Reliability (EPA 1974). This document outlines

requirements in three reliability classes, with specific provisions for each unit process. Table 3-3

summarizes its requirements for component reliability.

3-5




TABLE 3-3.SUMMARY OF EPA DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SYSTEM AND COMPONENT RELIABILITY

Component Class I Class II Class III

Reliability

classification

Works discharging into navigable waters that could

be permanently or unacceptably damaged byeffluent that was degraded in quality for only a few

hours. Examples of Reliability Class I works mightbe those discharging near drinking water reservoirs,into shellfish waters, or in proximity to areas used

for water contact sports.

Works discharging into navigable waters

that would not be permanently orunacceptably damaged by short-term

effluent quality degradation, but could bedamaged by continued (on the order of several days) effluent degradation.

Works not otherwise

classified as ReliabilityClass I or II

Trash removal Required Same as Class I Same as Class I

Grit removal Required if sludge is handled Same as Class I Same as Class I

Clean-out of solids Provisions for cleaning of solids required forcomponents prior to degritting or sedimentation

Same as Class I Same as Class I

Controlled

diversion

Screened, gravity overflow required with alarm,

annunciation, and measurement of flow discharged.Holding basin required

Same as Class I, but no holding basin

required

Same, as Class I but no

holding basin required

Unit operation

bypassing

Required except for unit operations with two or

more open basins


Mechanicallycleaned bar screens

Backup manual screen required Same as Class I Same as Class I

Pumps Capacity to handle peak flow with any one pump outof service must be provided


Comminution Overflow bypass must be provided with manual barscreen


Primarysedimentationbasins

With largest unit out, remaining units shall havedesign flow of at least 50 percent of the total designflow to that unit operation

Same as Class I At least two basins

Final and chemical

sedimentationbasins, tricklingfilters, filters, and

activated carboncolumns

With largest unit out, remaining units shall have

design flow of at least 75 percent of the total designflow to that unit operation

With largest unit out, remaining units

shall have design flow of at least 50percent of the total design flow to thatunit operation; backup not required for

chemical sedimentation basins, filters,and activated carbon columns

At least two basins;

backup not requiredfor chemicalsedimentation basins,

filters, and activatedcarbon columns

Aeration basin At least two equal volumes shall be provided Same as Class I Single basinpermissible

Aeration blowers

or aerators

Sufficient to provide for peak oxygen demands with

the largest capacity unit out of service

Same as Class I At least two units

3-6




TABLE 3-3 (continued).SUMMARY OF EPA DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SYSTEM AND COMPONENT RELIABILITY


Diffusers Designed so that isolation of the largest section of diffusers does not

measurably impair oxygen transfer capability


Chemical flashmixer

At least two basins or a backup means of adding chemicals Backup not required Backup not required

Flocculation basins At least two basins Backup not required Backup not required

Disinfectant

contact basins

With largest unit out, remaining units shall have design flow of at least

50 percent of the total design flow to that unit operation


Sludge handling Alternate methods of sludge disposal and/or treatment shall be

provided for each sludge treatment unit operation without installedbackup capability. No recycles permitted that will compromise liquidtreatment.


Sludge holdingtanks

May be used to back up downstream tanks Same as Class I Same as Class I

Sludge pumps A backup pump shall be provided for each set of pumps that performsthe same function. The capacity of the pumps shall be such that with

any one pump out of service, the remaining pumps will have capacityto handle the peak flow.


Anaerobic sludge

digestion

At least two digestion tanks shall be provided. At least two of the

digestion tanks provided shall be designed to permit processing alltypes of sludge normally digested. Tanks shall have sufficientflexibility or backup equipment to ensure that mixing is not lost whenany one piece of equipment is out of service. Uninstalled backup is

acceptable for mixing equipment


Aerobic sludgedigestion

Backup aeration basin not required. At least two blowers shall beprovided. Uninstalled backup is permissible. Largest section of diffusers can be isolated.

Sludge holdingtanks

May be used to back up downstream tanks Same as Class I Same as Class I

Vacuum filter There shall be sufficient number of vacuum filters to enable the design

flow to be dewatered with largest capacity unit out of service. Twovacuum pumps and two filtrate pumps shall service each vacuum filter.These may be uninstalled.


Centrifuges There shall be sufficient number of units to enable the design flow tobe dewatered with largest capacity unit out of service. The backup unit

may be uninstalled.


Incinerators A backup incinerator is not required. Auxiliary equipment shall beprovided with backup.


3-7




TABLE 3-3 (continued).SUMMARY OF EPA DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SYSTEM AND COMPONENT RELIABILITY


Electric powersource

Two separate and independent sources of electric power shall beprovided to the works either from two separate utility substations orfrom a single substation and a works-based generator. Capacity of

backup power shall be sufficient to operate all vital components, duringpeak wastewater flow conditions, together with critical lighting andventilation.

Same as Class I exceptthose vitalcomponents to support

the secondaryprocesses need not beincluded as long astreatment equivalent

to sedimentation anddisinfection isprovided.

Sufficient to operatethe screening orcomminution facilities,

the main wastewaterpumps, the primarysedimentation basins,and the disinfection

facility during peak flow together withcritical lighting and

ventilation.

Power distributionexternal to the

works

The independent sources of power shall be distributed to the workstransformers in a way to minimize common mode failures from

affecting both sources.


Power distributionwithin the works

See Referenced EPA document Same as Class I Same as Class I

Instrumentation

and controlsystems

Automatic control systems whose failures could result in a controlled

diversion or a violation of the effluent limitations shall be providedwith a manual override. Instrumentation whose failure could result in acontrolled diversion or a violation of the effluent limitations shall beprovided with an installed backup sensor and readout. Alarms shall be

provided to monitor the condition of equipment whose failure couldresult in a controlled diversion or a violation of the effluent limitations.Vital instrumentation and control equipment shall be designed topermit alignment and calibration without requiring a controlled

diversion or a violation of the effluent limitations


Auxiliary systems If a malfunction of the system can result in controlled diversion or aviolation of the effluent limitations and the required function cannot bedone by any other means, then the system shall have backup capability.


Reference: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Design Criteria for Mechanical, Electric, and Fluid System and Component Reliability.MCD-05, EPA-430-99-74-001. Office of Water Program Operations. Washington, D. C.,

The EPA’s requirements are very similar to Ecology’s reliability requirements, which are discussed later

in this chapter. The wastewater facilities proposed in this sewer plan and engineering report will comply

with the EPA and Ecology Class I reliability criteria.

Historical and Archaeological Sites

Both federal and state laws require agencies to assess the effects of their proposed projects on significant

archeological and historic properties. If facility improvement projects impact identified historical or

archaeological sites, a more detailed evaluation of the site and potential impact of the project on the site

will be required. The Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation recommended a

professional archaeological survey of the identified area of potential effect as well as consultation withthe concerned tribes’ cultural committees and staff regarding cultural resource issues. The County will

commence with an archaeological survey prior to construction of the proposed projects. If during

3-8




construction, archaeological resources are found, all work will be halted and the concerned tribe and State

Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation will be contacted.

Floodplains, Wetlands, and Flood Insurance

The EPA restricts treatment projects on environmentally sensitive lands such as floodplains and wetlands.

Agricultural Lands

It is EPA policy under the Farmland Protection Policy Act (PL 97-98) to protect agricultural lands from

“irreversible loss as an environmental or essential food production resource.”

Coastal Zone Management

The Coastal Zone Management Act requires that all federal activities be consistent with approved state

coastal zone management programs to the maximum extent possible. This project is located in a coastal

zone county and is consistent with Washington's Coastal Zone Management Program and enforceableregulatory policies (State Environmental Policy Act, Water Quality, Air Quality and the Shoreline Master

Program). Depending on the scope of the project, Jefferson County may be required to submit a Coastal

Zone Certification of Consistency to the Department of Ecology for approval as part of obtaining theappropriate permits and approvals.

A shoreline development permit would be needed prior to construction if construction is planned within

200 feet of the ordinary high water mark.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

To comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, proposed projects should not directly and adversely

impact any wild, scenic, or recreational river area.

Fish and Wildlife Protection

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires that projects “controlling or modifying any naturalstreams or other body of water” be done in a way that protects fish and wildlife resources and habitats.

Also, since wastewater treatment facilities can attract birds, coordination with federal wildlife and

aviation officials is recommended if treatment facilities are within 2 miles of any airports. The closest

airport to the Port Hadlock area is the Jefferson County International Airport approximately 3 miles to the

northwest.

Endangered Species Act

Projects with a federal “nexus,” including federal permits, approvals or funding, require compliance with

the Endangered Species Act. Listed fish species include the following:

• Chum salmon, Hood Canal summer-run—federally threatened

• Bull trout—federally threatened and a state species of concern

• Chinook salmon—federally threatened and a state species of concern

• Coho salmon—federal candidate species.

In addition, the Bald Eagle is considered threatened by the federal and state government.

3-9




Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

In December 1998, the National Marine Fisheries Service (which has since been renamed as NOAA

Fisheries) issued interim final regulations to implement the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) requirements of

the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act. This act significantly amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act of 1976.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the following: for federal actions that may adversely affect EFH,

except activities covered by a General Concurrence, federal agencies, must provide a written assessment

of the effects of that action on EFH. EFH is defined as “waters and substrate necessary to fish for

spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” EFH must always include the critical habitat of

endangered and threatened species.

If a project affects an endangered species of plant or wildlife, it should include mitigating measures to

reduce the impact.

Public Participation

Jefferson County has adopted a comprehensive approach for public participation for this project. Thestrategy includes stakeholder workshops, public meetings, a project website, and press releases.

Informational fliers have been mailed to all property owners within the Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area

(PHUGA) and to those who have included themselves on the project mailing list. Within this strategy,

several public meetings were held to comply with a federal requirement for facilities plans. The federal

requirement is for at least two public meetings.

The following public meetings were held during the development of this Facility Plan:

• March 16 2006 – Stakeholder Workshop: Collection System Alternatives and Evaluation

• May 25, 2006 – Stakeholder Workshop: Discharge and Treatment Alternatives Evaluation

• June 22, 2006 – Stakeholder Workshop: Alternatives for Collection, Treatment, and

Discharge/Reuse• July 19, 2006 – Public Meeting: Alternatives for Collection, Treatment, and Discharge/Reuse

• October 10, 2006 – Stakeholder Workshop: Preliminary Design, Cost & Finance

• October 25, 2006 – Public Meeting: Preliminary Design, Cost & Finance

At each meeting, a technical presentation was given discussing the topic. Questions and answer sessions

occurred at the end of each meeting. Subsequent meetings began with a follow up on key topics and

questions from the previous meeting which required further research. All meetings were open to the

public and meeting summaries were posted on the project website (www.porthadlocksewer.org).

The project website at www.porthadlocksewer.org provided interested citizens and stakeholders with

meeting schedules, meeting summaries, maps, background information and meeting slide presentations.The website also provided a comment section and a frequently asked question section. The website

information was duplicated in hard-copy form in the project folder at the Jefferson County Library.

Appendix B contains meeting summaries from the stakeholder workshops and public meetings.

3-10

http://www.porthadlocksewer.org/







STATE POLICIES

The Clean Water Act allows states to establish more stringent water quality requirements than are

required by federal law. Like most other states, Washington State has developed requirements pertaining

to surface water quality more stringent than those developed by the federal government. Ecology

administers the NPDES wastewater and stormwater permits and has requirements relating to protection of

ground and surface waters.

Agencies other than Ecology can also have involvement in construction and operation of facilities located

in critical areas. The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has involvement in

cases involving fish-bearing streams. In addition, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources

(DNR) has authority for facilities to be constructed on tidelands or along shorelines. To promote

efficiency and reduce overlap, state agencies and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers developed a Joint

Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA), which can be submitted for the following permits:

• WDFW’s Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA)

• Local agency shoreline management permits

• Department of Ecology Water Quality Certification and Approval for Exceedance of Water

Quality Standards

• Corps of Engineers Section 404 and Section 10 Permits

• Marine and aquatic lease.

Depending upon the final location of the wastewater treatment and reuse facilities proposed in this

Facility Plan, a JARPA may be needed for the shoreline management permit. Depending on final

alignment and design considerations relating to wetlands and streams, a Corps Permit and an HPA could

be required.

Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters

The applicable water quality standards for construction in or near streams or the shoreline are thoseadopted by Ecology pursuant to Section 303 of the Federal Water Pollution Act Amendments. Water

Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington was promulgated by Ecology in 2006

(WAC 173-201A). These standards describe general water quality conditions and classifications for

specific surface waters and the water quality desired for each class. General conditions listed under the

water quality standards are as follows:

• Existing beneficial uses shall be maintained and protected and no further degradation that

could interfere with or become injurious to existing beneficial uses shall be allowed.

• Whenever the natural conditions of waters are of a lower quality than the criteria assigned,

the natural conditions shall constitute the water quality criteria.

• Water quality shall be maintained and protected in waters designated as outstanding resource

waters. These waters are the following:

– Waters in national parks, national monuments, national preserves, national wildlife

refuges, national wilderness areas, federal wild and scenic rivers, national seashores,

national marine sanctuaries, national recreation areas, national scenic areas, and national

estuarine research reserves.

– Waters in state parks, state natural areas, state wildlife management areas, and state

scenic rivers.

3-11




– Documented aquatic habitat of priority species as determined by the Department of Fish

and Wildlife.

– Documented critical habitat for populations of threatened or endangered species of native

anadromous fish.

– Waters of exceptional recreational or ecological significance.

• Whenever waters are of a higher quality than the criteria assigned for them, the existing water

quality shall be protected and pollution of said waters that will reduce the existing quality

shall not be allowed, except in instances where:

– It is clear, after satisfactory public participation and intergovernmental coordination, that

overriding considerations of the public interest will be served.

– All wastes and other materials and substances discharged into said waters shall be

provided with all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control, and

treatment by new and existing point sources before discharge. All activities that result in

the pollution of waters from nonpoint sources shall be provided with all known,

available, and reasonable best management practices.

– When the lowering of water quality in high quality waters is authorized, the lower waterquality shall still be of high enough quality to fully support all existing beneficial uses.

General classifications applying to various surface water bodies not specifically classified under

173-201A-130 & 140 are as follows (applicable items only):

1. All surface waters lying within national parks, national forests, and/or wilderness areas are

classified Class AA or Lake Class.

2. All lakes and their feeder streams within the state are classified Lake Class and Class AA

respectively, except for those feeder streams specifically classified otherwise.

6. ( Items 3 through 5 not repeated herein) All unclassified surface waters that are tributaries to

Class AA waters are classified Class AA. All other unclassified surface waters in the state are

hereby classified Class A.

State Environmental Policy Act

A State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review will be required upon completion of this document. ASEPA review is an environmental checklist completed to ensure the State that there are no adverse

environmental impacts from proposed projects. Jefferson County will issue a threshold determination

based on review of the environmental checklist. This determination will be sent to the Departments of

Ecology and Health as well as USDA Rural Development for their concurrence. A copy of the SEPA

checklist is included in Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility Plan - Environmental Report and SEPA

Checklist .

State Environmental Review Process; Department of EcologyDocumentation

To be eligible for financial assistance from the State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund, this plan

must comply with the State Environmental Review Process (SERP, WAC 173-98-100). The SERP was

established “to help ensure that environmentally sound alternatives are selected and to satisfy the state’s

responsibility to help ensure that recipients comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and other

applicable environmental laws, regulations, and executive orders.” This project included an extensive

public involvement program and environmental documentation, and these efforts fully satisfy SERP.

3-12




In addition, the Department of Ecology has adopted a new set of requirements for environmental

documentation in coordination with USDA Rural Development. Requirements include sending out a

project description and summary of the proposed action to applicable regulatory agencies and requesting

input and comments regarding the proposed action. The environmental report, which also serves as the

Environmental Assessment for NEPA requirements, is a separate companion volume to this Facility Plan.

Since the Department of Health also has regulatory responsibility for wastewater treatment and effluentmanagement per WAC 246-271, a copy of the environmental report will be sent to them as well.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit

Wastewater Effluent

The State of Washington administers the federal effluent limitations through the NPDES program. All

wastewater discharges into the waters of the state, including treated effluent from treatment plants, must

be permitted through the Department of Ecology with an NPDES Permit.

Stormwater Discharge

Construction projects that disturb more than 5 acres require a construction general permit for stormwaterdischarge under NPDES requirements; mitigation measures are required, including preparation of a Storm

Water Pollution Prevention Plan. During construction, temporary erosion and sediment control measures

are required.

State Waste Discharge Permit, Wastewater Effluent

All wastewater disposed of via land application must be permitted through the Department of Ecology

with a State Waste Discharge Permit. As will be discussed in Chapter 6, “disposal” via land application is

generally taken to mean that the land application process is relied on to provide further treatment. Effluent

to be “disposed” via land application is assumed not to meet reclaimed water standards before being land

applied (similar to septic tank drainfield systems).

In comparison, “water reclamation” via land application is taken to mean that the effluent is treated to a

high degree before being land applied, the land is not needed for further treatment, and the land

application is for a beneficial use, such as groundwater recharge. Refer to the “Standards for Water

Reclamation” section on the next page.

Washington State Standards for Use and Disposal of Sludge

WAC 173-308, Biosolids Management, establishes guidelines for treatment and land application of

biosolids generated by municipal wastewater treatment facilities. These mirror the federal guidelines in

40 CFR 503. The state Department of Ecology has authority to enforce these rules and may, if it chooses,

delegate some of the authority to local health departments.

Washington Department of Ecology Criteria for Sewage Works DesignThe Ecology-developed Criteria for Sewage Works Design (Ecology 2006), also known as the Orange

Book, is a guide for design of sewage collection and treatment systems. The primary goals of the manual

are as follows:

• To ensure that the design of sewage collection and treatment systems is consistent with state

public health and water quality objectives

3-13




If surface percolation is used for land application of reclaimed water, a nitrogen reduction step is required

in addition to other Class A requirements.

The Water Reclamation and Reuse Standards also list requirements for redundancy, including redundant

filtration and disinfection equipment. Storage requirements are also listed, including emergency storage

and wintertime storage.

Land application of reclaimed water is permitted under a single reclaimed water permit issued jointly by

the DOE and DOH. Since the reclaimed water is being beneficially reused instead of disposed of, a State

Waste Discharge Permit (described previously) is not required.

Washington Department of Natural Resources/Shellfish Closure Zone

For treatment plants that discharge to aquatic lands, the use of the aquatic lands for the outfall is granted

by the Washington Department of Natural Resources through an aquatic lands lease that must be

periodically renewed. DNR also has the authority to condition uses of state lands as needed to ensure the

well-being of lands and ecosystems, to deny uses not in compliance with applicable laws, codes, and

policies, and to seek prosecution of users trespassing on state lands.

Additionally, the Washington Departments of Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, Health, and Natural Resources

established a joint policy titled Inter-Agency Permit Streamlining Document, Shellfish and Domestic

Wastewater Discharge Outfall Projects dated October 10, 1995. The policy requires that wastewater

outfalls avoid impacts on shellfish altogether or, when that is not possible, do the following:

• Minimize shellfish impacts

• Rectify shellfish impacts

• Reduce or eliminate shellfish impacts over time

• Compensate for impacts to shellfish

• Monitor and take corrective measures over time.

The Department of Health establishes the closure zones for commercial and tribal shellfish harvesting

around all wastewater treatment plant outfalls.

Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Approval

Cultural resources are addressed in over 100 federal laws, regulations, and guidelines, including the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,

amended in 1992 (NHPA). Section 106 of the NHPA requires federally assisted undertakings to take into

account the effects of those undertakings on historic properties that are included in or may be eligible to

be included in the National Register of Historic Places. “Historic properties” refers to prehistoric

archaeological sites as well as buildings, structures, and other historic sites.

Applicable state laws include the Indian Graves and Records Act (RCW 27.44), which prohibits

knowingly disturbing a Native American or historic grave, and the Archaeological Sites and Resources

Act (RCW 27.53), which requires that anyone proposing to excavate into, disturb, or remove artifacts

from an archaeological site on public or private lands obtain a permit from the Office of Archaeology and

Historic Preservation.

Three elements are involved in cultural resources studies following Section 106 procedures:

1. The identification and evaluation of historic properties.

3-15




agency within 15 days. An agency with jurisdiction may assume lead agency status within the 15-day

period if it disagrees with the threshold determination.

A “determination of significance” (DS), which acknowledges the potential for significant environmental

impacts, would require an environmental impact statement (EIS) that describes existing conditions,

addresses and evaluates alternatives, analyzes potential environmental impacts and addresses mitigation

measures. A scoping process would have to be conducted at the beginning of the EIS, in which theCounty would inform agencies and the public of the proposed projects and solicit comments that would

have to be addressed in the EIS.

Critical Areas Review

In noting the importance of sensitive habitats and wildlife species, and in complying with the Washington

State Growth Management Act of 1990, Jefferson County has adopted a Critical Areas Section (17.02).

Critical areas addressed in the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) include:

• Wetlands

• Aquifer recharge areas

• Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, including streams and shorelines

• Floodplains

• Geologically hazardous areas

The Jefferson County Department of Community Development reviews projects as to their impact on

these critical areas and requires protection standards and buffers for their protection.

Shoreline Management Program

Jefferson County has adopted a Shoreline Master Program as required by the Shoreline Management Act

of 1971, (RCW 90.58). Shorelines covered by each Shoreline Management Program generally include all

water areas of the state, including marine and fresh waters and their associated wetlands together with theunderlying lands, except: (a) shorelines along streams and their associated wetlands where the mean

annual flow is less than 20 cubic feet per second; and (b) shorelines of lakes less than 20 acres in area.Shoreline jurisdiction includes lands extending landward for 200 feet in all directions or measured on a

horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark.

The program is administered by the Jefferson County Department of Community Development.

International Fire Code / National Fire Protection Association

Local County fire officials have authority to enforce the national International Fire Code (IFC). The UFC

identifies required measures to prevent, control, and mitigate dangers related to the use and storage of

hazardous chemicals.

In addition, local officials have authority to enforce National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)

standards. NFPA 820, “Fire Protection in Wastewater Treatment and Collection Facilities,” is of

particular interest.

3-17




3-18

International Building Code / International Building Code /Washington State Energy Code

Local County building officials have authority to enforce the International Building Code (IBC) as well as

the Washington State Energy Code. These codes govern structural, architectural, and mechanical design

of buildings.

Olympic Region Clean Air Agency

The Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA) is a local agency of government having regulatory and

enforcement authority in and for Clallam, Grays Harbor, Jefferson, Mason, Pacific, and Thurston counties

of Washington state. It was established in 1968 after passage of the Clean Air Washington Act (RCW

70.94). The agency is responsible for enforcing federal, state and local air pollution standards and

governing air pollutant emissions from new and existing sources.

The agency’s primary concern with wastewater treatment facilities is from odor generation. The agency

has indicated that permits are not required for wastewater treatment plants on the basis of occasional

sewage odors. However, if a standby generator above 250 kW in capacity is used, a permit would be

required. Also, if sludge drying or sludge incineration is used, a permit might be required, depending onthe size of the facility.

Jefferson County Solid Waste Division

The Jefferson County Department of Public Works Solid Waste Division governs the handling of solid

waste in Jefferson County. Solid waste is centralized at the Jefferson County Solid Waste Complex near

Port Townsend. From there, it is compacted into shipping containers before being trucked and trained to

Roosevelt regional landfill in eastern Washington.

For this project, a particular concern is the potential need to dispose of screenings and grit from a

wastewater treatment plant. Some wastewater treatment plants require a headworks at the front of the

plant to remove rags, sticks, plastics, grit, and/or other non-organic objects before they reach the

treatment process. The organic content, dryness, and overall aesthetics of the screenings and grit can varyconsiderably, depending on the type of collection system and the type of headworks equipment.

The Solid Waste Department may have concerns about accepting screenings and grit from a treatment

plant.

This consideration of screenings and grit may not apply. For example, treatment plants that have Septic

Tank Effluent Pumping (STEP) systems do not require headworks facilities. This will be discussed in

detail in Chapter 7.

The other consideration related to the Solid Waste Division is acceptance of solids generated as part of

the wastewater treatment process. This issue will also be discussed in detail in Chapter 7.



CHAPTER 4.POPULATION, FLOW AND LOADS

This chapter presents an approach for distributing forecasted population within the Port Hadlock/Irondale

Sewer Planning Area which is coincident with the Port Hadlock UGA (PHUGA). This chapter also

projects future anticipated wastewater flows and loads based upon those forecasted population data. Nohistorical wastewater flow and load data were available since the PHUGA and Sewer Planning Area are

currently served by septic tanks. Future wastewater flows and loads were estimated using the County’s

growth projections for the proposed sewer service area, data from similar communities, engineering

experience, Department of Ecology Orange Book Design Criteria (Ecology 1998), and Jefferson County

PUD water meter data.

POPULATION FORECASTS

Background

A Geographic Information System (GIS) has been developed to assist in the planning process throughout

the development of the Facility Plan. This GIS consists of a variety of data provided by Jefferson County

and gathered from multiple sources. A data element not currently included in the available GIS data is

projected population growth within the Sewer Planning Area. While no spatially explicit population data

are available, enough data exists to perform a rudimentary population projection analysis. It should be

noted that this analysis relies upon numerous assumptions. These assumptions are noted throughout the

document. The analysis conducted within the scope of this project is based upon the residential

population within the Sewer Planning Area in the year 2000 and a residential population projection for the

year 2024 provided by Jefferson County. This analysis was not conducted by demographers. The County

may wish to follow up with a complete study by demographers to verify and refine the results presented

within this chapter.

Data Elements Used for Population Forecasting

GIS Data Several key data sets were used in this analysis. These data were all provided by the Central Services

Department of Jefferson County and include:

• Port Hadlock 20 year planning boundary (PHUGA)

• Port Hadlock/Irondale sewer planning area boundary

• Port Hadlock 6 year planning boundary

• Zoning

• Parcels

• Critical Areas.

Population Planning Data

The basis for the population projection within the Sewer Planning Area comes from Jefferson County

Resolution No. 55-03 adopted on September 22, 2003 and a section of the County’s Comprehensive Plan

provided by Jefferson County.. The resolution adopts an update to Countywide Growth Management

Planning Population Projections. Table 2-2 in this Facility Plan summarizes the population projections

codified in Resolution No. 55-03. This table identifies a residential population within Irondale/Hadlock of

2,553 people in the year 2000 and a population of 4,906 people in the year 2024.

4-1




Planning Areas and Zoning

Figure 4-1 is a zoning map provided by Jefferson County Central Services for the Port Hadlock/Irondale

UGA.

Table 4-1 describes the zoning designation within the Sewer Planning Area.

From information provided by Jefferson County the following key areas were developed for land within

the Sewer Planning Area:

1. TOTAL ACRES BY ZONING – The total area in acres by planning zone within the

PHUGA.

2. CRITICAL AREAS (ACRES) - The area within each planning zone designated as critical

areas. These areas are considered un-buildable for the purposes of the analysis.

3. MARKET FACTOR (ACRES) – Private land that is assumed to remain undeveloped.

4. ROADS AND REDUCTION FACTOR (ACRE) – Land required for roads, buffers, and

setbacks, upon which no other development can take place.

5. TOTAL DEVELOPABLE ACRES – Net area upon which development can occur.

TABLE 4-1.PLANNING ZONE DESIGNATIONS WITHIN THE PORT HADLOCK/IRONDALE UGA

Designation Description

P Public Land: Schools, Libraries, Sheriff’s Facility

C Commercial

VOC Visitor Oriented Commercial

LI Light Industrial

LDR Low Density Residential (4-6 housing units/acre)

MDR Moderate Density Residential (7-14 housing units/acre)

HDR High Density Residential (14-24 housing units/acre)

4-2



4. POPULATION, FLOWS AND LOADS

F i g u r e 4 - 1 .

P t .

H a d l o c k F u t u r e L a n d U s e a n d Z o n

i n g M a p

4-3




Table 4-2 summarizes the land area by zone within the Sewer Planning Area/Port Hadlock/Irondale UGA.

TABLE 4-2.LAND AREA BY PLANNING ZONE WITHIN THE

PORT HADLOCK/IRONDALE UGA

Zoning

Designation

Total Acres

by Zoning

Critical Areas

(Acres)

Market Factor

(Acres)

Roads andReduction

Factor (Acres)

TotalDevelopable

Area (Acres)

LDR (4-6) 801 449

MDR (7-14) 66 49

HDR (14-24) 50

238 102 47

31

C 263 162

LI 25 15

VOC 14

78 22 16

8

P 72 0 71 0 1

Total 1290 317 195 63 715

Sewer Phasing Sub-Areas

For the purposes of planning and developing an implementation strategy for the sanitary sewer system,

the Sewer Planning Area was subdivided into several implementation areas or sub-areas. These sub-areas

were identified based upon how the planned sewer collection system could be constructed and

implemented over the planning period. The order in which sewers are constructed within these areas

provide a sequence by which a sewer plan and implementation strategy can be developed.

Figure 4-2 shows the proposed phasing areas within the Sewer Planning Area.

Table 4-3 describes the phasing sub-areas within the Sewer Planning Area.

The following sub-areas are included within the 20-year PHUGA:

• Core Area

• Alcohol Plant Area

• Rhody Drive Area

• Residential Area #1



It is important to keep in mind that the proposed phasing is for planning purposes only and that the actual

implementation may proceed in a manner different than what is shown in Table 4-3, especially for those

areas which will be implemented further out on the planning horizon. However, the planning analysis will

provide sewer service availability throughout the entire Sewer Planning Area within the County

Comprehensive Plan’s 20-year planning horizon.

4-4




F i g u r e 4 - 2 .

S e w e r P h a s i n g a n d I m p l e m e n t a t i o n S u b - A

r e a s

4-5




TABLE 4-3.PHASING AREAS WITHIN THE PORT HADLOCK/IRONDALE UGA

Sub-Area Description Approx.

Acres

Core Area Initial Commercial Area within the 6-year planning boundary. Thiswill be the first area to be implemented.

298

Alcohol Plant Area Area east of the Core Area, area known as the Old Alcohol Plant.

Location of the Hadlock Inn. This area is included in the initial 6-yearboundary and would be part of the initial implementation.

53

Rhody Drive Area Area along SR-19 from Somerville Road to approximately the

intersection with Irondale Road. It is anticipated that this area would

implement sewers after the completion of the initial phase within the

6-year boundary.

187

Residential Area #1 This area is located northeast of the Core Area. It is anticipated sewers

would extend from the Core Area to these residential areas first. This

area is along Irondale Road from Matheson Street to Maple Street.

109

Residential Area #2 This area is located south of the Core Area. It is anticipated sewers

would extend from the core area into this residential area as itdeveloped and as the need for sewers increased due to existing septic

systems failing. This area is south of SR 116 from Hunt Road to

Christney Road.

138

Residential Area #3 This area is located north of the Core Area and extends to Chimacum

Creek. It is anticipated sewers would extend north from the Core Area

along Cedar Avenue and Mason Street. This area would develop as the

residential area continues to develop and existing septic systems fail.

505

Total 1290

Planning HorizonsThere are two distinct planning horizons discussed within this wastewater facilities plan. Each addresses

and fulfills key planning requirements. Below is a discussion of the two planning horizons and the distinctrequirements they fulfill.

County Comprehensive Plan 20-Year Planning Horizon

Jefferson County is planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) to develop an Urban Growth

Area (UGA) in the Pt. Hadlock/Irondale Area.. The County’s current comprehensive planning horizon is

a 20-year period beginning in 2004 and ending in 2024.

This wastewater facility plan will present population, flow, and load estimates for the year 2004 to 2024

to coincide with the County’s Comprehensive plan’s 20-year planning horizon. Cost estimates will also

be presented throughout this 20-year planning horizon.

Wastewater Facilities Planning 20-Year Horizon

This document also presents a facilities plan 20-year forward-looking time horizon for the purposes of

fulfilling State and Federal sewer planning requirements as indicated in 40 CFR Part 35. This forward-

looking timeline - starts in the year 2010 and ends in the year 2030.

4-6




Population Projections

Residential Population Projections

The residential population projection within the Port Hadlock/Irondale UGA and the Sewer Planning

Area were estimated using planning forecasts from Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan provided by

Jefferson County. The key population numbers provided are as follows:

Sewer Planning Area Residential Population Year 2000 = 2,553

Sewer Planning Area Residential Population Year 2024 = 4,906

This results in an annual compounded growth rate of 2.76 percent over the 24-year period.

As described in the planning horizon discussion in the section above, the 2024 residential population will

be used for analysis and discussion as relates to the County Comprehensive Plan Planning horizon. The

County currently does not have population forecasts beyond the year 2024; population forecasts beyond

the current County planning horizon will be included in the next revision of the County’s ComprehensivePlan. For the purposes of providing a 20-year forward looking sewer plan as required by Federal and State

requirements, an estimate of future population is presented assuming the same compounded annualgrowth rate of 2.76 percent to the year 2030.

Using the same annual compounded growth rate projected to the year 2030 results in a projected Sewer

Planning Area residential population of 5,776 residents in the year 2030.

Commercial Population Projections

Commercial wastewater flows were estimated using a combination of recent commercial water meter data

provided by Jefferson County PUD No. 1 and typical residential-to-commercial usage ratios experienced

in other similar communities.

The average daily wet-weather water consumption for commercial accounts within the Core Area of the

PHUGA was estimated to be 47,082 gallons per day in 2003. Using average wet-weather waterconsumption will indicate the amount of wastewater generated since irrigation does not typically occur

during wet-weather months.

The equivalent commercial population was back-calculated from the commercial consumption using a per

capita (or “per person”) flow factor. To estimate an equivalent residential population for commercial

consumption, this amount was divided by an average per capita flow factor of 60 gallons per person per

day. This results in an equivalent commercial equivalent population of 784.7 people in 2003. (47,082gallons/day ÷ 60 gallons/day/person)

A projected equivalent commercial population for the year 2024 was identified for the Port Hadlock area

based upon similar communities and their experience. A projected commercial equivalent population

equaling approximately 60 percent of the projected residential population was identified for the year2024. This assumption is supported by consumption ratios of similar developed communities such as the

City of Winslow on Bainbridge Island.

A projected equivalent commercial equivalent population of 2,944 people in the year 2024 was used

for the population projection analysis. This equates to exactly 60 percent of the projected residential

population of 4,906 people in 2024 (and is approximately 40 percent of the total flow generated). The

compounded annual growth rate of the commercial population is therefore calculated to be 6.5 percent

between the year 2003 and 2024.

4-7




Between the year 2024 and 2030, the commercial population is calculated at 60-percent of the residential

population estimated for each year. This results in a commercial equivalent population of 3,466 people

in the year 2030 (5,776 people x 0.60).

Sewered Population Projections

The sewered population projection (or the anticipated number of people within the sewer planning areaconnected to sewer) was based upon an assumed startup equivalent population and growing that

population at a rate adequate to “catch up” with the residential population growth within the PHUGA over

the 20-year sewer planning period; between 2010 and 2030. However, the capital facilities at the

wastewater treatment plant and key infrastructure for the collection system will be implemented such that

sewer service will be available throughout the sewer planning area by the year 2024 (the end of the

County’s Comprehensive Plan 20-year planning horizon).

For the flow analysis, it was assumed that the initial sewered population within the Core and Alcohol

Area in the year 2010 would be 950 population equivalents. This population number represents an

estimate of the active commercial accounts within the Core and Alcohol area that would connect initially

to the sewer system. Once the sewer system is available within the Core and Alcohol area it is

acknowledged that some residential properties may indeed connect initially and some commercial

properties may not connect, but that the anticipated number of initial planned connections will equal

approximately 950 population equivalents.

The sewered population is then projected to grow at a compounded rate adequate to meet the projected

equivalent population of 9,242 for residential and commercial population in the year 2030. This

represents a compounded annual growth rate of 16.28 percent for the sewered population within the

PHUGA between the years 2010 and 2030.

Summary of Population Projections

Table 4-4 is a summary of the population projections estimated for the Pt. Hadlock/Irondale sewer service

area. The table summarizes projected population numbers and equivalent residential units per year

between 2003 and 2048 (buildout). An equivalent residential unit (ERU) is used in community planningto represent an average residential home. An ERU is calculated as 2.2 people/home on average.

Figure 4-3 graphs the population projections discussed above and shows their interrelationship.

Table 4-5 shows the projected population equivalents distributed by phasing area for the years 2010,

2024, and 2030. These numbers are estimated based upon current land use designations within the

PHUGA and estimated rates of growth within the phasing areas.

PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS

Flow Generation Criteria

Residential Residential flow is estimated based upon the forecasted residential population multiplied by an estimated

flow factor representing the average amount of wastewater generated per person per day. Based upon

review of the water meter data provided by Jefferson County PUD and referencing Department of

Ecology Criteria, a residential wastewater generation factor of 60 gallons/person/day was used to

estimate base residential wastewater flow.

Calculations for equivalent residential units use 60 gallons/person/day and assumes an average population

of 2.2 people/dwelling unit throughout the PHUGA.

4-8




TABLE 4-4.SUMMARY OF POPULATION PROJECTIONS WITHIN THE PORT

HADLOCK/IRONDALE SEWER SERVICE AREA

Year

Residential

Planning

Population

Commercial

Population

Equivalent

Residential

ERU's

Commercial

ERU's

Sewered

Population

Sewered

ERU's

2000 2,553a

0 1,160 0 0 0

2001 2,623 0 1,192 0 0 0

2002 2,696 0 1,225 0 0 0

2003 2,770a

785b

1,259 357 0 0

2004 2,847 836 1,294 380 0 0

2005 2,925 890 1,330 405 0 0

2006 3,006 948 1,366 431 0 0

2007 3,089 1,009 1,404 459 0 0

2008 3,174 1,075 1,443 489 0 0

2009 3,262 1,145 1,483 520 0 0

2010 3,352 1,219 1,523 554 950 432

2011 3,444 1,299 1,565 590 1,105 502

2012 3,539 1,383 1,609 629 1,285 584

2013 3,637 1,473 1,653 669 1,494 679

2014 3,737 1,569 1,699 713 1,737 789

2015 3,840 1,670 1,746 759 2,020 918

2016 3,946 1,779 1,794 809 2,348 1,067

2017 4,055 1,895 1,843 861 2,731 1,241

2018 4,167 2,018 1,894 917 3,175 1,443

2019 4,282 2,149 1,946 977 3,692 1,678

2020 4,400 2,289 2,000 1,040 4,294 1,952

2021 4,521 2,437 2,055 1,108 4,993 2,269

2022 4,646 2,596 2,112 1,180 5,806 2,639

2023 4,774 2,764 2,170 1,257 6,751 3,069

2024 4,906a

2,944 2,230 1,338 7,850 3,568

2025 5,041 3,025 2,292 1,375 8,066 3,666

2026 5,180 3,108 2,355 1,413 8,289 3,768

2027 5,323 3,194 2,420 1,452 8,517 3,872

2028 5,470 3,282 2,486 1,492 8,752 3,978

2029 5,621 3,373 2,555 1,533 8,994 4,088

2030 5,776 3,466 2,626 1,575 9,242 4,201

a. Population Data from Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan

b. Equivalent Population Estimated from PUD meter data for existing commercial accounts

c. Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) = 2.2 people/household

4-9




F i g u r e 4 - 3 .

G r a p h o f P o p

u l a t i o n P r o j e c t i o n s f o r t h e P t . H a d l o c k / I r o n d a l e S e w e r S e r v i c e A r e a

4-10


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/port-hadlock-sewer-facility-plan-0908 83/387 P o r t H a d l o c k U G A S e w e r F a c i l i t y P l a n …

T A B L E 4 - 5 .

S E R V I C E A R E A

A N D E S T I M A T E D

P O P U L A T I O N

E Q U I V A L E N T S

Y e a r 2 0 1 0

Y e a r 2 0 2 4

Y e a r 2 0

3 0

P l a n n i n g A r e a

S e r v i c e

A r e a

( A c r e s )

R

e s i d e n t i a l

P o p u l a t i o n

E q u i v a l e n t s

C o m m e r c i a l

P o p u l a t i o n


T o t a l

P o p u l a t i o n


R e s i d e n t i a l

P o p u l a t i o n


C o m m e r c i a l

P o p u l a t i o n


T o t a l

P

o p u l a t i o n

E

q u i v a l e n t s

R e s i d e n t i a l

P o p u l a t i o n


C o m m e r c

i a l

P o p u l a t i o

n

E q u i v a l e n

t s

T o t a l

P o p u l a t i o n


C o r e

2 9 8

0

8 7 5

8 7 5

1 , 3 3 7

1 , 5 7 3

2 , 9 1 0

1 , 5 7 4

1 , 8 2 2

3 , 3 9 6

A l c o h o l

5 3

0

7 5

7 5

1 8 6

1 3 3

3 1 9

2 1 9

1 5 4

3 7 3

R h o d y

1 8 7

0

0

0

2 3 9

1 , 1 4 1

1 , 3 8 0

2 8 1

1 , 3 2 2

1 , 6 0 3

R e s i d e n t i a l A r e a # 1

1 0 9

0

0

0

5 3 8

8 3

6 2 1

6 3 4

9 6

7 3 0


1 3 8

0

0

0

4 7 6

0

4 7 6

5 6 0

0

5 6 0


5 0 5

0

0

0

2 , 1 3 0

1 4

2 , 1 4 4

2 , 5 0 8

1 6

2 , 5 2 4

T o t a l 2 0 1 0

1 , 2

9 0

0

9 5 0

9 5 0

4 , 9

0 6

2 , 9

4 4

7 , 8

5 0

5 , 7

7 6

3 , 4

1 0

9 , 1

8 6

4 - 1 1




Commercial

Commercial flow is estimated based upon planned commercial acreage within the sewer boundary

multiplied by an estimated flow factor representing the average amount of wastewater generated per acre

of commercial property per day. Based upon water meter data from Jefferson County PUD and planning

experience for similar communities, a commercial wastewater generator factor of 1,100 gallons/acre/day

was used to estimate base commercial wastewater flow.

Infiltration & Inflow (I/I)

An allowance is included for additional wastewater flow volumes termed infiltration and inflow (I&I).

These flows represent groundwater entering the collection system through opening in joints (infiltration)

and through surface connections such as manhole lids or storm drains improperly connected to the sewer

(inflow).

Different I&I rates are used for gravity collection systems and pressurized sewer systems. This is

primarily due to the difference in the collection system infrastructure. Typically, more infiltration is

experienced in a gravity collection system than a pressurized sewer system due to the access for water

through manholes and gravity pipe joints as the system ages. I&I in a pressurized system is typically dueto inflow from illegal or unauthorized storm drain connections to the collection system and through septic

tank lids and risers if a septic tank effluent pump (STEP) system is used.

Gravity Sewers

Gravity systems are more susceptible to I&I. A base flow rate of 250 gallons/acre/day was used to

estimate I/I flows in gravity sewer systems. A peak-hour flow rate of 1,100 gallons/acre/day was used for

peak hour flow estimates.

Pressurized Sewers

A base flow rate of 125 gallons/acre/day was used for pressurized systems (50% of the I&I flow rate of

gravity systems). A peak-hour flow rate of 550 gallons/acre/day was used for peak hour flow estimates.

Peaking Factors

Table 4-6 summarizes the peaking factors used for estimating the design flow conditions for planning

wastewater facilities.

TABLE 4-6.WASTEWATER PEAKING FACTORS

Base Flow I/I

Gravity & Pressurized Sewers

Annual Average 1.00 1.00

Maximum Month 1.25 1.80

Peak Day 1.50 3.00

Peak Hour 3.50 4.40

4-12




TABLE 4-8.2024 WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS

Projected Wastewater Flows

(million gallons per day)

ConditionAnnualAverage

MaximumMonthly

Peak Day Peak Hour

Gravity Collection System

Core + Alcohol 0.23 0.31 0.40 0.84

Rhody Drive 0.10 0.14 0.19 0.38

Area #1 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.18

Area #2 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.15

Area #3 0.18 0.25 0.34 0.66

Total 0.60 0.82 1.09 2.22

STEP Collection System

Core + Alcohol 0.21 0.28 0.35 0.76Rhody Drive 0.09 0.12 0.16 0.34

Area #1 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.16

Area #2 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.12

Area #3 0.15 0.20 0.27 0.56

Total 0.54 0.70 0.90 1.93

Wastewater Facilities Plan 20-Year Flow Projections – Year 2030

Table 4-9 summarizes the estimated wastewater flow projections for gravity and pressurized sewer

systems for the year 2030.

4-14




TABLE 4-9.2030 WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS

Projected Wastewater Flows

(million gallons per day)

ConditionAnnualAverage

MaximumMonthly

Peak Day Peak Hour

Gravity Collection System

Core + Alcohol 0.27 0.36 0.47 0.98

Rhody Drive 0.12 0.16 0.22 0.44

Area #1 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.21

Area #2 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.17

Area #3 0.21 0.29 0.40 0.78

Total 0.70 0.96 1.28 2.59

STEP Collection System

Core + Alcohol 0.25 0.32 0.40 0.89Rhody Drive 0.11 0.14 0.18 0.39

Area #1 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.18

Area #2 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.15

Area #3 0.18 0.24 0.31 0.65

Total 0.63 0.82 1.05 2.26

WASTEWATER LOADING PROJECTIONS

Load Generation Criteria

Residential Loads

Loads were calculated for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), suspended solids (SS), and total nitrogen

(TKN). A “unit load” approach was used to project future loads. Unit loads are typical values for loads

expected per capita or per acre. Unit loads were based on data from similar communities, engineering

experience, and Ecology’s Criteria for Sewage Works Design (Ecology, updated 2006)

As with flows, loads vary depending on the type of collection system used. Gravity collection systems

collect all wastewater, including solids, and convey it to the treatment plant. Solids in the septic tanks

must be pumped every few years and will require additional treatment after they are pumped out.

Gravity Sewers

For gravity sewers, BOD and SS loads are approximately equal. A unit loading factor of 0.2 pounds per

person per day was used for both BOD and TSS. These are typical unit loads; they are also referenced inthe Ecology’s Criteria for Sewage Works Design. TKN was assumed to be 18 percent of the BOD load .

This percentage is based on previous engineering experience.

STEP Sewers

For STEP systems, waste loads are lower than for conventional gravity sewers. A unit loading factor of 0.12 pounds per person per day was used for both BOD and SS. TKN was also assumed to be 18 percent

of the BOD load based upon engineering experience.

4-15




Commercial Loads

Commercial flows were assumed to be at a typical BOD strength of 400 milligrams per liter (mg/L) based

on data from similar communities. This value corresponds to the previously described unit flow and loads

of 60 gallons per capita per day and 0.2 pounds per capita per day. Peaking factors were the same as thoseused for domestic loads. Estimates for SS and TKN used the same methodology as the approach for

estimating residential loads.The analysis does not account for high-strength commercial wastes, such as wastes from large industrial

food processors. Such wastes generally have a significantly higher pollutant concentration than most

domestic or commercial connections. If high-strength wastes are later added as part of the

implementation, the flow and load analysis would need to be revised to account for these additional

pollutant loads.

Solids Loading Projections

Initial Loading Projections – Year 2010

Table 4-10 summarizes the initial solids loading projections for the year 2010 for biochemical oxygen

demand (BOD), suspended solids (SS), and total nitrogen (TKN). Loads were estimated for Annual

Average and Maximum Monthly conditions.

4-16




TABLE 4-10.YEAR 2010 CONDITION

SOLIDS LOADING PROJECTIONS

Projected Solids Loads (pounds per day)

Condition/AreaAnnualAverage

MaximumMonthly

AnnualAverage

MaximumMonthly

BOD

Gravity Collection

System

STEP Collection

System

Core + Alcohol 190 261 114 157

Rhody Drive 0 0 0 0

Area #1 0 0 0 0

Area #2 0 0 0 0

Area #3 0 0 0 0

Total 190 261 114 157

SS

Gravity Collection

System

STEP Collection

System

Core + Alcohol 190 261 114 157

Rhody Drive 0 0 0 0

Area #1 0 0 0 0

Area #2 0 0 0 0

Area #3 0 0 0 0

Total 190 261 114 157

TKN

Gravity Collection

System

STEP Collection

System

Core + Alcohol 34 48 20 29

Rhody Drive 0 0 0 0

Area #1 0 0 0 0

Area #2 0 0 0 0

Area #3 0 0 0 0

Total 34 48 20 29

4-17




4-19

TABLE 4-12.YEAR 2030 CONDITION

SOLIDS LOADING PROJECTIONS

Projected Solids Loads (pounds per day)

Condition/AreaAnnualAverage

MaximumMonthly

AnnualAverage

MaximumMonthly

BOD

Gravity Collection

System

STEP Collection

System

Core + Alcohol 755 1038 453 623

Rhody Drive 321 441 193 265

Area #1 146 201 88 120

Area #2 112 154 67 92

Area #3 505 695 303 417

Total 1,839 2,528 1,103 1,517

SS

Gravity Collection

System

STEP Collection

System

Core + Alcohol 755 1038 453 623

Rhody Drive 321 441 193 265

Area #1 146 201 88 120

Area #2 112 154 67 92

Area #3 505 695 303 417

Total 1,839 2,528 1,103 1,517

TKN

Gravity Collection

System

STEP Collection

System

Core + Alcohol 136 189 81 113

Rhody Drive 58 80 34 48

Area #1 26 36 16 22

Area #2 20 28 12 17

Area #3 91 126 54 76

Total 331 460 198 276



CHAPTER 5.COLLECTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES

This chapter evaluates alternative wastewater collection system technologies. Each technology isdescribed along with the relative advantages and drawbacks for each as they would apply to the Pt.Hadlock sewer service area.

A technical evaluation comparing the alternative collection systems is presented in this chapter along witha technical recommendation for a preferred collection system technology.

WASTEWATER COLLECTION ALTERNATIVES

Alternatives Considered

Five wastewater collection system technologies were considered for evaluation. These are describedbelow:

• Conventional gravity collection – Wastewater flows through a series of sloped pipes to pumpstations where it is pumped to the wastewater treatment plant.

• Septic tank effluent pump (STEP) collection – Wastewater flows from the building drain to aseptic tank on the property. Most of the wastewater solids remain in the septic tank. Theclarified effluent from the tank is pumped into a pressurized sewer main using a high-pressure pump. The pressurized main conveys the clarified effluent to the wastewatertreatment plant.

• Grinder pumps – Wastewater flows from the building drain into a sump on the property.When the sump fills a float activates a grinder pump within the sump. A grinding mechanismon the pump grinds solids down and pumps the ground solids and wastewater into a

pressurized sewer main. The pressurized main conveys the wastewater to the wastewatertreatment plant.

• Small diameter gravity – A small diameter gravity collection system is a cross between aconventional gravity collection system and a STEP system. Like a STEP system, there is aseptic tank on the private property. Most of the wastewater solids remain in the septic tank.The clarified effluent from the tank flows by gravity through a series of sloped small diameterpipes to pump stations where it is pumped to the wastewater treatment plant.

• Vacuum sewers – Vacuum sewers convey wastewater by use of vacuum stations and vacuumcollection lines located in each neighborhood. Wastewater flows from the building drain intoa sump (or vacuum pit) located on the property. When the sump fills, a valve opens and thewastewater is sucked into the vacuum main. Once the pit is empty, the valve closes. Thewastewater is conveyed via small diameter vacuum pipes to the vacuum station where it ispumped to the wastewater treatment plant.

Rejected Alternatives

Two alternatives were rejected early in the evaluation process. The rational for their rejection is asfollows:

5-1




Small Diameter Gravity Sewers

Small diameter gravity sewers were not recommended for further consideration. Small diameter gravitywas rejected because it did not provide enough advantage given the local terrain, would require deep pipeexcavations, and would not provide significant benefit over conventional gravity sewers principallybecause septic tanks would be required on private properties.

Vacuum Sewers

Vacuum sewers were rejected because they are not suitable for the varied terrain found in the sewerservice area, they provide limited lift capability thereby requiring additional local pump stations, wouldrequire vacuum pits at each property, and additional odor control facilities would be required at thevacuum stations.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FOR FURTHER EVALUATION

After review of the service area and the key features of each evaluated technology; gravity collection,STEP, and grinder pump systems were recommended for further evaluation.

Conventional Gravity SewersDescription

Conventional gravity sewers use a series of sloped pipes between manholes to collect and convey rawwastewater from the sewer connection to the wastewater treatment plant. The pipelines are a minimum of 8-inch diameter, are sloped at a minimum slope of 0.004 feet/foot, and are typically laid between 8 feetand 20 feet deep. Wastewater is collected within sewer mains and slope towards the wastewater treatmentplant or to a local pump station.

Each service connection to the wastewater treatment plant is achieved through a sloped pipe (servicelateral) from the building’s drain to the gravity sewer main in the street. The construction of the servicelateral is typically the responsibility of the property owner from the property line to the building drain.

Within the street right-of-way, construction of the service connection from the sewer main to the propertyline is the responsibility of the sewer agency. This type of collection system does not require any accessand maintenance easements since maintenance of the service lateral on private property is theresponsibility of the property owner.

Figure 5-1 shows a typical service connection to a gravity sewer system.

In some instances, parts of the service area are located in basins requiring the construction of a pumpstation to locally collect the wastewater and pump it out of the basin towards to the wastewater treatmentplant. It is through a series of gravity collection lines and pump stations that wastewater within the servicearea is collected and conveyed to the wastewater treatment plant.

A key strategy in the design of a gravity collection system is to use the contours of the existing terrain tomaximize efficiency in the construction of pipelines towards the wastewater treatment plant. An efficientdesign strategy involves sewers excavated as shallow as possible while minimizing the number of pumpstations.

5-2



…5. COLLECTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES

Figure 5-1. Conventional Gravity Sewer System and Service Connection

Maintenance for a gravity collection system involves pump station checks, routine maintenance of thepump station equipment, and flushing of the gravity collection lines. Operational costs for a typicalgravity collection system involve electricity to operate the pump stations.

Design Criteria

The gravity collection system was developed using design criteria prescribed in the Washington State

Department of Ecology Criteria for Sewage Works Design, Water Quality Program, December 1998

(“Orange Book”) and flow generation criteria developed in Chapter 4 – Population, Flow and Loads.

The key design criteria used in the development of the gravity collection system are as follows:

• Average Daily Flow(Q) = 75 gallons/capita/day (for base flow of 60 gpcd and I/I allowancesof 250 gpad based upon flow assumptions in Chapter 4 – Population, Flow and Loads.

• Peak Flow – Ratio of Peak Hour flow to Average Daily flow based upon peaking factorequation in Section C1-3.3.2 of the Orange Book. The equation is as follows:

P4

P18

averagedesignQ

hourlypeak Q

+

+=

• Minimum pipeline diameter = 8-inch.

• Minimum Pipeline Depth = 8 feet.

• Maximum Pipeline Depth = 20 feet.

• Minimum Slope = 0.40 feet/100 feet. This is the minimum slope prescribed in DOE Criteriafor Sewage Works Design for an 8-inch diameter sewer. Shallower slopes are allowed forlarger diameter sewers. However, all pipes were laid out using the 0.40 slope to beconservative and to account for inaccuracies in the base map contours (10-foot contourintervals).

5-3




Proposed Layout

The preliminary design for a gravity collection system was developed throughout the service areaboundary. The sewer laterals were developed along existing right-of-way to serve the land area within theservice area boundary. A 20-foot contour map was used to develop an overall collection system strategywhich included planned flow direction, pipeline diameters, pump station locations, and a central

collection point from which to send flow to a wastewater treatment plant through an influent pumpstation. The proposed gravity collection system layout is shown in Figure 5-2.

Advantages and Drawbacks

Several advantages and drawbacks of gravity collection systems were identified during the evaluation of collection system alternatives. Below is a summary of the advantages and drawbacks of gravity collectionsystems.

Advantages • Proven Reliability—This is the most common type of wastewater collection system. This

type of technology has been in service longer than any other type of technology.

• Length of Service—This type of collection system will provide the longest reliable servicelife compared to other types of collection system technologies. There are no individual on-site mechanical installations required. The gravity collection lines can have a 50-year servicelife provided they can convey the anticipated future design flows.

• Lowest Operation and Maintenance Costs—This type of collection system has the lowestoperation and maintenance costs compared to pressurized collection systems. This is becausethere are no on-site pumps or equipment at each service connection.

• On-Site Equipment—This type of system does not require on-site equipment. A gravityservice lateral is required on the private property between the building drain and the serviceconnection in the right-of-way. On site connection costs are less than for other technologies

• No Maintenance Easements—Since the property owner is responsible for maintenance of the

service connection to the sewer, no maintenance easement is required.

• Lower Life Cycle Costs—Cost of gravity conveyance is less over the life cycle of a projectsince the cost for on-site connections, operations, and maintenance are less than forpressurized sewers. Cost savings become significant as the population density increases andthe on-site connection, operations, and maintenance costs per connection become a larger partof the total life cycle cost.

Drawbacks • Requires Constant Downward Slope – Deep sewers may have to be dug for flat terrain,

intermediate pump stations may be required for hilly areas.

• Higher Initial Costs – Construction of the sewer mains may be more expensive due to deeper

trench excavation.• Infiltration & Inflow – Gravity collection systems are more susceptible to infiltration and

inflow through manholes and some joints in the pipeline system. Unlike a pressurizedcollection system, there is no back pressure within the pipes to prevent water from enteringthe collection system.

5-4




F i g u r e 5 . 2

P r o

p o s e d G r a v i t y C o l l e c t i o n S y s t e m

5-5




Pressurized Wastewater Collection Systems (STEP & Grinder Pumps)

STEP (Septic Tank Effluent Pump) Description

A STEP system uses pressurized sewer mains to collect and convey wastewater to the wastewatertreatment plant. Typically, each service connection has an individual septic tank with pump which pumpsinto the pressurized main.

For a STEP collection system, wastewater flows from the building drain to the septic tank where solidssettle. Inside the tank is a pump chamber which houses a high head pump and control floats. The clarifiedeffluent is pumped from the septic tank into the pressurized main. The effluent flows through thepressurized mains to the wastewater treatment plant.

Figure 5-3 shows a typical service connection in a STEP collection system.

Figure 5-3. Septic Tank Effluent Pump (STEP) System Service Connection

Since the solids stay behind in the septic tanks, screening and/or primary treatment facilities are notrequired at the wastewater treatment plant. This benefit, however, is off-set by the requirement for routineand emergency maintenance and repair of each septic tank and pumping system in the service area. Thismaintenance is generally provided by the wastewater authority since the septic tanks and pumps areconsidered to be components of the wastewater infrastructure. This arrangement can be quite costly,cumbersome and labor intensive. Service calls for pumping septic tanks, pump maintenance, pump and/orcontrol equipment malfunction and electrical supply malfunctions must be provided in a timely fashion,often during off-hours, weekends and holidays. Additionally, each property owner must provide anaccess-and-maintenance easement.

Grinder Pumps Description

Similar to a STEP collection system, a grinder pump collection system uses pressurized sewer mains tocollect and convey wastewater to the wastewater treatment plant. A grinder pump is located at eachservice connection. Wastewater flows from the building drain to the grinder pump sump. Within the sumpis a grinder pump and pump control system (floats). Once the basin is full, the grinder pump turns on,grinds any solids within the sump and pumps the liquids and ground solids into the pressurized sewermain. The wastewater flows through the small diameter sewer piping to the wastewater treatment plant.

5-6




Since solids are conveyed with the wastewater to the treatment plant, facilities need to be included at theplant to handle solids. Like a STEP system, the grinder pumps are typically considered part of thewastewater infrastructure; maintenance and upkeep is generally provided by the wastewater authority.Unlike the STEP system, the grinder pump system does not require a septic tank. Otherwise, maintenanceand access issues are quite similar.

Design Criteria

The pressurized sewer system was developed using design criteria prescribed in the Washington State

Department of Ecology Criteria for Sewage Works Design, Water Quality Program, December 1998

(“Orange Book”) and flow generation criteria developed in Chapter 4 – Population, Flow and Loads.

The key design criteria used in the development of the pressurized collection system are as follows:

• Average Daily Flow = 60 gpcd (no I/I allowance) based upon flow assumptions in Chapter 4– Population, Flow and Loads.

• Peak Flow – Peak flow as described in Section C1-10.2.2A of the Orange Book. The equationis as follows:

Q peak = 15 + .15 P; where P= population.

• Minimum Pipe Diameter = 2-inches.

• Headloss Calculation – Hazen Williams Formula.

• Hazen Williams Roughness Coefficient C = 150 (PVC Pipe).

• Pump Shutoff Head = 300 feet for STEP high-head pumps.

Proposed Layout

The proposed pressurized collection system is shown in Figure 5-4. The layout and pipe sizes are thesame for both STEP and grinder pump technologies. The pressurized sewer system was laid out to conveyflow to the same central collection point as identified for the gravity collection system. This was done for

consistency when comparing the two alternative collection system technologies.

Advantages and Drawbacks of STEP Collection Systems

Advantages • Low initial cost for collection mainlines compared to gravity.

• Smaller pressurized sewers can follow the terrain reducing the depth of excavation.

Drawbacks • Septic tank (and access to the tank) required.

• Must develop ownership agreements for equipment with property owner.

• Easements required for wastewater authority to access and maintain the equipment.

• Pumping of septic tank on regular schedule. High disposal costs of septic tank solids.

• Electrical connection, electrical panel, and control panel must be located on the property orside of home.

5-7




F i g u r e 5 . 4 .

P r o

p o s e d P r e s s u r i z e d C o l l e c t i o n S y s t e m

5-8




Advantages and Drawbacks of Grinder Pump Collection Systems

Advantages • Good when terrain does not work well with gravity sewers and septic tanks are not desired.

• Low initial cost for collection mainlines compared to gravity.

• Smaller pressurized sewers can follow the terrain reducing the depth of excavation.

Drawbacks • Pump must pass solids (more difficult than passing liquids only, additional maintenance

required because of harder duty).

• Must develop ownership agreements for equipment with property owner.

• Easements required for wastewater authority to access and maintain the equipment.

• Electrical connection, electrical panel, and control panel must be located on the property orside of home.

EVALUATION OF COLLECTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES

Collection System Alternatives

The shortlisted technologies were applied to the sewer service area to develop alternative collectionsystems for evaluation. Three distinct alternatives were developed. These alternatives were a gravitycollection system, a pressurized sewer system (STEP or grinder pump), or a dual technology systemconsisting of gravity collection in the 6-year planning area (or “core” area) and pressurized sewer in theoutlying 20-year planning area.

The proposed gravity collection system layout is shown in Figure 5-2. The proposed pressurized sewerlayout is shown in Figure 5-4. The dual technology system is shown in Figure 5-5.

Evaluation CriteriaThe following evaluation criteria were used when comparing the collection system alternatives:

Phasing

Does the system lend itself to phasing? Does it provide flexibility for expansion in the future? Does thecollection system adapt well to population increases and in-filling?

Easement Requirements

Are easements on private property required?

Constructability

Are there constructability issues associated with the alternative technology that would be a concern forthe Port Hadlock Area? This could include issues such as pipe depth, depth to groundwater, significantareas of bedrock, extensive utility conflicts, etc.

5-9




F i g u r e 5 . 5 .

P r o p o s e d D u a l T e c h n o l o g y ( G r a v i t y / P

r e s s u r i z e d ) C o l l e c t i o n S y s t e m

5-10




Operation and Maintenance Requirements

What are the key operation and maintenance requirements which will be needed for the collection systemon an ongoing basis? This will have a significant impact on the long term life cycle costs for the system.It also may affect the quality of service for the end user due to service calls and on-site pumpmalfunctions, etc.

Odor and Corrosion Potential

What are the odor and corrosion potential issues typically associated with each collection system?

Life Cycle Costs

What are the life cycle cost differences between the alternatives which include capital costs for collectionand conveyance, on-site costs (on private property), and operation and maintenance costs (includingequipment replacement, electricity, and other incidentals)? Costs are compared on a 20-year life cyclesince most systems require significant equipment replacement in 20-years. Some consideration is givenfor longer life cycles to see if systems costs compare differently over a longer term.

LIFE CYCLE COST ESTIMATINGCost Assumptions

Total present worth and annualized costs were estimated for a 20-year period. The 20-year period isconsistent with an approach of designing mechanical equipment to its expected life. Structures, such asbuildings, were sized based on anticipated needs for a 50-year time span. A detailed breakdown of theestimates is attached in Appendix C. Estimated costs were identified from the following sources:

• Price quotes from local equipment suppliers.

• Unit prices for construction based on industry standards (Means 2008 Building ConstructionCost Data).

• Bid tabulations from similar projects.

The capital cost represents the total project cost for implementation of each alternative. It includesequipment costs, installation costs for piping, electrical, and controls, site work,mobilization/demobilization/bonding, contractor overhead and profit, escalation to mid-point of construction, planning-level contingency, engineering design and construction management, andWashington state sales tax. These amounts are reflected in the attached cost estimates.

Annual O&M costs were estimated based on power requirements, chemicals, and labor (generalmaintenance and cleaning). Additionally, replacement cost of equipment and structures are included inthe comparative life cycle costs. Replacement costs represent a dollar amount required each year to be setaside in order to replace building, structures, and equipment. Replacement allowances of 2 percent forbuildings and structures (replace every 50-years), and 4 percent for equipment (replace every 20 to

25 years) were included in the life cycle cost estimates. These amounts are reflected in the attached costestimates.

Cost Assumptions for Pressurized Sewers: STEP and Grinder PumpSystems

Throughout the evaluation, it was determined that STEP and grinder pump systems were comparativeequal on a life cycle cost basis. The on-site costs for equipment were similar (about $4,000 per

5-11




connection) and the costs for electrical connection and building drain connections were equivalent. Costsfor operation and maintenance were also deemed about equivalent. Equipment replacement costs may behigher for grinder pumps due to wear and tear on grinder blades (this is dependent upon the individualuser). However, there are costs associated with septic tank pumping for a STEP system not associatedwith a grinder pump system. When these factors are considered, both systems projected basicallyequivalent life cycle costs.

Detailed cost estimates are included for a STEP collection system within Appendix C. These costs areassumed equivalent to a grinder pump system for each alternative that includes a pressurized sewersystem.

Summary of Life Cycle Costs

Table 5-1 below summarizes the 20-year life cycle costs for each of the collection system alternatives.

TABLE 5-1.SUMMARY OF 20-YEAR LIFE CYCLE COSTS

Alternative

Capital Costs Gravity Collection STEP Collection Dual Technology

On-Sitea $14,868,000 $42,275,000 $37,605,000

Sharedb $32,011,000 $6,454,000 $15,708,000

Subtotal Capital Costs $46,879,000 $48,729,000 $53,313,000

Annual Costs

O&M + Replacement $7,620 $17,400,000 $17,178,000

Total 20-year Life Cycle Cost $54,499,000 $66,137,000 $70,491,000

a. On-Site Costs include service connection from house and all other applicable equipment and appurtenanceson private property (STEP tank, grinder pump, control equipment, electrical connection, etc.)

b. Shared Costs include costs for over-sizing equipment which serves more than one neighborhood.. Thistypically involves costs for sizing gravity conveyance lines larger than 8-inch diameter and pressurizedsewer lines larger than 2-inch diameter. It also includes costs for regional pump stations which collect andtransmit wastewater from several neighborhoods to the wastewater treatment plant.

Evaluation of Alternatives

Each of the alternatives was evaluated against the above described criteria. Table 5-2 is a summary of theevaluation of the alternatives against the criteria.

5-12




TABLE 5-2.SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION

Alternative

Evaluation Criteria Gravity Sewer

Pressurized Sewer

(STEP or GrinderPumps)

Combination of Gravity

Sewer and PressurizedSewer

Ease of Phasing Provides the highest degreeof flexibility. The systemcan receive wastewaterfrom subsequent phasesemploying pressurizedsewers. Well suited forhigher density in-filling inthe future (greater than 2.5connections/acre)

Least flexible. If theinitial phase is pressuresewer, subsequentphases would need to bepressurized. Any initialsavings is reduced whenarea develops and in-fills beyond 2.5connections per acre.

Provides flexibility. Corearea can be developed tofull density andpressurized sewers canbe implemented in lessdense residential areas.

Easement Requirements No private easements

required.

Private easements

required to access on-site pumping equipment.

No easements required in

core area with gravitycollection. Easementsrequired in outlayingareas where pressurizedsewers are installed.

Constructability Sewers would be laidbetween 8 and 25 feet deep.Depths to groundwater arebetween 20-30 feet deep sosome groundwater wouldbe encountered. Soils aretypically Vashon

Lodgement Till and VashonRecessional Outwash.Significant bedrock is notanticipated.

Sewers would be laidbetween 6 to 15 feetdeep. Little groundwateris anticipated.Significant bedrock isnot anticipated.

Considerations forgravity sewer wouldapply to core area, andconsiderations topressurized sewerswould apply to theoutlying areas.

Operation andMaintenanceRequirements

Fewest operation andmaintenance requirements.Operations andmaintenance would involveoperation and maintenanceof pumping stations, routineservicing of the pumpstation, flushing of lines,

and replacement of equipment in pumpstations.

Highest operation andmaintenance costs.Costs would involveservicing of pumps atindividual connections,electricity to operate thepumps, pumpreplacement, service

calls for pumpmalfunctions, andpumping and disposal of septic tank solids (forSTEP system).

High operation andmaintenance costs. Thissystem would have costsassociated with the pumpstations for a gravitycollection system and foron-site pumps associatedwith the pressurized

system. There would alsobe additional odor andcorrosion facilitymaintenance associatedwith sewage from thepressurized systemconnecting to the gravitysystem.

5-13




TABLE 5-2 (CONTINUED).SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION

Alternative

Evaluation Criteria Gravity Sewer

Pressurized Sewer

(STEP or GrinderPumps)

Combination of Gravity

Sewer and PressurizedSewer

Odor and CorrosionPotential

There would be odorpotential at the pumpstations. Facilities wouldhave to include someprovisions for odor controlat pump stations and at thewastewater treatment plantdepending upon location.

Minimal odor potentialalong the collectionsystem since the sewermains are pressurizedand there is littleopportunity for fugitiveodors. Additional odorcontrol would berequired at the treatmentplant since in the

influent is septic.

High odor and corrosionpotential at locationwhere pressurized sewerdischarges into thegravity collectionsystem. Septic tank effluent has high odorand corrosion potentialwhen exposed to airwithin gravity collection

system. Additional odorand corrosion facilitieswould be required alongthe collection system.

Comparative 20-yearLife Cycle Costs

$54,499,000 $66,137,000 $70,491,000

RECOMMENDED COLLECTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE

Stakeholder Workshop Process

The results of the alternative evaluation were presented to the Jefferson County of Board of CountyCommissioners at a workshop on March 16, 2006. The workshop was open to the public and some keystakeholders in the community were invited to attend. A presentation was given outlining the alternativetechnologies, their relative advantages and drawbacks, and their respective life cycle costs.

The design team received feedback and questions from the Board of County Commissioners, Countystaff, the stakeholders/public attending the workshop. This feedback was considered in the technicalrecommendation.

Recommendation

It was recommended that a gravity collection system be selected as the preferred collection systemtechnology for the Port Hadlock sewer service area.

The gravity collection system was recommended based upon the following key reasons:

1. Lowest 20-year life cycle cost. The 20-year service area can be economically developed toplanned densities at a lower cost than for pressure sewers. This is because the individual on-site costs and additional space requirements for a gravity collection system are less than for aSTEP or grinder pump system.

5-14




5-15

2. Provides the highest degree of flexibility for system expansion. The core area can beimplemented as a gravity system and the County then has the flexibility to implementpressure sewers in the outlying areas in the future. If a pressure sewer is implemented in thecore area, gravity sewers cannot be installed in the outlying areas. This is because pressuresewers can discharge into a gravity collection system, but gravity sewers cannot dischargeinto a pressurized sewer system.

3. No maintenance-and-access easements are required.

4. Fewer operational and maintenance requirements.

POPULATION AND SYSTEM PHASING

The alternative collection systems were sized using population projections described in Chapter 4 –Population, Flow and Loads.

The sewer service area boundary was divided into sub-areas which represent distinct phases that thesewer system is anticipated to develop. Table 5-3 shows the anticipated number of equivalent residentialunits (ERU’s) for each phase of the sewer system’s development. Refer to Figure 4-2 in Chapter 4 –

Population, Flow and Loads for a map showing the areas which represent each phase of the sewersystem’s development.

TABLE 5-3.EXPECTED NUMBER OF SEWER SYSTEM CONNECTIONS BY PHASE

Phase

Anticipated Yearof Sewer Service

Availability

Year 2024 EquivalentResidential Units

(Residential & Commercial)

Year 2030 Equivalent ResidentialUnits (Residential & Commercial)

Core 2010 1,323 1,544

Alcohol 2010 145 170

Rhody 2013 627 729

Area 1 2016 282 331

Area 2 2019 216 255

Area 3 2024 975 1,147

Total 3,568 4,176



CHAPTER 6.EFFLUENT DISCHARGE/REUSE ALTERNATIVES

This chapter presents discharge and treatment alternatives for treatment plant effluent (effluent or final

effluent) within the Pt. Hadlock sewer service area. Advantages and drawbacks of each alternative arepresented along with a technical recommendation.

TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT – DISCHARGE VS. RE-USE

Wastewater treatment requirements vary significantly dependent upon the fate of the final effluent. Thisevaluation considers both discharge and re-use of final effluent from the proposed wastewater treatmentplant. The distinction between use of the word “discharge” and “re-use” is significant in the eyes of theregulations and the regulatory community.

Surface Water Discharge vs. Land Application

Final effluent must be discharged or reused in some manner. Typically, effluent is discharged into a large

receiving body of water, such as Puget Sound. For the Pt. Hadlock sewer service area, this approach,termed surface water discharge, would include a pipeline outfall discharging into Pt. Townsend Bay.

Alternatively, final effluent can be land-applied for “disposal” or for beneficial “reuse.” Disposalstrategies generally aim solely to dispose of the effluent and provide minimal treatment. Disposal relieson significant subsurface treatment of the effluent in the ground. This approach is typical of septic tank and drainfield systems.

Reuse strategies accomplish the goal of beneficially using effluent in some advantageous manner. Thiscan be uses such as irrigating crops, supplying water for industrial processes, or supplementinggroundwater aquifers. Reuse strategies require the effluent to be of very high quality, having beenadequately and reliably treated before reaching the land application site. At this point, the treated effluent

is no longer considered wastewater and is now termed “reclaimed water”. The ground is no longerrequired to provide significant treatment. In fact, Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-240prohibits the use of subsurface treatment and disposal for domestic wastewater facilities above a certainsize (3,500 gallons per day for mechanical treatment plants and 14,500 gallons per day for septic tank-based disposal systems) “except under those extraordinary circumstances where no other reasonablealternative exists.”

Discharge and Reuse Systems – Treatment Requirements

Treatment plant effluent which is discharged to surface water, such as Puget Sound or a stream, needs tobe treated to secondary treatment standards or better. This typically involves primary treatment, asecondary treatment process (such as extended aeration with secondary sedimentation), and disinfection.

Discharge of final effluent to a surface water of the United States is regulated by the US EnvironmentalProtection Agency and requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit.

Treatment plant effluent which is reused needs to be treated to standards defined by the Departments of Health and Ecology in the Water Reclamation and Reuse Standards. The highest reuse standard, Class A,usually involves advanced wastewater treatment. Advanced wastewater treatment can be an additionalfiltration process after secondary treatment or an advanced wastewater treatment process such as amembrane bioreactor plus additional disinfection as described in Table 6-1.

6-1




Reclaimed water standards vary depending on the type of end-use and the potential for human contactwith the reclaimed water. The requirements range from Class A (highest quality) to Class D (lowestquality). Table 6-1 summarizes the basic requirements.

TABLE 6-1.WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS FOR REUSE PROJECTS

Parameter Class A Class B Class C Class D

BOD 30 mg/L 30 mg/L 30 mg/L 30 mg/L

TSS 30 mg/L 30 mg/L 30 mg/L 30 mg/L

TotalColiforms

2.2/100 ml (7 day);23/100 ml at any time


23/100 ml (7 day);240/100 ml at any time

240/100 ml(7 day)

Turbidity 2 NTU monthly;5 NTU at any time

N/A N/A N/A

DissolvedOxygen

>0 mg/L >0 mg/L >0 mg/L >0 mg/L

Chlorineresidual 0.5 mg/L in conveyancepiping 0.5 mg/L in conveyancepiping 0.5 mg/L in conveyancepiping 0.5 mg/L inconveyance piping

NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit

Additionally, the Washington State Department of Ecology’s Criteria for Sewage Works Designstipulates reliability and redundancy requirements for the disposal system in Article 10 of the WaterReclamation and Reuse Standards. This article addresses the requirements for emergency storage anddisposal of reclaimed water where no approved alternative disposal system exists. A copy of this Articlecan be found in Appendix E.

DISCHARGE/RE-USE ALTERNATIVES

Alternatives ConsideredSeven alternatives were considered in the discharge/reuse evaluation. These alternatives are describedbelow:

• Marine Outfall: Discharge of treatment plant effluent to Port Townsend Bay through apipeline outfall.

• Irrigation at Agronomic Rates: Reuse of reclaimed water to irrigate a crop or timberland atrates not to exceed the plants’ ability to absorb the water and nutrients.

• Natural Wetlands: Discharge of final effluent into a natural wetland. The wetland wouldprovide additional treatment, nutrient removal and water uptake through transpiration andevapo-transpiration.

• Constructed Beneficial Use Wetlands: Reuse of reclaimed water using a ConstructedBeneficial Use Wetlands. Constructed wetlands provide wildlife habitat and associatedpublic benefits, water uptake through transpiration and evaporation and additional treatmentof the reclaimed water.

• Groundwater Recharge by Surface Percolation – Slow Rate Infiltration: Reuse of reclaimedwater by surface percolation into the groundwater by land application using a slow rateinfiltration gallery. The rate of application is controlled by the treatment plant operator.

6-2



…6. EFFLUENT DISCHARGE/REUSE ALTERNATIVES

• Groundwater Recharge by Surface Percolation – Rapid Rate Infiltration: Reuse of reclaimedwater by surface percolation into the groundwater by land application using a rapid rateinfiltration basin (often described as a leaky bottom pond). The rate of application is limitedonly by the percolation rate of the pond bottom.

• Salinity Barrier: This is a form of reuse in which the reclaimed water is injected into thegroundwater to provide an intrusion barrier between a potable water aquifer and a saltwaterbody such as Puget Sound or the Port Townsend Bay.


Three alternatives were rejected early in the evaluation process. The rationale for their rejection is asfollows:

Marine Outfall

The marine outfall alternative was not considered for further evaluation following a discussion with DOEStaff in which an inter-agency agreement involving the Washington State Department of Ecology,Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State Department of Health, and

Washington State Department of Natural Resources was discussed. This agreement titled Inter-AgencyPermit Streamlining Document, Shellfish and Domestic Wastewater Discharge Outfall Projects, Dated

October 10, 1995 addresses the permitting of new marine outfalls for wastewater treatment plant effluentdischarge into Puget Sound. Section III(3) states:

“In exercising existing regulatory authority, state agencies with jurisdiction will

authorize domestic wastewater discharge outfall projects proposed in, near, or upon

shellfish harvesting areas only upon a demonstration of compelling reasons for approval

of the domestic wastewater discharge outfall project in question. Compelling reasons for

approval include: No other reasonable, feasible, or practical siting alternative exists.”

A marine outfall serving the proposed Port Hadlock sewer system would necessarily be adjacent toexisting harvestable shellfish beds. There are other reasonable and feasible alternatives to a marineoutfall. Therefore, a marine outfall was removed from consideration.

Natural Wetlands

The natural wetlands alternative was not considered for further evaluation since the regulatoryrequirements for discharge of treatment plant effluent to a natural wetlands are quite extensive. There is anatural wetland within the study area boundary. However, there is question as to whether the size of thewetland would be adequate and whether the regulatory community would approve such use for a naturalwetland.

Salinity Barrier

The salinity barrier alternative was not considered for further evaluation since there are not any local saltwater intrusion issues identified for the local aquifer and water wells. Additionally, the costs associatedwith treatment to the standard for direct groundwater recharge, usually requiring reverse osmosis, are veryprohibitive.

6-3





Irrigation at Agronomic Rates

Technology Description

Irrigation at agronomic rates involves applying reclaimed water to forested land or a crop. The reclaimed

water is applied only to the rate that the plants can accept water and nutrients. This reuse method does notrely on infiltration of the reclaimed water through the ground and into the groundwater. The level of treatment required for irrigation at agronomic rates is dependent upon the use of the application site, thecrops, and how the crops will be used. Table 6-2 summarizes treatment and quality requirements forreclaimed water used for irrigating crops.

TABLE 6-2.TREATMENT AND QUALITY REQUIREMENTS FOR RECLAIMED WATER USED FOR

IRRIGATING CROPS

Type of Reclaimed Water Allowed

Use Class A Class B Class C Class D

Irrigation of Nonfood Crops

Trees and Fodder, Fiber, and Seed Crops YES YES YES YES

Sod, Ornamental Plants for Commercial Use, and Pastureto which Milking Cows or Goats Have Access

YES YES YES NO

Irrigation of Food Crops

Spray Irrigation:

All Food Crops YES NO NO NO

Food Crops Which Undergo Physical or ChemicalProcessing Sufficient to Destroy All PathogenicAgents

YES YES YES YES

Surface Irrigation:

Food Crops Where There is No Reclaimed WaterContact with Edible Portion of Crop

YES YES NO NO

Root Crops YES NO NO NO

Orchards and Vineyards YES YES YES YES

Food Crops Which Undergo Physical or ChemicalProcessing Sufficient to Destroy All PathogenicAgents

YES YES YES YES

Landscape IrrigationRestricted Access Areas (e.g., Cemeteries and FreewayLandscapes

YES YES YES NO

Open Access Areas (e.g., Golf Courses, Parks, Playgrounds,School Yards and Residential Landscapes)

YES NO NO NO

6-4




Irrigation Design Criteria

The key criteria for design of an irrigation system for application of reclaimed water involves the rate atwhich it can be applied to the land, and the requirements for storage during the wet season when theplants cannot accept additional moisture. For the purposes of comparing alternatives a representative rateat which plants can use water and nutrients from the reclaimed water was used. Additionally, a

representative amount of storage was used. Actual rates for application of reclaimed water and storagewould be verified depending upon the type of crop used and its actual water and nutrient requirements.

The key design criteria used for estimating land area requirements for irrigation at agronomic rates are asfollows:

Application rate: 0.1 gpd/square foot

Storage Requirements: 7 months of storage for treated effluent

Advantages and Drawbacks of Irrigation at Agronomic Rates

Several advantages and drawbacks of irrigation at agronomic rates were identified during the evaluationprocess. Below is a summary of the advantages and drawbacks of irrigation:

Advantages • Fewest regulatory issues – This system, when implemented correctly, is subject to the fewest

regulatory requirements. This is because this method does not involve disposal of treatmentplant effluent to surface water bodies or to the groundwater.

• Range of uses – Can be applied for forest lands, grasses, or non-food crops.

• Has been implemented in Western Washington.

Drawbacks • Largest land area required of all the land based reuse options.

• Largest standby storage area required of all the land based reuse options.

• Potential for public contact.

Groundwater Recharge by Surface Percolation – Slow Rate Infiltration


Groundwater recharge by surface percolation using slow rate infiltration involves applying reclaimedwater to the land using a series of pipes and diffuser such that the reclaimed water is applied to the land ata slow and controlled rate. The reclaimed water infiltrates through the ground to the groundwater.

Since the end fate of the treatment plant effluent is to the groundwater, it must be treated to Class A waterreuse standards plus appropriate treatment to reduce the nitrogen content to the level required by the

groundwater recharge criteria (RCW 90.46.080 and 1997 DOE Water Reclamation and Reuse Standards).

Design Criteria for Groundwater Recharge by Surface Percolation - Slow Rate Infiltration

The key criteria for the design of a slow rate infiltration system is the rate at which reclaimed water isapplied to the land and the amount of storage required for severe wet weather during winter months whenthe land is too wet to accept any water. For the purposes of comparing alternatives a representative rate atwhich soil can accept the reclaimed water was used. Additionally, a representative amount of storage was

6-5




used. Actual rates for application of reclaimed water and storage would be verified depending upon thehydrogeologic conditions at the site.

Typical design criteria used for estimating land requirements for groundwater recharge by surfacepercolation – slow rate infiltration are as follows:

Application rate: 0.1 – 2.0 gpd/sf (dependent upon the local geology)

Storage Required: 3 days of storage for treated effluent

A preliminary geologic investigation of the area indicates that the soils in the Pt. Hadlock area have acomparatively high acceptance rate. Soils acceptance rates may be approximately 30 – 150 gpd/sf (2 -10inches per hour).

Advantages and Drawbacks of Groundwater Recharge by Surface Percolation – Slow Rate Infiltration

Advantages

• Minimizes potential for public contact.• Provides groundwater recharge.

Drawbacks • Relatively high land area required.

• Regulatory considerations (sub-surface vs. surface application critical to regulatoryrequirements), aquifer protection.

Groundwater Recharge by Surface Percolation – Rapid RateInfiltration


Groundwater recharge by surface percolation using rapid rate infiltration involves applying reclaimedwater to the land at a rate which is not necessarily controlled. The reclaimed water infiltrates into theearth as fast as the soils can accept it. Reclaimed water infiltrates through the soil to the groundwaterbelow. Typically and simply stated, treatment plant effluent is introduced into a “leaky bottom” pondwhere it infiltrates into the earth.

The level of wastewater treatment required for rapid rate infiltration is the same as for surface percolation– slow rate infiltration, both requiring Class A reclaimed water.

Design Criteria for Groundwater Recharge by Surface Percolation – Rapid Rate Infiltration

The key criteria for the design of a rapid rate infiltration system is the rate at which reclaimed water isapplied to the land and the amount of storage required for severe wet weather during winter months whenthe land is too wet to accept any water. For the purposes of comparing alternatives a representative rate atwhich soil can accept the reclaimed water was used. Additionally, a representative amount of storage wasused. Actual rates for application of reclaimed water and storage would be verified depending upon thehydrogeologic conditions at the site.

6-6




Typical design criteria used for estimating the land requirements for groundwater recharge by surfacepercolation – rapid rate infiltration are as follows:

Application rate: 1.5 – 8.0 gpd/sf (dependent upon the local geology)


A preliminary geologic investigation (see Appendix A) of the area indicates that the soils in the Pt.Hadlock area have a comparatively high acceptance rate. Soils acceptance rates may be approximately 30– 135 gpd/sf (2 -9 inches per hour). These high acceptance rates make rapid rate infiltration a viablealternative. These values will be confirmed with a more extensive geological study during design. Aconservative application rate of 8.0 gpd/sf will be used for the purposes of estimating at this facilitiesplanning stage.

Advantages and Drawbacks of Groundwater Recharge by Surface Percolation – Rapid Rate Infiltration

Advantages

• Least land area required.• Least expensive approach due to less capital and land expenditures, low O&M costs.

• Provides groundwater recharge.

Drawbacks • Regulatory considerations regarding aquifer protection.

Constructed Wetlands


Constructed wetlands can be employed for either beneficial reuse of Class A reclaimed water or for

additional treatment of Class B reclaimed water. Constructed wetlands are an artificial, man-madewetland into which reclaimed water is introduced. Resident plants, animals and microorganisms utilizeany available nutrients and moisture for growth, metabolism and reproduction. These activities result inimproved water quality, wildlife habitat (and associated public benefits), and water uptake throughtranspiration and evaporation. The wetland is often constructed by installing a liner in an excavateddepression and bringing in topsoil and plants to create the wetland habitat. The reclaimed water is thendischarged at the opposite end where it can infiltrate into the groundwater, or in some cases, discharge tosurface water (such as a stream or a bay).

Constructed Wetlands Design Criteria

For the purposes of comparing alternatives a representative rate at which a constructed beneficial use wetland can use water and nutrients from the reclaimed water was used. Additionally, a representative

amount of storage was used. Actual rates for application of reclaimed water and storage would be verifieddepending upon the type of wetland plants used, their actual water and nutrient requirements, and thewetland design.

Typical design criteria used for estimating land area requirements for constructed wetlands are as follows:

Application rate: 0.5 – 1.2 gpd/sf


6-7




Advantages and Drawbacks of Constructed Wetlands

Advantages • Provides wildlife habitat and associated public benefit.

• Works in association with groundwater recharge.

• Provides additional treatment of plant effluent.

Drawbacks • Requires more land than other land base options including, in most cases, an infiltration basin

• Creates mosquito habitat.

• Regulatory considerations (wetlands and aquifer protection).

EVALUATION OF DISCHARGE/REUSE ALTERNATIVES

Evaluation Criteria

The following evaluation criteria were used when comparing the discharge/reuse alternatives:

Land Required

How much land is required to implement the proposed method? The higher the land requirement, the lessdesirable the alternative. Both land costs and future use potential were considered.

Storage Required

How much storage is required based upon the storage criteria for the proposed method? The higher theland requirement, the less desirable the alternative. Both land costs and future use potential wereconsidered

Treatment Requirements

What is the treatment requirement associated with the proposed method? Methods requiring a higher levelof treatment to protect groundwater, the environment, and/or the public are less desirable than methodswhich require a lower level of treatment.

Opportunities for Beneficial Reuse

Does the proposed method provide opportunities for one or more means of beneficial reuse for thetreatment plant effluent? Methods which provide more opportunities for beneficial reuse are preferable.

Life Cycle Costs

What is the life cycle cost of the proposed method? These include costs for land purchase, equipmentdesign and installation, operation and maintenance, and equipment replacement costs. Alternatives withlower life cycle costs are preferable.

LIFE CYCLE COST ESTIMATING

Cost Assumptions

Total present worth and annualized costs were estimated for a 20-year period assuming 4 percent interest.The 20-year period is consistent with an approach of designing mechanical equipment to its expected life.

6-8




Structures, such as buildings, were sized based on anticipated needs for a 50-year time span. A detailedbreakdown of the estimates is in Appendix C. Estimated costs were identified from the following sources:

• Land value per acre estimated from Jefferson County Assessor’s parcel database. Per acreestimates were calculated using representative parcels adjacent to the service area for slowrate and rapid rate infiltration ($28,000/acre) and remote to the service area for irrigation and

constructed wetlands ($25,000/acre). These values were estimated by multiplyingrepresentative assessed values for properties by a factor of 50 percent.



• Bid tabulations from recent, similar projects.

Table 6-3 summarizes factors used when estimating quantities for the comparative life cycles costs.

TABLE 6-3.CRITERIA USED FOR ESTIMATING COST QUANTITIES

Criteria Value/Factor

Flow Condition 2030 Maximum Monthly Flow

Storage Ponds (for constructed wetlands) 4 feet deep, 2.5 acres

Land Area Contingency 100% (estimated twice the land needed for100% reliability)

Land Buffers Added 25% of the total land area

Acceptance Rate/Days Storage: Rapid Rate Infiltration 8 gpd/square foot/3 days

Acceptance Rate/Days Storage: Slow Rate Infiltration 2 gpd/square foot/3 days

Acceptance Rate/Days Storage: Wetlands 1.2 gpd/square foot/3 days

Acceptance Rate/Days Storage: Irrigation 0.1 gpd/square foot/210 daysLand Value –Infiltration $28,000/acre

Land Value – Irrigation & Wetlands $25,000/acre

The capital cost represents the total project cost for implementation of each disposal/reuse alternative.

The life cycle costs include land cost, equipment costs, installation costs for piping, electrical, andcontrols, site work, mobilization/demobilization/bonding, contractor overhead and profit, escalation tomid-point of construction, planning-level contingency, engineering design and construction management,and Washington state sales tax. These amounts are reflected in the attached cost estimates.

Annual O&M costs for each disposal/reuse alternative were estimated based on power requirements,

chemicals, and labor (general operation, maintenance and cleaning). Additionally, replacement cost of equipment and structures are included in the comparative life cycle costs. Replacement costs represent adollar amount required each year to be set aside in order to replace buildings, structures, and equipment.Replacement allowances of 2 percent for buildings and structures (replace every 50-years), and 4 percentfor equipment (replace every 20 to 25 years) were included in the life cycle cost estimates. These amountsare reflected in the attached cost estimates.

6-9




6-10


Summaries of the 20-year life cycle costs for each of the disposal/reuse alternatives are located at thebottom of Table 6-4 in the next section.

Structural costs include costs for site work, process piping, valving and electrical. Equipment costs

include pump stations and force main/distribution piping associated with the pump station. The operationand maintenance costs represent a net present value of the annual operations and maintenance costs overthe next 20 years for each alternative.

The life cycle costs do not include costs for associated treatment processes. An evaluation of the costs fortreatment alternatives is presented in Chapter 7 – Wastewater Treatment Alternatives.

SUMMARY OF EVALUATION OF DISPOSAL/REUSE ALTERNATIVES

Each of the alternatives was evaluated against the above described criteria. Table 6-4 is a summary of theevaluation of the alternatives against the criteria. The Land Application areas shown in Table 6-4 includethe necessary area for a 100% redundant disposal field.



…

6 .

E F F L U E N T D I S C H A R G E / R E U S E A L T E R N A T I V E S

T A B L E 6 - 4 .

S U M M A R

Y O F A L T E R N A T I V E S E V A L U A

T I O N

A l t e r n a t i v e

E v a l u a t i o n C r i t e r i a

I r r i g a t i o n

S l o w R a t e I n f i l t r a t i o n

R a p i d R a t e I n f i l t r a t i o n

C o n s

t r u c t e d W e t l a n d s

L a n d R e q u i r e d

L

a n d A p p l i c a t i o n : 4 6 0 a c r e s

S

t o r a g e : 8 1 a c r e s

B

u f f e r s ( 2 5 % o f t o t a l ) : 1 3 5 a c r e s

L a n d A p p l i c a t i o n : 2 3 a c r e s

S t o r a g e : I n c l u d e d i n l a n d

a p p l i c a t i o n a r e a

B

u f f e r s ( 2 5 % o f t o t a l ) : 8 a c r e s

L a n d

A p p l i c a t i o n : 5 . 7 a c r e s

S t o r a g e : I n c l u d e d i n l a n d

a p p l i c a t i o n a r e a

B u f f e r s ( 2 5 % o f t o t a l ) : 3 a c r e s

L a n d A p p l i c a t i o n : 2 9 a c r e s

S t o r a g e : 2 . 5 a c r e s

B u f f e r s

( 2 5 % o f t o t a l : 9

a c r e s )

S t o r a g e R e q u i r e d

E

s t i m a t e d t h a t e f f l u e n t w i l l n e e d

t o b e s t o r e d f o r 7 m o n t h s d u r i n g

t h e y e a r w h e n t h e s o i l w i l l b e t o o

w

e t f o r i r r i g a t i n g . A t 1 m g d

m

a x i m u m m o n t h l y f l o w , 2 1 0

m

i l l i o n g a l l o n s o f s t o r a g e w i l l b e

r e q u i r e d

E f f l u e n t w i l l b e s t o r e d f o r 3

d a y s d u r i n g s e v e r e w e t

c o n d i t i o n s w h e n s o i l s c a n n o t

i n

f i l t r a t e a n y a d d i t i o n a l w a t e r .

A

t 1 m g d m a x i m u m m o n t h l y

f l o w , 3 m i l l i o n g a l l o n s o f

s t

o r a g e w i l l b e r e q u i r e d .

E f f l u

e n t w i l l b e s t o r e d f o r 3

d a y s

d u r i n g s e v e r e w e t

c o n d

i t i o n s w h e n s o i l s c a n n o t

i n f i l t r a t e a n y a d d i t i o n a l w a t e r .

A t 1

m g d m a x i m u m m o n t h l y

f l o w , 3 m i l l i o n g a l l o n s o f

s t o r a

g e w i l l b e r e q u i r e d .

E f f l u e n t w i l l b e s t o r e d f o r 3

d a y s d u r i n g s e v e r e w e t

c o n d i t i o

n s w h e n s o i l s c a n n o t

i n f i l t r a t e a n y a d d i t i o n a l

w a t e r . A

t 1 m g d m a x i m u m

m o n t h l y

f l o w , 3 m i l l i o n

g a l l o n s o f s t o r a g e w i l l b e

r e q u i r e d

.

T r e a t m e n t

R e q u i r e m e n t

E

f f l u e n t c a n b e t r e a t e d t o

s e c o n d a r y t r e a t m e n t s t a n d a r d s .

P

l a n t s w i l l p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l

t r e a t m e n t . W a t e r w i l l b e a p p l i e d

a

t a r a t e w h i c h p l a n t s w i l l u s e .

N

o i n f i l t r a t i o n t h r o u g h t h e s o i l t o

g

r o u n d w a t e r .

M

u s t t r e a t t o C l a s s A R e u s e

s t

a n d a r d s w i t h n i t r o g e n

r e

m o v a l t o m e e t g r o u n d w a t e r

r e

c h a r g e c r i t e r i a s i n c e e f f l u e n t

w

i l l r e a c h g r o u n d w a t e r a f t e r

i n

f i l t r a t i o n t h r o u g h s o i l .

M u s t t r e a t t o C l a s s A R e u s e

s t a n d

a r d s w i t h n i t r o g e n

r e m o

v a l t o m e e t g r o u n d w a t e r

r e c h a r g e c r i t e r i a s i n c e e f f l u e n t

w i l l r e a c h g r o u n d w a t e r a f t e r

i n f i l t r a t i o n t h r o u g h s o i l .

C o m p l i c a t e d r e g u l a t o r y

r e q u i r e m

e n t s s p e c i f y l e v e l o f

t r e a t m e n t t o C l a s s A t h r o u g h

C l a s s C

s t a n d a r d s d e p e n d i n g

o n p o t e n

t i a l f o r h u m a n

c o n t a c t ,

t y p e a n d u s e o f

c o n s t r u c

t e d w e t l a n d ,

h y d r o l o g i c c o n d i t i o n s .

6 - 1 1



P o r t H a d l o c k U G A S e w e r F a c i l i t y P l a n …

6 - 1 2

T A B L E 6 - 4 ( C O N T I N U E D ) .

S U M M A R

Y O F A L T E R N A T I V E S E V A L U A

T I O N



I r r i g a t i o n

S l o w R a t e I n f i l t r a t i o n

R

a p i d R a t e I n f i l t r a t i o n

C o n s t r u c t e d W e t l a n d s

O p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r

B e n e f i c i a l R e u s e

T

h i s m e t h o d d o e s n o t l e n d i t s e l f

t o m a n y o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r

b

e n e f i c i a l r e u s e b e c a u s e o f t h e

l e v e l o f t r e a t m e n t . T h e

s e c o n d a r y e f f l u e n t m u s t b e

r e u s e d a t t h e d e s i g n a t e d

i r r i g a t i o n s i t e s i n c e t h e e f f l u e n t

i s n o t a d e q u a t e l y t r e a t e d f o r

u

n r e s t r i c t e d r e u s e a n d / o r h u m a n

c

o n t a c t . T h i s m e t h o d m a y

p

r o d u c e t h e a d d i t i o n a l b e n e f i t o f

a

h a r v e s t a b l e p r o d u c t s u c h a s

t i m b e r , o r s o m e o t h e r n o n - f o o d

c

r o p .

T h i s m e t h o d l e n d s i t s e l f t o

s e

v e r a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r

b e n e f i c i a l r e u s e s i n c e t h e

e f f l u e n t m u s t b e t r e a t e d t o

C

l a s s A r e u s e s t a n d a r d s . T h e

l e

v e l o f t r e a t m e n t a n d

d i s i n f e c t i o n r e s u l t i n e f f l u e n t

w

h i c h i s s u i t a b l e f o r r e u s e a n d

p u b l i c c o n t a c t . T h e e f f l u e n t

c a n b e u s e d t o r e c h a r g e

g r o u n d w a t e r a n d s o m e o r a l l

o f i t c a n b e u s e d f o r o t h e r u s e s

s u

c h a s i r r i g a t i o n i n p a r k s / g o l f

c o u r s e s ,

i n

d u s t r i a l / c o m m e r c i a l u s e ,

s e

w e r l i n e f l u s h i n g , e t c .

S a m e a s f o r s l o w r a t e

i n f i l t r a t i o n .

C o n s t r u c t e d B e n e f i c i a l U s e

W e t l a n d

s p r o v i d e m a x i m u m

o p p o r t u n i t y f o r r e u s e

e x c l u d i n

g o n l y g r o u n d w a t e r

r e c h a r g e . C o n s t r u c t e d

T r e a t m e

n t W e t l a n d s p r o v i d e

m o r e l i m

i t e d o p p o r t u n i t i e s ,

d e p e n d i n g o n t h e u l t i m a t e

l e v e l o f

t r e a t m e n t o b t a i n e d

b y t h e s y s t e m .

C o m p a r a t i v e 2 0 - y e a r

L i f e C y c l e C o s t s

S t o r a g e

$ 3 , 3 5 7 , 5 0 0

- -

- -

$ 1 0 4 , 2 0 0

L a n d A p p l i c a t i o n

$ 1 9 , 1 3 4 , 4 0 0

$ 1 , 1 3 6 , 4 5 0

$ 2 6 8 , 2 5 0

$ 1 , 5 9 4 , 8 0 0

S t r u c t u r a l / E q u i p m e n t

$ 1 6 , 5 3 9 , 7 0 0

$ 2 , 6 7 3 , 5 5 0

$ 1 , 4 1 0 , 7 5 0

$ 4 6 , 9 9 8 , 5 0 0

S u b t o t a l C a p i t a l

$ 3 9 , 0

3 1 , 6

0 0

$ 3 , 8

1 0 , 0

0 0

$ 1 , 6

7 9 , 0

0 0

$ 4 8 , 6

9 7 , 5

0 0

N P V O & M

$ 2 , 8 2 1 , 0 0 0

$ 6 2 9 , 0 0 0

$ 7 2 8 , 0 0 0

$ 8 , 2 0 0 , 0 0 0

T o t a l 2 0 - Y e a r L i f e

C y c l e C o s t s

$ 4 1 , 8

5 2 , 6

0 0

$ 4 , 4

3 9 , 0

0 0

$ 2 , 4

0 7 , 0

0 0

$ 5 6 , 9

8 7 , 5

0 0




RECOMMENDED RE-USE ALTERNATIVE


The results of the alternative evaluation were presented to the Jefferson County Board of CountyCommissioners at a workshop on May 25, 2006. The workshop was open to the public and some key

stakeholders in the community were invited to attend. A presentation was given outlining the alternativedisposal/reuse options, their relative advantages and drawbacks, and their respective life cycle costs.

The design team presented its technical perspective on each of the alternatives and received feedback andquestions from the Board of County Commissioners, County staff, the stakeholders/public attending theworkshop. This feedback was considered in the technical recommendation.

Recommendation

It was recommended that treatment plant effluent reuse through rapid rate infiltration be selected as thepreferred alternative for the proposed wastewater treatment facility.

Reuse through rapid rate infiltration was recommended based upon the following key reasons:• Lowest 20-year life cycle cost. This alternative has the lowest 20-year life cycle costs because

the amount of land required is less than any of the other land based reuse or disposalalternatives considered. Additionally, rapid rate infiltration requires the least amount of piping and associated equipment further reducing the capital cost and the operation andmaintenance requirements.

• Provides opportunities for beneficial reuse. This alternative provides good opportunities forbeneficial reuse. Stakeholders and the community have expressed interest in beneficial reuseopportunities for treatment plant effluent. A specific reuse strategy mentioned by members of the public was water recharge for Chimacum Creek. The use of rapid rate infiltration at a sitelocated in the vicinity of Chimacum Creek would provide recharge through localgroundwater. Determination of an advantageous site would be part of a hydrogeologic surveyof potential reuse sites.

6-13



CHAPTER 7.WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES

This chapter summarizes wastewater treatment (including liquid process, disinfection, and solidshandling), provides a technical evaluation of the alternative options, and presents a technicalrecommendation for preferred wastewater treatment, disinfection, and solids handling methods.

LIQUID PROCESS TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS

Discharge/Reuse Method Determines Treatment

The level of treatment is dependent upon the selected method of effluent disposal or reuse. Theregulations dictate the requirements for treatment depending upon the end use of the final effluent.Table 7-1 summarizes the general level of treatment required depending upon the disposal or reuse optionfor the final effluent. The following sections describe the treatment requirements in greater detail.

Levels of Treatment

Water reuse systems must meet treatment standards, as defined by the Departments of Health andEcology in the Water Reclamation and Reuse Standards. Reclaimed water standards vary depending onthe type of end-use and the potential for human contact with the reclaimed water. The requirements varyfrom Class A (highest quality) to Class D (lowest quality). Reclaimed water of each quality level can beachieved through appropriate levels of secondary or advanced treatment and disinfection. Table 7-2summarizes the treatment criteria for various reuse applications.

TABLE 7-1.

SUMMARY OF TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIOUS DISPOSAL/REUSE OPTIONS

Disposal/Reuse Option Secondary Treatment Advanced Treatment

Irrigation/Land Application Certain Types of Fodder & FiberCrops

Most Applications (food, publicaccess)

Groundwater Recharge by SurfacePercolation – Slow RateInfiltration

No Yes

Groundwater Recharge by SurfacePercolation – Rapid RateInfiltration

No Yes

Marine Outfall Unlikely LikelyConstructed Wetlands Possible Likely

Groundwater Injection No Yes (with reverse osmosis)

7-1




TABLE 7-2.WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS FOR REUSE PROJECTS

Parameter Class A Class B Class C Class D

BOD 30 mg/L 30 mg/L 30 mg/L 30 mg/L

TSS 30 mg/L 30 mg/L 30 mg/L 30 mg/L

TotalColiforms



23/100 ml (7 day);240/100 ml at any time

240/100 ml(7 day)

Turbidity 2 NTU monthly;5 NTU at any time

N/A N/A N/A

DissolvedOxygen

>0 mg/L >0 mg/L >0 mg/L >0 mg/L

Chlorineresidual

0.5 mg/L in conveyancepiping



0.5 mg/L inconveyance piping

NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit

Secondary Treatment

Secondary treatment typically involves a biological oxidation process which produces a biological“sludge” which can be separated from the liquid process. The liquid is then disinfected by one of avariety of methods prior to disposal or reuse. Wastewater treatment processes which achieve secondarylevels of treatment include activated sludge, sequencing batch reactors (SBR), rotating biologicalcontactors, trickling filters, lagoons and oxidation ditches. All are followed by secondary clarification.Wastewater treated to the secondary level can meet Class B, C, or D reclaimed water standards if specificdesign and operational standards are met. These standards and processes are discussed in further detail insubsequent sections of this chapter.

Advanced Wastewater Treatment

Some type of advanced wastewater treatment is needed to achieve Class A level final effluent. Advancedwastewater treatment processes include membrane bioreactors (MBR’s), reverse osmosis or one of avariety or mechanical filtration systems following an appropriate secondary treatment process.Supplemental filtration is typically provided by media filters using sand and/or anthracite coal or clothfilters.

Advanced wastewater treatment can also provide ammonia removal (nitrification) and nitrate removal(denitrification) which are required for beneficial-reuse land-application in excess of agronomic uptakerates. For surface percolation facilities, nitrate levels must be reduced to 10 mg/L and nitrite levelsreduced to 1 mg/L. These levels are based on the federal primary standards for drinking water.

Reliability and Redundancy RequirementsWashington State Department of Ecology’s Criteria for Sewage Works Design stipulates reliability andredundancy requirements for the treatment system in Article 11 of the Water Reclamation and ReuseStandards. This article addresses the requirements for emergency storage and disposal of untreated orpartially treated wastewater. A copy of this Article can be found in Appendix E.

7-2



…7. WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES

WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES


Eight wastewater treatment processes were considered for evaluation. These alternatives are describedbelow:

• Recirculating filters – This process uses a filtration media to treat the wastewater. Typically,a septic tank is provide upstream of the filter to remove settleable solids. Effluent from theseptic tank is passed through a coarse media filter. A portion of the filter effluent isrecirculated back through the filter combining with the incoming septic tank effluent. Theremaining final effluent is discharged to disposal or reuse.

• Lagoons – Facultative lagoons, stabilization ponds and aerated lagoons use large, open,earthen lagoons to store wastewater, provide aeration, and settle solids.

• Constructed Treatment Wetlands – Constructed Treatment Wetlands are an artificial, man-made wetland into which wastewater is introduced. Resident plants, animals andmicroorganisms utilize any available nutrients and moisture for growth, metabolism andreproduction. These activities result in improved water quality, wildlife habitat (and

associated public benefits), and water uptake through transpiration and evaporation.

• Fixed Film Processes – Fixed film or attached growth processes use an inert media asattachment sites for growth of microorganisms that convert organic material in wastewaterinto biological cell matter. Examples of fixed processes include trickling filters and rotatingbiological contactors.

• Oxidation Ditch – An oxidation ditch uses a long, continuous channel, typically oval orcircular to provide an aerobic environment where oxidation of carbonaceous and nitrogenouswastes (BOD) occurs. This aerobic environment is typically created by low-speed surfaceaerators that also serve as mixers.

• Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) – SBR’s are a variation of the activated sludge process thatoperate in a batch mode instead of a continuous-flow mode. Aeration and secondary

clarification occur in the same tank. Two or more parallel basins are required so that influentflows can be treated continuously by this batch process. Control valves, mixers, aerators, anddecanters cycle the wastewater flow through different operational modes within the tanks.Aeration can be in the form of diffused air or jet aeration. The sequential operating modes,which take place in the same basin, include filling, reacting, settling, decanting, and sludgewasting. If designed and operated properly, this type of system can remove nutrients such asnitrogen and phosphorus through proper programming of the batch process.

• Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) – The MBR process combines the extended aeration activatedsludge process with a physical separation process using membranes immersed in the aerationbasins. The membranes replace separate downstream clarifiers. By providing a positivebarrier to virtually all particulate, colloidal and dissolved solids above the 0.1 micron range,

the membranes produce an exceptional effluent quality, superior to that of extended aerationactivated sludge followed by conventional filters. Chemical coagulation is likely not requiredfor MBRs to meet Class A reclaimed water standards. Because the membranes provide apositive barrier to solids, the activated sludge system can operate at very high mixed-liquorsuspended solids (MLSS) concentrations, significantly reducing the size of the aeration basincompared to typical extended aeration activated sludge plants.

• Reverse Osmosis (RO) – Reverse osmosis systems produce an ultra-high quality, purifiedClass A reclaimed water. RO systems are typically used to “polish” the effluent from an

7-3




advanced wastewater treatment system when direct discharge to ground water is employed asthe preferred reuse option. Reverse Osmosis involves forcing the process water through asemi-permeable membrane at high pressure. Pollutant removal is achieved through diffusionand electrostatic charge exclusion as well as size exclusion, thereby providing significantvirus, dissolved salt and metal ion removal.


Six alternatives were rejected early in the evaluation process. The rationale for their rejection is asfollows:

Recirculating Filters + Filter

Recirculating filters can meet secondary effluent quality standards for biochemical oxygen demand(BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS). However, using this technology, it is difficult to producer aneffluent which can be reliably filtered to meet advanced treatment requirements for Class A turbidity.Additionally, this process does not provide sufficient nitrogen removal without supplemental treatment.This process is generally not used for treatment plants over 0.5 mgd because it has high capital costs andrequires a large area for the filters.

Lagoons + Filter

Lagoons were rejected because it is difficult to producer an effluent which can be reliably filtered to meetadvanced treatment requirements for Class A TSS due to high levels of algae generated in the lagoon.Additionally, lagoons cannot provide consistent nitrogen removal, require significant land area, can bequite odorous and do not lend themselves to odor control.


Constructed wetlands require a large land area in order to meet anticipated regulatory standards. Pastexperience indicates wetlands can meet BOD, TSS, and nitrogen reduction requirements when operated atrelatively low wastewater loading rates. However, constructed wetlands can provide polishing treatment

after all standards have been met.

Fixed Film Processes + Filter

Fixed film processes can meet BOD and TSS requirements. However, using this technology, it is difficultto produce an effluent which can be reliably filtered to meet advanced treatment requirements for Class Aturbidity. Additionally, fixed film processes are not able to meet nitrogen removal requirements withoutsupplemental treatment. Finally, these processes are prone to high odor potential requiring expensive andcomplex odor control systems.

Reverse Osmosis

Reverse osmosis was rejected due to high capital and operating costs. The energy cost to provide high

pressure feed water is prohibitive. Maintenance of the semi-permeable membranes is also expensive andtime consuming. Since direct injection to the groundwater is not being considered, this alternative is not justifiable.

Oxidation Ditch + Filter

Oxidation ditch plus filtration was rejected due to the difficulty in implementing the system in phasesadequate to provide redundancy and reliability. These systems are not modular and thus, result inoversizing of initial phases. This leads to higher initial costs and could prove to be difficult to operate at

7-4




the subsequent low wastewater loading rates. Initial estimates suggest that the higher costs of phasingwould not be sufficiently off-set by lower O&M costs.


Sequencing Batch Reactor + Filter


SBRs are a variation of the activated sludge process that operate in a batch mode instead of a continuous-flow mode. Aeration and secondary clarification occur in the same tank. Two or more parallel basins arerequired so that influent flows can be treated continuously by this batch process.

Control valves, mixers, aerators, and decanters cycle the wastewater flow through different operationalmodes within the tanks. Aeration can be in the form of diffused air or jet aeration. The sequentialoperating modes, which take place in the same basin, include filling, reacting, settling, drawing ordecanting, and idle mode when sludge is wasted from the wastewater treatment process to the solidshandling processes. During the fill phase, the basin is filled with wastewater and aeration begins. Aerationcontinues through the react phase. The aerators are then turned off and the biomass is settled. During the

draw phase, treated effluent is removed from the basin by a decanter. Finally, settled sludge is pumpedfrom the basin for final treatment during the idle mode while the basin waits to receive the next batch of wastewater flow and repeat the cycle of phases. If designed and operated properly, this type of system canremove nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus through proper programming of the batch process.Figure 7-1 shows a simple process diagram and a photo of a typical SBR facility.

Decant To Filter

Screened andDegritted RawWastewater

Figure 7-1. Sequencing Batch Reactor Process Schematic and Example Facility in Waldport, Oregon

Because mixed liquor is retained in the reactor during all cycles, separate secondary clarifiers are notrequired. However, batch treatment operation leads to peaking flows downstream, and these flows wouldhave to be equalized to minimize the size of downstream facilities. Flow equalization would be sized to

process decant flows. Tanks would not be allowed to fill and decant simultaneously at high flows.

The control system allows for control over a range of flows; a batch-proportional program is used forlow-flow conditions and a flow-proportional program is used for average and peak-flow conditions. SBRsystems are computer-controlled and tend to be more complex and mechanically intensive than otheractivated sludge treatment processes. Variation of the cycles and their timing results in greater operationalflexibility to meet different effluent requirements. The reliance on automated equipment andcomputerized control demands a higher level of operational and maintenance sophistication thanconventional activated sludge systems. Maintenance of these systems can be expensive and demanding.

7-5




Design Criteria: Sizing & Phasing

A sizing and phasing plan for an SBR with filter treatment system was developed for use in comparingalternatives. The system was sized and phased to meet population, flow, and loading estimates describedin Chapter 4 – Population, Flow and Loads.

The system was planned in four distinct phases. These phases are described as follows:• Phase I: Two 0.125 mgd Reactors - Construct two 0.125 mgd reactors with a third 0.125 mgd

reactor for standby. The two 0.125 mgd reactors to be constructed as a single 0.25 mgdreactor cell which can be combined to function as one cell in the future. A filter buildingwould be constructed and filter equipment needed for initial flows through Phase II installed.

• Phase II: Two 0.25 mgd Reactors with Storage – Expand the 0.125 mgd standby reactor cellto 0.25 mgd by constructing a 0.125 mgd expansion. Combine the two working cells fromPhase I by demolishing the wall between them or opening a sluice gate between the two cellsso they can operate as a single volume. This results in two working 0.25 mgd cells. Constructa 0.75 mgd storage basin for equalization and emergency storage. This emergency storage isin addition to the emergency storage provided at the disposal site. This would provide backup

in conjunction with storage should one 0.25 mgd cell need to go offline.• Phase III: Three 0.25 mgd Reactors – Construct a third 0.25 mgd reactor to accommodate

increasing flows. The 0.75 mgd storage pond constructed in Phase II would still be used forequalization storage and to provide storage should one or more reactors need to go offline.Additional filter equipment would be installed to meet increased wastewater flow.

• Phase IV: Four 0.25 mgd Reactors – Construct a fourth 0.25 mgd reactor to accommodateincreasing flows. The storage pond would still be used for flow equalization and backupshould part of the system need to go offline. This would provide a firm treatment capacity of 1 mgd to meet the anticipated 2030 maximum monthly flow of 0.98 mgd.


Several advantages and drawbacks of sequencing batch reactors with filtration for processing wastewaterwere identified during the evaluation. Below is a summary of the advantages and drawbacks:

Advantages • Provides good effluent quality – Can meet Class B, C, D reclaimed water standards.

• Can achieve Class A reclaimed water standards and nitrogen reduction with filtration.

• Proven technology – experience within Washington State.

• Modular – The system can be constructed in smaller phases to accommodate populationgrowth.

• Operational Flexibility – Through variation of the cycles and their timing, greater operational

flexibility can be achieved to meet different regulatory requirements.

Drawbacks • Treats wastewater in batches making system timing and sequencing critical. This can present

challenges when responding to significant variations from peak flow events. However, SBR’scan address peaks by equalizing fill cycles. But equalizing fill cycles also can result inoperational issues and problems with batch consistency.

7-6




• System requires more computer control and mechanical valving than other extended aerationtreatment processes.

• Equipment maintenance – Prompt repairs are essential because SBR’s usually have lessredundancy than other activated sludge systems.

Membrane BioreactorTechnology Description

The membrane bioreactor (MBR) process combines the extended aeration activated sludge process with aphysical separation process using membranes immersed in the aeration basins. The membranes replaceseparate downstream clarifiers. By providing a positive barrier to virtually all particulate, colloidal anddissolved solids above the 0.1 micron range, the membranes produce an exceptional effluent quality,superior to that of extended aeration activated sludge followed by conventional filters. Chemicalcoagulation is likely not required for MBRs to meet Class A reclaimed water standards since sludgesettleability is not a consideration. Figure 7-2 shows a membrane bioreactor system.

In addition to aeration air, coarse bubble diffused air is used to scour the membranes and prevent

excessive fouling. Significant quantities of air are required for membrane scouring, usually equaling orexceeding the requirement for aeration air. This can result in significant operating costs, since aeration airproduction is often the most energy intensive component of wastewater treatment plant operation. Back-pulsing with chemical cleansing agents may be required to remove accumulated solids, depending on thetype of membranes.

Because the membranes provide a positive barrier to solids, the activated sludge system can operate atvery high mixed-liquor suspended solids (MLSS) concentrations, on the order of 10,000 to 15,000 mg/L.Typical extended aeration activated sludge plants operate at MLSS concentrations between 2,000 and4,000 mg/L. The high MLSS concentrations mean that the plant can run at a low hydraulic retention timeand a high solids retention time, significantly reducing the size of the aeration basin compared to typicalextended aeration activated sludge plants.

Two types of membranes are available: hollow fiber units composed of a membrane wrapped around areinforced hollow fiber tube; and flat membrane sheets on top of plastic panels for reinforcement. Ineither case, wastewater is filtered through the membrane, and filtered effluent passes through themembrane onto the next step of the treatment plant.

Settleability is not a consideration with this process due to the membranes’ being a barrier to solids. Thisis a significant advantage over typical activated sludge plants, where the activated sludge biology must bemonitored to encourage development of microorganisms that settle quickly in a clarifier basin.

A disadvantage of the MBR process is that the membranes are not well-suited to treating peak flows.Because membrane capacity must be designed for treating peak flows, much of the capacity will not beused until infrequent peak flows occur. In many cases, pre-MBR equalization basins are recommended toequalize peak flows to the MBRs. Alternatively, equalization can be achieved by providing additionalfreeboard in the membrane basins.

Another disadvantage is the requirement to replace membranes every five to ten years, depending on themanufacturer. The membranes make up a significant portion of the cost of the facilities, so frequentreplacement can translate into high present worth costs.

7-7




Addition of an anoxic selector tank upstream of the aeration basins with internal recycle allows fornitrogen reduction.


A significant advantage of the MBR process is its ability to be implemented in phases. It can be

constructed in many small increments by adding basins and membrane cassettes as needed.

A sizing and phasing plan for an MBR system was developed for use in comparing alternatives. Thesystem was sized and phased to meet population, flow, and loading estimates described in Chapter 4 –Population, Flow and Loads.

Figure 7-2: Membrane Bioreactor Process Schematic and Example Facility in Bandon Dunes, Oregon

The system was planned in four distinct phases. These phases are described as follows:

• Phase I: Two 0.25 mgd MBR Treatment Trains - Construct two 0.25 mgd reactors. Onereactor will provide capacity for treatment of the initial flows, the other reactor will bestandby to provide redundancy.

• Phase II: Add Storage – Once flows exceed 0.25 mgd, both reactor trains will be used forprocessing of wastewater. At this point, a storage basin sized for 3 days’ of flow from a singletreatment train will be added to provide emergency storage should one of the trains be taken

7-8




offline for maintenance or repair. Additionally, the storage can be utilized for flowequalization in the future when peak flows might temporarily exceed the capacity of theexisting systems. This emergency storage is in addition to the storage provided at the disposalsite.

• Phase III: Add MBR Treatment Capacity – Construct tankage for an additional 0.50 mgd of

capacity. However, membranes will be installed in this phase for an additional 0.25 mgd of treatment capacity. This will result in a total treatment capacity of 0.75 mgd. The Phase IIstorage facility will still be used for equalization and for redundancy should any of thetreatment process need to be taken offline.

• Phase IV: Add Membranes for 1.0 mgd Total Capacity – Install the remaining membranes inthe Phase III tankage. This will provide 1.0 mgd total capacity and the storage will provideequalization and capacity should part of the treatment process need to be taken offline.


Several advantages and drawbacks of membrane bioreactors for processing wastewater were identifiedduring the evaluation. Below is a summary of the advantages and drawbacks:

Advantages • Continuous treatment of wastewater making controlling and monitoring the treatment process

easier. This can result in more consistent and reliable effluent quality.

• Produces Class A reclaimed water without a separate filtration process.

• No separate secondary clarifiers or coagulation process required.

• State-of-the-art wastewater treatment process which is best suited to address future potentialwastewater treatment requirements such as removal of pharmaceuticals and personal careproducts and endocrine disruptors (hormones) in wastewater.

• Modular and scalable process making expanding the treatment process easy throughout thedevelopment phases of the wastewater system.

Drawbacks • Potentially higher cost – Membrane bioreactors have historically been a more cost intensive

process due to the capital investment in the membranes and operations costs associated withadditional aeration and pumping. However, these costs have been coming down significantlyin recent years making MBR processes more competitive with other advanced wastetreatment systems.

• Membrane Maintenance – The membranes must be maintained and kept clean so they do notfoul. This increases the requirement for system air in order to “shake off” accumulated solidsand keep the membranes clean.

EVALUATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVESEvaluation Criteria

The following evaluation criteria were used when comparing the wastewater treatment alternatives:

Effluent Quality

Can the proposed process reliably and consistently provide effluent to an acceptable level of treatment?Are there any additional design provisions, operational considerations, and/or redundancies that need tobe included in order to reliably and consistently perform?

7-9




Phasing

Does the technology lend itself to developing the treatment system in discreet phases? Are thecomponents of the process modular and have some flexibility regarding size (i.e.) are they scalable?

Operational Characteristics

Are there any operational advantages or drawbacks associated with the proposed treatment technology?

Life Cycle Costs

What is the life cycle cost of the proposed method? These include costs for land purchase, equipment,design and installation, operation and maintenance, and equipment replacement costs. A lower life cyclecost is preferable.

LIFE CYCLE COST ESTIMATING

Cost Assumptions

Total present worth and annualized costs were estimated for a 20-year period assuming 2008 dollars. The

20-year period is consistent with an approach of designing mechanical equipment to its expected life.Structures, such as buildings, were sized based on anticipated 20-year needs. Replacement of buildingsand structures were estimated based upon a 50-year life span. A detailed breakdown of the estimates is inAppendix C. Estimated costs were identified from the following sources:

• Land value per acre estimated from Jefferson County Assessor’s parcel database. A per acreestimate was calculated using representative parcels adjacent to the service area of $28,000/acre.



• Bid tabulations from recent, similar projects.

Table 7-3 summarizes factors used when estimating quantities for the comparative life cycles costs.

TABLE 7-3.CRITERIA USED FOR ESTIMATING TREATMENT PLANT COST QUANTITIES

Criteria Value/Factor

Flow Condition 2030 Maximum Monthly Flow

Storage Ponds 8 feet deep

Land Area Contingency Twice the land area needed for 2030 year facilities

were estimated so the plant could be expanded inthe future to buildout

Land Buffers Added 25% of the total land area

Land Value $28,000/acre

The capital cost represents the total project cost for implementation of each treatment alternative.

The life cycle costs include land cost, equipment costs, installation costs for piping, electrical, andcontrols, site work, mobilization/demobilization/bonding, contractor overhead and profit, escalation to

7-10




mid-point of construction, planning-level contingency, engineering design and construction management,and Washington state sales tax. These amounts are reflected in the attached cost estimates.

Annual O&M costs for each wastewater alternative were estimated based on power requirements,chemicals, and labor (general operation, maintenance and cleaning). Additionally, replacement cost of equipment and structures are included in the comparative life cycle costs. Replacement costs represent a

dollar amount required each year to be set aside in order to replace buildings, structures, and equipment.Replacement allowances of 2 percent for buildings and structures (replace every 50-years), and 4 percentfor equipment (replace every 20 to 25 years) were included in the life cycle cost estimates. These amountsare reflected in the attached cost estimates.


Summaries of the 20-year life cycle costs for each of the wastewater treatment alternatives are located atthe bottom of Table 7-4.

The life cycle costs do not include costs for associated effluent disposal/reuse. An evaluation of the costsfor effluent disposal/reuse alternatives is presented in Chapter 6 – Effluent Discharge/Reuse Alternatives.

Summary of Wastewater Treatment Evaluation

The SBR and MBR treatment alternatives were evaluated against the above described criteria. Table 7-4is a summary of the evaluation of the alternatives against the criteria.

RECOMMENDED WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE


The results of the alternative evaluation were presented to the Jefferson County Board of CountyCommissioners at a workshop on August 8, 2006. The workshop was open to the public and some keystakeholders in the community were invited to attend. A presentation was given outlining the alternativewastewater treatment options, their relative advantages and drawbacks, and their respective life cycle

costs.


RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the results of the alternative evaluation and feedback from the stakeholder workshop, amembrane bioreactor system (MBR) is recommended. This system is recommended primarily because of the reliable level of Class A effluent it can provide. Additionally, it is the most advance treatmenttechnology available and is best suited to address existing and future regulatory requirements regarding

treatment. The 20-year life cycle costs are slightly higher than anticipated for SBR. The additional costdoes not outweigh the benefits provided through reliability and superior effluent quality offered by anMBR system.

7-11




TABLE 7-4.SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION

Alternative

Evaluation Criteria Sequencing Batch (SBR) Reactor + Filter Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)

Effluent Quality - Can provide Class A effluent with filtration. SBRwithout filtration can meet Class B, C, or D effluentquality standards.

- Must monitor filters and system batches closely toensure reliable Class A effluent quality.

- Provides Class A reclaimedwater without a separate filtrationprocess.

- State-of-the-Art Wastewatertreatment process which is bestsuited to address future potentialwastewater treatmentrequirements such aspharmaceuticals and personal careproducts and endocrine disruptors(hormones) in wastewater.

Phasing - The system is modular. Treatment cells can be

added or enlarged to increase treatment capacity.

- The system is modular.

Treatment capacity can beincreased through addition of membranes and treatment cells.

OperationalCharacteristics

- Treats wastewater in batches making systemtiming and sequencing critical.

- Requires more computer control and mechanicalvalving than other extended aeration treatmentprocesses.

- Operational Flexibility: Through variation of thecycles and their timing, greater operational

flexibility can be achieved to meet different effluentrequirements.

- Continuous Treatment of Wastewater making controllingand monitoring the treatmentprocess easier. This can result inmore consistent and reliableeffluent quality.

- Requires more computer controland mechanical valving than other

extended aeration treatmentprocesses.

- No separate secondary clarifiersor coagulation process required.

- Membrane maintenance: themembranes must be maintainedand kept clean so they do not foul.

Comparative 20-yearLife Cycle Costs

Capital $21,860,000 $26,242,000

O&M $6,932,000 $9,005,000Total 20-year Life CycleCost

$28,792,000 $35,247,000

DISINFECTION ALTERNATIVES

Effluent disinfection prevents the spread of waterborne diseases. The intent of the Class A reclaimedwater standards are to produce reclaimed water that is essentially pathogen-free. This entire treatmentprocess is geared towards this goal, with the disinfection step being the final means of achieving this goal.

7-12





Four disinfection processes were considered for evaluation. These alternatives are described below:

• Liquid Sodium Hypochlorite – Disinfect the treatment plant effluent with 12.5 percent liquidsodium hypochlorite (bleach).

• Ultraviolet (UV) Disinfection – Disinfect the treatment plant effluent with ultraviolet light.• Chlorine Gas – Disinfect the treatment plant effluent using chlorine gas.

• On-Site Generation of Sodium Hypochlorite – Disinfect the treatment plant effluent using<1.0 percent liquid sodium hypochlorite (bleach) generated on site using salt andhypochlorite generation equipment.


Two alternatives were rejected early in the evaluation process. The rational for their rejection is asfollows:

Chlorine Gas

This alternative was rejected due to safety and transportation concerns. Chlorine gas is very toxic and aleak can cause harm or death. Due to the dangerous nature of chlorine gas, handling and transportation isa significant concern. Due to these concerns, chlorine gas is seldom considered in the design of smallwastewater treatment facilities.

On-Site Generation of Sodium Hypochlorite

On-site generation of sodium hypochlorite uses complex, electrically powered mechanical equipment togenerate low concentration (<1.0 percent) liquid sodium hypochlorite from salt water. The comparativelysmall amount of liquid sodium hypochlorite needed to disinfect the required effluent flows do not justifythe costs for equipment, operation, maintenance and electricity when compared to purchasing liquidsodium hypochlorite from a bulk supplier.


Liquid Sodium Hypochlorite


This alternative involves disinfecting the treatment plant effluent with liquid sodium hypochlorite(bleach). The chlorine in liquid sodium hypochlorite directly kills the microorganisms through its strongoxidizing power. Sodium hypochlorite (12-percent to 15-percent by weight) would be purchased anddelivered by a vendor to the wastewater treatment plant site and stored within a chemical holding tank.Chemical metering pumps, control equipment, and associated piping would be used to inject the sodiumhypochlorite into the chlorine contact tank (CCT) influent. The CCT is designed to provide gentle mixing

and sufficient hydraulic residence time to kill pathogens to the required disinfection level prior to deliveryof the reclaimed water to the point of reuse. Figure 7-3 shows typical equipment for disinfection using12.5-percent sodium hypochlorite.

7-13




Figure 7-3. Sodium Hypochlorite Feed Pumps at Vashon Island, Washington (left) and Chlorine Contact Tank at Marysville, Washington

Design Criteria: Sizing and Phasing

The liquid sodium hypochlorite system would be designed for storage of at least 14 days of bleach atpeak-month flows at a peak design dosage of approximately 2 mg/L (Department of Ecology criteriarequires a minimum dose of 1 mg/L).

Building facilities will be designed to meet the anticipated 20-year maximum month flows. The storagearea would initially house 3-55 gallon drums of liquid sodium hypochlorite to accommodate initial flows.The enclosed building is sized at 100 square feet to adequately house additional drums or a larger storagetank for bulk shipment of sodium hypochlorite to accommodate future flows.


Several advantages and drawbacks of using liquid sodium hypochlorite were identified during the

evaluation process. Below is a summary of the identified advantages and drawbacks:

Advantages • Low initial capital investment – The initial capital investment associated with this alternative

is relatively low considering that no complicated mechanical equipment is required. Thesystem involves chemical metering pumps, flow controls, piping, and chemical storage.Operation and maintenance costs involve purchase of liquid sodium hypochlorite, andoperation and maintenance of the pumping equipment.

• Safety – This process is relatively safe. Liquid sodium hypochlorite is not as hazardous aschlorine gas, but provides excellent effluent disinfection.

Drawbacks • Cost of Liquid Sodium Hypochlorite – Liquid sodium hypochlorite is relatively cheap topurchase. However, the relative advantages of this alternative could change in the future if the market price of liquid sodium hypochlorite should rise significantly.

• Chemical Storage – This alternative requires the handling and storage of a hazardouschemical (bleach) which will require worker safety training. Chemical containment aroundthe storage tank area will be required in the event of a spill or a leak.

7-14




• Chemical Degradation – Liquid sodium hypochlorite tends to degrade over time due totemperature and exposure to sunlight. This decreases the effective concentration of chlorineand the ability of the chemical to oxidize microorganisms. This drawback can be easilymitigated with proper design and good operating practices.

• Corrosive Damage – Liquid sodium hypochlorite tends to be corrosive to piping and pumping

systems. Although modern materials and equipment have mitigated many of these problems,some maintenance and replacement of piping, valves, and pump parts will be required.

UV Disinfection


This technology involves disinfecting the wastewater treatment plant effluent by exposing the wastewaterto high levels of ultraviolet light. Ultraviolet light mutates microorganism DNA, preventing cellreproduction, which effectively kills the microorganism population since the organisms’ life expectanciesare short.

Ultraviolet disinfection systems use several types of technology: low-pressure open-channel systems,

medium-pressure systems, and low-pressure, high-intensity systems.

One consideration of using UV disinfection in reuse applications is the requirement by Department of Ecology to have a chlorine residual at the point of use. This would require the use of chlorine after UVdisinfection resulting in the need to provide chlorination equipment and facilities or equipment to providecontact time.


The disinfection system was designed initially to handle 0.5 mgd of treated effluent and then doubled tohandle 1.0 mgd for the 20-year maximum monthly flow. The UV and chlorine system sizing criteria forthese flows were as follows:

UV System: 40 gpm/lamp, 200 watts/lamp, 24 hrs/day.

Chlorination System: 0.5 mg/L dose.


Several advantages and drawbacks of UV disinfection of treatment plant effluent were identified duringthe evaluation process. Below is a summary of the advantages and drawbacks:

Advantages • UV disinfection systems are relatively safe and do not expose the operator to chemicals.

• Less contact time with UV light is required to achieve disinfection due to high germicidal

efficiency.

Drawbacks • Bulbs are prone to deposits and require routine wiping to prevent fouling.

• Bulbs loose their efficiency and require regular monitoring and replacement in order toensure adequate disinfection.

• Supplemental chlorine-based disinfection would be required to provide chlorine residual inthe distribution system in order to meet Class A effluent requirements. This requires a

7-15




chlorine system be installed and negates some of the benefits of not having to handlechemicals. This also will increase capital and O&M costs since two systems need to beconstructed, operated, and maintained.

EVALUATION OF DISINFECTION ALTERNATIVES

Evaluation CriteriaThe following criteria were used when comparing disinfection alternatives:

Effluent Quality

Does the system reliably provide the required level of disinfection?

Phasing

Does the proposed system lend itself to phasing? Can the system be designed to effectively accommodateincreases in flow as the wastewater system develops?

Safety What is the relative safety of the proposed system?

Life Cycle Costs

What are the comparative 20- year life cycle costs for the proposed system? These include costs forequipment, design and installation, operation and maintenance, and equipment replacement costs. A lowerlife cycle cost is preferable.

Summary of Disinfection Evaluation

Each of the alternatives was evaluated against the above criteria. Table 7-5 is a summary of the evaluationof the alternatives against the criteria.

7-16




TABLE 7-5.SUMMARY OF DISINFECTION ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION

Alternative

Evaluation Criteria Liquid Sodium Hypochlorite UV Disinfection

Effluent Quality - Provides effective disinfection of microorganismsthrough oxidation with chlorine.

- Well suited to provide the required chlorineresidual of 0.50 mg/L for Class A reclaimed water.

- Provides effective disinfectionof microorganisms throughmutating microorganisms’ DNAusing UV radiation.

- Supplemental chlorinationrequired to provide residual of 0.50 mg/L for Class A reclaimedwater.

Phasing - The system is scalable. Additional storage capacity

for liquid sodium hypochlorite can be installed.Chemical feed pumps and chemical feed piping canbe enlarged or expanded to accommodate increaseddosage requirements as effluent flow rates increasein the future.

- The system is scalable.

Additional lamps and chamberscan be installed to provideadditional disinfection capacityas effluent flow rates increase inthe future.

Safety - System is safer than gaseous chlorine. However,stringent safety measures must be employed duringchemical handling and equipment operation andmaintenance.

- UV system does not involve theuse of chemicals. However, sincesupplemental chlorination isrequired (sodium hypochlorite),stringent safety measures must beemployed during chemicalhandling and equipment

operation and maintenance.Comparative 20-yearLife Cycle Costs

Capital $512,000 $1,466,000

O&M $179,000 $473,000

Total 20-Year LifeCycle Costs

$691,000 $1,939,000

RECOMMENDED DISINFECTION ALTERNATIVE


The results of the alternative evaluation were presented to the Jefferson County Board of CountyCommissioners at a workshop on August 8, 2006. The workshop was open to the public and some keystakeholders in the community were invited to attend. A presentation was given outlining the alternativedisinfection options, their relative advantages and drawbacks, and their respective life cycle costs.


7-17




RECOMMENDATION

Liquid sodium hypochlorite is the recommended disinfection system. This system has a lower 20-year lifecycle cost and provides acceptable and proven disinfection. It is suited to provide the required chlorineresidual for Class A reuse and is easily scalable as the system grows. UV disinfection does not provideenough additional benefits and features to warrant the higher 20-year life cycle cost.

SOLIDS HANDLING/REUSE ALTERNATIVES

When evaluating alternatives for handling treatment plant solids, two distinct components wereconsidered; solids handling and treatment/reuse. Solids handling involves removal of some of the waterand storage at the treatment plant site prior to the treatment/reuse phase. Treatment/reuse involvestreatment through digestion, composting, or chemical treatment and reuse through land application orland filling. Combinations of solids handling and treatment/reuse alternatives will be combined andevaluated.


Three solids handling alternatives and five treatment and reuse alternatives were considered for

evaluation. These alternatives are described below:

Solids Handling

The following processes were considered for solids handling prior to treatment/reuse:

• Decanting: Decanting involves allowing solids to settle by gravity either within a holdingtank or within a treatment basin in the wastewater treatment plant. The clarified supernatantis then separated from the heavier subnatent.

• Thickening: Thickening involves some equipment dedicated to removing some water fromthe wastewater solids to about 4 percent solids. This is done in an effort to reducetransportation costs.

• Dewatering: Dewatering involves removing enough water from the wastewater solids tomake it semi-solid (about 16 percent solids). This is done to further reduce transportationcosts by reducing the amount of the water that needs to be hauled and or to concentrate thesolids for use in composting or other reuse operations.

Solids Treatment and Reuse

The following processes were considered for treatment and reuse of treatment plant solids:

• Haul Locally to Port Townsend Composting: This involves hauling the treatment plant solidsto a composting facility at the City of Port Townsend Solid Waste Facility for treatment andreuse.

• Haul Remote to Port Angeles WWTP: This involves hauling solids to another wastewatertreatment plant which has facilities to digest and reuse solids.

• Contracted Haul & Reuse: A hired contractor would provide hauling, treatment and reuse of solids.

• On-Site Digestion: On-site digestion involves constructing facilities at the WWTP site totreat, and handle treatment plant solids. Treatment plant solids would be thickened and thensent to an aerobic digester where the solids would be stabilized aerobically (in the presence of oxygen). The resulting solids would be Class A or Class B depending upon the holding

7-18




temperature and solids retention time during the digestion process. Solids would then behauled for reuse by a contract hauler.

• Forest Application: Forest application would involve sending thickened or dewatered solidsto a forest application site. The solids would be aerobically digested to Class B standards.This alternative would require an agreement with a forest management company or the

purchase of forest land for the application of solids.


Two alternatives were rejected early in the evaluation process. The rationale for their rejection is asfollows:

On-Site Digestion

On-site digestion was rejected due to the extensive capital costs associated constructing, operating, andmaintaining digesters and associated solids handling equipment. It is estimated that approximately2,000 gallons per day of thickened 4 percent solids on average will be generated between 2010 and 2030.This would not justify the costs associated with constructing a digester system which could cost on the

order of several million dollars.

Forest Application

Forest application was not considered for further evaluation due to the land costs associated withoperating and maintaining a forest application site. Additionally, there are significant permitting andforest management practices which need to be implemented for this alternative which are dependent uponthe treatment level (Class A or B) of the solids and the use of the land and crops. The associated costs andpermitting requirements rendered this alternative unappealing compared to other alternatives beingconsidered.


Storage and DecantingTechnology Description

Solids are removed from the wastewater treatment system by removing a calculated volume of mixedliquor or waste activated sludge from the biological treatment process. This waste activated sludge isthen stored on site in a storage tank or basin where the heavier solids are allowed to settle to the bottom.The heavier solids, or subnatant are then separated from the lighter supernatant by decanting.

Providing a decanting system is optional for an MBR process since the system operates at high mixed-liquor-suspended-solids concentrations. Solids can be pulled off the process and be at 1 – 1.5 percentsolids without decanting. However, solids storage is essential during periods of inclement weather.

The decanting process requires only minimal equipment, labor and energy costs and can result in aremarkably improved subnatant with perhaps as high as a 50 percent volume reduction. The reduction inhauling and handling costs can be significant. Decanting and storage typically involves a holding tank fordecanted solids, minor piping and pumps, and some provisions for odor control. Decanting and storageare accomplished in the same tank.

At a future date, the decanting process can be enhanced with polymer addition at minimal cost. Improvedsolids separation by use of polymer will essentially increase the emergency on-site solids storage capacityduring periods of inclement weather when hauling and/or land application is curtailed.

7-19




Design Criteria

The following key design criteria were used when evaluating decanting:

• Decant to 1.2 percent solids by weight.

• No polymer or chemical addition initially.

• Provide 20,000 gallons of storage on site for decanted solids.

• Provide odor control for storage tank.


The following advantages and drawbacks were identified for decanting solids:

Advantages • Low Capital Costs – This alternative does not involve expensive or complicated equipment

for handling solids. No chemical addition is involved to flocculate solids.

• Operation and Maintenance – Since there is minimal equipment associated with this process,

the system is easy and inexpensive to operate and maintain.

Drawbacks • Solids Content – This system results in the lowest concentration of solids. The low solids

content (high water content) will result in additional hauling and handling costs.

Thickening


Thickening involves some equipment dedicated to removing water from the wastewater solids. Enoughwater is removed to thicken the solids to about 4 percent. This results in reduced transportation costs.Several thickening processes were considered in this evaluation including gravity belt thickeners,

dissolved air flotation thickeners, and rotary screen thickeners. Polymers can be added prior to thethickener to aid in the thickening process by coagulating and wetting the wastewater solids.

Ancillary equipment would include chemical storage systems, storage tanks, day tanks, mixers, meteringpumps, piping, valving, safety equipment and odor control equipment.

Design Criteria

The following key design criteria were used when evaluating thickening:

• Thickening equipment assumed for this analysis is a rotary screen thickener.

• Polymer addition will be used to coagulate solids and aid in water removal.

• Provide 10,000 gallons of storage on site for thickened solids.• Provide odor control scrubbers and blower equipment.


The following advantages and drawbacks were identified for thickening solids:

7-20




Advantages • Solids Content – This system results in a higher solids content resulting in lower hauling

costs than decanted solids.

Drawbacks • Capital Costs – This system involves investment in equipment to thicken solids. Additional

odor control is required since thickened solids have greater odor potential than decantedsolids.

• Operation and Maintenance –This equipment will result in higher operation and maintenancecosts. This will be in the form of labor, equipment maintenance, chemical costs, and power.

Dewatering


Dewatering involves removing enough water from the wastewater solids to make it a semi-solid. This isdone to further reduce transportation costs by reducing the amount of the water that needs to be hauled.Dewatering is often accomplished employing the same equipment used for thickening sludge except the

equipment is designed to remove more water from the solids. Typical equipment includes centrifuges, beltfilter presses, and screw presses. Solids from activated sludge processes are typically dewatered to about16 percent solids.

Ancillary equipment would include solids holding facilities, solids handling/conveyance systems,chemical storage systems, storage tanks, day tanks, mixers, metering pumps, piping, valving, safetyequipment and HVAC systems, buildings, and odor control equipment

Design Criteria: • Dewatering equipment assumed for this analysis is a belt filter press.

• Polymer addition will be used to coagulate solids and aid in water removal.

• Dewatered sludge to be conveyed to truck using belt conveyors.• Provide odor control scrubbers and blower equipment.


The following advantages and drawbacks were identified for dewatering solids:

Advantages • Solids Content – This system results in a higher solids content resulting in lower hauling

costs than decanted or thickened solids.

Drawbacks

• Capital Costs – This system involves investment in more expensive equipment to removeadditional water to achieve higher solids content. Belt conveyors will be needed to transportdewatered sludge to trucks so they can be hauled away for treatment and reuse. Additionalodor control is required since thickened solids have greater odor potential than decantedsolids.

• Operation and Maintenance –This equipment will result in higher operation and maintenancecosts than for thickening. These higher costs will be in the form of labor, equipmentmaintenance, chemical costs, and power.

7-21




Haul Locally to Port Townsend


This alternative involves hauling the treatment plant solids to a composting facility at the City of PortTownsend Solid Waste Facility. The City operates a composting facility where it receives “clean green”yard waste, anarobically digested/dewatered class “B” biosolids from the Port Townsend WWTP andseptage from septic tank pumping contractors. The septage is thickened using polymer and a gravity beltthickener and mixed with the shredded green material and biosolids prior to composting. Decant waterfrom the thickening process is treated in a single sequencing batch reactor at the site. The treated effluentis then reused in a constructed wetland at the site.

Design Criteria: • The distance to haul solids from the treatment plant to the composting facility is

approximately 8 miles.

• The contractor would haul decanted sludge (unthickened) initially. Thickening equipmentmay be installed in the future to reduce the number of truck trips should it be economicallyfeasible.

• Cost to treat unthickened sludge at the composting facility is estimated at $0.36/gallon(including haul costs).


The following advantages and drawbacks were identified when evaluating hauling solids to PortTownsend composting:

Advantages • Short distance to haul. Reduced hauling expense.

• Beneficial reuse of solids.

• No need to install digesters at the treatment plant site which are a significant capital expense.

Drawbacks • Costs for treatment are relatively high compared to other treatment providers.

• There is limited capacity at the composting facility to accept solids. The facility currentlyprovides treatment services for local septic tank haulers and has spare solids handlingcapacity. However, the SBR treatment system at the compost facility is not designed, orpermitted, to handle the anticipated liquid volume of unthickened sludge from the PortHadlock system.

Haul Remote to Port Angeles WWTP

Technology Description This alternative involves hauling solids to another wastewater treatment plant which has facilities todigest and transport the solids for reuse. The nearest facility identified which could receive solids was theCity of Port Angeles WWTP.

Design Criteria: • The distance to haul solids from the treatment plant to Port Angeles is approximately 43

miles.

7-22




• The contractor would haul decanted sludge (unthickened) initially. Thickening equipmentmay be installed in the future to reduce the number of truck trips should it be economicallyfeasible.

• The cost to treat unthickened sludge at Port Angeles is estimated at $0.22/gallon.

Advantages and Drawbacks The following advantages and drawbacks were identified when evaluating hauling solids to the PortAngeles WWTP:

Advantages • No need to install digesters at the treatment plant site which are a significant capital expense.

Drawbacks • Higher costs associated with hauling solids to Port Angeles. This method is dependent upon

fuel costs and can change the economic viability of the alternative.

• Costs associated with treatment – This method is dependent upon treatment costs and can

change the economic viability of the alternative.

Contracted Haul and Reuse


This alternative involves hiring a contractor to provide transportation, treatment and reuse of thewastewater solids. The contractor would load solids into a tanker truck and haul the material off site fortreatment and reuse. Kitsap Bio-Recycle in Belfair Washington was identified as a contractor which couldprovide this service.

Design Criteria: • The process for treatment and reuse is stabilization using lime, land application, and plowing

under to reduce potential vectors and odors.• The contractor would haul decanted sludge (unthickened) initially. Thickening equipment

may be installed in the future to reduce the number of truck trips should it be economicallyfeasible.

• Costs for haul and reuse of decanted solids to Kitsap Bio-Recycle is estimated at $0.12/gallon


The following advantages and drawbacks were identified when evaluating contracted haul and reuse:

Advantages • Minimal capital costs – Facilities for storage and decanting and transferring solids to the

contractor’s truck are minimal compared to other alternatives. Costs for thickening equipmentwould be deferred until the future.

• If using decanted solids – No equipment for removing water or chemical treatment.

• Flexibility – This alternative involves the lowest initial capital cost and allows for flexibilityto implement a different method of solids handling should the economics of hiring acontractor change in the future.

7-23




7-24

Drawbacks • Costs associated with hauling, treatment, and reuse – This method is dependent upon

contractor costs and can change the economic viability of the alternative.

EVALUATION OF SOLIDS HANDLING/TREATMENT/REUSE

ALTERNATIVESEvaluation Criteria

The following criteria were used when comparing the solids handling and treatment/reuse alternatives:

Phasing

Does the proposed combination of processes lend itself to phasing? Is there opportunity to change or alterthe process in the future if the economics change?

Life Cycle Costs

What are the comparative 20-year life cycle costs for the proposed system? These include costs for

equipment, design and installation, operation and maintenance, and equipment replacement costs. A lowerlife cycle cost is preferable.

Summary of Solids Handling/Treatment/Reuse Evaluation

Each of the solids handling and treatment/reuse alternatives were evaluated against the above describedcriteria. Table 7-6 is a summary of the evaluation.



… 7 . W A S T E W A T E R T R E A T M E N T A L T E R N A T I V E S

T A B L E 7 - 6 .

S U M M A R Y O F S O L I D S H A N

D L I N G / T R E A T M E N T / R E U S E A

L T E R N A T I V E S E V A L U A T I O N

S o l i d s H a n d l i n g A l t e r n a t i v e s

T r e a t m e n t / R e u s e A l t e r n a t i v e s


D e c a n t i n g

T h i c k e n i n g

D e w a t e r i n g

H a u l L o c a l l y t o

P

t . T o w n s e n d

H a u l t o P t .

A n g e l e s W W T P

C o n t r a c t e d H a u l & R e u s e

P h a s i n g

- E a s y t o p h a s e .

M i n i m a l i n i t i a l

c a p i t a l c o s t .

M i n o r i n c r e a s e s

i n h o l d i n g t a n k

a s s y s t e m

d e v e l o p s

- S y s t e m c a n b

e

p h a s e d . H o w e v e r ,

a d d i t i o n a l c a p i t a l

i n v e s t m e n t w i l l b e

r e q u i r e d f o r

t h i c k e n i n g

e q u i p m e n t a n d

h o l d i n g t a n k s . .

- S y s t e m c a n b e

p h a s e d . H o w e v e r ,

a d d i t i o n a l c a p i t a l

i n v e s t m e n t w i l l b e

r e q u i r e d f o r

d e w a t e r i n g

e q u i p m e n t , a n d

c o n v e y i n g e q u i p m e n t

- L i m i t e d a b i l i t y

t o e x p a n d .

E x i s t i n g s y s t e m

w o u

l d b e n e a r o r

a b o v e c a p a c i t y

w i t h

p r o j e c t e d

s o l i d s a t s t a r t u p .

- D e s i r a b i l i t y o f

a l t e r n a t i v e i s

s e n s i t i v e t o

c h a n g e s i n p e r

g a l l o n c o s t t o

t r e a t . A l s o

d e p e n d e n t u p o n

h a u l i n g c o s t s .

- A b i l i t y t o

e x p a n d . C a n s e n d

s o l i d s t o o n e o r

m o r e p l a n t s a s

s y s t e m g r o w s .


a l t e r n a t i v e i s

s e n s i t i v e t o

c h a n g e s i n p e r

g a l l o n c o s t t o

t r e a t . A l s o

d e p e n d e n t u p o n

h a u l i n g c o s t s .

- A b i l i t y t o e x p a n d . C a n

s e n d m o r e s o l i d s t o t h e

c o n t r a c t o r a s t h e s y s t e m

g r o w s .


a l t e r n a t i v e i s s e n s i t i v e t o

c h a n g e s i n p e r g a l l o n c o s t

t o h a u l a n d t r e a t .



C a p i t a l

$ 1 0 9 , 0 0 0

$ 1 , 3 8 8 , 0 0 0

$ 2 , 6 7 1 , 0 0 0

$ 1 4 8 , 0 0 0

$ 1 4 8 , 0 0 0

$ 1 4 8 , 0 0 0

N P V O & M

$ 4 , 4 1 8 , 0 0 0

$ 3 , 5 0 1 , 0 0 0

$ 2 , 0 1 2 , 0 0 0

$ 3 , 0 0 6 , 0 0 0

$ 1 , 8 3 7 , 0 0 0

$ 1 , 0 0 2 , 0 0 0

T o t a l 2 0 - Y e a r L i f e

C y c l e C o s t s

$ 4 , 5

2 7 , 0

0 0

$ 4 , 8 8

9 , 0

0 0

$ 4 , 6

8 3 , 0

0 0

$ 3 , 1

5 4 , 0

0 0

$ 1 , 9

8 5 , 0

0 0

$ 1 , 1

5 0 , 0

0 0

7 - 2 5




RECOMMENDED SOLIDS HANDLING AND TREATMENT/REUSESYSTEM

Based upon the results of the alternative evaluation, the Storage and Decanting alternative for SolidsHandling is recommended and the Contract Haul/Reuse alternative for Treatment/Reuse is recommended.

These recommendations are based upon the simplicity of the processes, the lowest initial capital cost, andthe flexibility to switch to another system for handling and/or reuse in the future.

Each of the two recommendations has the lowest 20-year life cycle cost based upon today’s available costdata. This is a “pay-as-you-go” system. If the economics of these options change in the future, the Countywill have very little capital investment in solids handling/reuse equipment and can comfortably exploreother options.

7-26



CHAPTER 8.RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE AND IMPLEMENTATION

This chapter summarizes the recommendations presented in the previous chapters for collection, liquidtreatment process, disinfection, solids handling, and effluent reuse. A proposed treatment plant layout,

process schematic, and hydraulic profile is also provided. Also presented in this chapter is an evaluation

of the alternative options for treatment plant location and a summary of the estimate costs. Finally an

implementation schedule is presented.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The sections below present a summary of the recommended systems and key sizing and phasing criteria

to be considered in the system implementation. Detailed discussion of each system, sizing criteria, and

alternative evaluations can be found in the respective chapters of this plan.

Gravity Collection SystemRecommendation

The recommended collection system technology is a gravity collection system. The alternatives analysis

of the evaluated collection system technologies is found in Chapter 5 – Collection System Alternatives

Evaluation.

The gravity collection system was recommended for the following key reasons:

• Lowest 20-year life cycle cost.

• Provides the highest degree of flexibility for future system expansion. Outlying areas can be

installed as gravity collection systems or pressurized sewer systems.

• No private property maintenance and access easements required.

• Fewer operational and maintenance requirements than pressurized sewer systems.

Sizing and Phasing

The gravity collection system and pump stations will be sized and designed according to Washington

State Department of Ecology Criteria for Sewage Works Design (updated 2006). The collection system is

conceptualized to be implemented in phases according to sub-areas as shown in Figure 4-2.

Effluent Reuse: Ground Water Recharge by Rapid-Rate SurfacePercolation

Recommendation It is recommended that treated wastewater effluent be reused by recharging the groundwater by rapid -

rate surface percolation. The alternatives analysis of the evaluated discharge and reuse alternatives is

found in Chapter 6 – Wastewater Discharge and Reuse Alternatives.

Groundwater Recharge by rapid rate infiltration through surface percolation was recommended for the

following key reasons:


8-1




• Provides opportunities for beneficial reuse. Recharged groundwater can benefit Chimacum

Creek flows and associated salmon habitat.

Sizing and Phasing

It is recommended the system be sized to provide enough space and capacity for the 20-year projected

effluent flows with enough room to provide 3-days’ storage during severe wet conditions when soils mayhave difficulty infiltrating water. The total recommended area includes 9 acres (see Table 6-3 and 6-4).

The percolation basins can be developed in phases as the wastewater system grows.

Wastewater Treatment – Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)

Recommendation

The recommended process for treating wastewater is the membrane bioreactor (MBR). The alternatives

analysis of the evaluated treatment alternatives is found in Chapter 7 – Wastewater Treatment

Alternatives Evaluation.

An MBR system is recommended for the following key reasons:

• Reliably provides Class A level of reclaimed water.

• Modular and scalable process facilitating future expansion needs.

• No separate secondary clarifiers or coagulation process required.

• Best suited to address existing and future regulatory requirements treatment.

Sizing and Phasing

It is recommended the wastewater treatment process be implemented in four phases as described in

Chapter 7. These are briefly described as follows:

• Phase I – Install two 0.25 mgd MBR treatment trains; one working and one standby.

• Phase II – Add 3 days for one treatment train storage once flows exceed 0.25 mgd and useboth treatment trains simultaneously.

• Phase III – Add an additional 0.5 mgd of treatment tankage; phase in membranes as needed.

• Phase IV – Install remaining membranes to provide 1.0 mgd of capacity.

Effluent Disinfection – Sodium Hypochlorite

Recommendation

The recommended process for disinfecting treated effluent is liquid sodium hypochlorite. The alternatives

analysis of the evaluated disinfection alternatives is found in Chapter 7 – Wastewater Treatment

Alternatives Evaluation.

A liquid sodium hypochlorite system is recommended for the following key reasons:


• Suited to provide the required chlorine residual for Class A effluent reuse.

• Is easily scalable to address future growth of the wastewater system.

8-2



8. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE AND IMPLEMENTATION

Sizing and Phasing

The sizing and phasing of the sodium hypochlorite system is based upon the following criteria detailed in

Chapter 7:

• Provide 14 days storage at peak monthly flow and 2 mg/L dose.

• Building and facilities will be constructed to meet the capacity needs for 20-year maximummonthly flow.

Solids Handling – Decanting and Contracted Haul and Reuse

Recommendation

The recommended process for solids handling is to decant solids directly from the MBR process and use

contracted haul and reuse. The alternatives analysis of the evaluated solids handling alternatives is found

in Chapter 7 – Wastewater Treatment Alternatives Evaluation.

Decanting solids and contracted haul and reuse is recommended for the following key reasons:

• Least amount of equipment required resulting is the lowest initial capital cost.• Lowest 20-year life cycle cost.

• The process is simple.

• The system provides flexibility to switch to another system for handling and/or disposal in

the future.

Sizing and Phasing

The sizing and phasing of the solids handling system is based upon the following criteria detailed inChapter 7:

• Provide 20,000 gallons of storage on-site for solids wasted from the MBR process.

• Evaluate viability of thickening in the future as the wastewater system develops, quantity of

solids increase, and/or the economics of contracted haul and reuse change. Budget has been

included in the cost summary for thickening equipment to be installed in the year 2013. The cost

has been included to account for the possibility that thickening equipment may be incorporated

into the solids handling process in the future.

Table 8-1 summarizes the design criteria for the recommended wastewater treatment alternative.

8-3




TABLE 8-1.DESIGN DATA FOR MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR ALTERNATIVE

Phase 1 (2010) Phase 2 (2013)a

Phase 3 (2018)a

Phase 4 (2024)a

Design Flow (maximum monthly) 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

Headworks

Fine Screen 1 duty + 1 stby 1 duty + 1 stby 2 duty + 1 stby 2 duty + 1 stby

Membrane Bioreactors

Anoxic Basins

Number of Basins 1 1 2 2

Design Side Water Depth (ft) 9 - 13 9 - 13 9 - 13 9 - 13

Freeboard at Design Depth (ft) 4 - 8 4 - 8 4 - 8 4 - 8

Volume (gallons) 140,000 to200,000 ea

140,000 to200,000 ea

140,000 to200,000 ea

140,000 to200,000 ea

Mixer 1 @ 5hp 1 @ 5hp 2 @ 5hp 2 @ 5hp

Feed Forward Pumps

Number of Pumps 1 duty + 1 stby 1 duty + 1 stby 2 duty + 2 stby 2 duty + 2 stby

Capacity (gpm) 2,480 ea 2,480 ea 2,480 ea 2,480 ea

Horsepower 10 ea 10 ea 10 ea 10 ea

Aerobic Basins


Design Side Water Depth (ft) 15 15 15 15

Freeboard at Design Depth (ft) 2 2 2 2

Volume (gal) 59,000 ea 59,000 ea 59,000 ea 59,000 ea

Aeration System Fine bubblediffusers

Fine bubblediffusers



Blowers 1 duty + 1 stby

@ 20 hp ea

1 duty + 1 stby

@ 20 hp ea

2 duty + 1 stby

@ 20 hp ea

2 duty + 1 stby

@ 20 hp ea

Mixer 1 @ 2.3 hp 1 @ 2.3 hp 2 @ 2.3 hp 2 @ 2.3 hp

Membrane Basin




Volume (gal) 40,000 ea 40,000 ea 40,000 ea 40,000 ea

Number of Membrane Racksper Basin

b

2 2 3 4

Blowers 1 duty + 1 stby

@ 100 hp ea

1 duty + 1 stby

@ 100 hp ea

2 duty + 1 stby

@ 100 hp ea

2 duty + 1 stby

@ 100 hp ea

8-4




TABLE 8-1 (CONTINUED).DESIGN DATA FOR MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR ALTERNATIVE

Phase 1 (2010) Phase 2 (2013)a

Phase 3 (2018)a

Phase 4 (2024)a

Permeate Pumps

Number of Pumps 2 duty + 1 stby 2 duty + 1 stby 4 duty + 2 stby 4 duty + 2 stby

Capacity (gpm) 394 ea 394 ea 394 ea 394 ea

Horsepower 7.5 ea 7.5 ea 7.5 ea 7.5 ea

Chlorine Contact Tanks




Volume (gal) 45000 45000 45000 45000

Storage Tank

Number of Basins 0 1 1 1Design Side Water Depth (ft) NA 12 12 12

Freeboard at Design Depth (ft) NA 3 3 3

Volume (gal) NA 800,000 800,000 800,000

Reuse Field

Number of Basins 1 1 1 duty + 1 stby 1 duty + 1 stby



Infiltration rate (gpd / sf) 8 8 8 8

Area (acres) 2.85 2.85 5.7 5.7

a. Quantities for subsequent phases are total numbers for the plant at each phase.

b. One membrane rack has a design capacity of 0.25 mgd.

c. Design data for ancillary systems such as the chemical feed system, sludge wasting, stormwater system, etc., are

determined in later phases of design as the details of the main processes are developed.

EVALUATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT LOCATIONS

Locations Considered

Several general locations were considered for the proposed wastewater treatment plant and effluent reuse

area. These candidate locations were presented to the Jefferson County Board of County Commissionerson June 22, 2006 along with the alternatives for collection, treatment and discharge/reuse. Figure 8-1

shows the candidate locations in relation to the wastewater service area.

The candidate locations presented are as follows:

• South of Service Area/Adjacent to Sheriff’s Facilities – This location is south of the service

area near the intersection of Chimacum Road and Pomwell Road. There are several parcels

which would be suitable for development as a wastewater treatment plant.

8-5




F i g u r e 8 - 1 .

A l t e r n a t i v e T r e a t m e n t P l a n t & E f f l u e n t R e u s e L o c a t i o n s

8-6




8-7

• H.J. Carroll Park Vicinity – This location would be in the vicinity east and north of H.J.

Carroll Park. These properties would likely be accessed from Chimacum Road.

• Central Service Area – This location would be situated centrally within the service area near

the intersection of Mason Street and Cedar Street. This would be at the Pt. Hadlock Airstrip

site or immediately west.

• Airport – This location would be adjacent to the Jefferson County International Airport northof the service area approximate 3 miles. The site would be acquired from a property owner or

from the Port of Port Townsend through a purchase or lease.

• Chimacum High School Vicinity – This location would be south of the service area

approximately 1.5 miles south of the service area in the vicinity of Chimacum High School

(South of Wades Loop Road and West Valley Road). This would be land purchased from the

school district or an adjacent property owner.

Evaluation Criteria

The following criteria were used when comparing the candidate locations.

Adjacent Land Use

What is the adjacent land use to the candidate site? Are there factors which may make siting wastewater

treatment facilities less desirable?

Opportunities for Reuse

Does the candidate location lend itself to opportunities for reuse of the reclaimed water? Is the candidate

treatment site adjacent to the candidate reuse site? Does the location of the candidate reuse site present

one or more potential beneficial opportunities for reuse of the reclaimed water?

Life Cycle Costs

What are the 20-year life cycle costs for the alternative location? This includes consideration for landcost, pumping costs, capital costs, and operation and maintenance costs. In all alternatives, it was assumed

the wastewater would be collected at a central influent pump station at the intersection of Ness’ CornerRoad and Shotwell Road. The wastewater would then be pumped to the selected wastewater treatment

plant site. Since the cost for treatment facilities would be equivalent in all alternatives, they are not

included in the comparative lifecycle costs. The lifecycle costs will include pumping, pipeline, land cost,

and operation and maintenance costs since these costs will vary between the location alternatives.

Summary of Treatment Plant Location Evaluation

The alternative treatment plants locations were evaluated against the above-described criteria. Table 8-2 is

a summary of the evaluation of the alternatives against the criteria.

Recommended Treatment Plant Location

Based upon the results of the alternative analysis and feedback from the stakeholder workshop, a

treatment plant located in the south service area is recommended. A specific parcel has not been identified

at this time, but a parcel in the vicinity of the Sheriff’s facility or the adjacent gravel pit/cement plant is

recommended.



P o r t H a d l o c k U G A S e w e r F a c i l i t y P l a n …

T A B L E 8 - 2 .

S U M M A R Y O F W A S T E W

A T E R T R E A T M E N T P L A N T S I T E E V A L U A T I O N



S o . o f S e r v i c e A r e a

H . J . C a r r o l l P a r k

C e n t r a l S e r v i c e A r e a

A i r p o r t

C h i m

a c u m H i g h s c h o o l

A d j a c e n t L a n d U s e

- S h e r i f f ’ s f a c i l i t y ,

b a l l p a r k , g r a v e l p i t ,

a n d l o w d e n s i t y

r e s i d e n t i a l l a n d .

- U n d e v e l o p e d l a n d a n d

l o w d e n s i t y

r e s i d e n t i a l

l a n d .

- A i r f i e l d , r e s i d e n t i a

l

t r a i l e r p a r k , s i n g l e

f a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l ,

l i b r a r y , g r a d e s c h o o l ,

a n d c o m m e r c i a l .

- A i r p o r t , a n d l o w

d e n s i t y r e s i d e n t i a l

l a n d .

- H i g h

s c h o o l b u i l d i n g s

a n d a t h l e t i c f i e l d s ,

a g r i c u

l t u r a l l a n d , a n d

s i n g l e

f a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l

l a n d .

O p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r

B e n e f i c i a l R e u s e

- I r r i g a t i o n f o r b a l l

f i e l d s , p o s s i b l e f l o w

a u g m e n t a t i o n f o r

C h i m a c u m C r e e k ,

P o s s i b l e f u t u r e

c o m m e r c i a l / i n d u s t r i a l

c u s t o m e r s .

- I r r i g a t i o n

f o r p a r k

f i e l d s , a n d p o s s i b l e

f l o w a u g m e n t a t i o n f o r

C h i m a c u m

C r e e k .

- I r r i g a t i o n f o r s c h o o

l

f i e l d s , a n d p o s s i b l e

f l o w a u g m e n t a t i o n f o

r

C h i m a c u m C r e e k .

- P o s s i b l e f u t u r e

c o m m e r c i a l / i n d u s t r i a l

c u s t o m e r s .

- I r r i g a t i o n f o r s c h o o l

f i e l d s

a n d i r r i g a t i o n f o r

a g r i c u

l t u r a l l a n d s .



C a p i t a l

$ 2 , 6 8 4 , 3 0 0

$ 3 , 8 8 0 , 4 0 0

$ 1 , 9 6 1 , 5 0 0

$ 4 , 1 6 1 , 4 0 0

$ 3 , 5 4 3 , 1 0 0

2 0 - Y r . O & M

$ 1 , 2 2 8 , 0 0 0

$ 1 , 6 7 9 , 0 0 0

$ 1 , 0 6 2 , 0 0 0

$ 1 , 7 4 4 , 0 0 0

$ 1 , 6 0 2 , 0 0 0

T o t a l 2 0 - y e a r L i f e

C y c l e C o s t

$ 3 , 9

1 2 , 0

0 0

$ 5 , 5

5 9 , 0

0 0

$ 3 , 0

2 3 , 5 0 0

$ 5 , 9

0 5 , 4

0 0

$ 5 , 1

4 5 , 1

0 0

8 - 8




F i g u r e 8 - 2 .

C a n d i d a t e S i t e s f o r W a s t e w a t e r T r e a t m e n t P l a n t

8-10



…8. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE

F i g u r e 8 - 3 .

P r o c e s s F

l o w D i a g r a m

8-11




F i g u r e 8 - 4 .

S i t e D e v e l o

p m e n t P l a n .

8-12




F i g u r e 8 - 5 .

H y d r a u l i c P r o f i l e

8-13




Land Need Estimates for Recommended Treatment & Reuse System

Table 8-2 provides a summary breakdown of the land needs estimated for reclamation plant, reuse area,

and influent pump station site.

TABLE 8-2.ESTIMATED LAND AREAS FOR WASTEWATER FACILITIES

Description Estimated Land Area (acres)

Wastewater Treatment Plant:

2030 Treatment Plant Footprint 3 acres

Area for Future Expansion 2 acres

Buffer/Setback 1 acre

Total, Wastewater Treatment Plant 6 acres

Effluent Reuse Area:

Infiltration Basin (Sized for 2030 Flow) 3 acres

Reserve/Redundancy 3 acres

Buffers 3 acres

Total, Effluent Reuse Area 9 acres

Influent Pump Station:

Pump Station Site 1 acre

Total Estimated Land Need 16 acres

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS

Planning Level Costs vs. Life Cycle CostsThis section presents the planning level costs for the recommended wastewater collection and treatment

system. These are estimated planning level costs which are different than life cycle costs used for

comparison of alternatives. Key differences between the planning level costs presented in this section and

life cycle costs used for comparison of alternatives are as follows:

• The planning level costs do not include full replacement of all equipment and capital.

Replacement is scheduled as needed.

• The planning level costs represent forecasted cash flow to pay for capital and operations and

maintenance on a year by year basis from 2010 to 2030. The forecasts include consideration

for system expansion and opportunities to shift costs into the future when advantageous.

• The 20-year life cycle costs are a summation of all capital costs over the 20-year period plus

an equivalent net-present worth for 20 years of estimated operation and maintenance costs.This method is convenient for comparing alternatives but does not necessarily provide a

planning level cash flow forecast for a selected alternative.

Planning Level Cost Summary

Table 8-3 (at end of chapter) shows the forecasted costs estimated for the recommended wastewater

system. These costs are presented in 2009 dollars which represent the planned midpoint of construction.

8-14




8-15

These costs, and the forecasted years in which they occur, are the basis for the analysis presented in

Chapter 9 – Cost and Financing.

The costs are presented as capital costs which will be spent for constructing facilities, annual costs which

include operation and maintenance, and replacement costs which is a set-aside allowance to build up a

cash reserve for full replacement of all structures, capital and equipment. Replacement of membranes, for

example, is included as a maintenance item.

A detailed breakdown of the estimated costs is presented in Appendix D.

Staff Requirements

Estimated staffing requirements for the initial phase of the project are approximately one and one-half full

time equivalent (1.5 FTE). This includes operations and maintenance activities at the plant, pump station

checks, lines flushing, and laboratory work. In the year 2030, 2.5 FTE would be required. Initially, some

part-time staff may be hired from other local utility agencies to defray costs.

Operators must have experience with operation of a water reclamation facility, which requires another

level of expertise over and above that required for wastewater treatment facilities not designed forbeneficial reuse.

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Table 8-4 shows the estimated schedule for the wastewater facilities implementation. Phasing of

implementation is the most significant driver for the schedule. The schedule is subject to change and will

be revised throughout the course of the project.

TABLE 8-4.IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Item/Activity Estimated Date of Completion

Wastewater Facility Plan Approval (Dept. of Ecology & Dept.

of Health)

October 2008

Complete Site Procurement Finalize Environmental Review July 2009

Agency Planning for Implementation September 2009

Wastewater Facilities Implementation

Permitting September 2009

Detailed Hydrogeological Analysis June 2009

DOE Approval of Plans and Specs; Application for DOE

grant/loan fundinga

October 2009

Phase I Construction October 2009 - December 2010

a. Plans and Specs must be approved by DOE by October 31 in order to apply for DOE funding at the same

time, with funds to be available the following June or later in the year.



CHAPTER 9.COST AND FINANCING

FINANCIAL PROGRAMThis financial program was developed to provide options on sources of funding for the construction of thesewer system, develop strategies for repayment by users, and indicate what the resulting impact would beon customers. In addition, a series of policies are noted for discussion as the County moves forwardtoward implementation. These policies relate to funding decisions and the financing package.

SOURCES OF CAPITAL FUNDING

There are a variety of funding sources that are available to finance the construction of the sewer system.These include federal, state and local programs of grants, loans or some type of bonds.

In the past, it has been possible to receive a federal grant for a new sewer system that would provide the

majority of the funds and would not need to be repaid. In current times, this is no longer possible.Instead, it is common to attempt to receive grants for the largest amount possible, matched withcompanion loans at low-interest rates, and the remainder put together from another low-interest loan or byselling bonds.

Each funding program was developed to provide assistance for different reasons and as such, eachprogram comes with a series of requirements that can be technical, financial, policy-related orprogrammatic. It is understood that this sewer system will require substantial investment to construct thetreatment facilities, the collection system and the on-site improvements required to connect the users tothe public system. In order to be successful, new customers must join the system and help with the debtrepayment and the on-going operations and maintenance. Funding agencies will not provide the necessarycapital without assurance that they will be repaid and will also set requirements to help ensure that the

sewer system will be successful for years to come.

TYPES OF CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES

The primary types of capital funding sources include grants, loans, bonds, other sources, and users.

Grants

Grants do not require repayment and are very popular. Unfortunately, grants are quite limited and aretypically targeted to making sewer systems more affordable for residential customers. The programs arecompetitive and a thoughtful application that addresses the program’s target is important. Often, grantsare matched with companion loans.

In addition to the programs that are targeted to making the residential sewer costs more affordable, thereare a variety of programs that are geared toward economic development, business and job development.Typically, the economic development-type programs require a commitment of specific jobs that willresult from the investment.

Department of Ecology (DOE) (grant/loan)

The Washington State Department of Ecology has several water quality grant and loan programs availablefor wastewater treatment systems. Typical DOE programs have a combined annual application cycle with

9-1




applications due in October of each year. The draft offer list is published in January, with the final offerlist being published the following June. Successful recipients must have signed agreements within sixmonths. Actual work must begin within 16 months of the final offer list and be completed within fiveyears. The key for DOE is to identify which water quality problems are being addressed. Recently, DOEredefined hardship to include systems where the sewer rate (capital and O&M) is greater than 2 percent of median household income (MHI), up from 1.5 percent. In hardship cases, grants may be available along

with reduced interest rates on loans to help make sewer more affordable for residential customers. Anygrant would likely be matched with a companion loan at a low interest rate – currently 2.9 percent for a20-year repayment, but could be as low as 0.0 percent for severe hardship. The maximum grant would be$5 million according to this year’s program.

Appendix H of the DOE application package includes the MHI table. For use with Fiscal Year 2010-2011, the MHI for the Port Hadlock/Irondale Census Designated Place (CDP) was $32,202 for the 2000census. DOE estimated the 2009 MHI to be $41,664. To qualify for hardship, 2.0 percent of the MHIwould be $833, or $69.44 per month. Sewer rates between 3 and 5 percent of the MHI would qualify asElevated Hardship and result in potential 75 percent grant and/or a loan at 20 percent of the marketinterest rate. The Port Hadlock sewer project would clearly qualify for hardship and likely fall into theElevated Hardship category.

DOE Reclaimed Water Program (grant/loan)

DOE had a one-time round of Reclaimed Water grants that was authorized by the legislature. JeffersonCounty submitted an application and was successful in securing grant funding for this project in theamount of $197,000 in 2008. This Pt. Hadlock UGA sewer project was on the funding cut-off line andadditional funding may be available if not used by other projects. Jefferson County will be workingthrough appropriate channels to request that the legislature continue funding this program.

US Department of Agriculture-Rural Development (USDA-RD) (grant/loan)

The United States Department of Agriculture has several programs under the Rural Development section.One is available to assist communities make the cost of a new sewer system more affordable to residential

customers. This program has an open-cycle where applications can be accepted year-round. Up to amaximum of 45 percent grant would be available and it would be matched with a low-interest loan,currently about 4 percent interest. The national program is targeting 75 percent loans and 25 percentgrants as an overall goal and will consider each project on its own merits and the economics of thecommunity being served. The terms of the loan could be stretched up to 40 years to bring down theannual debt service. This program requires assurance that the funds would be benefiting residentialcustomers and this often means requiring mandatory connection in order to satisfy. Another RuralDevelopment – Housing program is available to individuals to assist in paying the connection charges.This would be applied for by individuals based on income levels.

US Economic Development Administration (USEDA)

The United States Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration has a Public Worksand Economic Development Program to help support public infrastructure that is necessary to generate orretain private sector jobs and investments, attract private sector capital and promote regionalcompetitiveness.

State of Washington Community Trade & Economic Development (CTED)

State of Washington Community Trade & Economic Development manages several programs targetedtoward infrastructure along with community, economic and job development. These include theCommunity Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) programs to assist in attracting and retaining private

9-2



…9. COST AND FINANCING

investment and resulting in jobs and increased tax revenue to the community. These may be a portiongrant combined with a loan.

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) involves federal funds that have been allotted to the State

of Washington. This program is housed within the Community Trade & Economic DevelopmentDivision at the State. Smaller grants may be available on an annual cycle for a planning study, incomesurvey and other tasks that may be required to apply or comply with funding assistance from otherprograms.

Low-Interest Loans

Most grant programs mentioned above will combine funding packages with a low-interest loan. Thisensures that the funds repaid will be available to loan out to future projects. In addition, there are threekey programs that are focused on loans.

State of Washington Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF) Construction Program

State of Washington Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF) Construction Program is operated by the PublicWorks Board within Community Trade and Economic Development. The PWTF includes several loanprograms: planning, emergency, pre-construction and construction. The construction loans are offered onan annual competitive cycle with applications due in May and the funds available the following year. Themaximum for a jurisdiction is $10 million per biennium (two-year period), and the interest rates currentlyrange from 0.5 percent for a 15 percent local match, up to 2 percent for a 5 percent local match to berepaid over 20 years. The first year of each biennium is the largest construction cycle, with 2009applications being the next large cycle.

PWTF Pre-Construction Program

PWTF Pre-Construction Program is also operated by the Public Works Board. The Pre-Constructionprogram accepts applications year-round for a maximum of $1 million per jurisdiction per biennium. The

interest rates are the same as the construction program and the loans are to be repaid over five years, andextended to 20 years with construction financing. These funds are available for activities prior toconstruction including engineering, design, permitting, etc.

State of Washington Department of Ecology Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF)

This competitive loan program shares the application cycle with DOE’s grant program mentioned above.If a grant is awarded due to hardship, it will be matched with a low-interest loan from this program.Stand-alone loans are also possible with this source.

Bonds

Bonds are a financing mechanism that allows a jurisdiction to obtain construction financing in exchangefor promises of repayment backed by a variety of sources. The sale of bonds typically requirespreparation of an official statement and participation of bond counsel and an underwriter. However,bonds can be sold at any time of year to meet the project schedule with funds obtained at a certain dateinstead of the following year.

9-3




General Obligation Bonds (GO Bonds)

Jefferson County has the authority to sell general obligation bonds that are backed by taxes and generalrevenue. “Backed” means that the County promises taxes and general revenue to repay the debt, althoughother sources can be used such as connection charges from new sewer connections.

Revenue Bonds – Future It is common to use Revenue Bonds to support sewer improvements, however this requires a specificstream of rate revenue to “back” the bonds. Because this is a new sewer system, there are no sewercustomers with history to “back” the bonds. This type of bond can perhaps be used in later years after thesewer rate history can be documented. While revenue bonds are a traditional funding source for sewerimprovements, it is typically less costly to borrow from subsidized state loan programs.

Other Sources

State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)

Assistance from this grant program is requested directly from the federal congressperson representing thearea of the project. Applications or requests are due by April of each year. This requires communicatingwith your congressperson prior to submitting a request. They have to balance all requests from theirdistrict and sponsor the request to go forward. Successful STAG grants are administered by DOE.

Congressional or State Budget Line Items

This alternative refers to discussing the project with both state and federal representatives andcongresspersons to gain their support and perhaps have them submit a line item budget request specific toyour project. This is expected to be an important element in funding the Port Hadlock Sewer project.

Jefferson County Health Septic Tank Replacement Program

Jefferson County Health Department has been successful in receiving a grant from Washington StateDepartment of Ecology to provide financial assistance to residents to encourage the replacement of failingseptic tanks. This program operates like a revolving loan fund where the residents make repayment overa period of time and it is available to loan out to the next round. These funds are intended to be usedcounty-wide and are not specified for the Port Hadlock Sewer project. It is likely that this program couldbe coordinated with the sewer project to provide an additional source of funding. Additional funds couldalso be applied for to assist with conversion from septic to sewer for owners of property within thisproject.

Jefferson County Public Infrastructure Fund (PIF)

The County has a Public Infrastructure Fund that is used for priority infrastructure projects that encouragenew jobs by stimulating private investment around the County. The PIF Advisory Board includesrepresentatives from the county, city, PUD, port and two citizens. This Advisory Board reviews

applications and makes recommendations to the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners. The use of the PIF is ultimately determined by the Board of Commissioners. Currently, 50 percent of the PIF fundsare set aside for this priority Pt. Hadlock Sewer project. Each year, jurisdictions can apply for use of thefund. The total is a couple of hundred thousand dollars so it will not pay for this project. A specificprogram would have to be designed and submitted for consideration. One example would be to develop asewer incentive revolving loan program where small business owners or perhaps low to moderate incomehomeowners could borrow the funds for connection to the sewer (connection charges only, or, couldinclude on-site costs). The loans would be repaid over a specific number of years back into the fund thatcould be loaned out for more sewer connections. It should be noted that public funds can be used for on-

9-4




site costs but require repayment from the property owner. Jefferson County established this PIF in 2005in order to retain a portion of sales and use tax to increase their rural economy.

Local Infrastructure Financing Tool (LIFT)

A pilot program was established in 2006 by the State legislature with a competitive process through 2008.

Applicants would apply to the State to retain a portion of the increased sales tax. Jefferson County wasnot eligible in 2008, the last year of the pilot program. There may be some legislative activity to extendor enhance the program in coming legislative sessions.

Jefferson County Housing Authority

It is unclear whether the Housing Authority could be helpful in obtaining other funds to assist low-incomehousing in connecting to the sewer system. This would likely be some kind of loan and would requirepromises to ensure that the property remained serving low-income residents for a specific period of time.

Users

Utility Local Improvement Districts (ULID/LID)

Local or Utility Local Improvement Districts are authorized by State statute. These mechanisms allowproperties within a specific boundary to finance the cost of sewer facilities that benefit the properties.This is a fairly common method of financing the extension or expansion of collection system. Aboundary would be set by Jefferson County Commissioners, either by petition of the property owners orby resolution. An appropriate share of the cost of the facilities would be assessed to each property, not toexceed the benefit received. Bonds are sold to finance the construction and the properties repay theirassessment over a number of years (10 to 20) plus interest. These bonds are “backed” by the property andimprovements.

Connection Charges

Connection charges are one-time fees paid by new connections to the sewer system that represent their

fair-share of the cost of the facilities in place to serve them. Connection charges are typically paid uponconnection to the system. The use of connection charges is very common. As costs of sewer systemshave increased, some jurisdictions allow customers to pay the connection charges over several years bysigning an installment agreement. Payment over time is more practical for a utility that already hascustomers in place with a healthy financial condition (stable stream of revenue sufficient to meet theutilities needs and commitments).

Developer Extensions

Some jurisdictions use developer extensions as a method of expanding the collection system. This meansthat a developer finances and installs the system necessary to serve his/her property. Upon completion,the facilities are transferred to utility ownership. If, in the future, another property connects to that stretchof sewer line, a latecomer’s agreement allows the utility to collect the fair-share (defined in the

agreement) and send it to the original developer that financed and installed the line. This method wouldnot be practical for the initial core sewer system but may be available in the future as developers maywish to connect prior to the phased implementation schedule.

Debt Repayment with Monthly Rates

It is common for monthly sewer rates to include debt repayment for construction of major facilities. Thisworks well when you have a customer base to support the debt, along with operation and maintenance

9-5




costs. However this method is not as practical when beginning a new utility and building a customerbase. There are other ways to handle debt for a new system.

FUNDING INITIAL CAPITAL COSTS

The financial plan focuses on funding the initial capital costs of constructing the sewer system through the

year 2015. A financing plan is required for the first six years, and this includes sufficient treatmentcapacity to serve the Core, Alcohol Plant, Rhody Drive and a portion of Residential Area #1. Phase III of the treatment plant would be added in 2018, with Phase IV in 2024. Table 9-1 summarizes the initialcapital costs through 2015. These costs estimates were made in 2008 and escalated to reflect 2009dollars, the anticipated midpoint of construction. These costs were summarized from estimates presentedin Appendix D.

TABLE 9-1.INITIAL CAPITAL COSTS THROUGH 2015 (IN THOUSANDS)

Est. Capital (2008

estimates escalated to$2009) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

General 19,467 - 1,337 2,206 - -

Local 6,418 - - 3,140 - -

On-site Conn. 1,412 247 282 321 367 490

Total Capital By Year 27,297 247 1,619 5,667 367 490

Cumulative Capital 27,297 27,544 29,163 34,830 35,197 35,687

No. of ERU's: 432 502 584 679 789 918

• General Costs: General costs include the treatment, disinfection, effluent discharge/reuse,solids handling/reuse, influent pump station and oversizing of the collection system toaccommodate future flows, totaling $23,010,000. Oversizing of capital facilities is describedas the amount of additional capacity needed to accommodate flows from upstream areaswhich is beyond the minimum capacity that would be needed to provide service to the localarea. The influent pump station is the main pump station that will pump all sewage to thetreatment plant.

• Local Costs: Local costs include the gravity collection system with sewer lines up to 8-inchand any local pump stations that may be required to serve a particular area. Local costs forthe period total $9,558,000. Together, these “common/shared” costs total an estimated$32,568,000.

• On-Site Costs: In addition, private/on-site connections include the costs to connect a home orbuilding to the sewer system on private property, totaling $3,119,000. The estimated capitalcost through 2015 is $35,687,000.

The number of equivalent residential units (ERU’s) anticipated to connect is shown at the bottom of Table 9-1. Residential connections are assumed to be one ERU per dwelling unit. Commercialconnections are assumed to be one ERU per 4,000 gallons of water usage per month. This scheduleanticipates that 918 ERU’s will have connected to the sewer system by 2015. To be conservative on the

9-6




9-7

financing side, this schedule assumes that connection of existing homes/businesses will not be mandatory.New construction would be required to connect to the sewer system when it is available.

Table 9-2 summarizes the costs by category. The general and local costs (collectively called“common/shared costs”) total an estimated $32.6 million. The on-site connection costs (also called“private/on-site costs”) total $3.1 million. The total estimated capital cost through 2015 is $35.7 million.

This cost estimate is current as of July 2008.

TABLE 9-2.INITIAL CAPITAL COST THROUGH 2015

GENERAL 23,010,196

LOCAL 9,558,200

Subtotal 32,568,396

PRIVATE/ON-SITE 3,119,000

Total Estimated Cost 35,687,396

General costs are treatment-related that should be shared by all sewer customers. Table 9-3 shows theelements and the timing of the improvements anticipated. The improvements in 2010 will providetreatment capacity of 1,000 ERU’s. Additional membranes will be added in 2012 and storage will beadded in 2013 as the Phase II expansion increases the capacity by another 1,000 ERU’s. Solids handlingis assumed to begin with contract haul/reuse to delay capital expenditure on this aspect until morecustomers are connected to the sewer system. This is currently shown in 2013 and may be delayeddepending on the economics at the time. This analysis also includes oversizing of collection lines in the

general costs. An estimated 10 percent of collection lines will be sized over the standard 8-inch line.

The local collection system is assumed to be installed in the Core and Alcohol Plant areas in 2010 andpresumed to be in place in the Rhody Drive area within a few years after system startup. This wouldinclude any local pump stations. Expansion of sewer service into the 20-year residential areas isanticipated to begin in the year 2016 and continue to expand as shown in the capital facilities plan throughthe year 2024 when sewer service will be available through the entire sewer service area. The capitalfacilities plan shows development of the collection system to continue within the sewer service area andbe completed by the year 2030..

A review of the common/shared costs indicates that financing in 2010 will require $26 million. Anadditional $1.3 million will be needed in 2012, and $5.3 million in 2013. This financing plan focuses on

the general and local costs and assumes that the new connections would pay the private/on-site costs ontheir own property as they connect.




TABLE 9-3.FINANCING COMMON/SHARED COSTS

(GENERAL AND LOCAL) THROUGH 2015

Common/Shared Costs 2010 2012 2013

General CostsTreatment – MBR 13,907,000 1,337,000 774,000

Disinfection 512,000 -

Solids Handling 84,701 - 1,432,013

Disposal 2,583,682 -

Oversizing Collection - 10% 879,800

Influent Pump Station 1,500,000

Subtotal General 19,467,183 1,337,000 2,206,013

Local Collection Costs

Core + Alcohol Plant 6,418,200

Rhody Drive 3,140,000

Total General & Local 25,885,383 1,337,000 5,346,013

Capacity ERU's 1,000 Add membranes Phase 2, 2,000

Note: There are no additional general or local costs planned for 2014-2015.

Depending on the final financing package, it may be possible to include financing for the private/on-sitecosts of those connecting when the sewer is available in their neighborhood. If so, these costs would haveto be repaid by the property owners but it could be a method of encouraging early connection to the sewersystem.

FUNDING EXAMPLE – SHARED CAPITAL COSTS

With common/shared capital costs of $26 million to initiate the sewer system, a common approach is toattempt to receive grants for the largest amount possible. These grants are often matched with companionloans at low-interest rates. The remainder would be generated from another low-interest loan or byselling bonds. Jefferson County would be the jurisdiction making application and promising repayment.The sewer utility would be the department within the County to account for, manage and repay any debt.If sufficient funds were not available, a loan or contribution would be required from the County to thesewer utility to make the payment.

Combination grant/loan packages are possible with both the Department of Ecology (DOE) and US

Department of Agriculture-Rural Development (USDA-RD). DOE has an annual application cycle inOctober of each year, with funds available the following July. The Port Hadlock UGA Sewer FacilityPlan must be approved by DOE prior to application and plans/specs must be approved by DOE prior toapplication for construction funding. There is new state focus on the clean-up of Puget Sound that mayresult in increased funding or higher prioritization for projects of this type. With Jefferson County beingone of the Puget Sound counties, the legislative activity and DOE programs should be monitored closelywith this in mind.

9-8




The USDA-RD program has an open application cycle. USDA Program Specialists work with the jurisdictions to ensure all criteria are being met and accept applications throughout the year. USDA AreaDirectors attempt to spread the available funding for the known projects so it is important to work closelywith the Program Specialists to remain on the radar screen. It is possible for the Area Directors to requestadditional assistance from the national program for certain hardship projects. The current interest rate forthe loan portion is approximately 4.5 percent and is adjusted quarterly.

For additional loans to complete the 2010 capital funding package, both Public Works Trust Fund(PWTF) and DOE State Revolving Fund (SRF) have low-interest loan programs. Both programs haveannual application cycles with PWTF in May and SRF in October of each year. Both programs wouldhave funds available the following year – PWTF around May and SRF after June. The maximum PWTFloan per biennium per jurisdiction is currently $10 million, with interest rates varying from 0.5 percent to2.0 percent depending on the amount of local match. The current interest rate for the SRF program is3 percent. For this funding example, an interest rate of 2.5 percent was used for the additional loan.

Table 9-4 provides an example of mixing funding sources as described above. It is assumed that60 percent of the customers are residential, as reflected in the PUD water account summary (see Chapter

4, Population, Flows and Loads, Commercial Population Projection). It is further assumed that USDA-

RD awards the maximum grant of 45 percent for hardship in this project and matches with a companionloan for the rest of the residential amount. The remainder would come from a low-interest loan fromeither PWTF or DOE SRF. The annual debt service on this package is shown to be approximately$1.3 million for 20 years. Jefferson County would have to guarantee to the funding agencies that thiswould be met.

The funding amounts shown in Table 9-4 are large compared to the resources currently available withinthe funding programs. While the $10.3 million is just over the current PWTF limit, the other programsmay be pressed to commit such large amounts to a single project. Three other potential sources wouldincrease the viability of the project – a federal State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) toward theUSDA-RD portion shown would help ensure the full project could be funded, potential additional fundsor new programs within the State focused on the cleanup of Puget Sound, or possibly a state or federallegislative line item appropriation would leverage the project to viability.

Another approach would be to separate the funding of the treatment portion from the collection system byforming Local Improvement Districts or Utility Local Improvement Districts (LID/ULID) for thecollection system. In this method, the County would apply for funds to complete the general treatmentportion and LID/ULIDs would be formed by area to finance the local collection systems. This isdiscussed in more detail later.

Another approach would be for the County to sell general obligation bonds for the portion of the projectthat is not funded with grants and low-interest loans.

Table 9-5 tests an estimated stream of revenue that would be generated from connection charges to makethe annual debt payments on the above example. The annual debt service would begin at $1,322,000.

The test is to ensure that the sewer capital investment would be self-supporting and the ending balancedoes not drop below zero. In each year, the debt payments and future capital improvements are deductedfrom the connection charge revenue. Additional borrowing is necessary to keep the balance above zerofor future capital improvements with $2 million in 2013 and $8 million in 2018 as shown in Table 9-5Part 1 below.

9-9




9-10

TABLE 9-4.EXAMPLE OF MIXING FUNDING SOURCES

Grant/Loan from USDA-RD + Loanfrom PWTF or DOE 2010 Capital

PROJECT COSTGeneral / Treatment 19,467,183

Collection Core + Al 6,418,200

Subtotal Project 25,885,383

FUNDING SOURCES

Grant: USDA-RDa 6,990,000

Loan: USDA-RDb 8,540,000

Loan: PWTF / DOEc 10,360,000

Annual Debt (4.5%, 20 yrs) 657,000

Annual Debt (2.5%, 20 yrs) 665,000

Est. Annual Debt 1,322,000

a. Grant assumes 60% of customers are residential and maximum45% grant is offered.

b. USDA-RD loan assumes companion to grant for rest of residentialat 4.5% interest for 20 years. These loans may be spread up to 40years.

c. Remainder of project funded by a low-interest loan from eitherPWTF or DOE at an assumed interest rate of 2.5% for 20 years.

TABLE 9-5 PART 1.ESTIMATED REPAYMENT STREAM THROUGH 2018

Est. RepaymentStream 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

New ConnectionERU's 432 70 82 95 111 129 149 174 202

Connection ChargeRevenue 6,519,428 1,061,457 1,234,278 1,435,236 1,668,914 1,940,637 2,256,601 2,624,008 3,051,234

AdditionalBorrowing 2,000,000 8,000,000

Annual DebtPayments:

USDA-RD 20 yrs 657,000

PWTF/DOE 20 yrs 665 ,000 $128,294 $513,177

Total DebtPayments 1,322,000 1,322,000 1,322,000 1,322,000 1,450,294 1,450,

1,450,294 1,450,294 1,450,294294

Future Capital1,337,000 5,346,013 1,398,000 1,357,000 9,445,454Improvements - - -

Ending Balance 5,197,428 4,936,885 3,512,163 27 49

98 396,655 213,368 368,8549,386 8,006 8,348




Table 9-5 Part 2 continues the test results through 2024, with a column for 2025-2030.

This test was carried out for the 20-year sewer planning period and showed that the debt service paymentscould be met, and future capital improvements made with additional borrowing of $500,000 in the finalyear, 2030., The ending balance in 2030 is estimated to be approximately $300,000 that would beprogrammed to buy down outstanding debt, make annual debt payments or set aside for capital reserves.

TABLE 9-5 PART 2.ESTIMATED REPAYMENT STREAM THROUGH 2024 AND 2025-2030

Est. RepaymentStream 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025-2030

New ConnectionERU's 235 273 318 369 430 500 633

Connection ChargeRevenue 3,548,019 4,125,688 4,797,410 5,578,498 6,486,758 7,542,897 9,552,787

AdditionalBorrowing 500,000

Annual DebtPayments: -

USDA-RD 20 yrs -

PWTF/DOE 20 yrs 32,074

Total DebtPayments 1,963,471 1,963,471 1,963,471 1,963,471 1,963,471 1,963,471 11,780,828

Future CapitalImprovements 996,000 361,000 353,000 - - 5,872,000 11,073,000

Ending Balance 957,402 2,758,619 5,239,558 8,854,58513,377,87

213,085,29

7 284,256

STRATEGIES FOR RECOVERING CAPITAL COST FROM USERS

The next piece of the financing puzzle is to develop a strategy for recovering the capital costs from theusers of the new sewer system. Three strategies for repayment are described below and includeconnection charges per connection and usage of the system, formation of a ULID to spread the costsbased on benefit, and Assessed Value of property to spread the costs based on property value.

Strategy 1. Connection Charges for General and Local

Connection charges are paid one time by the property owner in exchange for permission to connect to thesewer system. Under this method, the general and local share would be paid when the customer connectsto the sewer system. Property owners can select their own method of payment; for example, home equityloan, second mortgage, savings, or credit card.

As is shown in Table 9-5, it appears that, as long as connections come in at the anticipated pace, the sewerutility would have sufficient funds to make the debt payments. The risk would be seen if connections didnot keep pace as anticipated and the County would need to loan funds to make the debt payment.

9-11




Strategy 2. Utility Local Improvement District (ULID) for Local + Connection Charges for General

ULID assessments are paid over a number of years when sewer lines come to your neighborhood +connection charges are paid for general costs when connecting to the sewer system. This method spreadsthe local collection system costs among the properties to be served and the general treatment-related costs

will be paid upon connection to the sewer system. This recognizes that the ULID method allows theproperty owners to finance the cost of neighborhood sewer lines over a number of years and still pay thegeneral treatment portion only when connecting. This strategy shares the financial risk between theCounty, the properties served by the sewer system and those connecting to the system.

A ULID would be formed with a boundary drawn around the properties to be served by the localcollection system. All properties would participate and receive an assessment which would be paid over aset period (typically between 10 to 20 years). The assessments cannot exceed the benefit. Bonds can besold for the ULID costs, or could possibly be funded by grants or loans, and the assessments would bestrictly designated for repayment of the bonds.

Strategy 3. Assessed Value (AV) for General and Local

This third method spreads the general and local costs of constructing the sewer system over the value of the property to be served. The property owners would pay annually based on the property value assignedby the Jefferson County Assessor for real estate tax purposes. Undeveloped property would pay muchless than developed property. This method would allow the County to sell bonds backed by the propertyassessments collected specifically to fund the debt repayment.

Jefferson County used this method when establishing the Port Ludlow Drainage District. It is not ascommon to use for sewer systems but could be used to spread the costs across the entire 20-year area if desired. The assessment would be set as a rate per $1,000 of assessed value per year.

COST IMPLICATIONS OF USER RECOVERY STRATEGIES

All three strategies are possibilities for the Irondale/Port Hadlock sewer system. The first two are moretypical for sewer applications. These are compared and described more fully in Table 9-6.

TABLE 9-6.COMPARE USER RECOVERY STRATEGIES

Pay Upon ConnectionWithoutGrant

With Grant(Residential)

1. CONN CHG for GENERAL & LOCAL

Connection Charge per ERU $17,400 $9,570

+ Average On-Site $3,500 $3,500


Pay Local thru ULID & General thruConnection charge

WithoutGrant

With Grant(Residential)

2. ULID FOR LOCAL + CONN CHG FOR GENERAL

Connection Charge per ERU $9,300 $5,115

+ ULID Assessment per ERU $8,100 $4,455

+ Average On-Site $3,500 $3,500


9-12




The examples show the anticipated costs without and with a potential grant. The potential grant isdescribed earlier in the funding example where a maximum 45 percent grant would apply to residentialcustomers. There is no guarantee that this level of grant would be achieved, however USDA-RD willwant to be assured that the grant is benefiting residential customers to make the cost more affordable.

Residential customers are assumed to be 1 ERU per dwelling unit. For commercial customers, the

number of ERU’s is determined by the monthly water usage, where one ERU is equal to 4,000 gallons of water per month.

The first example above with connection charges for general and local results in a connection charge of $17,400 per ERU + average on-site cost of $3,500 for a total estimate of $20,900 without any grantassistance. The $17,400 is calculated to reflect the 20-year general and local costs divided by4,201 ERU’s (the total number of ERU’s forecasted to be connected to the sewer system at the end of the20-year period). Approximately 15 percent was added to reflect the potential cost of financing androunded to the nearest thousand dollars.

If the maximum grant were received from USDA-RD, it is assumed it would apply to the connection feeand likely not to the average on-site cost. The average on-site cost is estimated to be $3,500 per

connection for the gravity system. This will be higher for properties where the house is set farther back from the street, have mature landscaping or paving/walkways that must be disturbed and replaced. Whilea commercial customer may be equal to 3 ERU’s for water and sewer, the on-site cost will not necessarilybe 3 times the average cost.

In the second example above, the general and local costs are separated and spread in different manners,either by connection charge or by ULID assessment. The average on-site cost also applies. The totals arethe same but the timing of payment is very different for the two examples.

WHEN TO PAY FOR SEWER

A major difference between the two strategies has to do with when the customers pay for sewer. Theconnection charges are paid only when connecting to sewer. ULID assessments are filed on all propertiesserved when the sewer lines come to the neighborhood and can be paid annually over a number of years.Table 9-7 illustrates the differences.

Residents or businesses that have recently installed a septic system may prefer the first option of payingonly when connecting to the sewer system. Others may prefer the second alternative because it allows theproperty owner to finance a good portion of their obligation over 10-20 years. The ULID assessment willbe paid in annual installments and filed as a lien on the property, to be paid off when the property is sold.Customers will also have an opportunity to pre-pay the assessment to avoid any interest or financingcosts. The County and community will have detailed discussions of the policy implications of thefinancing alternatives and sewer ordinance prior to making application for grants and loans.

9-13




9-14

TABLE 9-7.COMPARE ALTERNATIVES – WHEN TO PAY FOR SEWER

Residential Commercial

When To Pay For Sewer


+ Pay WhenConnect


+ Pay WhenConnect

1. Conn. Chg. for GENERAL & LOCAL

Pay GENERAL & LOCAL When Connect $9,570 $17,400



2. ULID for LOCAL + Conn. Chg. for GENERAL

Pay LOCAL When ULID Comes to Neighborhood $4,455 $8,100

+ Pay GENERAL upon connection $5,115 $9,300


Est. New Connection $4,455 $8,615 $8,100 $12,800

* Assumes 45% Grant for Residential

CURRENT SEWER EXPANSION EXAMPLES

For those new to sewer systems, these costs likely feel high. For those of us working in the industry, thecosts per connection are reasonable compared to other current examples. Table 9-8 shows three othercurrent examples. As costs for sewer have risen, and as a tool to encourage early connection, some jurisdictions have invited customers to jointly finance on-site costs if connecting early. Thus, in

Table 9-8, there are two columns to the right – comparing General and Local costs or also including on-site costs.

TABLE 9-8.CURRENT SEWER EXPANSION EXAMPLES

Est. Cost to Connect to SewerGeneral +

LocalGeneral + Local

+ On-Site

Pt. Hadlock/Irondale

With Grant (Residential) $9,350 $12,850

Without Grant $17,000 $20,500

Langley $15,558

Ronald WW District $33,000

Bainbridge Island $30,000




9-15

The City of Langley recently decided to fund expansion of the collection system to encourage homes toconnect to the sewer system and increase the ratepayer base supporting the treatment plant. Previously,the collection lines were expanded only by developer extension without sufficient activity. Theconnection charges were increased substantially to reflect this change in policy.

Ronald Wastewater District in King County recently constructed sewer lines for several neighborhoods

with existing homes. An established district, Ronald allows customers to sign installment agreements tofinance their connection fees over time. The District obtained a PWTF low-interest loan and allowed thecustomers to include the on-site costs in the financing if connecting right away.

Bainbridge Island recently filed the final assessments for the South Island Sewer LID. The fundingsource was PWTF low-interest loans. The treatment plant is operated by another jurisdiction thatdeveloped a latecomer agreement to allow the new customers to connect and fund the necessaryimprovements. The assessments ranged from a low of $8,000 for customers not connecting at this time,up to $30,000 for one neighborhood.

As you can see, each project is unique in the details of who owns and operates the treatment plant,collection lines and how the new customers participate and finance the construction. The Port

Hadlock/Irondale sewer project, with its own arrangement of details, will hopefully be able to attract thenecessary financing. These estimates have attempted to average and spread the costs over the 20-yearplanning horizon and anticipated number of connections.

Some may ask why the Port Hadlock/Irondale estimates are so much lower than the other examples? Isthis because we have selected the highest examples? The answer is no, we have selected currentexamples that we have been involved with in a variety of capacities over the past year.

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST – MONTHLY RATES

The engineering cost estimates included ongoing operations and maintenance costs by year to match thephasing of the treatment plant and collection system, and anticipated usage. These estimates were madeon an annual basis. Additional costs were added in this financing portion to reflect the costs of billingand collection, state tax and administration of the sewer utility. Table 9-9 shows the estimated O&MCosts per ERU.

TABLE 9-9.ESTIMATED MONTHLY SEWER RATE

Estimated Monthly Rate For O&M/Admin Costs

O&M per ERU per Mo $50.00

Add Billing/Collection/State Tax/ Administration $10.00

= Estimated Monthly Sewer Rate $60.00

This is the estimated beginning monthly rate for the first several years, to be evaluated for customergrowth, meeting the O&M needs and building a replacement reserve. It is difficult to recommend a sewerrate including full depreciation or full replacement funding on a new system with only a few customers.It is more practical to set the beginning rate to ensure that operating costs can be met with the anticipatedcustomers. As more connections come in those first years, a replacement reserve will begin building.




After five years, a review of the financial plan and rates should be done to ensure the rate is sufficient.This review should include further developing the replacement funding strategy.

DOE’s measure of hardship at 2.0 percent of median household income is $69.44 per month. The test of hardship, however, also includes the capital costs that would be in addition to the monthly rate. The PortHadlock Sewer project would clearly exceed the measure of hardship and make it eligible for potential

grant funding and lower interest rates on loans for the Department of Ecology programs.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

This sewer system will be expensive and financial assistance will be required to help bring the costs downto a more affordable level for the low to moderate income residents of the area, as well as the small localbusinesses. Overall the sewer system should benefit the area by enhancing the local commercialenvironment and protecting the water quality in Chimacum Creek and the shellfish beds in PortTownsend Bay. Additionally, the community has voiced its interest in replacing and potentiallyaugmenting any flows to Chimacum Creek with a high quality reclaimed water source as the area’s septictanks are replaced with sewer pipes.

The “art” of financing will be an important element of implementation of the sewer system. This refers tothe ability to attract financial assistance in a manner that will further the system on behalf of the citizensof the area. The current capital cost estimate is $20,900 per ERU without any grants. This would bereduced to an estimated $13,070 if the maximum 45 percent grant were achieved for residentialcustomers through the USDA-RD grant program. With additional financial assistance, it is hoped thatthis could be further reduced, or certainly for low to moderate income residents and small businesses.There are no guarantees with the “art” of financing.

This capital cost would be in addition to the $60.00 per month per ERU for operations and maintenance.

HOW TO CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD AND REDUCE COSTS

The current cost estimates are not set in stone. As the engineering side moves toward design, further

refinement will result in adjustment to the costs. It is the intention of the estimators in this Sewer FacilityPlan to be reasonably conservative to help ensure that the project can be implemented within the costsoutlined. Upon completion of the Sewer Facility Plan, the County can begin the process of applying forfinancial assistance. Toward this goal, County staff and consultants will:

• Continue to meet with funding program administrators about this project. This work needs tocontinue to ensure that the hoops and trade-offs of the funding programs are recognized.

• Become more familiar with programs and develop alternatives for low-income assistancethrough the USDA-Housing program, the Health Department septic replacement loanprogram and seek to create specific assistance with grant funding.

• Find out more about legislators and opportunities to meet and discuss projects and progress.

Let your federal and state legislators know about the project and how much additional grantassistance would mean to implementing the sewer system.

• Pay attention to the state legislature and DOE programs related to the clean up of PugetSound. Specifically let state legislators know about the timing of this project as an examplefor future funding.

• Discuss and finalize financial policies and methods of distributing costs. Exploreopportunities for O&M savings.

9-16




9-17

• Continue to seek ways to provide incentive and maximize initial participation in the sewersystem.

The implementation phase of the Irondale/Port Hadlock Sewer Project begins with DOE approval of theSewer Facility Plan. Financial assistance and County implementation policies will be significantcomponents of the implementation phase.

POLICY ISSUES FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION

Following are a number of key policy decisions that must be made in the implementation phase of developing the sewer system and ensuring its financial viability. The policies should be discussed anddecisions made prior to applying for funding. These will consider the impact on customers, financialrisks involved for the County and the funding agencies as well.

• Will connection be mandatory when sewer lines come to the neighborhood? This policy isimportant to ensure financial viability of the long-term sewer system and is often preferred byUSDA-RD and potentially other funding agencies.

• Can on-site costs be included in the financing package for those connecting in the first several

months? Depending on the funding scenario, this may or may not be allowable or practicalbut the approach would be to encourage more connections early by allowing the costs to befinanced over time.

• Will customers be allowed to pay connection fees over time? Perhaps this option is held forlow to moderate income property owners that cannot qualify for connection charge assistancewith the USDA-housing program. This would encourage and assist property owners toconnect that may have trouble raising the necessary funds. This is a good example of developing a program to be funded by the Jefferson County Infrastructure Fund.

• How will future capital cost escalation be reflected in the connection charges? There are avariety of ways this can be achieved. One method would be to increase the amount by theinterest rate paid for each year after the loan or bonds are obtained. This policy is anothermethod of encouraging early connection to the system.

• Will multi-family connections be treated any different than single family connections whereeach dwelling unit is equal to 1 ERU? This can be different for connection fees and formonthly rates. Any reductions in one class of customer would be spread among the otherusers.

• Will there be reductions for the monthly rates of senior low-income customers? Anyreductions in one class of customer would be spread among the other users unless there wereto be a contribution from other County funds.



CHAPTER 10.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND OUTREACH

The goal of public involvement and outreach is to inform interested citizens about the project and toprovide opportunities for meaningful involvement in the sewer planning process.

STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP PROCESS

To facilitate local input, four focused stakeholder workshops were held to advise the development of the

sewer facility plan. Jefferson County Commissioners, County staff, local agency staff, and several

community leaders and other interested parties were invited to the workshops. The County identifiedlocal agencies whose facilities might be sewered and/or whose activities might be affected by the

installation or operation of a sewer. The County also identified representatives of business and

community organizations and citizens who had been active previously in the process to establish a UGA.

These parties were contacted by mail. A notice of each workshop was available on the project website,

on Jefferson County’s website, and in the County’s paper of record, the Port Townsend & JeffersonCounty Leader. The workshops were open to the public.

Over the course of the first three stakeholder workshops on March 16, May 25, and June 22, 2006,

workshop participants and the consultant team reviewed and evaluated a comprehensive array of sewer

system alternatives. The workshop participants identified their preferences for each component of the

sewer system, including wastewater collection, treatment, effluent disinfection, effluent discharge/reuse,

and solids handling/reuse. The consultant team used those preferences to help develop the technical

recommendation.

At the fourth workshop on October 10, 2006, the consultant team presented the project cost estimate,

potential financing strategies, and developments and design refinements to the preferred sewer system

alternative. The consultant team took questions and comments and used stakeholder input to identify

concerns to be addressed as development of the sewer facility plan moved forward.

Jefferson County anticipates hosting a fifth stakeholder workshop in Fall 2008 to present the completedsewer facility plan and to discuss next steps in the sewer planning process.

Written summaries of each stakeholder workshop, including questions, comments, and responses, were

made available on the project website and in a project notebook at the Jefferson County Library in Port

Hadlock. Copies of these summaries are included in Appendix B.

PUBLIC MEETINGS

Jefferson County hosted two public meetings (and plans to host a third public meeting in Fall 2008) to

provide information about the development of the sewer facility plan and to facilitate active publicparticipation in the sewer planning process. Informational meeting notices were mailed to property

owners in the sewer planning area, people who had joined the project mailing list, and representatives of

business and community organizations and citizens who had been active previously in the process to

establish a UGA. Notices of public meetings were posted at community locations in the project area

(QFC, Hadlock Building Supply, the Grange, Tri Area Community Center, WSU Extension, and

Jefferson County Library). Notices of public meetings were available on the project website, the

County’s website, and in the County’s paper of record, the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader.

10-1




Each public meeting began with an informal open house period. Large boards were posted around the

room with information about the sewer planning process. Public meeting attendees were encouraged to

view the information and talk with members of the consultant team and County representatives. The open

house period was followed by a presentation by the consultant team and a question and answer period.

Input from the public was used to identify concerns to be addressed as sewer planning moved forward.

At the first public meeting on July 19, 2006, the consultant team presented and responded to questionsabout the alternatives for sewer system components and the rationale, from a technical standpoint, for the

recommended alternative. The consultant team described next steps in the decision-making process and

opportunities for public involvement.

At the second public meeting on October 25, 2006, the consultant team presented information on and

responded to questions about the cost estimate, potential financing strategies, and progress on preliminary

design for the preferred sewer system alternative. The consultant team described next steps in the

decision-making process and opportunities for public involvement.

At a third public meeting to be held in Fall 2008, the consultant team will provide an overview of the final

sewer facility plan and present information about next steps in the sewer planning process. The

consultant team and County representatives will respond to questions and comments from the public.

Written summaries of each public meeting and of public comment and response were made available on

the project website and in a project notebook at the Jefferson County Public Library. Copies of these

summaries are included in Appendix B.

At the request of the Port Hadlock – Tri Area Chamber of Commerce, County representatives and

members of the consultant team provided informational briefings to the Chamber during its regular

meetings on September 26, 2007 and June 25, 2008.

PROJECT WEBSITE

A project website, www.porthadlocksewer.org, was established to make information on the development

of the sewer facility plan available to the public. The website was announced in a June 2006 mailing to

people who had joined the project mailing list and representatives of business and community

organizations and citizens who had been active previously in the process to establish a UGA. The website

was announced in public meeting notices and stakeholder workshop invitations. A link to the project

website was available on the home page and the Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA page of Jefferson

County’s website.

Notices of all public meetings and stakeholder workshops were posted on the website. Written

summaries of each public meeting and stakeholder workshop were available on the project website, as

were PowerPoint presentations used at those meetings. Interested parties were able to sign up for the

project mailing list and submit comments via the website.

A hard copy notebook reflecting current information on the website was available for public review at theJefferson County Library in Port Hadlock.

PROJECT MAILINGS

In addition to the June 2006 mailing that announced the sewer facility plan project and the July 2006 and

October 2006 mailings that announced public meetings, notices were sent in March 2007, June 2007, and

June 2008 to all Irondale/Port Hadlock mailing addresses and other interested parties to report on the

10-2



…10. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND OUTREACH

10-3

status of sewer facility plan development and on next steps in the sewer planning process. E-mail notices

were sent to interested parties who had provided e-mail addresses.

Additional notices will be sent to announce the third public meeting and approval of the final sewer

facility plan.

COMMENT TRACKING AND RESPONSE PROCESS

Members of the public submitted comments in a variety of ways. Stakeholders and members of the

public were invited to ask questions and provide comments at all of the stakeholder workshops and public

meetings. The consultant team and representatives of Jefferson County responded to comments and

questions during those meetings. A summary of public comment and response from each public meeting

was posted on the Frequently Asked Questions page of the project website. Summaries of stakeholder

comment and response were included in the stakeholder workshop summaries, which were available on

the project website.

The consultant team received the comments that were submitted via the website. The consultant team

saved all comments for reference and forwarded the comments to County staff for their records. Some

comments were intended to inform the sewer planning process and did not require a response. Forquestions and comments that did require a response, the consultant team responded by e-mail to simple,

logistical questions. For more substantive comments, members of the project team typically discussed

and agreed upon a response before a County staff member responded by e-mail.

All comments and questions from the public were referenced during sewer facility plan development and

were used to help develop public presentations that were responsive to community concerns.



Jefferson County Department of Public Works


APPENDIX A.

HYDROGEOLOGICAL EVALUATION REPORT

September 2008





APPENDIX B.

PUBLIC OUTREACH – MEETING SUMMARIES

September 2008



Port Hadlock UGA – Sewer Facility Plan

SUMMARYStakeholder Workshop on Collection System Alternatives

(Stakeholder Workshop #1)

March 16, 2006, 10 AM – 12 PM1820 Jefferson Street

Port Townsend, WA 98368-0920

In response to the 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA), Jefferson County pursued the

designation of an Urban Growth Area (UGA) in the Irondale/Port Hadlock area. As part of the

requirements for establishing a UGA, Jefferson County is conducting a study of alternatives for developing a sewer system. There are currently no sewer facilities in the area, and existing

residences and businesses are served by on-site treatment and disposal (septic) systems.

The sewer study will enable the County to identify 1) the final preferred alternative or method of

collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater, 2) the service area, 3) the phasing of

implementation of sewers throughout the service area, 4) the cost for individual connections tosewer, and 5) revenue sources. The goal of the study is to produce a comprehensive sewer planthat will help the County plan for growth in the area over the next 20 years; that will satisfy

RCW 36.94 concerning County’s sewerage, water, and drainage system responsibilities; and that

will be approved by the Department of Ecology.

Workshop Summary

A stakeholder workshop was held at the Jefferson County Courthouse on Thursday, March 16

from 10:00 am to 12:00 pm. The workshop was open to the public.

The purpose of the workshop was to:

• Present collection system alternatives

• Review advantages and drawbacks of each alternative

• Take questions and comments

• Identify preferences for a collection system

Jefferson County Commissioners, County staff, local agency staff, and several key members of

the public were invited to the workshop. The County had identified local agencies whose

facilities might be sewered and/or whose activities might be affected by the installation or operation of a sewer. The County also identified representatives of business and community

organizations and citizens who had been active previously in the process to establish a UGA.

These parties were contacted by telephone. A notice of the workshop was available on the

County’s website and in the Port Townsend Leader.

County Commissioner David Sullivan (District 2) and County Commissioner Pat Rodgers

(District 3) attended the workshop. The consultants to the County were represented by Kevin




2

Dour and Jim Santroch of TetraTech/KCM and Bob Wheeler and Ellen Blair of Triangle

Associates. A complete list of workshop participants is attached to this summary.

Introductions & Workshop Overview

Mr. Wheeler, workshop facilitator, opened the meeting at 10:10 am. He led introductions and

explained the purpose of the workshop. He noted that the sewer study had just begun and that itwas typical to start by identifying a collection system, because the collection system would help

determine the appropriate treatment approach. He explained that sewer planning is a step-wise

process, stressing that the project team understands that the cost component, which will be

developed over the next few months, will be crucial to the community. He noted that the presentation on collection system alternatives would show general cost figures, but that detailed

costs for each Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) had not yet been developed.

Mr. Wheeler reviewed the agenda and requested that the County Commissioner have the first

opportunity to ask questions or comment during the discussion portion of the workshop. Hereviewed the steps that will lead to the selection of a complete sewer system, including publicinvolvement opportunities, technical work, and the development of costs and funding options.

Mr. Wheeler explained that the project team had recently interviewed several local citizens andrepresentatives of local agencies and community organizations to better understand what kind of

public involvement was needed and what kind of information people wanted. He noted that a

key theme that had been repeated in the interviews was that people did not want to participate in

a lot of public process until new, substantive information, especially cost information, wasavailable. People were interested in getting involved once the technical and financial

information started to come together and they could tell how they might be impacted personally.

Mr. Wheeler said that this message led the project team to plan to hold public open houses later

in the sewer study process, but he noted that the stakeholder workshops were intended as a way

to get early input from the community to ensure that the resulting sewer plan would meet thecommunity’s needs.

Collection System Alternatives

Mr. Dour, consultant team project manager, presented the collection system alternatives,reviewed the advantages and drawbacks of each alternative, and identified the short-list of

alternatives still under consideration. His PowerPoint presentation is attached to this summary.Key points of the presentation are summarized below.

Mr. Dour began by reviewing the purpose of sewer planning for the Irondale and Port Hadlock

area. The two main reasons are 1) to plan for expected growth in the area, and 2) to support

economic vitality in the area. Mr. Dour explained that the County is preparing a sewer FacilityPlan, as opposed to any other type of plan, for the following reasons:

• It is required by WAC 173-240 for constructing or modifying wastewater facilities,




3

• It is a prescribed, methodical approach for planning sewer facilities,

• It meets federal funding requirements, and

• It involves the Department of Ecology, which must approve the plan, early in the process.

Mr. Dour used maps in the PowerPoint presentation (and posted on the wall) to show the 6-year

and 20-year sewer planning boundaries that were established according to the GrowthManagement Act (GMA). He explained that the sewer would be constructed in phases during

the 6-year and 20-year planning periods, beginning with the business core. He said that, since it

seemed unreasonable to assume that the outlying areas would get built out all at once, the 20-year planning boundary had been divided into sub-planning areas for planning purposes. He

noted that new developments would need to connect to the sewer.

Mr. Dour described the wastewater collection technologies that had been considered and noted

the advantages and drawbacks of each one. He said the technologies had been analyzed and

narrowed to a short-list. The short-list included:1. Conventional gravity sewers

2. Pressure sewersa. Septic tank effluent pumping (STEP) method in which solids settle out into an on-

site septic tank and liquid is conveyed using a high-pressure pump for treatment(please note: existing septic tanks, which are not designed for use under these

conditions, would most likely be replaced since they often cannot be retrofitted).

b. Grinder pump method in which solids in the raw wastewater are ground within asmall pump chamber by a grinder pump so that the liquids and solids can be

conveyed under pressure to a wastewater treatment plant.

3. A third collection system alternative was also proposed, a combined gravity/pressurizedsystem, with gravity in the central, core portion of the system and pressure (STEP or

grinder) in the outer reaches of the system.

Advantages and Drawbacks of Short-Listed Technologies

Advantages Drawbacks

Conventional Gravity

• Proven reliability • Requires constant downward slope

o Deep sewers for flat terrain

o Intermediate pump stations for hilly

areas

• Lowest operations & maintenance (O&M)

costs

• Highest initial cost (deeper sewers)

• No need for septic tanks or pumps for

individual connections




4

Pressure – STEP

• Low initial cost • Septic tank O&M (ownership agreements

• Smaller sewers that can follow terrain • Pump requirements (electrical connection)

Pressure - Grinder

• Used when terrain doesn’t allow gravity

sewers and septic tanks aren’t desired• Pump requirements (electrical connection,

O&M)

• Pump must pass solids

o More difficult than passing liquid only

o Additional maintenance required

Mr. Dour presented qualitative comparisons of the short-listed collection system technologies.

Qualitative Comparisons of Collection System Technologies

Conventional Gravity Pressure (STEP or Grinder)

Well-suited for high density housing (> 3

houses per acre)Well-suited for low density housing ( 3≤

houses per acre)

Higher up-front cost Lower up-front cost

Lower O&M cost and lower cost for future

connections

Higher O&M cost and higher cost for future

connectionsMore convenient: No tank or pump on private

property

Less convenient: Septic tank and pump on

private property

• Requires dedicated space

• O&M, access for pumping

Greater flexibility: if install gravity in

commercial core, later can install either gravityor pressure sewer in outer areas

Less flexibility: if install pressure sewer in

commercial core, later must install pressuresewer in outer areas

Higher total cost over 20-year planning period Lower total cost over 20-year planning period

System tends to last longer, up to 50 years Systems tend to last for less time; some major system components would likely be replaced

after 20 years

Higher percentage of total cost would be

eligible for grant funding. Gravity has higher up-front capital costs, which are often eligible

for grants.

Lower percentage of total cost would be

eligible for grant funding. Pressure involvescosts for septic tanks and pumps on private

property, which are generally not eligible for

grants.




5

Mr. Dour concluded by presenting planning level estimates for the implementation costs, both by

total cost and by cost per ERU, for a gravity sewer collection system, a pressure sewer collection

system, and a combined sewer system. The costs were broken down by sub-planning area.

Questions & Comments

Workshop participants commented and asked questions during the presentation and during the

discussion period at the end of the workshop. Their comments and questions, as well as the

project team’s responses, are grouped by topic.

Conventional Gravity Sewer Details

Question: What is the actual slope for a gravity sewer?Response (Dour): The slope depends on the diameter of pipe, but a typical minimum slope for an 8 inch sewer is 0.004 feet per foot. When larger pipes are used, the slope can be a little less,

but there is a substantial drop if the pipeline is very long. Of course, it is rare to have a natural

downward slope for the whole course of the sewer.

Question: Generally, what is the topography of the service area?

Response (Dour): Coming south through Irondale, it goes from a high point to a low point with

a change of about 30 or 40 feet. But way at the north end there are low points, although we probably wouldn’t develop a sewer right by Chimacum Creek, where there is a 100 foot drop.

Pressure Sewer Details

Question: I assume at high densities, where it looks like a gravity sewer makes more sense thana pressure sewer, in part because of the number of septic tanks or grinder pumps that would be

required, that you would explore catching the wastewater for multiple homes in one tank or

pump.

Response (Dour): Yes, perhaps.

Question: Maximizing the use of available land is an important part of expanding. Compared

to current septic systems, could more land be used with a pressure system that has a septic tank

or a grinder pump? What would be the impact on a commercial parking lot?Response (Dour): If there is a septic tank in place now, the new septic tank or the grinder pump

could be placed in the same space. The drainage field would no longer need to be protected, sothat land could be used. Also, a parking lot could go over top of an extra strong septic tank

(designed for vehicle loading) or grinder pump system (if installed in a vault).




6

Pressure Sewer, Grinder Details

Question: Would each home have to have its own grinder pump system? Is the grinder pump a

new technology?

Response (Dour): Grinder systems are not particularly new. There would be no solids in a tank

on the property, but, yes, each home would have a grinder pump and electrical connection.

Question: Would existing septic tanks have to be replaced with a grinder pump?

Response (Dour): Yes, existing septic tanks would be replaced.

Question: What happens if the power goes out?

Response (Dour): Usually you would get a high level alarm, which underscores the differinglevels of convenience among the sewer technologies. You would have to call the responsible

agency to come and fix the problem, and you’d have to minimize your water usage in the

interim. And nine times out of ten, it seems these problems happen late at night.

Response (Santroch): There is some storage capacity in the grinder and STEP systems. More

storage capacity could be built in, but that would be more expensive.

Pressure Sewer, STEP Details

Question: Could existing septic tanks be used with a STEP system? Most of them already have pumps.

Response (Dour): The presumption is that existing septic tanks would need to be replaced.

STEP systems involve the use of specialized tanks with integral pump vaults and electricalconnections. It would cost more to retrofit an existing septic tank to make it work according to

electrical codes and design requirements than it would to replace it. Another problem withexisting tanks is that most of them are not watertight. They experience groundwater infiltration,

which is a problem in a pressure system. In our evaluation of collection system alternatives, we

assumed that all septic tanks would need to be replaced for a pressure sewer.

Question: You use concrete tanks don’t you?

Response (Dour): The tanks are concrete, but they have a specialized chamber for the pump.

Question: Assuming you have a working septic tank, could the effluent go into the sewer?

Response (Dour): Theoretically, yes. It’s something that would have to be decided during final

design and negotiated with the sewer agency. Experience shows that only ten percent of currentseptic tanks are usable. STEP tanks are higher quality tanks that are created with a monolithic

pour; they are designed to be watertight so the treatment system doesn’t end up treating

groundwater inflow.

Question: Can multiple buildings be connected to one septic tank?

Response (Dour): For a standard, single family lot, it is normal to plan for each home to have

its own tank and pump. For houses that are relatively far apart, it doesn’t work to connect to thesame tank. For denser development, such as apartments and multi-family housing, one large

tank may be able to serve multiple residences. The main issue is to not overload the tank.




7

If a STEP pressure sewer were implemented, we would look in detail at how buildings would beconnected. Looking at existing STEP pressure sewers, for example in Yelm and Montesano, the

rule of thumb is that single family homes have their own tank.

Sewer System Costs & Funding

Comment: From a property owner standpoint, once the sewer system is in, the value of your home goes up significantly when you’re ready to sell.

Question: Are your cost projections just for collection or do they include treatment also?Would there be a cost savings for treatment when using a STEP system?

Response (Dour): The cost projections are for collection only. Whether or not there is a cost

savings for treatment when using a STEP system depends on the situation. STEP involves lesssolids handling at the treatment plant, but there is decentralized solids handling. I can’t say what

the answer is in a general sense. An answer to this question will be discovered further into thestudy once we have developed an integrated collection, treatment, and disposal system.

Comment: Let people be aware that with a pressure system, property owners have to pay for the

electricity for the pump.

Comment: As a homeowner, I think that whatever system is put in, if people find out that it will

cost them several thousand dollars, they will fear that that the money has to be paid all up front.

I assume the costs will actually be amortized over time.

Response (Wheeler): Correct, and we will analyze what rates would actually be over time.

Question: I assume there may be some grant money available to build a sewer system. Are

there different funding levels based on the different sewer system alternatives?

Response (Wheeler): There are a number of grant sources that we’ll investigate. The member of our team who will research funding options is on the Washington State Public Works Board,

which is a source of low-interest loans. Each different grant source, such as the Centennial

Clean Water Fund, has different criteria. However, usually grants can be applied to public

portions of the sewer, but not for components on private property, such as septic tanks or grinder pumps. So in that regard, there may be some preference for a gravity sewer, which has more of

its costs tied up in public portions of the sewer. However, we still have to do more investigation.

Question: Are the costs of responding to maintenance calls borne by the whole system or by the

individual?

Response (Dour): The Department of Ecology says that it’s all part of the system, so thosecosts go into the rates.

Question: You broke implementation costs down by ERU. For those of us who are businesses

or agencies that use high volumes of water, are there other ways to do the breakdown so we canget a general idea of our potential costs?




9

Cost Methodology

Comment: If you find the total cost, and then use the discount rate to come up with a

discounted number, you’ll have the absolute present value.

Response (Dour): Yes, that’s what we did.

Comment: Earlier you identified that the gravity sewer system is a lot longer-lived than a

pressure system. In comparing the implementation costs of the three alternatives, it appears you

are assuming the same overall service life of each of the three alternatives. It bothers me in away, that it will mislead people into thinking that these systems will last only 20 years.

Response (Dour): That is a good point. Gravity could probably last 50 years. This analysis

looks at a 20 year time span for comparison purposes, because of the 20-year planning boundaryand because septics and pumps have to be replaced after about 20 years.

Pressure sewers can be viewed as a “starter kit” for a sewer system: after 20 years when the areais more densely populated and there are more people to pay, the system can be replaced with a

gravity sewer. It is good to be aware that gravity lasts longer, but pressure may be all that acommunity can afford today. Pressure will work, but people must be aware that it’s a pay-as-

you-go system and it is less convenient because of ongoing maintenance.

Question: If you did a 30- or 40-year timeline, would the STEP lines (implementation costs) be

a lot taller?

Response (Dour): Basically yes. It still comes down to an ability to launch or not.

Environmental Considerations

Comment: I’d like to remind everyone that much effort has gone into caring for Chimacum

Creek over the years. There is a lot of groundwater recharge from septic systems that seems to

be somewhat indicative of a high return flow to the creek. If we are looking at a sewer systemthat will, in effect, take groundwater recharge away, there will be consequences for the creek.

In this vicinity, there seem to be at least two stacked aquifers. The PUD’s belief from testing

over time and working two wells is that very little, if any, of the recharge from septic reaches thelower aquifer, but it’s highly likely, although I’m not a hydrogeologist, that some of the recharge

gets to the upper aquifer. I’m not saying we should use one system over another, but it tells you

that there is an ecological advantage to having septic systems here.

Response (Dour): We do have a geologist on the consultant team, and we are looking at how to

dispose of treated wastewater. Disposal will probably not be an outfall into the bay, and it may be some kind of distribution system, so the sewer system may not necessarily remove the

recharge to groundwater. However, our analysis of disposal options is very preliminary and our

options may change.




10

Water Reuse

Question: Have you thought about separating gray water and wastewater? The state PUD

association is working on that.

Response (Dour): It’s a big topic at the Washington Association of Water and Sewer Districts.

This is not something we have considered at this point in the analysis. We will take a preliminarylook at this option to see if there is any viability.

Question: Does either pressure or gravity have an advantage in separating gray water andwastewater?

Response (Dour): You would have to replumb the house to separate black and gray water. For

pressure, black water would go into the septic tank or grinder, so a pump vault and control panelwould still be necessary. It might mean a smaller septic tank on the property, but in the grand

scheme, with all of the components involved, I don’t see a major cost shift.

For gravity, it could change the ability to convey solids, so it may affect the level of

infrastructure needed. If you were just doing gray water recharge, and there were no costconsiderations, a pressure system would be better.

Question: Is it easier to separate black water from gray water in new construction?

Response (Dour): Yes.

Comment: We need to consider that at this stage, we have the chance to do things from scratch.

In 50 years, plain water will be a precious thing. If we don’t plan to reuse water now, our

descendants will wonder why we didn’t do it right the first time, when the ecological cost of doing things over is high.

Comment: I don’t think gray water is that clean to begin with: we can’t guarantee what’s going

down the gray water system. If we’re doing treatment, we might as well treat gray water, too,

and then let it infiltrate.

Comment: I agree, but reclamation has to be part of the plan from the beginning.

Response (Santroch): To be honest, disposal via an outfall seems unlikely, so we will be

looking at alternative methods of disposing of treated water, such as infiltration.

Implementation of Sewer Plan

Question: I have a 25-year old septic system, and many other people are similar. What is its

life expectancy?

Response (Dour): It is probably in its golden years.

Question: If you live in an outlying area and your septic fails next year, what should you do?

Response (Dour): You would need to replace the septic system. But this is getting ahead of where we are, down to how a sewer system would be implemented. There are policies that

would need to be in place. For example, maybe if the sewer line is adjacent to your home, you




12

Comment: The Olympia example demonstrates that gravity provides more flexibility than

STEP. STEP is affecting Olympia’s ability to grow.

Comment: I, Mike Regan, representing Irondale Community Action Neighbors, would like to

say that the gravity system seems preferable by far, even without seeing the 50-year cost

projection. This discussion seems to say for many reasons that gravity has more advantages.One important thing is that with gravity the cost to the individual of putting in tanks, pumps, etc.

is smaller, especially since those are costs that grants won’t cover.

Comment: I would like to courteously disagree that a combined system is best. It is a case of

pay me now for gravity, or pay me twice for pressure, and the next time comes soon. I would

also reinforce the comments about reuse or gray water reuse. I would hope a good part of theconsultants’ analysis is on reuse. There seems to be a growing consensus for ecology and health

that we need reuse. There is a big, untapped Saudi Arabia of water in once-used water. Now

may not be the best time, because the consensus may not be strong enough yet, but theconsultants need to keep alert to that movement.

Comment: Since the PUD may very well operate the sewer system, we need to try to think hard

about the total out-of-pocket cost each month, including power costs, considering our public.The locality doesn’t have control over outside power coming in.

Action Item

Several workshop participants urged the consultant to prepare a 50-year cost estimate for thethree collection system alternatives, noting that it would show that gravity was a better value in

the long term. The consultant agreed to do so.

Next Steps and Wrap Up

Mr. Wheeler encouraged all of the workshop participants to sign the sign-in sheet and to indicate

whether they wanted to receive periodic project updates. He noted that another stakeholder

workshop would be held in about two months. In response to a request, Mr. Dour agreed to sendthe PowerPoint presentation to Frank Gifford, the Jefferson County Director of Public Works,

who would distribute it to interested parties. Commissioner David Sullivan thanked the participants for attending, noting that their perspectives were helpful.

Mr. Wheeler adjourned the workshop at 12:10 pm.

ACTION ITEM: The consultant will prepare a 50-year cost projection to compare

the three collection system alternatives.




SUMMARYStakeholder Workshop on Treatment and Discharge


May 25, 2006, 1 PM – 3 PM1820 Jefferson Street

Port Townsend, WA 98368-0920

In response to the 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA), Jefferson County pursued thedesignation of an Urban Growth Area (UGA) in the Irondale/Port Hadlock area. As part of therequirements for establishing a UGA, Jefferson County is conducting a study of alternatives for developing a sewer system. There are currently no sewer facilities in the area, and existingresidences and businesses are served by on-site treatment and disposal (septic) systems.

The sewer study will enable the County to identify 1) the final preferred alternative or method of collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater, 2) the service area, 3) the phasing of

implementation of sewers throughout the service area, 4) the cost for individual connections tosewer, and 5) revenue sources. The goal of the study is to produce a comprehensive sewer planthat will help the County plan for growth in the area over the next 20 years; that will satisfyRCW 36.94 concerning County’s sewerage, water, and drainage system responsibilities; and thatwill be approved by the Department of Ecology.

Workshop Summary

A stakeholder workshop was held at the Jefferson County Courthouse on Thursday, May 25from 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm. The workshop was open to the public.


• Present discharge and treatment alternatives



• Identify preferences for a discharge system and a treatment system

Jefferson County Commissioners, County staff, local agency staff, and several communityleaders were invited to the workshop. The County had identified local agencies whose facilitiesmight be sewered and/or whose activities might be affected by the installation or operation of asewer. The County also identified representatives of business and community organizations andcitizens who had been active previously in the process to establish a UGA. These parties werecontacted by mail. A notice of the workshop was available on the project website(www.porthadlocksewer.org), the County’s website, and in the Port Townsend Leader.

County Commissioner David Sullivan (District 2) attended the workshop. The consultants to theCounty were represented by Kevin Dour, P.E. and Jim Santroch, P.E. of TetraTech/KCM and




3

Attendees had asked about the feasibility of separating gray water out before it entered the sewer system. Mr. Dour reported that key points on gray water separation included:

• Less water in the sewer system impacts system design parameters. For example, mostgravity collection systems are designed for a certain amount of water to wash solids down

the pipes. Removing gray water might generate a need to build steeper gravity collection pipes in order to keep solids moving, which would need to be constructed deeper and thuscost more.

• Plumbing retrofits would be required in existing homes in order to separate gray water from black water systems (water from toilets).

• Sending gray water to a wastewater treatment plant for treatment could help prevent graywater from possibly degrading groundwater supplies.

• A septic tank and drainfield would need to be maintained for gray water separation.

• Gray water separation as a means to recharge groundwater may be redundant if land-baseddisposal is selected for the treated plant effluent.

Discharge Alternatives

Mr. Dour presented the discharge alternatives for the Port Hadlock UGA sewer system, reviewedthe advantages and drawbacks of each alternative, and identified the short-list of alternatives thatwere still under consideration. Key points of the presentation are summarized below.

Mr. Dour explained that there were two basic types of discharge: marine outfall and land-basedapplication. He reiterated that the discharge method would determine the level of wastewater treatment required. He said that for a marine outfall, secondary wastewater treatment wassometimes acceptable, although regulators could require advanced (tertiary) treatment depending

on the circumstances. He said advanced treatment was almost always required for land-baseddisposal.

Mr. Dour described the discharge alternatives that had been considered and noted the advantagesand drawbacks of each one. He said the alternatives had been reviewed and narrowed to aninitial short-list for further evaluation. He noted that a key consideration for land-based disposaloptions was the rate at which effluent could be applied, and therefore the amount of landrequired. He also explained that each option may require a certain amount of wastewater storagecapacity as a precaution for wet weather storage, depending upon the acceptance rate of the soil.The short-list of alternatives included:

1. Marine outfall2. Irrigation at agronomic rates

a. Irrigation at agronomic rates entails applying a level of effluent such that the plantcover can use all of the water and metabolize all of the nutrients.

3. Groundwater recharge: slow-rate infiltrationa. Not an agronomic rate – the ground is used as a means of disposal b. Effluent is applied at a rate that allows it to percolate through the soil lens before

entering groundwater




4

c. Effluent can be applied at the surface or subsurface. Subsurface application may be considered due to site considerations such as ponding potential, therebyminimizing potential for human contact. If effluent is applied subsurface, for example six inches underground, a higher level of treatment is required.

4. Groundwater recharge: rapid-rate infiltration

a.

Effluent disposal in leaky bottom ponds similar to stormwater ponds. b. Effluent is applied at a rate that allows it to percolate through the soil lens beforeentering groundwater

5. Constructed wetlandsa. Plants use nitrogen as effluent moves through wetland b. Water used for habitatc. Outflow can go into rapid infiltration ponds or straight into a stream or other

water bodyd. This method often used for polishing rather than treatment

Advantages and Drawbacks of Short-Listed Discharge Alternatives


Marine Outfall

• Less storage required

• Reliability during wet season

• Less land required

• Creates shellfish closure zone/mightimpact use of public beaches

• Habitat impacts to marine environment

• Additional studies would be required

• Regulatory requirements may become

stricter over time/getting permit isuncertain

• Public acceptance

Irrigation at Agronomic Rates

• Fewest regulatory issues

• Range of uses (forests, grasses, crops)

• Can be implemented in or near sewer planning area

• Largest land area required

• Effluent must be stored during wet months

• Largest storage area required

• Potential for human contact with effluent

Slow-Rate Infiltration

• Minimizes potential for human contactwith effluent

• Provides groundwater recharge

• Relatively large land area required• Regulatory considerations (sub-surface

spreading vs. surface spreading, aquifer protection)

Rapid Infiltration

• Least land area required for land-based • Regulatory considerations (aquifer




5


disposal

• Least expensive approach

• Provides groundwater recharge

protection)


• Wildlife habitat/public benefit

• Works in association with recharge

• Provides additional treatment of treatment plant effluent

• Moderate amount of land required

• Creates mosquito habitat

• Regulatory considerations (wetlands,aquifer protection)

Mr. Dour reviewed a table of estimated hydraulic application rates in gallons per day per squarefoot (gpd/sf), land required in acres, and storage required in millions of gallons (mgal) for each

land application alternative. He explained that irrigation at agronomic rates was probably notfeasible in the project area because it required an estimated 230 acres for discharge and 210 mgalof storage. Mr. Dour showed the potential land-based disposal sites on a map. He observed thatirrigating HJ Carroll Park would use only a fraction (about one quarter) of the expected volumeof effluent, which illustrated that the irrigation alternative would have to be used in conjunctionwith another method of disposal.

Mr. Dour then reviewed a chart of estimated, planning level costs for each disposal alternative.The estimated costs were broken down to show cumulative cost at each phase.

Mr. Dour summed up the following technical perspectives about the discharge options:

• Marine outfall: The estimated cost of a marine outfall is relatively low, but technical andshellfish issues could make it difficult to get approved

• Irrigation: The high cost of the irrigation alternative is driven by the need for a lot of land

• Slow-rate infiltration: Cost-effective and approvable with appropriate level of treatment

• Rapid-rate infiltration: Lowest cost and most likely approvable

• Constructed wetlands: High initial costs and expensive ongoing maintenance over time

Mr. Dour explained that, from a technical perspective, the engineering team viewed slow-rateinfiltration and rapid-rate infiltration as the two best discharge options to continue to explore. Henoted that rapid-rate infiltration was currently the most popular discharge method in Western

Washington.

Treatment Alternatives

Referring to a diagram in the PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Santroch provided a brief overviewof the wastewater treatment process, including secondary and advanced treatment and classes of disinfection (Classes A, B, and C). His PowerPoint presentation is attached to this summary. He




6

noted that advanced treatment did not produce effluent of drinking water quality. He said thatwhere water shortages existed, such as in California and Arizona, treatment plant effluent fromadvanced processes was stored for a year and then applied to groundwater before it was pulledout for consumption. He said that advanced effluent with Class A disinfection was, however,designated as public contact water and could be used on golf courses and in swimming lakes.

Mr. Santroch reiterated the point that the discharge method selected would determine the level of treatment required. He reviewed a table that correlated the discharge options that had been presented with the level of treatment that each required, either secondary or advanced.Advanced treatment was required for both of the discharge alternatives that the engineering teamthought were viable, slow-rate infiltration and rapid-rate infiltration. Mr. Santroch noted thatadvanced treatment would likely be required by the permitting agencies for a marine outfall aswell, because of shellfish issues.

Mr. Santroch described the treatment alternatives that had been considered and noted theadvantages and drawbacks of each one. He said a key consideration was the ability to build the

treatment system in phases, since the system would be expanded as demand grew over time. Hesaid the alternatives had been reviewed and narrowed to an initial short-list for further evaluation. The short-list consisted of advanced treatment options and included:

1. Oxidation ditch & filter 2. Sequencing batch reactor & filter (SBR)3. Membrane treatment (the newest technology)

Advantages and Drawbacks of Short-Listed Discharge Alternatives


Oxidation Ditch & Filter

• Tried and true

• Moderate cost

• More difficult to phase

• High initial costs

• Good, but not best, effluent quality

Sequencing Batch Reactor & Filter

• Moderate cost

• Relatively easy to phase

• Good, but not best, effluent quality

Membrane Treatment

• Best effluent qualityo Removes trace organic materialo Thought to be best at removing

pharmaceuticals

• Easiest to phase

• Higher cost




8

Membrane treatment

• Comparable to SBR – can build 1/4 or 1/8 of 2030 capacity at start

• System is composed of basic boxes that are always useful at a treatment plant

• Question is how small to build the initial modules so that it makes sense to add on later

Cost Estimates

Mr. Santroch reviewed a chart of estimated costs for the three treatment technologies. The costswere broken down to show cumulative cost at each phase. He pointed out that the oxidationditch and filter technology could be cost effective if much of the long-term capacity needed were built upfront. However, he said it could be difficult to launch when starting with no sewer system in place because of the high upfront costs.

The estimated costs for the membrane system were the highest. Mr. Santroch noted that sincethe technology was new, the industry had not settled out yet, so the actual costs could be a bithigher than shown. He explained that the membranes have to be replaced every 7-10 years and

that the technology uses 50% more energy than the other options because of the energy to cleanthe membranes.

Technical Perspectives

Mr. Santroch reviewed a table of criteria including qualitative and cost differences used tocompare the three wastewater treatment technologies. He highlighted the inherent uncertaintyabout whether regulators would require effluent quality studies for any of the technologies andabout which technologies could win regulatory approval. He said that one challenge of sewer planning was to balance effluent quality, regulatory requirements, and costs. He said that the project team would meet with a representative of the Department of Ecology in June to learn

more about the treatment technologies considered appropriate for the Port Hadlock area.

Mr. Santroch summed up the following technical perspectives about the treatment options:

• Oxidation ditch & filter: Good effluent quality but difficult to phase and high initial costs

• Sequencing batch reactor & filter: Good effluent quality and easy to phase

• Membrane treatment: Best effluent quality, easy to phase, but potentially high cost

Mr. Santroch explained that, from a technical perspective, the engineering team viewedmembrane treatment as the most viable alternative based on its excellent effluent quality andease of phasing. He said that the less costly sequencing batch reaction & filter alternative was

considered potentially viable, but that the team would need to investigate whether its effluentquality was acceptable to regulators and the community. He said that the oxidation ditch & filter alternative would be very difficult to launch unless a source of funding could be found for theupfront cost.




9

Disinfection

Mr. Santroch briefly described the alternative methods for disinfecting wastewater effluent, arequired element of the advanced treatment process. The two short-listed alternatives under consideration were:

• Liquid sodium hypochlorite (chlorine)

• Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection

Mr. Santroch said that UV disinfection was required for marine outfall disposal but not for landapplication. He said that the engineering team favored the less costly liquid sodium hypochloritealternative. Additionally, a chlorine residual would be required should treatment plant effluent be used for beneficial reuse such as irrigation.

Solids Disposal

Mr. Santroch provided a brief overview of the options for solids disposal and said the topicwould be addressed in more detail at the next workshop. He said that the Port TownsendBiosolids/Composting Facility seemed to be a good candidate site for disposing of solids. Other options included hauling solids to sites in Mason County, Kitsap County, or King County, or applying the solids to forestland.

Treatment Plant Siting Considerations

Mr. Santroch described the considerations that went into siting a treatment plant. These includedodors, aesthetics, costs, and space for buffer zones. He said that siting was sometimes acontentious process and that the project team was carefully considering ways to minimize the

impact of a treatment system to the community. He explained that odors and noise could becontrolled and the facility’s appearance could be integrated with the surrounding area, but thatodor and aesthetic mitigation could add 20% to 100% to the cost of the treatment plant. Henoted that sites closer to developed areas required more mitigation. He explained that theultimate decision about odor and aesthetic mitigation would be determined by community preference and cost.


Workshop participants commented and asked questions during the presentation and during the

discussion period at the end of the workshop. Their comments and questions, as well as the project team’s responses, are grouped by topic below.

Disposal Alternatives

Question: Did you consider using the Indian Island marine outfall for disposal?




10

Response (Dour): We did not look closely at that option because of the extremely high cost to pump effluent to Indian Island. Also, the Indian Island outfall is permitted for a certain volumeof effluent, and it might need to be re-permitted to accommodate additional flow from PortHadlock. Alternatively, the permit might limit the amount of effluent that the Port Hadlock UGA sewer facility would be able to produce.

Question: Did you consider the impact of the Indian Island outfall on the ability to site a newmarine outfall?Response (Dour): It would be necessary to conduct many studies to determine the potentialimpact of the Indian Island outfall. In particular, the existing fecal coliform count in PortTownsend bay attributable to the Indian Island outfall might impact the size of the shellfishclosure zone required for a new Port Hadlock outfall.

Question: Are these fecal coliform exposure levels a problem for the shellfish or for the peoplewho consume the shellfish?Response (Dour): My understanding is that the risk is to humans who consume shellfish. If the

contaminant is removed from the environment, the shellfish will eventually metabolize thecontaminants that remain in their bodies.

Question: How recently has an outfall been permitted in Puget Sound?Response (Santroch): I’m not certain, but the regulatory community has been raising the bar for approval of small systems like this one. It was very difficult for Vashon Island to get permission to extend an existing outfall, and Island County chose not to explore a marine outfallfor its new treatment plant because it considered approval extremely unlikely. However, theregulatory community has been less strict about siting new marine outfalls in south Puget Sound.

Question: If tertiary treatment were used, would a marine outfall still cause shellfish issues?Response (Dour): Yes, although as shown on the map, the shellfish closure zone would presumably be smaller with tertiary rather than secondary treatment. Permitting could still be achallenge even with tertiary treatment.

Question: Will tertiary treatment be necessary regardless of the disposal option selected?Response (Dour): We believe that is the case.

Comment: I would like to see further consideration of the marine outfall disposal option. Itseems like a potentially viable, lower cost alternative.Response (Dour): If there is interest, we will look into it further.Response (Santroch): I would caution that, although a marine outfall is the traditionaldischarge method, the engineering team thinks it is an unlikely option for this project because of the need for a shellfish closure zone. A Department of Health official indicated to us that amarine outfall could potentially be permitted, but that with the most advanced membranetreatment plant a shellfish closure zone with a minimum radius of 900 feet would be required andthat extensive studies would be required to determine the impacts.




11

Question: Have you looked at combinations of disposal options, such as slow-rate infiltrationcombined with constructed wetlands? Wetlands are of strategic importance to the EPA, soincluding wetlands may open up some federal funding.Response (Dour): We have not considered that, although it might be possible. We will haveour financial specialist look into that kind of funding.

Disposal – Recharge/Reuse Issues

Question: Have you looked at the direction of groundwater flow?Response (Santroch): We will look at that more closely as we move forward.

Comment: If disposal were at the site near the elementary school and airstrip, the effluentwould flow away from Chimacum Creek rather than providing recharge.Response (Wheeler): As we understand it, discharge from that site would flow in the directionof the creek. If that site were selected, we would investigate the issue further.

Comment: Recharge is very important. We need to put as much clean water back in the groundas possible. A study by the U.S. Geological Survey showed groundwater flow from the east sideof Chimacum Creek towards the bay, so I am very concerned that discharge east of the creek would not recharge the creek.Response (Dour): We will investigate that further.

Comment: The potential disposal site near Cotton Redi-Mix is only a few feet higher than thecreek and the wetlands adjacent to the creek. The selection of a disposal site will depend on theresults of specific hydrogeological studies.

Question: How do areas with gravel lenses that accept water very quickly influence the level of treatment that is required? Do some areas accept water so quickly that they cannot be used for discharge?Response (Dour): Either those areas cannot be used or the effluent must be treated to a veryadvanced degree.Response (Santroch): The question of how quickly to allow effluent into the ground isimportant. It will be addressed at our meeting with the Department of Ecology in June. Water reuse is still relatively new in Washington. It was approved in 1997 and there have been roughly6-10 projects in the state. The regulations are still evolving, so there is a lot of room for negotiation with regulators. We recently did a disposal study for Island County where the soil istight, glacial till that accepts water slowly. In that instance, rapid-rate infiltration was notfeasible, but slow-rate infiltration was a good option. Here in the Irondale/Port Hadlock area,rapid-rate infiltration is being considered because of the high acceptance rate of the soil, but theregulatory community will ultimately determine what is acceptable.

Question: Can you discharge membrane-treated effluent to a lake?Response (Santroch): Discharging to a lake is possible with very advanced treatmentrequirements, but such an approach is unlikely due to environmental, regulatory, and costconcerns.




12

Question: Could the County buy a lake, like Peterson Lake at the headwaters of ChimacumCreek, and discharge to the lake to recharge the creek?Response (Santroch): Peterson Lake is uphill and far from the sewer planning area, so the costof the sewer system would increase. Discharging effluent would promote eutrophication of thelake, because some amount of nitrogen and phosphorous will be present. It is possible to remove

all of those nutrients, but it is expensive.

Comment: For disposal siting, it may be important to take existing and potential future wellsinto account.

Comment: If there are levels of toxics that are not detectable, but can still be harmful, maybe its best to move discharge away from drinking water sources. Perhaps a marine outfall is a better option.Response (Dour): Right now, the septic tanks in the area discharging out of drainfields togroundwater. The treatment technologies proposed here would remove more toxics than areremoved now.

Comment: Even if more toxics are removed, the speed at which infiltration would occur is animportant factor to consider.

Comment: John Cambalik at the Puget Sound Action Team has some data about the effect of septage on water quality in Port Hadlock.Response (Dour): That kind of information could improve our ability to get funding. We willtry to get it from him.


Question: Does membrane treatment technology produce drinking water?Response (Santroch): The kind of membrane technology used for sewage treatment does not produce drinking water-quality effluent. Membrane technology is used in drinking water treatment, but nobody goes straight from wastewater treatment to drinking water, as far as Iknow.

Question: What kind of treatment removes pharmaceuticals from wastewater?Response (Santroch): That is a cutting edge question. There are no definitive answers yet, butmembrane technology is thought to do a better job of removing pharmaceuticals than other technologies. Membrane technology is very much in favor with regulatory agencies because itremoves trace organic material and pathogenic bacteria.

Question: You said that the oxidation ditch & filter alternative worked well for small treatmentsystems. Can you quantify small?Response (Santroch): That technology can handle an upper limit of about 5 million gallons per day (MGD).

Question: Where has phased construction of a treatment plant been done successfully? Wherehas a treatment plant started small and expanded to a target size?




13

Response (Santroch): The engineer has to design the system to be easy to expand. Existingtreatment plants that can be expanded are between 10 and 15 years old, so they haven’t had toexpand yet. Kingston has a system that is similar to the kind proposed here. Also, in a UGAsimilar to the one here, Thurston County put in a single oxidation ditch and two clarifiers. TheCounty fronted the cost for the excess capacity, which is being paid off by latecomers. In

another location, two ditches and two clarifiers were installed, but the regulatory community paid for the redundant set because they were nervous about the risks of having only onetreatment path. I don’t know of any SBR systems that have had to expand yet.

Question: If we started with SBR, and the membrane technology became preferred over time,could we mix and match the technologies?Response (Santroch): Yes. The deep square tanks that are used with SBR and membranetechnologies are always useful in a treatment plant setting.

Question: Would it be feasible to start with a small membrane system with a cost of $5-6million?

Response (Santroch): Yes, absolutely. It’s just a matter of how large the tanks are and howmany you will need in the end. The largest standard membrane tank size handles 100,000gallons per day. Some tanks are steel, and the bigger ones are concrete. If you wanted, youcould build a treatment facility over time with many small steel tanks that would need to bereplaced in 20 years.

Question: Is ozone an option for disinfection?Response (Santroch): Ozone was used around 1980, but it did not work well. The energy costsare high, and ozone is an unstable, reactive, and dangerous substance.Response (Wheeler): Ozone disinfection is used in potable water systems and fish hatcheries.The costs and practicalities simply have not worked well with sewage treatment.

Question: Does membrane treatment control odor better?Response (Santroch): The risk of odor is equivalent for all three technologies.

Population & Flow Rate Projections

Question: What percentage rate did the County use for its population projections?Response (Santroch): I’m not sure exactly, but it’s a couple of percent. It’s the County’s GMA projection figure.

Question: Why do you expect groundwater to leak into the sewer pipes?Response (Santroch): Infiltration is a common phenomenon. Pipe joints, manhole lids, andother components leak. Pipes underneath people’s houses leak.Response (Wheeler): We have assumed some level of infiltration and inflow. Inflow can befrom illegal hook-ups from roof drains, for example, or from a maintenance hole that is too low.As good as the engineering standards are these days, infiltration and inflow still happens.

Question: What happens in an area that doesn’t have a stormwater system?




14

Response (Wheeler): Inspectors don’t know what happens on private property sometimes.Some people will have stormwater problems, and they may dump in the sewer.Response (Santroch): The good news is that current water use in the core planning area isapproximately 50,000 gallons per day and we wouldn’t expect to see 95,000 gallons per day because of infiltration and inflow during the first rainy season. Sewers deteriorate over time. If

your system is tight, you might need a smaller treatment facility. In addition, our numbers are based on the assumption that the sewer lines are in the groundwater area. But our hydrogeologistsaid that the water table here is relatively low, so our flow estimates may be too conservative.There is a fair chance that the flow would not reach the high end of our estimates, but if we makethat assumption, there is a risk of building the treatment plant too small. It is also uncertain howquickly this community will grow.

Question: Who is your hydrogeologist?Response (Santroch): Arnie Sugar with HWA is on our team.

Question: Many municipalities have problems with combined sewer overflows. How will that

be dealt with here?Response (Santroch): This is not a combined system; it does not include stormwater.Question: What about the influence of infiltration and inflow?Response (Santroch): We have increased our estimates of treatment plant capacity by a factor of about two to account for infiltration and inflow. In a combined system, that could be a factor of four or five. This will be a sanitary system in Port Hadlock.Response (Wheeler): Although a few people will probably put stormwater into the sewer illegally, it will not happen throughout the whole system. Usually this kind of a system does notexperience combined system overflows. Over time, however, infiltration and inflow problemsmight develop.

Comment: The Port Hadlock UGA stormwater plan is based on a minimal need to managestormwater because the soils absorb so well. That is not to say that problem areas don’t exist or that they won’t increase as impervious surface area increases.

Comment: I’m concerned about creating a surface water problem because water is being lost tothe sewer pipes.Response (Santroch): The amount of water that infiltrates is a tiny fraction; it’s to about thefourth decimal place.

Question: Is there a risk of wastewater leaking out of pressurized pipes into the ground?Response (Santroch): Yes, that is a risk. It should be noted that public pipes tend to leak muchless than pipes on private property.


Mr. Wheeler stated that the attendees seemed to prefer the two infiltration options for disposal,with some interest in a marine outfall. He said that the attendees also seemed to agree that themembrane technology was of interest for treatment, but that the sequencing batch reactor & filter




15

alternative should be further explored. The attendees agreed that these were their preferences.One participant said that the oxidation ditch & filter treatment alternative would be of interest if someone would front the cost.

Mr. Wheeler noted that the next stakeholder workshop that would focus on combined

alternatives of wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal would be held on June 22.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:10 pm.

Workshop Attendance

The stakeholder workshop was attended by County Commissioner David Sullivan (District 2).Additional attendees are listed below.

Name Affiliation

Nancy Dorgan CitizenCraig Durgan CitizenJohn Fischbach Jefferson County, County Administrator Frank Gifford Jefferson County, Public WorksAlan Goodwin Citizens for the UGA/Community United Methodist ChurchElaine Goodwin Citizens for the UGA/Community United Methodist ChurchPaula Mackrow North Olympic Salmon CoalitionJim Parker Jefferson PUD #1Jim Pivarnik Port of Port TownsendMike Regan Irondale Community Action NeighborsRay Serebrin Jefferson County Library

Jim Strong Hadlock Building SupplyTroy Summerill Inn at Port Hadlock

Consultant Team Staff in Attendance

TetraTech/KCM

Kevin Dour, Project Manager; Jim Santroch, Senior Project Engineer – Treatment

Triangle Associates, Inc.

Bob Wheeler, Facilitator; Ellen Blair, Public Involvement Support




SUMMARYPublic Workshop on Alternatives Review

(Public Workshop #3)

June 22, 2006, 1 PM – 3 PMPort Townsend Fire Station

701 Harrison StreetPort Townsend, WA 98368-6519



collection, treatment, and disposal/reuse of wastewater, 2) the service area, 3) the phasing andimplementation of sewers throughout the service area, 4) the anticipated cost for individualconnections to sewer, and 5) revenue sources. The goal of the study is to produce a sewer facilities plan that will help the County plan for growth in the area over the next 20 years; thatwill satisfy RCW 36.94 concerning County’s sewerage, water, and drainage systemresponsibilities; and that will be approved by the Department of Ecology.

Workshop Summary

A public workshop was held at the Port Townsend Fire Station on Thursday, June 22 from 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm. The workshop was open to the public.


• Present combined system alternatives


• Present technical recommendations


• Decide preferred alternative

Jefferson County Commissioners, County staff, local agency staff, and several community

leaders and other interested parties were invited to the workshop. The County had identifiedlocal agencies whose facilities might be sewered and/or whose activities might be affected by theinstallation or operation of a sewer. The County also identified representatives of business andcommunity organizations and citizens who had been active previously in the process to establisha UGA. These parties were contacted by mail. A notice of the workshop was available on the project website (www.porthadlocksewer.org), the County’s website, and in the Port TownsendLeader.




2

County Commissioner David Sullivan (District 2) and County Commissioner Pat Rodgers(District 3) attended the workshop. The consultants to the County were represented by KevinDour, P.E. and Jim Santroch, P.E. of TetraTech/KCM and Bob Wheeler and Ellen Blair of Triangle Associates. A complete list of workshop participants is attached to this summary.


Mr. Wheeler, workshop facilitator, opened the meeting at 1:10 pm. He led introductions andexplained the purpose of the workshop. He reviewed the workshop agenda and the steps thatwould lead to selection of a complete sewer system, including public involvement opportunities,technical work, and the development of cost estimates and funding options.

Mr. Wheeler announced that project information could be found and comments could besubmitted at the project website, www.porthadlocksewer.org.

Overview of Recent Developments

Mr. Dour, consultant team project manager, indicated the sewer service area boundaries on amap, including the 6-year planning area, or core area, and the 20-year planning area. HisPowerPoint presentation is attached to this summary. He then reported on new developments for issues that were raised at the previous public workshop on May 25.

• Hydrogeology – Groundwater & Creek Flows

Mr. Dour reviewed a question about the potential contribution of land-based effluentdisposal/reuse to the recharge of Chimacum Creek. The consultant team had done a rough

calculation with available data to estimate the order of magnitude of creek recharge. Theteam found that with the estimated number of initial sewer participants in 2010, land-baseddisposal/reuse might contribute 0.5% of the creek’s flow on average, and up to 1% duringlow flows. In 2030, assuming full participating in the sewer system, land-baseddisposal/reuse could contribute 10% of creek flow on average, and up to 20% during thelowest flows.

• Ecology Meeting – Marine Outfall & Project Teaming

As announced at the previous public workshop on May 25, the project team met with arepresentative of the Department of Ecology on June 13. Mr. Dour reported that the projectteam had learned that Department of Ecology policy stipulates that no marine outfall may be

permitted if a reasonably viable alternative exists for disposal of treated effluent. Mr. Dour said that since viable land-based disposal/reuse methods existed, a marine outfall was nolonger under consideration. He said the project team and the Department of Ecologyrepresentative had identified methods of coordination to ensure the most efficient andsuccessful development of the sewer facilities plan.

• Phasing – Initial Treatment Systems




3

Mr. Dour said that in response to stakeholder interest in using small, skid-mounted starter treatment plants to minimize sewer start-up costs, further investigation had been done and ithad shown that such starter treatment plants would provide adequate capacity for only two or three years. The consultant team thought it more prudent to build a permanent facility of adequate size at the outset that would be of service longer and can be expanded to

accommodate future phases of sewer system development.

• Treatment Cost – Refinements

Mr. Dour said that further investigation, research, and detailed cost estimating had shownthat membrane bioreactor (MBR) treatment likely would be no more than 20% more costlythat sequencing batch reactor & filter (SBR) treatment, in contrast to the 20 – 100% rangethat had been reported at the May 25 workshop.

• Solids Disposal Costs – Contract Disposal

Mr. Dour reported that the Port Townsend composting facility had been posited as the most promising option for solids disposal at the May 25 workshop. He said that further

investigation had shown that contract disposal with a company called Biorecycle appeared to be the most economical option, and, at least at the onset, substantially less costly than thePort Townsend composting facility option.

Development of Recommended Alternative from Technical Perspective

Mr. Dour reviewed the technical perspectives on collection and discharge that had been presented at the previous public workshop. He explained that, from a technical perspective, theconsultant team now preferred the gravity collection system to the pressure collection system, atleast at the outset in the core area. He said that while gravity entailed somewhat higher start-up

costs, the total cost of a pressure system would be more after eight to ten years (including capitalcosts, on-site costs, and operations & maintenance costs). He noted that by starting with gravity,the community would have flexibility in choosing between gravity and pressure in the outlyingareas.

Mr. Dour said that the consultant team now recommended rapid-rate infiltration for effluentdischarge, as opposed to a marine outfall or slow-rate infiltration. He reiterated the Departmentof Ecology’s policy restricting the approval of marine outfalls, and he noted that rapid-rateinfiltration would require a smaller footprint on the land and cost less than slow-rate infiltration.

Mr. Santroch reviewed the technical perspectives on wastewater treatment that had been

presented at the May 25 workshop. He said that these perspectives had remained unchanged. Hesaid that MBR was still the recommended treatment alternative because of its superior effluentquality, but that SBR remained a viable alternative that had a lower estimated cost. Mr. Santrochexplained that chemical compounds from pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs)were being detected in effluent from wastewater treatment plants, and that stories of thesecompounds causing water quality problems in streams, despite concentrations almost too low todetect, were on the rise. He noted that MBR was the most effective treatment technology for removing PPCPs and that the consultant team thought MBR was worth pursuing since the treated




4

effluent for the Irondale/Port Hadlock sewer system would eventually reach groundwater thatwould likely make its way to Chimacum Creek.

Mr. Santroch reviewed the technical perspectives on solids handling that had been presented atthe May 25 workshop. He reiterated the point that private, contract disposal appeared to be a

better, more economical alternative than hauling to the Port Townsend composting facility. Heexplained that hauling to another public treatment facility, such as Poulsbo, Bremerton, or Renton, would be more costly. He said forest application would also be costly as additionalsolids treatment would be required. Mr. Santroch showed a chart comparing the estimated, planning-level costs of each solids handling alternative. He noted that the solids handling costsconstituted just a fraction of the estimated costs for treatment and other sewer systemcomponents, and thus would have less influence on the total sewer system cost.

Mr. Dour reviewed the components of the technical recommendation and the main advantages of each:

• Collection

o Gravity Collection in core areao Gravity in outlying areaso Have flexibility to use STEP or grinder pumps in outlying areaso More reliable, convenient, and economical in the long term

• Treatmento MBR for treatment technologyo Provides best effluent quality on a consistent basis, easily expandableo Appropriate odor control & aesthetics

• Effluent Disposal/Reuseo Rapid Rate Infiltrationo

Least costly and easy to implement, has smallest footprint• Solids Handling

o Contracted haul and disposal to Biorecycle Co. in South Kitsap Countyo Least costly, can change strategy as system develops

Sewer System Implementation

Mr. Dour described the planning assumptions that were made to project how the sewer systemwould be implemented. He showed a map with six color-coded planning subareas and explainedthat the core area was expected to develop first, followed by the Rhody Drive area, and

subsequently the outlying residential areas. He emphasized that these were planningassumptions, which would not dictate how development actually occurred.

Mr. Dour reviewed a table that showed the estimated year that each planning subarea would besewered, along with the assumed sewered acreage, the assumed number of sewered equivalentresidential units (ERUs), and the estimated maximum monthly flow for each planning subarea.He explained that adding up the planning subareas resulted in a total maximum average dailyflow estimated at about one million gallons per day (gpd) by 2030. Mr. Dour noted that the




5

estimated schedule might be more aggressive than actual development, but that the GMArequired the sewer facilities plan to show how sewer system would be implemented over 20years.

Mr. Dour used a graph to illustrate the rates at which the project team anticipated the local

population would connect to the sewer system. This graph was developed using populationforecast data provided by the Jefferson County Planning Department. The graph showed severallines representing different data in support of the team’s assumptions and analysis. The graphshowed a line representing the residential population forecast in the Port Hadlock area from theCounty planning numbers. The graph also showed a line representing an anticipated equivalent population from commercial growth in the area in relation to the residential population forecast.Finally, the graph showed a line representing the population anticipated to be connected tosewers starting in the year 2010, through 2030 (the 20-year planning horizon), and on to area buildout. The line representing the population anticipated to be connected to sewers wasdeveloped using a compound rate of growth, rather than a linear rate, which was standard for most planning efforts and was in agreement with the method used by Jefferson County Planning

to forecast the residential population in the area.

Sewer System Costs

Mr. Dour presented a series of charts that showed estimated, planning level, 20-year life cyclecosts for each collection alternative, treatment alternative, and disposal/reuse alternative. Theestimated costs were broken down to show cumulative cost at each phase of implementation.Mr. Santroch explained that the plan was to build two treatment trains at Phase 1, 20-day storageat Phase 2, and two additional treatment trains at Phase 3. He said that with further research heexpected to be able to reduce the estimated, planning level cost for wastewater treatment.

Mr. Santroch pointed out the relative magnitude of the total estimated costs, noting that thecollection technology was on the order of $100 million for all phases over 20 years, treatmentwas on the order of $30 million for all phases over 20 years, and the disposal/reuse options wereon the order of less than $5 million for all phases over 20 years. He explained that choosingdifferent alternatives for collection or treatment would have far more impact on total system costthan choosing different disposal/reuse options.

Mr. Santroch then showed a chart that compared the total estimated, planning level, 20-year lifecycle costs for the following four sewer system alternatives (all systems were assumed to userapid infiltration disposal/reuse, sodium hypochlorite disinfection, and private contract solids

handling):

• Gravity system/MBR treatment

• STEP system/MBR treatment

• Gravity system/SBR treatment

• STEP system/MBR treatment




6

The costs were broken down by sewer system component: collection, treatment, disinfection,effluent disposal/reuse, and solids handling. Mr. Santroch pointed out that the estimated, planning level, Phase 1 20-year life cycle cost of the least expensive alternative, STEPsystem/SBR treatment, was $26 million, while the estimated, planning level, Phase 1 20-year lifecycle cost of the recommended and most costly alternative, gravity system/MBR treatment, was

$34 million.

For the gravity collection/MBR treatment alternative, Mr. Dour used a chart to show thecumulative system-wide cost at different points over 20 years. A second chart showed the cost per ERU at different points over 20 years. Mr. Dour demonstrated that as more users wereconnected to the sewer system, the lower the estimated cost per ERU was. He explained that agoal for the financing plan was to make the cost per ERU for the early sewer customersequivalent to what the cost per ERU would be after 20 years when many more customers would be connected.

Sewer Facility Siting

Mr. Dour showed a map of potential sites for wastewater treatment facilities and/or effluentdisposal/reuse facilities. He said that the treatment facility and the disposal/reuse facility could be sited at the same or separate locations. The five potential sites were at or near the followinglocations:

• Sheriff’s Facility

• H.J. Carroll Park Vicinity

• Central Port Hadlock (near Mason St. and Cedar Ave.)

• Jefferson County Airport

• Chimacum High School

Mr. Dour reviewed a slide of the advantages and drawbacks of each potential location. He saidthat based on cost considerations, the suitability based on surrounding land uses, and mitigationrequirements, the consultant team was currently focused on the Sheriff’s facility as the bestalternative, with the H.J. Carroll Park vicinity as a potential back-up. He said that more analysiswould be done to better understand the sites’ suitability for treatment and/or disposal/reusefacilities. Mr. Wheeler noted that an area near H.J. Carroll Park, not the park itself, was beingconsidered as a treatment facility site. He said the project team was aware that wetlands in thearea could potentially impact facility siting.


Workshop participants commented and asked questions during the presentation and during thediscussion period at the end of the workshop. Their comments and questions, as well as the project team’s responses, are grouped by topic below.




7

Sewer System Costs

Comment: Although a gravity collection system would cost less than pressure in the long-run, itwould mean higher initial costs.

Question: Would homeowners be responsible for onsite operation and maintenance (O&M)costs associated with STEP systems?Response (Dour): We assumed that homeowners would not be individually responsible for those costs, and we included those O&M costs in our sewer system cost estimates. Myexperience has been that STEP tanks are considered part of the treatment system that ismaintained by the sewer authority.

Comment: While certain sewer system components may be less expensive in the long run or they may be technologically superior, we have to face what can be financed up front. Thathurdle may dictate some of the components that we choose in the end.

Question: On the graph of treatment cost estimates, do you add the bars together to get the totalcost, or are the bars cumulative over time?Response (Santroch): These are cumulative, present-worth costs, not additive costs.

Collection System Considerations

Question: Don’t STEP and gravity systems both require pump stations?Response (Dour): With a STEP system, there is actually a little pump on every customer’s property. With STEP, those pumps could probably generate enough pressure so that a largeinfluent pump station would be unnecessary. That might be the case for a grinder system aswell, but we would have to look at the hydraulics. With gravity, all of the wastewater flowsdownhill to a low point and is then pumped uphill at a pump station, so a gravity system would probably require a few larger pump stations.

Comment: It can be difficult to access private property. It would be a problem if the sewer authority were responsible for maintenance of STEP or grinder equipment on private property.Also, if property owners are not responsible for the equipment on their own property, they will be less vigilant about preventing problems. Maybe there is space in the street right of way soequipment wouldn’t have to be on private property.

Wastewater Treatment Considerations

Question: Is there any difference in reliability between the MBR and SBR treatment systems?For example, does one perform better during power outages?Response (Santroch): Both federal and state regulatory agencies have standards and guidelinesto ensure reliable service. Treatment plants are required to have a back-up generator to ensurethat plant operation is continuous. The treatment system for the Irondale/Port Hadlock area will be subject to other requirements as well, since the effluent will be discharged to land andtherefore to groundwater. To build redundancy into the treatment system, it is necessary to




8

construct either a storage pond to hold untreated wastewater or an additional treatment train beyond the facility’s intended capacity to be used in the event of a treatment system malfunction.Whether to use “n plus one” treatment trains or storage is a design judgment.

That said, past experience has shown that during treatment process disruptions, such as power

outages, MBR systems may provide greater protection of effluent quality than SBR systems provide. At this point in the planning process, the consultant team has not looked in detail at potential differences in reliability. As system design moves forward, I will further investigatethe factors involved in keeping the treatment system running smoothly.

Question: Have you considered using a biomembrane system? In this system, there is a biological film on the surface of the membrane, so a biological reaction and the straining actionhappen simultaneously.Response (Santroch): I am not familiar with that technology, but I would be interested intalking with you about it after the workshop.

Question: Is there a significant difference in energy costs between SBR and MBR?Response (Santroch): Vendors currently tell us that MBR has 50% higher energy costs. A fewyears ago they said it was 100% higher.

Question: When biosolids are shipped out, do they still have germs or are they clean?Response (Santroch): The biosolids would be partially stabilized before they are shipped away, but they would not be dewatered or disinfected at that point. We have found that there would bea tremendous initial capital investment required to do additional dewatering and stabilization.The design team has made a strategic call that it makes financial sense to contract out the haulingand reuse of the facility’s biosolids. One identified contractor, Kitsap Biorecycle, mixes the biosolids with lime to produce an “artificial soil.” This soil is then applied to fields andimmediately plowed under to minimize the potential for odors and pests.

Question: The location of the treatment facility has not been determined yet, but wouldn’t thesite affect the phasing plan?Response (Dour): Not necessarily. Wastewater will be collected to a given point, and then thequestion will just be whether it has to be pumped a short distance or a long distance. I wouldnote that it takes a lot of energy to pump water.

Question: Why did you assume that the ratio of residential to commercial development would be 60:40?Response (Dour): That is the current breakdown in the Irondale/Port Hadlock area. We alsolooked at the current zoning of the sewer planning area and the water usage trends for those landuses and came up with an estimated 60:40 ratio for future growth. We also looked at Winslow,which is a UGA similar in size and character to the UGA proposed in the Irondale/Port Hadlock area, and the ratio there is 60:40.

Question: Why are you planning a single treatment plant? Why not multiple smaller treatmentfacilities?




9

Response (Santroch): There are some regulations that relate to that question. If a systemhandles more than 15,000 gallons per day, it is regulated by the Department of Ecology, and theDepartment of Ecology tends to avoid having multiple facilities. There is also some economy of scale to building a single, large facility versus several smaller facilities. A treatment facility isvery expensive relative to each connection when there are only a few customers, but it gets

relatively cheaper per connection when there are more customers. For example, a singletreatment facility can be quadrupled in size over time for double the original price.

Comment: Some other states have started to use multiple smaller treatment facilities and it hasworked well for them.Response (Santroch): I have read about such facilities at Cape Cod, although the authority thatmanaged them had mixed results. If the Irondale/Port Hadlock community wants to go thatroute, the regulatory community would probably approve it since it’s the community’s money. If Jefferson County is interested in multiple, smaller treatment facilities, we would certainlyinvestigate them.

Question: Is there an advantage to building an extra treatment train instead of a storage pond, inthat you can shut down one train for maintenance and use the extra train in the interim?Response (Santroch): Yes, absolutely.

Question: The treatment facility in Bremerton smelled very bad. How would this treatmentfacility be different?Response (Santroch): The Bremerton facility had a “trickling filter” through which air was blown. That is a system prone to odor problems. The technology we are recommending wouldnot have the same level of air/water contact which causes odor. Although the treatmenttechnologies would be different, we are using the Port Townsend wastewater treatment facility asa model for aesthetic and odor mitigation planning.

Solids Handling Considerations

Question: Are there multiple providers for contract hauling? You have to go out to bid, andthere should be competitors. Also, the provider being considered now might go out of business.Response (Santroch): Yes there are five other independent providers. Olympus Terrace Sewer District went out to bid they received five bids.

Effluent Disposal/Reuse Considerations

Question: Are there any health risks associated with rapid rate infiltration?Response (Dour): The effluent will be disinfected prior to being discharged.

Siting Considerations

Question: Are the potential locations you’re showing for treatment or discharge?Response (Dour): The potential locations could be for treatment or discharge or both. Nothinghas been decided at this point. Treatment and discharge can happen at the same site or atseparate sites, it’s just a matter of moving wastewater from place to place.




10

Question: How big a footprint is required at the treatment and/or disposal/reuse site?Response (Santroch): If you decide to build storage, which can take up to about 8 acres, thetotal acreage could be about 16 acres. Without storage, the footprint would be smaller.

Comment: We have a dearth of developable land inside of the proposed urban growth area. Myconcern is that the “Central Site,” one of the potential locations for treatment and/or disposal/reuse, is an area that needs to be available for development. Development would bringin more sewer users who would help pay for the sewer system. It would not be a good locationfor sewer facilities.

Comment: A good thing about the Sheriff’s facility site is that the nearby ballfields provide anopportunity for water reuse. The ballfields use a lot of water. It would be important to let peopleknow that the treated water is clean enough for reuse.

Question: Are you looking at public land for the potential site near the Sheriff’s facility?

Response (Dour): That is the ideal.Comment: There are some private properties there, too.

Comment: Kivley Well is near the Sheriff’s facility. You would have to careful to not impactthe well.Response (Dour): Yes, we would look carefully at the hydrology of the area. Also, there areregulations and required setbacks to protect wells.

Question: Have buffers for wetlands been considered already for the potential sites?Response (Santroch): Yes.

Comment: I know the focus is currently on the Sheriff’s facility alternative with the H.J. CarrollPark vicinity as a potential back-up. Since it’s hard to ensure that a proposed site will actually beacquired, maybe we should rank our priorities for the rest of the potential sites.

Comment: I think the Jefferson County Airport is a good alternative. There may be someadvantage to working out an arrangement with the Port of Port Townsend. The Port is interestedin getting sewer service and they might be willing to host the wastewater facilities in exchange.Comment: I have experience working with the Port, and I would be very concerned about FAAand waterfowl issues at the Jefferson County Airport.Comment: Perhaps a storage pond would not be allowed at the airport site, but the tanks could be covered.Comment: Think carefully about whether to use the airport site, because that site could be beneficial for development in the county in the long run.

Comment: I oppose the Central Port Hadlock site, because the community has expressedinterest through visioning processes in commercial and multi-family development in that area.




11

Comment: If either the Chimacum High School site or Jefferson County Airport site were used,there would be very strong community concern about development expanding down RhodyDrive.

Comment: At the Chimacum High School Site, there’s a setback for the creek that may limit

the amount of space available for a wastewater facility.

Question: Some time ago there was a discussion about the mill tying into the sewer system andsharing its treatment and marine outfall capacity. Is that still under consideration?Response (Wheeler): The mill is between five and eight miles away and over a hill from thesewer planning area. Pumping wastewater that far and over a hill is a huge cost. It would likely be a challenge to permit additional discharge via the marine outfall, especially because the milldoes not currently process wastewater so sharing facilities would introduce shellfish protectionissues.

Comment: Jefferson PUD #1 is planning to conduct a groundwater study, including modeling

and field observations, for the Chimacum Creek Basin. The sewer project team should contactBill Graham to coordinate on what information is need.

Sewer System Planning

Comment: Looking at your graph of growth of residential and non-residential ERUs, I think thecommercial areas would be sewered faster than you show because there is a lot of pent updemand. However, I think the residential areas would be sewered more slowly than you show,since people will not be required to connect to sewer if they have a functioning septic system.Growth in sewer system connections could be more of a step function.Response (Dour): Yes, we have made many assumptions in estimating how the sewer systemwill grow. We have made certain assumptions about how quickly people will hook up to thesewer system, but it may be that one or more of the treatment system expansions create adequatecapacity for longer than we show here.

Comment: I think commercial and multi-family residential development will grow faster thanshown here.Response (Dour): That is certainly possible. The way we developed the 12.4% growth curve of the number of sewered ERUs was to look at the estimated number of initial users and theestimated number of users at the end of the 20-year planning period and basically connect thosetwo dots. We assumed a compound growth rate to get the curve you see here.


Mr. Wheeler thanked the attendees for their input and said that it would help the consultant teamto refine the recommended sewer system alternative to present at a public open house in July.Mr. Wheeler asked if, based on the regulations governing marine outfall, it was appropriate todrop marine outfall from consideration for effluent disposal and focus on rapid-rate infiltration.The attendees agreed that it was. The attendees also agreed that it was appropriate to focus on




12

gravity as the recommended collection technology in the core area, with a focus on gravity in theoutlying areas but the possibility of using a pressure system instead

The meeting was adjourned at 3:20 pm.

Workshop Attendance

The public workshop was attended by County Commissioner David Sullivan (District 2) andCounty Commissioner Pat Rodgers (District 3). Additional attendees are listed below.

Name Affiliation

Vanessa Brower Citizens for the UGAJohn Fischbach Jefferson County, County Administrator Linda Germeau Kitsap Bank Frank Gifford Jefferson County, Public Works

Syd Lipton CitizenJim Parker Jefferson PUD #1Dana Roberts Jefferson PUD #1Allen Sartin Jefferson County, Central ServicesRay Serebrin Jefferson County LibraryTroy Summerill Inn at Port Hadlock


TetraTech/KCM Kevin Dour, Project Manager; Jim Santroch, Senior Project Engineer – Treatment

Triangle Associates, Inc.Bob Wheeler, Facilitator; Ellen Blair, Public Involvement Support




SUMMARYStakeholder Workshop on Cost and Financing


October 10, 2006, 1 PM – 3 PMJefferson County Courthouse

1820 Jefferson StreetPort Townsend, WA 98368-0920



collection, treatment, and disposal/reuse of wastewater, 2) the sewer service area, 3) the phasingand implementation of sewers throughout the service area, 4) the anticipated cost for individualconnections to sewer, and 5) potential revenue and funding sources. The goal of the study is to produce a sewer facility plan that will help the County plan for growth in the area over the next20 years; that will satisfy RCW 36.94 concerning Counties’ sewerage, water, and drainagesystem responsibilities; and that will be approved by the Department of Ecology.

Workshop Summary

A public workshop was held at the Jefferson County Courthouse on Tuesday, October 10 from1:00 pm to 3:00 pm. The workshop was open to the public.


• Present developments & design refinements to the preferred sewer system alternative

• Present the cost estimate

• Provide information on financing strategies


Jefferson County Commissioners, County staff, local agency staff, and several communityleaders and other interested parties were invited to the workshop. The County had identifiedlocal agencies whose facilities might be sewered and/or whose activities might be affected by theinstallation or operation of a sewer. The County also identified representatives of business andcommunity organizations and citizens who had been active previously in the process to establisha UGA. These parties were contacted by mail. A notice of the workshop was available on the project website (www.porthadlocksewer.org), the County’s website, and in the Port TownsendLeader.




2

County Commissioner Phil Johnson (District 1), County Commissioner David Sullivan (District2), and County Commissioner Pat Rodgers (District 3) attended the workshop. The consultantsto the County were represented by Kevin Dour, P.E. and Jim Santroch, P.E. of TetraTech/KCM,Katy Isaksen of Katy Isaksen & Associates, and Bob Wheeler, P.E. and Ellen Blair of TriangleAssociates. A complete list of workshop participants is attached to this summary.


Mr. Wheeler, workshop facilitator, opened the meeting at 1:00 pm. He led introductions andexplained the purpose of the workshop. He reviewed the workshop agenda and outlined thesteps that would lead to the completed sewer facility plan, including public involvementopportunities, technical work, and the development of cost estimates and funding options. Hedistributed a handout that defined acronyms and abbreviations used in the presentation.

Mr. Wheeler announced that project information could be found and comments could be

submitted at the project website, www.porthadlocksewer.org.

Mr. Wheeler thanked the participants for their on-going participation in the sewer facility plan process. He said that the valuable input the County and the consultant team had received hadhelped them to identify and refine the preferred sewer system alternative.

Mr. Wheeler summarized the purpose of planning a sewer system for the Port Hadlock UGA.He highlighted the following reasons:

• Responsible, proactive planning for population growth under the auspices of the GrowthManagement Act

• Environmental protectiono

Chimacum Creek o Shellfish beds

• Allows denser development in designated areaso Development to planned densities

To preface the cost estimate and financing strategy presentation, Mr. Wheeler said it wasimportant to recognize that brand new sewer systems were inherently expensive. He noted thatthe substantial capital cost of building a whole new sewer system was incurred in the beginningwhen the fewest customers were participating and sharing the cost, which made it challenging tostart a new system.

Mr. Wheeler explained that sewer planning to date had produced some of the “facts” about whata sewer system might cost and what financing strategies would be available. He emphasized thatthe critical next step after developing the “facts” would be to investigate innovative financingstrategies and to apply for funding, in other words to do the “artwork.” He explained that anapproved sewer facility plan would make the project eligible for a variety of funding programs.He mentioned the following four types of funding assistance as examples:

• Grants• Congressional/legislative line items




3

• Low interest loans• Low income assistance

Mr. Wheeler noted that the cost estimates to be presented could change in the future as the work of detailed final design, obtaining funding, and deciding on financing strategies proceeded.

Recent Developments & Design Refinements to Preferred Alternative

Mr. Dour, consultant team project manager, briefly described the components of the preferredsewer system alternative and the reasons for their selection. The PowerPoint workshop presentation is attached to this summary. Mr. Dour reported that potential locations for thewastewater treatment plant had been narrowed to the southern portion of the UGA, in the vicinityof the Sheriff’s Facility. He said that a site for the influent pump station, the station that would pump the wastewater collected from the entire system to the treatment plant, had been identifiednear Ness’ Corner Road and Shotwell Rd. Mr. Dour displayed two maps that showed the area of

the potential treatment plant locations and the approximate site of the influent pump station.

To optimize financing and development of the sewer system, Mr. Dour said that the consultantteam had estimated the wastewater treatment plant costs year by year and had shifted the timingof costs further into the future whenever possible. This strategy was to attempt to lower theinitial cost of the system in the earlier years when fewer participants would be connected. Hesaid that the consultant team’s hydrogeologist was continuing to work to ensure that the selecteddisposal method would direct the treated, Class A treatment plant effluent to a beneficial use. Hesaid that the intent was to recharge groundwater that flowed to Chimacum Creek, thusaugmenting creek flow.

System Financing & Planning Process

Mr. Dour gave an overview of the plan to phase implementation of sewer service into the UGA,with the initial service area to be centered around the Port Hadlock commercial core. Hedescribed the requirement that sewer facility plan contain identified funding sources andfinancing strategies.

Mr. Dour said that the County and the community would have the opportunity to decide whether or not to move forward with implementation once the sewer facility plan was approved.

Updated Capital Cost through 2018

Mr. Dour presented the updated estimate for the capital cost of sewer facilities through 2018.The facilities would serve the core commercial area and Rhody Drive during this initial phase.There would be some additional treatment facility capacity available for future residential areas.The estimate was approximately $33.5 million.




4

Funding Strategies

Ms. Isaksen, financial analyst, said her intent was to identify a mix of funding that wouldminimize the cost of the sewer system.

Ms. Isaksen explained that sewer costs were divided into two basic types, with implications as tohow they are funded:

• Capital costso One-time costs to build the physical facilitieso Mix of capital funding sources typically used to pay for capital costs

• Operation and maintenance (O&M) costso On-going costs to operate and maintain the facilitieso Distributed to users by monthly sewer rates

Ms. Isaksen said that capital costs must be paid up front, with funding typically obtained from a

mix of grants, loans, bond proceeds, and/or other methods. She noted that grants were the bestsource of funding because they did not require repayment. Later in the presentation, Ms. Isaksendetailed the ways that sewer customers could repay funding from the other sources.

Ms. Isaksen listed several types of funding opportunities and indicated whether each one wasavailable to pay for capital costs, O&M costs, or both. She showed that many more sources of funding were available to pay for capital costs than for on-going O&M costs. She describedspecific examples of capital funding sources, such as Department of Ecology and USDA RuralDevelopment grants and low-interest loans.

Considerations for Funding Initial Capital Costs through 2018

Ms. Isaksen then explained in more detail the options for funding the estimated capital costthrough 2018 of a sewer system in the Port Hadlock UGA. She said that, from a financial perspective, capital costs were divided into the following two categories:

• Common/shared costso Costs for facilities that benefit multiple sewer customerso Typically eligible for grants, loans, bonds, and other outside funding sources

• Private/on-site costso Costs for the sewer line and other equipment on private property that connect the

property to the sewer system

o Typically paid by property owner

Ms. Isaksen said that common/shared costs were further broken down into General costs andLocal costs. General costs are for facilities that benefit all of the sewer system’s customers. For example, the wastewater treatment facility serves all of the sewer system’s customers. Localcosts are for facilities that benefit a subset of the sewer system’s customers. For example, asewer line through a neighborhood street serves only the customers in that neighborhood.




5

Common/Shared Capital Costs

General• Wastewater treatment facility• Disinfection system• Solids handling• Disposal• Influent pump station• Oversizing collection pipelines (greater

than 8” in diameter)

Local• Gravity collection pipelines up to 8” in

diameter

Ms. Isaksen said that General costs were higher because they included the relatively costlywastewater treatment facility. The estimate for each component of capital cost through 2018 wasas follows:

• Common/Shared Costo General: $21,074,114

o Local: $8,934,800

• Private/On-Site Costo On-Site: $3,455,000

Ms. Isaksen presented a timeline (2010 to 2018) that illustrated that the majority of thecommon/shared costs would be incurred in 2010, with relatively smaller costs incurred in 2012,2015, and 2018 to expand the collection and treatment systems.

Ms. Isaksen said that she had focused her analysis on how to fund the upfront costs in 2010, because new customers connecting to the sewer system could help to defray the smaller costs in2012, 2015, and 2018.

She gave an example (see PowerPoint presentation) of a mix of funding sources that could beused for the 2010 shared/common costs. She said that while multiple funding sources wereusually necessary to amass enough money, it was important to recognize the level of effort aswell as the administrative and other requirements in selecting which and how many funding programs to pursue.

Strategies for Recovering Capital Costs from Users

Ms. Isaksen presented three methods for sewer customers to repay the upfront capital costs:connection charges, a Utility Local Improvement District (ULID), and assessments based upon property value.

She explained that ULIDs were defined in statute, and that to form a ULID, essentially a boundary was drawn around the properties benefiting from a project, and all of the properties




6

within the boundary were assessed a share of the capital costs based on the benefits theyreceived. She pointed out that a sewer ULID assessment against a property was prohibited bylaw from exceeding the benefit received from the availability of sewer service, in other words thedollar value of the assessment could not exceed the increase in value to the property. She saidcustomers were typically allowed to pay off the assessment on an annual basis over 10 to 20

years.

Ms. Isaksen said that a single ULID could be formed to encompass the entire sewer service area but that it was more likely that multiple ULIDs would be established for individualneighborhoods within the service area. These ULIDs could be established over time as thecollection system developed and expanded. Ms. Isaksen said that a ULID could be formed oneof two ways: either the property owners within a proposed ULID boundary would petition theresponsible governing entity (county) or the County Commissioners would adopt a resolution.

Ms. Isaksen presented three scenarios which would likely be used to recover capital costs. Theseare summarized below.

Strategy Description

Connection Charges for General and Local

Costs

Customer pays a fee when connects to sewer

Connection Charges for General Costs and aULID for Local Costs

ULID Assessment is paid off annually oncesewer lines come to the neighborhood,customer pays connection charge whenconnects to sewer

Assessed Value for General and Local Costs When sewer lines come to the neighborhood,

property owners pay annually based on valueof their property; undeveloped property paysmuch less than developed property

Ms. Isaksen noted that it is typical for monthly rates to be used to pay off long-term debt, but thatthis was not a likely option for a new sewer system because there are no existing sewer customers to pay monthly rates.

Ms. Isaksen said that some jurisdictions allowed sewer customers to pay connection charges off over time. Thus, both connection charges and/or Utility Local Improvement District (ULID)

assessments are mechanisms available that may enable customers to spread their payments over time, rather than pay a single, large, lump sum. Ms. Isaksen said that if customers were permitted to spread their connection charges over time, some entity, for example the County,would need to guarantee that the debt service would be paid and may need to bridge thedifference for a period of time before the customers can provide full repayment.

Ms. Isaksen noted that the assessed value method is used much less commonly than connectioncharges or ULIDs. Each property’s assessment under this method would be based on that




7

property’s assessed value for real estate tax purposes. Thus an undeveloped property would payless than a developed property of the same size.

Estimates of Capital Costs per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU)*

Ms. Isaksen presented the estimated capital cost per ERU for commercial property and for residential property. For the residential property estimate, she assumed that a grant would cover 45% of the shared/common costs. She based her assumption on the maximum grant availablefrom the USDA Rural Development program.

Ms. Isaksen displayed two tables that illustrated how customer payments for common/sharedcosts could be concentrated or spread over time, depending on the financing strategy used.Using a connection charge method, the customer would pay common/shared costs as well as the private/on-site cost at the time of connection. Using a combination strategy of a connectioncharge plus a ULID, the customer could begin paying Local costs when the ULID comes to the

neighborhood, and could pay the General and private costs at the time of sewer hook-up.

Ms. Isaksen explained that the consultant team had tried to develop realistic, but conservative,cost estimates to ensure that the actual costs would be within the estimates and to enable theCounty and community to make realistic plans. Ms. Isaksen said the cost estimates had been based on recent bid results on other projects and that standard estimating procedures had beenused. To be conservative, a 30% contingency was included in the capital costs, which Ms.Isaksen said was customary for planning level estimates. Ms. Isaksen said she had also includeda 15% financing cost and had applied a conservative interest rate when calculating the estimateddebt service payments for low interest loans.

Ms. Isaksen stressed that funding agencies looked favorably on projects with realistic costestimates. She compared the capital cost estimates for a Port Hadlock UGA sewer system tothree recent sewer system expansions in Western Washington to demonstrate the Port Hadlock UGA cost estimates were comparable with actual projects.

Operations & Maintenance Cost Estimate

Ms. Isaksen presented a planning level estimate of $60/month per residence for on-going O&Mcosts, which included billing, administration, and state taxes. Some assistance may be availablefor low income customers. Commercial properties would be charged according to their water

usage where one equivalent residential unit (ERU) would be equal to 4,500 gallons per month.

How to Continue to Reduce Costs

* One ERU is 4,500 gallons of wastewater produced per month for the purposes of this analysis. A business mayrepresent multiple ERUs depending on the amount of wastewater produced. A single-family residence is typicallyconsidered one ERU, regardless of the amount of wastewater produced.




8

Ms. Isaksen concluded by stressing that the “art” of reducing the cost to sewer customers wasonly beginning. She encouraged the County and the community to prepare for approval of thesewer facility plan by exploring funding and financing options as soon as possible. Sherecommended approaching Congressional and legislative representatives, observing that

Jefferson County had successfully obtained a federal line item to renovate the clock tower at theCounty Courthouse. Ms. Isaksen said that Jefferson County staff would be meeting with severalfunding program administrators at the IACC (Infrastructure Assistance Coordinating Council)Conference in Wenatchee at the end of October to get advice on how best to position the PortHadlock UGA sewer project with funding agencies.

Ms. Isaksen highlighted the importance of seeking low-income assistance, such as USDA RuralDevelopment and/or health department loans. She said that one option was to use grant fundingto create a low-income assistance program.

Ms. Isaksen also encouraged the County and the community to explore opportunities for O&M

cost savings during the implementation phase.

Finally, Ms. Isaksen said that maximizing the number of customers who participated in the first phase of sewer implementation would make it easier to distribute sewer system start-up costs.


Workshop participants commented and asked questions during the discussion period at the endof the workshop. Their comments and questions, as well as the project team’s responses, aresummarized and grouped by topic below.

Cost Estimates

Comment: Although a business might constitute more than one ERU, the total capital cost tothe business may not equal the estimated capital cost per ERU multiplied by the number of ERUs. This is because the estimated capital cost per ERU includes the private, on-site cost of connecting to sewer. If a business constitutes multiple ERUs, there would still be only one hook-up on the property. While that hook-up may be more expensive than a hook-up to a residence because of the size of the equipment, it may still be less than multiplying the estimated private,on-site cost per ERU by the number of ERUs.Response (Isaksen): That is true.

Question: Is the 30% contingency factor built into the on-site, Local, and General costs? Is thattypical? Do the actual costs usually come in that high?Response (Dour): The contingency factor is built into the on-site, Local, and General costs.This is standard planning procedure. It is good planning, in part, to include a contingency factor in the estimate capital costs because, at the current planning level, the preliminary design doesnot account for details which will be discovered in final design. For example, the collectionsystem was developed using an aerial contour map with 10 foot contour intervals, which is




9

acceptable for planning but is a coarse scale for final design. At the planning level, we made best guesses as to where maintenance holes would be located, but perhaps in the final design phase it will turn out that there need to be 10% more maintenance holes than we haveanticipated. Also, we cannot predict how prices for materials like steel, concrete, or petroleumwill change by the time construction could begin.

Question: Can you tell us more about why you included a 15% financing cost in the costestimates?Response (Isaksen): This is a conservative estimate of the cost of financing. Say you had to borrow money during construction and you had to pay interim interest on the construction fundsuntil the permanent financing was complete. I have assumed this may be up to 2.5% of theamount financed. If you went to the open bond market, it might be another 2.5% for theunderwriter and bond counsel, along with another 10% to borrow the required reserve.However, if you are organized and well-prepared, it is typically less expensive to obtain fundingthrough grants and low-interest loan programs.

Question: Is the 15% financing cost included in the common/shared capital cost estimates,which are about $21 million for General costs and about $9 million for Local costs?Response (Isaksen): I tried not to mix the calculation of the estimated costs per ERU with thetotal capital cost estimates that the engineers developed. The engineers provided cost estimatesthat included a 30% contingency factor. None of their total capital cost estimates included the15% financing cost. In my financing work, I added the 15% financing cost only to the estimatedcost per ERU .

Question: Did you break the estimated capital costs down as monthly costs per ERU?Response (Isaksen): I avoid presenting capital costs on a monthly basis because I don’t want toset the County up to have to accept payments on a monthly basis. However, if you assume acapital cost of $12,850 for a residence, and that you would be paying it back over 20 years withan interest rate of 3.5 %, this would be approximately $75 per month for the capital portion.Added to the estimated $60 per month for on-going O&M and administration, it could be $135 per month.

Question: You’ve presented a variety of financial approaches, but are you recommending themost expensive sewer system technology?Response (Isaksen): The preferred alternative has the highest initial capital costs among thetechnologies that the engineers evaluated. However, the life cycle costs of the preferredalternative are lower because on-site and operation and maintenance costs of the other technologies tend to increase the life cycle costs over time.

When the preferred alternative type of system is built, you don’t have to redo it, and you get ahigher level of treatment that anticipates future regulations. From a financial perspective, theaverage cost per ERU over 20 years is about $1,500 more than the least expensive technologiesof a STEP collection system with an SBR treatment plant.

Question: Are the cost estimates per ERU based on the 20-year planning boundary or the six-year planning boundary?




10

Response (Isaksen): The cost estimates per ERU were based on the average of the 20-year planning area. If the estimates were calculated only up to the year 2018, the cost per ERU would be about $5,000 higher because there would be fewer connections to share in the cost of treatment plant. There are cost savings associated with bringing residential customers on to thesystem in the latter decade of the 20-year planning period.

Question: You assumed that solids handling would be contracted to a private hauler. Are theremultiple companies doing this work: is there competition? We don’t want to be stuck with onecompany if their prices rise.Response (Santroch): There are multiple private haulers, and there are also public haulers likethe City of Port Angeles. We based our cost estimates on one, stable private hauler. Also, if prices for hauling rise, the cost-effectiveness of investing in solids handling facilities in PortHadlock could be revisited.

Question: Did you build expected growth into your per ERU cost estimates for the core area?Response (Dour): Yes, we made planning level assumptions about growth. We used

population forecasts from the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, and we used the land usemap for the Irondale/Port Hadlock area, which defines densities for residential and commercialdevelopment. We checked the ratio of commercial to residential development against the ratioof commercial to residential water usage and against the ratio of development in similar communities to backcheck the ratio used in our projections.

If the sewer system is built, a comprehensive sewer plan will be developed, which must beregularly updated. The comprehensive sewer plan would contain updates to the growth projections as the area develops and the County’s Comprehensive Plan changes.

Financing Strategies

Question: What political entity will pursue financing strategies, such as establishing a ULID,for the sewer system?Response (John Fischbach, Jefferson County Administrator): It is ultimately the County’sresponsibility to pursue these strategies.

Question: How many years in advance of sewer availability may a ULID be established?Response (Wheeler): That is a legal question, and we don’t know for sure.

Funding Availability

Question: Why did you assume a 45% grant for residences? Would we get that grant?Response (Isaksen): I assumed a 45% grant for residential ERUs from the USDA RuralDevelopment, which is the maximum amount available from that program. These grants areavailable for hardship situations, which are defined as cases where sewer services cost more than1.5% of monthly income. Based on the median household income of the Irondale/Port Hadlock census area, this project would clearly qualify for the maximum grant funding from the USDARural Development program. Grant funding is available up to a maximum of 45% of capitalcosts to help bring the sewer service costs down towards 1.5% of monthly income.




11

Please note that being qualified does not guarantee a grant or an amount; it is necessary to applyfor the grant.

Question: Are there other grant sources for connection fees if the Housing Authority owns a

residential property that is connected to the sewer system? Is there a waiver for such properties?Response (Isaksen): A representative of the USDA Rural Development sewer system grants program mentioned to me other housing grants that are available from other administrators. As Iunderstand it, there are other funding sources for low income residences. I don’t know if onlyresidents are eligible, or if non-resident property owners are eligible.

Question: Is there enough sewer grant funding in the current federal budget for all of thequalified applicants?Response (Isaksen): There almost certainly is not. It is important to have a good application toget to the top of the list.

Preliminary Design

Question: Are there any land uses that are incompatible with being adjacent to a wastewater treatment plant? Are there innovative land uses adjacent to wastewater treatment plants?Response (Santroch): People often oppose having a wastewater treatment plant nearby, but weare including provisions in the cost estimates to make this wastewater treatment plant a goodneighbor. We are using the Port Townsend wastewater treatment facility, which is adjacent tohomes, as a comparable model of how to be a good neighbor.

Question: You’ve talked about doing odor control and visual screening at the wastewater treatment facility. Are there noise issues as well?Response (Santroch): Treatment plants can be noisy. However, noise control methods aretypically used to limit the noise levels to 40 decibels, which is quieter than my speaking voiceright now.Response (Wheeler): An acceptable level of noise for a Port Hadlock treatment plant would bedetermined through the State Environmental Policy Act, but it is fairly easy to mitigate noise for the type of treatment facility being proposed. I would encourage anyone to visit the PortTownsend wastewater treatment plan for reference.

Question: You are proposing a pump station in the vicinity of the library. Would there also beone to pump wastewater up from the alcohol plant?Response (Dour): Yes, there would be a few local pump stations. In terms of estimating theGeneral costs, we planned for one large, influent pump station in the vicinity of the library because the overall collection system as laid out in this plan tends to drain towards this area.Smaller, local pump stations were included in the Local cost estimates.

Question: Do the trucks pick sludge up from the treatment facility or from the pump station?Response (Dour): Sludge is picked up at the treatment facility.




12

Question: With contract hauling for solids handling, how many trucks would be traveling to andfrom the wastewater treatment facility?Response (Santroch): In the early years, probably one truck a week. If contract disposal werecontinued as the sewer system expanded, you could get up to one truck per day.

Question: There have been several sewage spill accidents in the news recently. While the proposed wastewater treatment facility would be cleaner than other options, the potential sites for the facility are very close to drinking water sources. Why are you suggesting sites so close todrinking water? Is it just cheaper?Response (Santroch): It is important to note that, by law, wastewater treatment and disposalfacilities must be located a prescribed distance away from drinking water wells. One of the maindrivers of the evaluation of potential disposal sites was local interest in recharging ChimacumCreek. We pursued options that would recharge the creek further upstream to be more beneficial.Response (Wheeler): The consultant team is also studying the hydrology of the area to ensurethat disposed effluent would flow towards the creek and not towards a well. That is part of our

job.


Mr. Wheeler thanked the attendees for their input. He outlined the next steps in the developmentof the sewer facility plan, which included a public meeting on October 25, the completion of thedraft sewer facility plan by the end of 2006, a public meeting to be scheduled in February 2007,and Department of Ecology approval of the sewer facility plan in March of 2007.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.

Workshop Attendance

The public workshop was attended by County Commissioner Phil Johnson (District 1), CountyCommissioner David Sullivan (District 2) and County Commissioner Pat Rodgers (District 3).Additional attendees are listed below.

Name Affiliation

Robert Bates CitizenMike Blair Chimacum School District

Bill Brock Northwest School of Wooden BoatbuildingBrent Butler Jefferson CountyEvan Cael Peninsula Daily NewsPhil Flynn CitizenAlan Goodwin Community United Methodist ChurchElaine Goodwin Community United Methodist ChurchLaurie Gore CitizenSandy Hershelman Jefferson County Home Builders Association




13

Name Affiliation

Sandra Hill CitizenDouglas Joyce CitizenMaureen Joyce CitizenElizabeth Lammers Citizen

Garrett Larsen CitizenRebecca Lopeman CitizenKimberly Macintosh CitizenBill Mahler Northwest School of Wooden BoatbuildingBob Matheson CitizenMargaret Matheson CitizenKathy McKenna Jefferson County Housing AuthorityWilliam Miller Jefferson County Planning CommissionJim Parker Jefferson PUD #1Frances Rawski Citizens for the UGADana Roberts Jefferson PUD #1

H.C. Rogers CitizenChuck Russell Valley TavernCraig C. Smith Peninsula VideoBonnetta Starlin Citizen


TetraTech/KCM

Kevin Dour, Project Manager; Jim Santroch, Senior Project Engineer – Treatment

Katy Isaksen & AssociatesKaty Isaksen, Financial Analyst

Triangle Associates, Inc.Bob Wheeler, Facilitator; Ellen Blair, Public Involvement Support



Pub lic Meeting, October 25, 2006

Citizens & Pro ject Team Discuss Prelim inary Design, Cost Estimate &


On Wednesday, October 25, 2006, Jefferson County hosted a public meeting at the

WSU Extension to provide information and take public comment on a sewer studybeing conducted in the Irondale/Port Hadlock area. The goal of the sewer study is toprepare a comprehensive sewer facility plan that will help the County plan for growth

in the Irondale/Port Hadlock area through the year 2030. Approximately 50 members

of the community attended the public meeting.

During an informal open house period from 5:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., there were large

boards posted around the room with information about the sewer planning process,the preferred sewer system alternative, and potential locations for wastewater

facilities. Public meeting attendees were encouraged to view the information and talk

with members of the project team.

The consultant team that the County hired to conduct the Irondale/Port Hadlocksewer study gave a presentation and responded to questions about the cost

estimate, potential financing strategies, and progress on preliminary design for thepreferred sewer system alternative. The consultant team described next steps in the

decision-making process and opportunities for public involvement. Members of theconsultant team included project manager Kevin Dour, TetraTech/KCM; Jim

Santroch, TetraTech/KCM; Katy Isaksen, Katy Isaksen and Associates; and BobWheeler, Triangle Associates. The PowerPoint presentation is attached.

Mr. Wheeler said that having a sewer facility plan approved by the Department of

Ecology would make the sewer project eligible for a variety of state and federalfunding programs. Ms. Isaksen explained that while developing realistic cost

estimates and financing strategies was a required component of the sewer facilityplan, it was also important as a way to identify the best financing sources available

to launch the sewer system. She said that the consultant team had used

conservative assumptions to develop the cost estimates to make sure that theproject could be done within the estimated budgets.

During the meeting, many questions from the public related to the decision-making

process for the sewer, the results of preliminary design, and the cost estimate andfinancing strategies. The consultant team, County staff, and County Commissioner

David Sullivan (District 2) provided responses based on available information.

Ms. Isaksen emphasized that more work would be done during the implementation

phase, after the sewer facility plan was approved, to reduce project costs, securefunding assistance, and finalize the method of distributing costs. Mr. Wheeler

reviewed the schedule for completing the sewer facility plan and noted that another

public meeting would be scheduled before the plan was finalized.



Public Meeting, July 19, 2006

Citizens & Project Team Discuss Recommended Sewer System

Alternative

On Wednesday, July 19, 2006, Jefferson County hosted a public meeting at the

Jefferson County Library to provide information and take public comment on a sewerstudy being conducted in the Irondale/Port Hadlock area. The goal of the sewerstudy is to prepare a comprehensive sewer facility plan that will help the County plan

for growth in the Irondale/Port Hadlock area through the year 2030. Approximately

50 members of the community attended the public meeting.

During an informal open house period from 5:00 p.m. to 6:15 p.m., information was

posted on large boards about the sewer planning process, the sewer systemalternatives that were considered, potential locations for wastewater facilities, and

preliminary cost estimates. Public meeting attendees were encouraged to view the

information and talk with members of the project team.

Kevin Dour and Jim Santroch of TetraTech/KCM, the consultant team hired by theCounty to conduct the sewer study, presented and responded to questions about the

alternatives for the sewer system and the rationale, from a technical standpoint, forthe recommended alternative. The consultant described next steps in the decision-

making process and opportunities for public involvement.

Many questions from the public related to the cost of a sewer system, how effluentdisposal/reuse would affect groundwater, and where wastewater facilities would be

located. The consultant provided responses based on the preliminary informationthat was available.

The consultant explained that more detailed information about siting, impacts on

hydrology, and cost estimates and financing options would be developed after theselection of a preferred sewer system alternative. They said the focus of the

financing options would be on community affordability. They explained that theBoard of Jefferson County Commissioners would review the consultant team's

technical recommendation at an August 8 workshop and would then make a decisionon the preferred alternative.

The consultant team's recommendation is based on engineering feasibility,

responsiveness to community concerns, compliance with regulatory requirements,preliminary cost estimates, and environmental considerations.

To provide local input, public workshops were held to advise the sewer studyprocess. Workshop participants included County Commissioners, local agency

representatives, community leaders, and other interested parties. Over the course of

three workshops, workshop participants and the consultant team reviewed andevaluated a comprehensive array of sewer system alternatives. The workshop

participants identified their preferences for each component of the sewer system,including wastewater collection, treatment, effluent disinfection, effluent

disposal/reuse, and solids handling. The consultant team used those preferences tohelp develop the technical recommendation that was presented at the public

meeting. The workshops were advertised in advance and were open to the public.



FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Public Meeting on P reliminary Design, Cost Estimate &


The following is a summary of public comment that the project team received at theOctober 25, 2006 public meeting. Brief responses to each topic are presented.

Preliminary Design

How much property is needed for wastew ater treatment and effluent

disposal facilities?

• The minimum footprint for the treatment facility is three acres. The

assumption is that rapid infiltration would require about three acres as well.For purposes of the sewer facility plan, it was assumed that six acres would

be needed for the treatment facility and six acres for the rapid infiltration

facility, in case buffers are needed, solids handling facilities are built, and/orredundant facilities are needed.

There have been recent sewage spills in Pou lsbo, Bremerton, and PortAngeles. The damage and cost of a sewage spill here should be considered.

• This system would be more advanced than the systems where spills have

occurred.

• Federal and state regulatory agencies have standards and guidelines to

ensure reliable wastewater treatment service. Treatment plants are requiredto have a back-up generator to ensure that plant operation is continuous. The

treatment system for the Irondale/Port Hadlock area will be subject to

additional requirements as well, since the treated effluent will be dischargedto land, and thus to groundwater.

• To build the required redundancy into the treatment system, it is necessary toconstruct either a storage pond to hold untreated wastewater or an additional

treatment train beyond the facility's intended capacity, to be used in theevent of a treatment system malfunction.

• Whether to use storage or "n plus one" treatment trains is a design judgment.The preferred sewer system alternative includes a more conservative

approach than what is required. The level of redundancy in the preferred

alternative could be scaled back if necessary.

• Pump stations are built with a duplicate pumping system and a back-up

electrical system. They are also designed so that a portable pump can beused if needed.

Are there membrane bioreactor (MBR) treatment facilities in other rural

areas in Wash ington?

• Indian tribes have done it the most in Washington State. They have built ten

MBR facilities. Alderwood Water & Wastewater District is building an MBR

facility. The oldest MBR facility in Washington is about three years old.• MBR systems have been used in Japan for over 15 years to treat toilet water.



• The Department of Ecology has become interested in MBR facilities and has

offered encouragement for their use. MBR systems are becoming more

common.

• King County is building a 30 million gallon per day MBR facility at Brightwater.

The County has done a lot of research into the best type of treatment system.

Can a septic system clean to the level of Class A effluent?

• There are advanced septic systems that will treat individual home wastes to a

similar level. However, for a UGA, a proliferation of individual septic systemsis not considered an urban service.

• Septic systems that clean to this level are very expensive.

Wil l biosolids be processed by a digester before they are hauled away fromthe wastew ater treatment plant?

• The proposed method is to collect the solids in a tank and pay for a private

entity or city to process and dispose of the solids in compliance with

regulations. The consultant team considered the option of building a digesterat the Port Hadlock wastewater treatment facility, but found it would cost lessto pay someone else to handle the solids.

• This is also a way to delay the capital investment decision about building asolids handling facility until more ratepayers are connected.

• It is recommended that the solids handling method be revisited after fiveyears to reevaluate the cost comparisons when there are more customers to

share costs.

Some companies buy solid w aste for chemical or fertilizer use. Has revenuegeneration for processing biosolids been considered?

• Revenue generation would require a huge initial investment to process thesolid waste. The economy of scale does not appear to work here, although itdoes work elsewhere.

• The goal was to propose something more affordable to launch theIrondale/Port Hadlock sewer system.

• The type of system currently proposed would not preclude the community

from later pursuing revenue generation or other options.

Decision-Making Process

Who decides whether sewer customers pay a connection fee or join a UtilityLocal Improvement District (ULID)?

• This would be a decision for the County Commissioners. The Commissioners

have the ability to put the decision to a public vote, but ultimately theCommissioners would decide.

Have Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the NorthOlympic Salmon Coalition (NOSC) been consulted?



• The Executive Director of NOSC has been involved in the stakeholder

workshops.

• There will be an environmental assessment and probably a StateEnvironmental Policy Act review of the preferred alternative.

• The proposed wastewater treatment system would produce clean, Class Aeffluent, removing nutrients to a greater extent than septic systems do. As far

as the project team is aware, WDFW would prefer a sewer system to septicsystems.

Are there communities that have made people connect to sewer?

• The proposed sewer project is still at the planning level. There are manypolicies still to be determined, such as who will connect and when, with many

opportunities for public input.

• Major investments have to be made in septic systems from time to time. In

some communities, people wait until they need to make a major investmentin their septic system and then connect to sewer instead.

• There are communities that have required people to connect to sewer to

increase the financial viability of the system.

At what point does the community get to vote on the project?

• That has not been decided.

Is there a mechanism to rescind the UGA designation?

• It could turn out that a sewer system is too expensive. The sewer facility planwill help provide that answer.

• It is important to remember that the population in the area will grow, and the

County's job is to manage that growth in a way that the community finds

desirable.

Cost & Financing

At what point will w e find out about grants and get hard financial facts to

help with decision-making?

• The County is beginning to explore the "art" of securing funding for theproject. A completed sewer facility plan will make the project eligible for

financial assistance, and the County will be able to apply for grants and low-interest loans. Talking to legislators about ways to support the project is also

a good idea.

• In terms of certainty, it could take from six months to two years to know howthe financing will come together.

• As with any capital project, the actual cost will not be known until the projectis completed.

Is the cost of the property needed for the treatment and disposal facilitiesincluded in the cost estimate for 2010 capi tal costs?

• Yes.



Who are the competitors for grants?

• The competitors for available state and federal grants are other jurisdictions

in the State of Washington.

How can a project best be positioned to get grant funding?

• There are different qualifications for each funding program. Richard Johnson,

Jefferson County's Wastewater Manager, and members of the consultant teamwill meet with several funding program administrators at the IACC

(Infrastructure Assistance Coordinating Council) Conference in Wenatchee atthe end of October to get advice on how best to position the Port Hadlock

UGA sewer project with the funding agencies.

How can repayment of financing, other than grants, be guaranteed if notw ith compulsory participation in the sewer system?

• Specific financing policies will be determined during the implementation

phase, after the sewer facility plan is approved.• The implementation phase will proceed step-by-step, as the sewer study has,

with many opportunities for public comment and questions.

Does the cost estimate assume that the sewer system will be built now ?What will it cost if we take another ten years to come to agreement?

• The cost was estimated assuming construction in 2009 and 2010. Beyondthat, the cost would probably increase, since the price of land and other

construction costs will probably continue to rise.

Sewer Study Assumptions

The cost estimate for an Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) includes an

assumption about the number of ERUs that would exist. Where did theassumption come from and was built-out assumed?

• The Jefferson County Planning Department provided current population

numbers as well as population estimates for 2024. Using that estimated rateof growth, the consultant team extrapolated the estimated population to the

year 2030, which is the sewer planning horizon. There will be an estimated3900 ERUs by 2030.

• Build-out is projected to occur some time after 2050, although depending onland use decisions, it may never actually occur on the ground.

Did the County's population estimates, especially for commercial grow th,

look right?

• Although the consultant team was not asked to do a full population analysis,

they did use multiple methods to backcheck the 60:40 ratio of residential to

commercial development that was used in their projections. They looked atthe current zoning of the sewer planning area, checked the ratio of



commercial to residential water usage, and checked the ratio of development

in similar communities.

Public Meeting on Combined System Alternatives

The following is a summary of public comment that the project team received at the

July 19, 2006 public meeting. Brief responses to each topic are presented.

Collection System

Whether or not it makes sense to pay a higher initial investment for gravity

collection

• Gravity collection systems can last up to 50 years. Pressure sewer systemshave a shorter service life because key components (septic tanks and pumps)

have to be replaced after about 20 years. This analysis looks at a 20-yeartime span for comparison purposes, because of the 20-year planning period

required by the Growth Management Act and because pressure sewers have ashorter service life. Pressure sewers are often thought of as an inexpensive

"starter kit" for a sewer system with planned replacement after 20 years with

a gravity sewer when the area is more densely populated and there are morepeople to pay. Although this approach is more expensive in the long run, it

may be the only way a community can afford to get started. Pressure systemswill work, but people must be aware that it's a "pay-as-you-go" system and it

is less convenient because of ongoing maintenance.

• After 20 years, the total estimated system cost for gravity is lower than the

total estimated system cost for a pressure system.

Separating gray water from the wastewater stream

• A separate gray water system would likely have greater costs because of theneed for two separate systems on each property - gray water and "black"(toilet) water systems.

• Plumbing retrofits would be required within existing homes in order to

separate gray water from black water.

• Separating gray water at the home would reduce the total amount of water

conveyed within the wastewater collection system. Less water in the sewersystem would impact pipeline design parameters. For example, most gravity

collection systems are designed for a certain amount of water to wash solidsdown the pipes. Removing gray water might generate a need to build steeper

gravity collection pipes in order to keep solids moving, which would need to

be constructed deeper and thus cost more. Also, more frequent line flushing

may be required in order to dislodge solids deposited in pipelines.• Sending gray water to a wastewater treatment plant for treatment could help

prevent gray water from possibly degrading groundwater supplies.

• A septic tank and drainfield would need to be maintained for gray waterseparation. A second tank and pump would be needed if a pressurized sewer

system were installed.

• The design team acknowledges the Port Hadlock community's mandate topursue reuse options for the communities treated wastewater. Although gray

water separation can be a viable reuse option, it is viewed by the design team



as less effective, more costly and less reliable than the proposed land-based

disposal/reuse option using a rapid rate infiltration system.


How costs compare between the membrane bioreactor (MBR) and the

sequencing batch reactor & filter (SBR)

• The total cost for MBR over 20 years could be up to 20% more than the totalcost for SBR. Since the 20 year costs associated with a MBR system account

for approximately 37% of the total costs of the sewer system, this wouldresult in an overall cost increase of around 7%.

How odor management compares among the treatment alternatives

• Although the project team has used the Port Townsend wastewater treatmentfacility as a reference for appropriate odor control and aesthetics, the City of

Port Townsend uses an oxidation ditch treatment technology and the

proposed treatment technology for Port Hadlock is an MBR. Some commentsfrom the public have indicated that a higher level of odor control may be

necessary. The County is budgeting for a wastewater treatment facility that isa good neighbor.

• There is some difference in the effort necessary to provide odor controlamong the three treatment technologies. Since SBR and MBR have smaller

areas of exposed water surface than oxidation ditches, it is less expensive tocover them and control odor for them. MBR or SBR treatment systems would

provide a better level of odor control as compared to the oxidation ditchsystem at the Port Townsend facility.

Building a storage pond vs. an additional treatment train

• There are Ecology requirement for providing redundancy so that the

treatment process has a certain level of reliability. There are two options forincluding redundancy: one is to build a single treatment train and a storage

pond, and the other is to build two treatment trains. The assumption in ourphasing plans is that two treatment trains will be built initially, storage will be

built at the first expansion, and two more treatment trains will be built at the

second expansion

Effluent Disposal/ Reuse A lternatives

Health impacts of effluent disposal

• We are planning to treat wastewater to Class A effluent levels, which is safefor reuse. It is the best quality of effluent. For Class A treatment, solids and

dissolved organics are removed, and the effluent it denitrified to a level of 1part per million and disinfected. Drinking water is allowed to have up to 10

parts per million of nitrogen.

Possibility of water reuse



• The wastewater will be treated to reuse standards allowing the Port Hadlock

sewer facility to explore future reuse opportunities. For example, treated

effluent may be used to irrigate ballfields.

Solids Handling Alternatives

Whether to dewater biosolids before they are hauled away

• The biosolids would be partially stabilized before they are shipped away, butthey would not be dewatered or disinfected at that point. We have found that

there would be a tremendous initial capital investment required to doadditional dewatering and stabilization. The design team has made a strategic

call that it makes financial sense to contract out the hauling and reuse of thefacility's biosolids. This would allow the County flexibility to continue with a

contractor in the future if it remains financially viable or to later invest in

solids handling equipment when more users are connected to the wastewatersystem.

Health impacts of biosolids disposal

• One identified contractor, Kitsap Biorecycle, mixes the biosolids with lime toproduce an "artificial soil." This soil is then applied to fields and immediately

plowed under to minimize the potential for odors and pests.

Facility Siting

Potential locations of treatment and disposal/ reuse facilities

• The project team will take into consideration public concern about using the"Central Site" for wastewater treatment and/or disposal/reuse. There has

been interest expressed in keeping that property, which is near thecommercial core of Port Hadlock, available for development.

• The location of the treatment and/or effluent disposal/reuse facilities will

influence the total cost of the sewer system. Cost considerations will also betaken into account.

Effluent disposal/ reuse being used to recharge Chimacum Creek

• The project team will look carefully at the hydrology of the area to determine,among other things, whether effluent disposal/reuse would provide recharge

to Chimacum Creek

Proximity of potential disposal/ reuse sites to w ells

• and whether effluent disposal/reuse would impact any wells, such as Kivley

Well or other private wells. Also, there are regulations and required setbacksto protect wells.

Cost & Financing



The schedule for developing cost estimates and financing options.

What the sewer system might cost?

How financing might work?

• Jefferson County has emphasized that constructing a sewer system in the

Irondale/Port Hadlock area must be affordable for the community. As part of

the sewer study, preliminary 20-year life cycle cost estimates have beenprepared as a way to compare sewer system alternatives. Once the Countyhas identified a preferred sewer system alternative, the consultant team will

use the preferred alternative to develop a detailed cost estimate as well as

financing options. A preferred sewer system alternative will be selected afterthe Board of County Commissioners workshop on August 8. The status of the

cost estimate and financing options will be presented at a public workshop onpreliminary design, cost, and financing options and at a public meeting in

October.

The length of time available for financing the sewer system

• The Growth Management Act requires a plan to implement the sewer systemwith a near term (6-year) and long term (20 year) plan.

What is included in the 20-year life cycle cost estimates

• The 20-year life cycle cost estimates for the sewer system include capital costfor sewers, on-site costs for connection to the sewers, wastewater treatment

(including treatment plant, disinfection, effluent disposal, and solidshandling), and the present value costs for operations and maintenance of all

facilities over 20 years.

How costs would be divided among sewer customers

• Although the cost of the sewer system per user decreases the more users

there are, the idea is to work out a financing plan whereby all users end uppaying the lower cost that would be attained with all forecasted customers

hooked up at the end of the 20-year planning period.

Sewer Planning Process

Whether the sewer planning boundary can be changed

• Making any changes to the 20-year sewer planning boundary would be apolicy decision for the community and the County. From a technical

standpoint, it is possible to alter the area that would be served by the sewersystem.

• The 6-year planning boundary is useful for planning purposes, but the actual

order in which properties connect to the sewer will be determined duringimplementation.

Whether the sewer planning boundary w ill become the urban growth areaboundary



• It is presumed that the sewer planning boundary will coincide with the urban

growth area boundary. This is because urban services must be provided

within an urban growth boundary and sanitary sewers are considered a keyurban service.

How long a sewer system is anticipated to last

• Although individual components of the sewer system may have a longer or

shorter lifetime, the entire sewer system is assumed to have a 20-year life for

this comparison.

Whether everyone w ill have to connect to the sewer

• The Sewer Facility Plan must demonstrate that it will be possible for everyone

to connect to the sewer system by the end of the 20-year planning period.However, the way in which customers would be required to connect to the

sewer system will be a policy decision for the community and the County.





APPENDIX C.

COMPARATIVE LIFE CYCLE COST ESTIMATES

September 2008



Project: Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility Plan

Subject: Treatment System Analysis

By : Tt

Date : 11-Aug-08 Updated Unit Costs

July 2008

ENR: 8361.74

ERUs 432 ERUs 502 ERUs 584

Flow (mgd) 0.10 Flow (mgd) 0.12 Flow (mgd) 0.14

Item Description Unit cost, $ Unit Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $

CORE PLUS ALCOHOL

2010 2011 2012

COLLECTION - STEP SYSTEM

Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate (per year)

Item Description

Labor $40 hr 483.8181818 $19,353 554.1244358 $22,165 635.8775661 $25,435

Septic tank pumping $300 ea 86 $25,909 100 $30,127 117 dieselDiesel oil $4.50 gal 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

Power $0.08 kWh 117532 $8,815 136668 $10,250 158920 $11,919

Chemicals $0.00 ls 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

Hypochlorite $0.60 lb 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

Sodium Bisulfite $0.20 gal 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

Polymer $3.00 lb 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

Misc expenses allowance 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

Total Annual Cost $54,077 $62,543 $37,354

Structural Maintenance 2% $33,143 2% $35,753 2% $38,765

Equipment replacement 4% $98,909 4% $112,361 4% $127,759

Total Annual Cost with Replacement Costs $186,128 $210,657 $203,878

= on site costs

Tetra Tech Seattle, WA





By : Tt

Date : 11-Aug-08

July 2008

ENR: 8361.74

Item Description



Item Description

Labor

Septic tank pumpingDiesel oil

Power

Chemicals

Hypochlorite

Sodium Bisulfite

Polymer

Misc expenses

Total Annual Cost

Structural Maintenance

Equipment replacement

Total Annual Cost with Replacement Costs

ERUs 1067 ERUs 1241 ERUs 1443 E

Flow (mgd) 0.25 Flow (mgd) 0.30 Flow (mgd) 0.34 Flow

Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $ Qua

RESIDENTIAL #1 RES

2016 2017 2018

1119.489269 $44,780 1293.291982 $51,732 1495.392294 $59,816 1730

213 $64,049 248 $74,478 289 $86,604 30 $0 0 $0 0 $0

290550 $21,791 337855 $25,339 392863 $29,465 45

0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

$130,620 $151,548 $175,884

2% $72,785 2% $82,124 2% $89,608

4% $225,373 4% $259,020 4% $297,477

$428,778 $492,692 $562,968






By : Tt

Date : 11-Aug-08

July 2008

ENR: 8361.74

Item Description



Item Description

Labor


Power

Chemicals

Hypochlorite

Sodium Bisulfite

Polymer

Misc expenses

Total Annual Cost




ERUs 3069 ERUs 3568 ERUs 3666 ERUs 3768

Flow (mgd) 0.73 Flow (mgd) 0.85 Flow (mgd) 0.87 Flow (mgd) 0.90

Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Unit Cost, $ Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $

RESIDENTIAL AREA #3

2023 2024 2025 2026

3120.573596 $124,823 3620.181819 $144,807 3718.441072 $148,738 3819.598133 $152,784

614 $184,114 714 $214,091 733 $219,986 754 $226,0560 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

835206 $62,640 971190 $72,839 997934 $74,845 1025467 $76,910

0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

$371,578 $431,737 $443,569 $455,750

2% $155,033 2% $180,582 2% $187,247 2% $195,364

4% $595,558 4% $687,491 4% $706,595 4% $728,592

$1,122,168 $1,299,810 $1,337,411 $1,379,70






By : Tt


July 2008

ENR: 8361.74




CORE PLUS ALCOHOL

2010 2011 2012

COLLECTION - GRAVITY SYSTEM


Item Description

Labor $40 hr 188 $7,520 188 $7,520 188 $7,520

Septic tank pumping $300 ea $0 $0 $0Diesel oil $4.50 gal $0 $0 $0

Power $0.08 kWh 123390 $9,254 125571 $9,418 128109 $9,608

Structural Maintenance 2% $0 2% $0 2% $0

Equipment replacement 4% $0 4% $0 4% $0

Chemicals $0.00 $0 $0 $0

Hypochlorite $0.60 lb 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0


Polymer $3.00 lb $0 $0 $0

Misc expenses allowance $0 $0 $0










By : Tt

Date : 11-Aug-08

July 2008

ENR: 8361.74

Item Description



Item Description

Labor


Power



Chemicals

Hypochlorite

Sodium Bisulfite

Polymer

Misc expenses

Total Annual Cost







RESIDENTIAL #1 RES

2016 2017 2018

260 $10,400 260 $10,400 260 $10,400 3

$0 $0 $0$0 $0 $0

251990 $18,899 257384 $19,304 263656 $19,774 32

2% $0 2% $0 2% $0

4% $0 4% $0 4% $0

$0 $0 $0

0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

$0 $0 $0

$0 $0 $0

$29,299 $29,704 $30,174

2% $161,289 2% $184,934 2% $194,615

4% $57,600 4% $57,600 4% $57,600

$248,188 $272,238 $282,390






By : Tt

Date : 11-Aug-08

July 2008

ENR: 8361.74

Item Description



Item Description

Labor


Power



Chemicals

Hypochlorite

Sodium Bisulfite

Polymer

Misc expenses

Total Annual Cost







RESIDENTIAL AREA #3

2023 2024 2025 2026

312 $12,480 416 $16,640 416 $16,640 416 $16,640

$0 $0 $0 $0$0 $0 $0 $0

368529 $27,640 492906 $36,968 495956 $37,197 499095 $37,432

2% $0 2% $0 2% $0 2% $0

4% $0 4% $0 4% $0 4% $0

$0 $0 $0 $0

0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0

$40,120 $53,608 $53,837 $54,072

2% $281,901 2% $342,064 2% $367,145 2% $393,183

4% $67,600 4% $92,600 4% $92,600 4% $92,600

$389,621 $488,272 $513,581 $539,855




D

e

8S

0

T H E S E C A L C U L A T I O N S U S E $ 2 5 k / A C R E

A N D A S S U M E D I S P O S A L A R E A I S O U T

S I D E T H E U G A

O

onP

I

2

HgFow1m

I

g

onaA

nmcR

eo01

g

sSoa

o5mnh

C

aC

E

m

e

Iem

D

pon

Q

y

U

U

c

$

C

$

S i t e P r o c e s s P i p i n g a n d V

5 0 0

L F

$ 6 5

$ 3 2 , 5 0 0

R S M e a n s

I n f i l t r a t i o n R a t e

g p d / s f

L a n d P u r c h a s e : S t o r a g e / 8

8 1

A c r e s

$ 2 5 , 0 0 0

$ 2 , 0 1 3 , 8 2 5

7 m o n t h s s t o r a g e

2

2 9 . 9 2 4

L a n d P u r c h a s e : D i s p o s a l /

4 5 9

A c r e s

$ 2 5 , 0 0 0

$ 1 1 , 4 7 8

, 4 2 1

U s e d 8 g p d / s f , D o u b l e d l a n d a r e a f o r

f u l l r e d u n d a n c y

0 . 1 S h o

w n i n A l e x ' S l i d e

L a n d P u r c h a s e : B u f f e r s

1 3 5

A c r e s

$ 2 5 , 0 0 0

$ 3 , 3 7 3 , 0 6 1

S t o r a g e B a s i n s - S i t e w o r

9 0 9 , 7 1 2

C Y

$ 8

$ 7 , 2 7 7 , 6 9 6

7 f e e t d e e p b a s i n , B e r m e d t o p .

S i t e P r o c e s s P i p i n g a n d V

1

L S

$ 2 5 , 0 0 0

$ 2 5 , 0 0 0

5 m o n t h s

a t 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 g p d a t 7 f e e t d e e p

E l e c t r i c a l C o n d u i t , S i t e w

1

L S

$ 1 0 , 0 0 0

$ 1 0 , 0 0 0

M o n i t o r i n g W e l l s

3

E A

$ 1 0 , 0 0 0

$ 3 0 , 0 0 0

S u b t o t a l S t r u c t u r a l

$ 2 4 , 2 4 0 , 5 0 3

W / O L a n d

M a i n P u m p S t a t i o n ( 2 . 1

0

E A

$ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0

$ 0

$ 7 , 3 7 5 , 1 9 6

M e d i u m P u m p S t a t i o n

1

E A

$ 3 7 5 , 0 0 0

$ 3 7 5 , 0

0 0

S m a l l P u m p S t a t i o n ( 0 . 0 3

0

E A

$ 2 5 0 , 0 0 0

$ 0

D i s t r i b u t i o n P i p i n g & E q

1

E A

$ 1 0 , 0 0 0

$ 1 0 , 0 0 0

S u b t o t a l E q u i p m e n t

$ 3 8 5 , 0

0 0

L a n d C o s t

T o t a l e s t i m a t e d c u r r e n t c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t

$ 2 4 , 6 2 5 , 5 0 3

$ 1 6 , 8 6 5 , 3 0 7

E s c a l a t i o n t o t i m e o f c o n s

2 . 6 0 %

$ 6 4 0 , 2

6 3

$ 7 , 7 6 0 , 1 9 6

$ 4 3 8 , 4 9 8

T o t a l e s t i m a t e d c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t

$ 2 5 , 2 6 5

, 7 6 7

$ 2 0 1 , 7 6 5

$ 1 7 , 3 0 3 , 8 0 5

C o n t i n g e n c y

3 0 %

$ 7 , 5 7 9 , 7 3 0

$ 7 , 9 6 1 , 9 6 1

$ 5 , 1 9 1 , 1 4 2

E n g i n e e r i n g D e s i g n

1 5 %

$ 2 , 3 3 1 , 2 5 4

L a n d C o s t s n o t i n c l u d e d

$ 0

S t o r a g e

1 5 %

$ 3 , 3 5 7 , 5 5 0 . 2 2

C o n s t r u c t i o n M a n a g e m e

1 0 %

$ 2 , 0 5 0 , 4 6 6


D i s p o s a l

8 5 %

$ 1 9 , 1 3 7 , 3 9 6 . 6 9

S a l e s T a x

8 . 8 %

$ 1 , 8 0 4 , 4 1 0


T o t a l E s t i m a t e d C a p i t a l C o s t

$ 3 9 , 0 3 1 , 6 2 7

$ 2 2 , 4 9 4 , 9 4 7

O

aon

a

M

nen

C

E

m

ep

y

Iem

D

pon

Q

y

U

U

C

A

C

L a b o r

1 0 4

h r

$ 3 0

$ 3 , 1 2

0

2 h r s / w e e k m a i n t e n a n c e o n p u m p s t a t i o n

P o w e r

3 2 6 6 1 7

k W h

$ 0 . 0 7

$ 2 2 , 8 6 3

1 2 h r / d a y r u n t i m e , 1 0 0 h p p u m p s t a t i o

n

S t r u c t u r a l M a i n t e n a n c e

2 %

$ 1 5 1 , 3

3 9

E q u i p m e n t r e p l a c e m e n t

4 %

$ 1 5 , 8 0 0

M i s c e x p e n s e s

a l l o w a n c e

$ 0

T o t a l A n n u a l C o s t

$ 1 9 3 , 1

2 3

P r e s e n t W o r t h F a c t o r

1 4 . 6 0 6 1

2 0 y e a r p e r i o d , 3 . 2 % d i s c o u n t f a c t o r

P r e s e n t W o r t h C o s t

$ 2 , 8 2 1 , 0 0 0

T

aP

nWo

hP

e

C

E

m

e

C a p i t a l

$ 3 9 , 0 3 1

, 6 2 7

O p e r a t i o n s a n d M a i n t e n a

n c e

$ 2 , 8 2 1 , 0 0 0

T o t a l P r e s e n t W o r t h

$ 4 1 , 8 5 2

, 6 0 0



D

8S

0

O

o

P

I

2

HgFow1m

R

dR

L

Ds

&S

S

hoS

cA

C

aC

E

m

Im

D

po

Q

y

U

U

c

$

C

$

S i t e P r o c e s s P i p i n g a n d V a l v i n g

5 0 0

L F

$ 6 5

$ 3 2 , 5 0 0

R S M e a n s

I n f i l t r a t i o n R a t e ( i n / h r )

g p d / s f

L a n d P u r c h a s e : S t o r a g e / 8 ' D i k e / 2 0 d a y s / B u i d o u t M M F l o w s

0

A c r e s

$ 2

8 , 0 3 2

$ 0

2

2 9 . 9 2 4

L a n d P u r c h a s e : D i s p o s a l / B u i d o u t M M F

l o w s

5 . 7

A c r e s

$ 2

8 , 0 3 2

$ 1 6 0 , 8 7 9

U s e d 8 g p d / s f , D o u b l e d l a n d a r e a f o r f u l l r e d u n d a n c y

8 S h o w n i n A l e x ' S l i d e


1

A c r e s

$ 2

8 , 0 3 2

$ 4 0 , 2 2 0

R a p i d I n f i l t r a t i o n B a s i n s - S i t e w o r k

3 7 , 0 3 7

C Y

$ 8

$ 2 9 6 , 2 9 6

S t o r a g e B a s i n s - S i t e w o r k

0

C Y

$ 8

$ 0

4 f e e t d e e p b a s i n .


1

L S

$ 2

5 , 0 0 0

$ 2 5 , 0 0 0

7 f e e t d e e p b a s i n , B e r m e d t o p

. 2 0 D a y s a t 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 g p d a t 7 f e e t d e e p

E l e c t r i c a l C o n d u i t , S i t e w o r k , L i g h t i n g

1

L S

$ 1

0 , 0 0 0

$ 1 0 , 0 0 0


3

E A

$ 1

0 , 0 0 0

$ 3 0 , 0 0 0


$ 5 9 4 , 8 9

W / O L a n d

M a i n P u m p S t a t i o n ( 2 . 1 m g d )

0

E A

$ 5 0

0 , 0 0 0

$ 0

$ 3 9 3 , 7 9 6


1

E A

$ 3 7

5 , 0 0 0

$ 3 7 5 , 0 0 0

S m a l l P u m p S t a t i o n ( 0 . 0 3 6 m g d )

0

E A

$ 2 5

0 , 0 0 0

$ 0

D i s t r i b u t i o n P i p i n g & E q u i p m e n t

1

E A

$ 1

0 , 0 0 0

$ 1 0 , 0 0 0


$ 3 8 5 , 0 0 0

L a n d C o s t


$ 9 7 9 , 8 9

$ 2 0 1 , 0 9 9

E s c a l a t i o n t o t i m e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n

2 . 6 0 %

$ 2 5 , 4 7 7

$ 7 7 8 , 7 9 6

$ 5 , 2 2 9

T o t a l e s t i m a t e d c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t

$ 1 , 0 0 5 , 3 7 3

$ 2 0 , 2 4 9

$ 2 0 6 , 3 2 8


3 0 %

$ 3 0 1 , 6 1 2

$ 7 9 9 , 0 4 5

$ 6 1 , 8 9 8


1 5 %

$ 1 6 5 , 0 9 9

$ 0

S t o r a g e

0 %

$ 0 . 0 0

C o n s t r u c t i o n M a n a g e m e n t

1 0 %

$ 1 1 0 , 0 6 6


D i s p o s a l

1 0 0 %

$ 2 6 8 , 2 2 5 . 9 9

S a l e s T a x

8 . 8 %

$ 9 6 , 8 5 8



$ 1 , 6 7 9 , 0 0 6


$ 2 6 8 , 2 2 6

O

o

a

M

n

C

E

m

p

y

Im

D

po

Q

y

U

U

C

A

C

L a b o r

1 0 4

h r

$ 3 0

$ 3 , 1 2 0

P o w e r

3 2 6 6 1 7

k W h

$

0 . 0 7

$ 2 2 , 8 6 3

2 h r s / w e e k m a i n t e n a n c e o n p u m

p s t a t i o n


2 %

$ 8 , 0 8 1

1 2 h r / d a y r u n t i m e , 1 0 0 h p p u m p

s t a t i o n


4 %

$ 1 5 , 8 0 0


a l l o w a n c e

$ 0


$ 4 9 , 8 6 4


1 4 . 6 0 6 1


$ 7 2 8 , 0 0 0

2 0 y e a r p e r i o d , 3 . 2 % d i s c o u n t f a c t o r

T

aP

Wo

hP

e

C

E

m

C a p i t a l

$ 1 , 6 7 9 , 0 0 6

O p e r a t i o n s a n d M a i n t e n a n c e

$ 7 2 8 , 0 0 0


$ 2 , 4 0 7 , 0 0 0



D

e

8S

0

O

onP

I

2

HgFow1m

Cn

ueW

a

2d

soa

12g

sdsp

C

aC

E

m

e

Iem

D

p

on

Q

y

U

U

c

$

C

$


5 0 0

L F

$

6 5

$ 3 2 , 5 0 0

R S M e a n s

I n f i l t r a t i o n R a t g p d / s f

L a n d P u r c h a s e : S t o r a g e / 8 ' D i k

e / 2 0 d a y s / B u i d o u t M

3

A c r e s

$ 2 5 , 0 0 0

$ 6 2 , 5 0 0

2

2 9 . 9 2 4

L a n d P u r c h a s e : W e t l a n d D i s p

o s a l / B u i d o u t M M F l o

3 8

A c r e s

$ 2 5 , 0 0 0

$ 9 5 6 , 5 3 5

U s e d 1 . 2 g p d / s f

1

. 2 S h o w n i n A l e x ' S l i d e


1 0

A c r e s

$ 2 5 , 0 0 0

$ 2 5 4 , 7 5 9

W e t l a n d s - S i t e w o r k

1 , 6 6 6 , 6 6 7

S F

$

1 5

$ 2 5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0

S t o r a g e B a s i n s - S i t e w o r k

2 8 , 2 3 3

C Y

$ 8

$ 2 2 5 , 8 6 7

7 f e e t d e e p b a s i n , B e r m

e d t o p .


1

L S

$ 2 5 , 0 0 0

$ 2 5 , 0 0 0

2 0 D a y s a t 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 g p d a t 7 f e e t d e e p

E l e c t r i c a l C o n d u i t , S i t e w o r k , L i g h t i n g

1

L S

$ 1 0 , 0 0 0

$ 1 0 , 0 0 0


3

E A

$ 1 0 , 0 0 0

$ 3 0 , 0 0 0


$ 2 6 , 5 9 7 , 1 6 0

W / O L a n d

M a i n P u m p S t a t i o n ( 2 . 1 m g d )

0

E A

$ 5 0

0 , 0 0 0

$ 0

$ 2 5 , 3 2 3 , 3 6 7


1

E A

$ 3 7

5 , 0 0 0

$ 3 7 5 , 0 0 0

S m a l l P u m p S t a t i o n ( 0 . 0 3 6 m g d )

0

E A

$ 2 5

0 , 0 0 0

$ 0

D i s t r i b u t i o n P i p i n g & E q u i p m

e n t

1

E A

$ 1 0 , 0 0 0

$ 1 0 , 0 0 0


$ 3 8 5 , 0 0 0

L a n d C o s t


$ 2 6 , 9 8 2 , 1 6 0

$ 1 , 2 7 3 , 7 9 4

E s c a l a t i o n t o t i m e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n

2 . 6 0 %

$ 7 0 1 , 5 3 6

$ 2 5 , 7 0 8 , 3 6 7

$ 3 3 , 1 1 9

T o t a l e s t i m a t e d c o n s t r u c t i o n c

o s t

$ 2 7 , 6 8 3 , 6 9 7

$ 6 6 8 , 4 1 8

$ 1 , 3 0 6 , 9 1 2


3 0 %

$ 8 , 9 2 1 , 0 7 3

$ 2 6 , 3 7 6 , 7 8 4

$ 3 9 2 , 0 7 4


1 5 %

$ 5 , 3 6 6 , 5 8 8


$ 0

S t o r a g e

6 %

$ 1 0 4 , 2 0 3 . 1 3

C o n s t r u c t i o n M a n a g e m e n t

1 0 %

$ 3 , 5 7 7 , 7 2 5


D i s p o s a l

9 4 %

$ 1 , 5 9 4 , 7 8 3 . 0 6

S a l e s T a x

8 . 8 %

$ 3 , 1 4 8 , 3 9 8



$ 4 8 , 6 9 7 , 4 8 1

$ 1 , 6 9 8 , 9 8 6

O

aon

a

M

nen

C

E

m

ep

y

Iem

D

p

on

Q

y

U

U

C

A

C

L a b o r

1 0 4

h r

$

3 0

$ 3 , 1 2 0

2 h r s / w e e k m a i n t e n a n c e o n p u m p s t a t i o n

P o w e r

3 2 6 6 1 7

k W h

$ 0 . 0 7

$ 2 2 , 8 6 3

1 2 h r / d a y r u n t i m e , 1 0 0 h p

p u m p s t a t i o n


2 %

$ 5 1 9 , 6 3 5


4 %

$ 1 5 , 8 0 0


a l l o w a n c e

$ 0


$ 5 6 1 , 4 1 9


1 4 . 6 0 6 1

2 0 y e a r p e r i o d , 3 . 2 % d i s c

o u n t f a c t o r


$ 8 , 2 0 0 , 0 0 0

T

aP

n

Wo

hP

e

C

E

m

e

C a p i t a l

$ 4 8 , 6 9 7 , 4 8 1

O p e r a t i o n s a n d M a i n t e n a n c e

$ 8 , 2 0 0 , 0 0 0


$ 5 6 , 8 9 7 , 5 0 0



F

L

O

sd

th

U

A v e r a g e V a l u e / A c r e

$ 2

5 , 0 0 0

L

V

up

A

C

cuaonSuhE

oU

P

s

P a r c e l #

A s s e s s e d

V a l u e

E s c a l a t i o n F a c t o r

E s t i m a t e d M a r k e t

A c r e s

$ / A c r e

V a l u

e

9 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 2

$ 8 5 , 5 0 0

1 . 5

$ 1 2 8 , 2 5 0

9 . 8

$ 1 3 , 1 4 0

9 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 9

$ 3 7 5 , 0 0 0

1 . 5

$ 5 6 2 , 5 0 0

6 . 4

$ 8 7 , 4 9 9

9 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 0

$ 5 5 , 2 6 5

1 . 5

$ 8 2 , 8 9 8

9 . 4

$ 8 , 7 8 4

9 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 2

$ 8 0 , 7 0 0

1 . 5

$ 1 2 1 , 0 5 0

5 . 9

$ 2 0 , 4 5 8

9 0 1 1 1 2 0 4 1

$ 4 7 , 8 7 5

1 . 5

$ 7 1 , 8 1 3

7 . 0

$ 1 0 , 2 7 6

A v e r a g e V a l u e / A c r e

$ 2 8 , 0 3 2

T h i s c a l c u l a t i o n w i l l s u m t h e C o u n t y A s s e s s e d V a l u e ( o r l a t e s t s

a l e v a l u e ) f o r t h e s i x p a r c e l s , m u l t i p l y b y

e s c a l a t i o n f a c t o r t o e s t i m a t e t h e m a r k e t v a l u e , a n d d i v i d e b y t h e

t o t a l a c r e a g e t o g e t a v a l u e / a c r e .





By : Tt

Date : 11-Aug-08

July 2008

ENR: 8361.74

Item Description

TREATMENT - MBR

Capital Cost Estimate

Structural

Administration/Lab Building

Electrical Building (generator outside)Mechanical Building

Excavation

Backfill

Headworks Concrete

Slab Concrete and Rebar

Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar

Access Bridge Concrete

Effluent Weir Concrete

Misc Metals (Handrailing, Covers, etc.)

Site Stormwater Piping and Valving

Site Process Piping and Valving

Indoor Process Piping and Valving

Membrane Bioreactor Piping and Valving

Manholes

Stormwater Detention Tank and Control Structures

Paving

Sitework

Landscaping

Electrical Conduit, Sitework

Site Lighting

Laboratory Equipment

Furniture

Land Acquisition

Land Purchase: Storage/8' Dike/20days/Buidout MM FlowsLand Purchase: Buffers

Storage Basins - Sitework

Electrical Conduit, Sitework, Lighting

Liner

Concrete Access Ramps

Inlet / Outlet Structures

Subtotal Structural

Equipment

Biological air blowers (@ 40 hp)

Blower piping

Biological air diffuser systems

Anoxic Mixers (@ 2.5 hp)

Influent Screen - 1/8 in.

Transfer Pump from Membrane to Anoxic Basin

Washer Compactor

Permeate Pumps

Redundant Influent Screen

WAS Pumps

Magnetic Flow Meters

Yard Pump Station Pumps

Plant Water Pumps

Strainer (Manual duplex)

Overhead Crane

Hydro TankOdor Control - Carbon Adsorber, Fans, Piping

Generator

Generator Silencer, Louvers, Acoustics

Underground Fuel Storage Tank, Pumps

Automatic Transfer Switch

Motor Control Centers/Variable Frequency Drives

PLC

Main Pump Station (2.1 mgd)

Medium Pump Station

Small Pump Station (0.036 mgd)

Distribution Piping & Equipment

Aspirating Aerator

Subtotal Equipment




RESIDENTIAL AREA #3

2023 2024 2025 2026

$0 $0 $0 $0

1 $351,895 $351,895

$0 $351,895 $0 $0






By : Tt


July 2008

ENR: 8361.74




CORE PLUS ALCOHOL

2010 2011 2012

Installation, Miscellaneous Mechanical of Equip 40% $854,604 $0 $140,758

Electrical of Equip 20% $427,302 $0 $70,379

Instrumentation and Control of Equip 15% $320,477 $0 $52,784

Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $6,403,375 $0 $615,816

Contractor O&P of Sub Cost 15% $960,506 $0 $92,372

Mobilization, demobilization, bond of Sub cost 6% $384,202 $0 $36,949

Total estimated current construction cost $7,748,083 $0 $745,138

Escalation to time of construction 3.50% $271,183 $0 $26,080

Total estimated construction cost $8,019,266 $0 $771,217

Contingency 30% $2,405,780 $0 $231,365

Engineering Design 15% $1,563,757 $0 $150,387

Construction Management 10% $1,042,505 $0 $100,258

Sales Tax 8.4% $875,704 $0 $84,217

Total Estimated Capital Cost $13,907,000 $0 $1,337,000


Item Description Unit Cost Unit Quantity Annual Cost

Labor $40 HR 2,080 $83,200 2,080 $83,200 2,080 $83,200

Membrane Replacement $75 panel 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

Diesel oil $4.50 GAL 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

Power $0.075 kWh 173,736 $13,030 186,686 $14,001 201,745 $15,131

Other utilities (water, garbage, etc.) $1,000 month 12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000

Chemicals - membrane cleaning $3,380 LS 2 $6,760 2 $6,760 2 $6,760

Hypochlorite $1.50 LB 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

Laboratory Testing at Port Townsend $25.00 Test 416 $10,400 416 $10,400 416 $10,400

Polymer $3.00 LB 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

Misc expenses allowance 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0Total Annual Cost $125,390 $126,361 $127,491

Structural Replacement 2% $53,290 2% $53,290 2% $53,290

Capital Replacement 4% $85,460 4% $85,460 4% $85,460


"overhead " horsepower = 9

"overhead" power with expansion = 16


TREATMENT - MBR





By : Tt

Date : 11-Aug-08

July 2008

ENR: 8361.74

Item Description

Installation, Miscellaneous Mechanical

Electrical

Instrumentation and Control

Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C

Contractor O&P

Mobilization, demobilization, bond

Total estimated current construction cost

Escalation to time of construction

Total estimated construction cost

Contingency

Engineering Design

Construction Management

Sales Tax

Total Estimated Capital Cost


Item Description

Labor

Membrane Replacement

Diesel oil

Power

Other utilities (water, garbage, etc.)

Chemicals - membrane cleaning

Hypochlorite

Laboratory Testing at Port Townsend

Polymer

Misc expensesTotal Annual Cost

Structural Replacement

Capital Replacement


"overhead" horsepower =

"overhead" power with expansion =




RESIDENTIAL #1 RES

2016 2017 2018

$0 $0 $503,757

$0 $0 $251,878

$0 $0 $188,909

$0 $0 $4,091,946

$0 $0 $613,792

$0 $0 $245,517

$0 $0 $4,951,255

$0 $0 $173,294

$0 $0 $5,124,549

$0 $0 $1,537,365

$0 $0 $999,287

$0 $0 $666,191

$0 $0 $559,601

$0 $0 $8,887,000

2,080 $83,200 3,796 $151,840 3,796 $151,840 3

400 $30,000 400 $30,000 800 $60,000 8

0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

290,825 $21,812 323,555 $24,267 406,508 $30,488 40

12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000

2 $6,760 3 $10,140 3 $10,140

0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

416 $10,400 416 $10,400 416 $10,400 4

0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

0 $0 0 $0 0 $0$164,172 $238,647 $274,868

2% $53,290 2% $53,290 2% $91,050

4% $85,460 4% $85,460 4% $135,836

$302,922 $377,397 $501,754


TREATMENT - MBR



Project: Port Hadlock Facilities Plan

Subject: Disinfection Analysis

By : Tt

Date : 7-Apr-03

Ultraviolet Disinfection + Liquid Hypochlorite for Residual


Item Description Quantity Unit Unit cost, $ Cost, $Building enclosure for equipment 100 SF $100 $10,000

Slab Concrete and Rebar 22 CY $300 $6,667 10*30 dual channels

Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar 36 CY $400 $14,222

Misc Metals (Handrailing, Covers, etc.) 1 LS $5,000 $5,000

Misc Concrete (NaOCl secondary containment) 5 CY $500 $2,500

Site Process Piping and Valving 1 LS $20,000 $20,000

Sitework 1 LS $10,000 $10,000

Electrical Conduit, Sitework 1 LS $10,000 $10,000

Site Lighting 1 LS $20,000 $20,000

Jib Crane for UV Unit 1 LS $5,000 $5,000

$0

Subtotal Structural $103,389

Lamps and Equipment with installation 1 ea $100,000 $100,000

Additional Generator Capacity - for UV and add. 65 kW $200 $12,948

Storage Tank (3-55 gal drums) 3 ea $200 $600

Pumps w/ installation (hypo) 2 ea $2,500 $5,000

Tank Mixers 1 ea $1,000 $1,000

Feed Pacing Controller 1 ea $2,500 $2,500

Chemical Flow Meter 1 ea $2,000 $2,000

$0

Subtotal Equipment $124,048 Installation, Miscellaneous Mechanical 40% of Equip $49,619

Electrical 20% of Equip $24,810

Instrumentation and Control 15% of Equip $18,607

Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $320,474

Contractor O&P 15% of Sub Cost $48,071

Mobilization, demobilization, bond 6% of Sub cost $19,228

Total estimated current construction cost $387,773

Escalation to time of construction 2.60% $10,082

Total estimated construction cost $397,855

Dollars per gallon $0.80

Costs for 1 MGD $795,710

Escalated ENR to 8500 $845,971

Contingency 30% $253,791

Engineering Design 15% $164,964

Construction Management 10% $109,976

Sales Tax 8.3% $91,280

Total Estimated Capital Cost $1,466,000


Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Annual Cost

Labor 208 hr $30 $6,240 2 hours / week to clean. Double for 1 MG

Septic tank pumping 0 ea $300 $60

Diesel oil gal $2.00 $0

Power 30417 kWh $0.07 $2,129 0.5 mgd, 40 gpm/lamp, 200 watts/lamp, 24 hrs/day. D ouble for

Structural Maintenance 2% $2,122

Equipment replacement 4% $5,091

Chemicals $0.00 $0

Hypochlorite 1522 lb $0.60 $913 0.5 mgd, 0.5 mg/l dose. Double for 1 MG

Sodium Bisulfite 0 gal $0.20 $0

Polymer lb $3.00 $0

Structural Replacement 2% $2,068


Misc expenses allowance $0

Total Annual Cost $23,585

Present Worth Factor 14.6061

Present Worth Cost $344,000

Total Present Worth Project Cost Estimate

Capital $1,466,000

Operations and Maintenance $344,000

Total Present Worth $1,810,000





Subject: Solids Handling Analysis

By : Tt

Date : 29-Aug-08

Membrane Bioreactors with raw sludge wasting


Item Description Quantity Unit Unit cost, $ Cost, $


Sitework 1 LS $10,000 $10,000

Landscaping 1 LS $0


Sludge storage

Steel 10k gallon sludge holding tank 1 EA $20,000 $20,000

Subtotal Equipment $20,000

Installation, Miscellaneous Mechanical 40% of Equip $8,000Electrical 25% of Equip $5,000











Sales Tax 8.3% $6,756

Total Estimated Capital Cost $109,000



Labor 183 HR $40 $7,300

Membrane Replacement 0 panel $75 $0

Diesel oil GAL $2.50 $0

Power 0 kWh $0.075 $0

Structural Maintenance 2% $290

Equipment replacement 4% $828


Sludge hauling and disposal 1,770,615 GAL $0.12 $212,474


20 year P/A Factor 20.00Present Worth Cost $4,418,000


Capital $109,000

Operations and Maintenance $4,418,000







By : Tt

Date : 29-Aug-08

Membrane Bioreactors With Dewatering



Administration/Lab Building 0 SF $200 $0

Electrical Building (generator outside) 0 SF $150 $0

Mechanical Building 150 SF $150 $22,500

Dewatering and sludge truck loading building 1,000 SF $150 $150,000

Sludge Truck Loading Roofed Area 600 SF $50 $30,000

Slab Concrete and Rebar 24 CY $500 $11,963


excavation 676 CY $20 $13,520

backfill 601 CY $15 $9,020


Indoor Process Piping and Valving 1 LS $51,269 $51,269

Sitework 1 LS $120,000 $120,000

Landscaping 1 LS $0


WAS holding tank

Blower 2 EA $10,000 $20,000

Diffusser with piping 2 EA $10,000 $20,000

Decant pump 0 EA $10,000

Thickener Facilities

Belt Filter Press, w/control panel 1 EA $250,000 $250,000

Compressor, water boaster pump 1 EA $5,000 $5,000

Dewatering Sludge Conveyor 32 LF $1,000 $32,000

Odor Control Scrubber 1 EA $52,800 $52,800

Sludge Pump 2 EA $9,105 $18,210

Polymer Feed System 1 EA $12,140 $12,140

HVAC for buildings $0


Installation, Miscellaneous Mechanical 40% of Equip $164,060



Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $1,230,799



Total estimated current construction cost $1,489,267


Total estimated construction cost $1,541,391




Sales Tax 8.3% $166,316




Labor 590 HR $40 $23,608


Power 22,133 kWh $0.075 $1,660



Chemicals - membrane cleaning 0 LS $2,000 $0

Hypochlorite 0 LB $0.60 $0

Sodium Bisulfite 0 GAL $0.20 $0

Polymer 2,215 LB $3.00 $6,645


Sludge hauling and disposal 165,995 GAL $0.25 $41,499


20 year P/A Factor 20.00

Present Worth Cost $2,012,000


Capital $2,671,000








By : Tt

Date : 29-Aug-08

Membrane Bioreactors With Thickener

Capital Cost EstimateItem Description Quantity Unit Unit cost, $ Cost, $

Administration/Lab Building 0 SF $200 $0

Electrical Building (generator outside) 0 SF $150 $0

Mechanical Building 150 SF $150 $22,500

Filter & Chemical Building 650 SF $150 $97,500

Slab Concrete and Rebar 24 CY $500 $11,963


excavation 676 CY $20 $13,520

backfill 601 CY $15 $9,020


Indoor Process Piping and Valving 1 LS $23,210 $23,210

Sitework 1 LS $60,000 $60,000

Landscaping 1 LS $0


WAS holding tank

Blower 1 EA $20,000 $10,000

Diffuser with piping 1 EA $20,000 $10,000

Decant pump 0 EA $10,000

Thickener Facilities

Screw Press Thickerner 1 EA $54,630 $54,630

Odor Control Scrubber 1 EA $60,700 $60,700

Sludge Pump 2 EA $9,105 $18,210

Polymer Feed System 1 EA $12,140 $12,140

HVAC for buildings $0

Thickened sludge storage

Steel 10k gallon sludge holding tank 1 EA $20,000 $20,000


Installation, Miscellaneous Mechanical 40% of Equip $74,272












Sales Tax 8.3% $86,396




Labor 590 HR $40 $23,608


Power 17,706 kWh $0.075 $1,328



Hypochlorite 0 LB $0.60 $0

Sodium Bisulfite 0 GAL $0.20 $0

Polymer 1,108 LB $3.00 $3,323

Misc expenses allowance $0Sludge hauling and disposal 663,981 GAL $0.20 $132,796


20 year P/A Factor 20.00



Capital $1,388,000






Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Unthickened sludge to PortTownsend

Unthickened sludge toBiocycle

Unthickened sludgeto Port Angeles

Thickening and to PortTownsand

Thickening anddigested to PortTownsand

Capital $147,649 $147,649 $147,649 $801,649Annual O&M $150,295 $50,098 $91,847 $64,710

PW O&MTotal PW

WAS gpd ppd Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

2010 1,144 191 tipping and hauling $0.36 $0.12 $0.222020 3,681 6142030 11,849 1,976

TANK

tank volume (ft3) 1337 dimension 18 19 20 under ground 12wall concrete (cy) 95 cost $37,956slab concrete (cy) 34 cost $10,267excavation (cy) 1199 cost $17,982

disposal (cy) 205 cost $3,080backfill (cy) 993 cost $29,804diffusers 2 cost $48,560 unit cost from coupeville $20,000blowers 2 cost unit cost from coupeville $20,000Total $147,649

THICKENER

total cost $654,000 coupeville alternative 1screw press capacit(gpm) 50 coupeville

2010

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 510k gal holding tank $147,649 $147,649 $147,649 $147,649 $147,649

thickener $654,000total capital cost $147,649 $147,649 $147,649 $801,649hauling and tipping fee $150,295 $50,098 $91,847 $56,361labor (included in fee) $8,350power (included in fee)equipment replacement (included in fee)

chemicals (included in fee)total O&M cost $150,295 $50,098 $91,847 $64,71020-yr. O&M Cost $3,005,903 $1,001,968 $1,836,941 $866,359 $0

20-year Life CycleCost $3,153,551.69 $1,149,616.49 $1,984,589.49




Date : 8-Sep-08



12" DIP Force Main Overland (10' to 12' deep) 9,000 LF $65 $585,000 RS MeansDewatering 1 LS $50,000 $50,000

Aphalt Surface Restoration 2,583 SY $30 $77,500 RS Means Assumes 3-foot trench restorationGravel Surface Restoration 1,667 SY $10 $16,667 RS Means Assumes 3-foot trench restorationLand Purchase: Disposal/Buidout MM Flows 5.7 Acres $28,032 $160,879

Land Purchase: Treatment 4.0 Acres $28,032 $112,126

Land Purchase: Buffers 2 Acres $28,032 $68,251


Electrical Conduit, Sitework, Lighting 1 LS $10,000 $10,000

Monitoring Wells 3 EA $10,000 $30,000

Subtotal Structural $1,135,424 W/O Land

Main Pump Station (2.1 mgd) 0 EA $500,000 $0 $794,167Medium Pump Station 1 EA $375,000 $375,000

Small Pump Station (0.036 mgd) 0 EA $250,000 $0

Distribution Piping & Equipment 1 EA $10,000 $10,000

Reclaimed Water Pumps/Filter 1 EA $50,000 $50,000



Escalation to time of construction 2.60% $40,831 $1,229,167

Total estimated construction cost $1,611,255 $31,958

Contingency 30% $483,376 $1,261,125Engineering Design 15% $261,675

Construction Management 10% $174,450 Land Costs not included

Sales Tax 8.8% $153,516 Land Costs not includedTotal Estimated Capital Cost $2,684,273 Land Costs not included



Labor 104 hr $30 $3,120 2hrs/week maintenance on pump stationPower 244962 kWh $0.07 $17,147 12hr/day run time, 75hp pump stationStructural Maintenance 2% $23,299




Present Worth Factor 20.0000 20year period, 3.2% discount factor



Capital $2,684,273



Option: Rapid Rate Surface Percolation Land App lication at East Jefferson Little League/Sheriff's Ballfields, Pump from N ess'

Corner Rd. and Shotwell Rd., 1.77 mgd MM Buildout Flows



Date : 8-Sep-08



12" DIP Force Main Overland (10' to 12' deep) 11,000 LF $65 $715,000 RS Means

Dewatering 1 LS $50,000 $50,000

Aphalt Surface Restoration 13,000 SY $30 $390,000 RS Means Assumes Full 12-foot restoratio

Gravel Surface Restoration 1,667 SY $10 $16,667 RS MeansLand Purchase: Storage/15' Dike/20days/Buidout MM 11 Acres $25,000 $275,000 Assumes Tigher Soils

Land Purchase: Treatment 4 Acres $25,000 $100,000






Main Pump Station (2.1 mgd) 1 EA $500,000 $500,000 $1,236,667

Medium Pump Station 0 EA $375,000 $0








Contingency 30% $697,295 $1,843,380


Construction Management 10% $254,068 Land Costs not includedSales Tax 8.8% $223,579 Land Costs not included

Total Estimated Capital Cost $3,880,361 Land Costs not included



Labor 104 hr $30 $3,120 20year period, 3.2% discount factor

Power 326617 kWh $0.07 $22,863 12hr/day run time, 75hp pump stationStructural Maintenance 2% $34,995







Capital $3,880,361



Option: Rapid Rate Surface Percolation Land Application adjacent to H.J. Carroll Park, Pump from Ness' Corner Rd.

and Shotwell Rd., 1.77 mgd MM Buildout Flows





12" DIP Force Main Overland (10' to 12' deep) 3,600 LF $65 $234,000 RS MeansDewatering 1 LS $50,000 $50,000

Aphalt Surface Restoration 783 SY $30 $23,500 RS Means Assumes 3-foot trench restorationGravel Surface Restoration 1,667 SY $10 $16,667 RS Means Assumes 3-foot trench restorationLand Purchase: Disposal/Buidout MM Flows 5.7 Acres $28,032 $160,879

Land Purchase: Treatment 4.0 Acres $28,032 $112,126





Subtotal Structural $730,424 W/O Land

Main Pump Station (2.1 mgd) 0 EA $500,000 $0 $389,167Medium Pump Station 1 EA $375,000 $375,000






Escalation to time of construction 2.60% $30,301 $824,167


Contingency 30% $358,717 $845,595Engineering Design 15% $180,647





Labor 104 hr $30 $3,120 2hrs/week maintenance on pump stationPower 244962 kWh $0.07 $17,147 12hr/day run time, 75hp pump stationStructural Maintenance 2% $14,988




Present Worth Factor 20.0000 20year period, 3.2% discount factor



Capital $1,961,500



Option: Rapid Rate Surface Percolation Land Application at Central Site near Hunt/Mason Rds., Pump from Ness' Corner Rd.

and Shotwell Rd., 1.77 mgd MM Buildout Flows



Date : 8-Sep-08




Dewatering 1 LS $50,000 $50,000

Aphalt Surface Restoration 15,000 SY $30 $450,000 RS Means Assumes Full 12-foot restoration along Rhody DriveGravel Surface Restoration 1,667 SY $10 $16,667 RS Means

Land Purchase: Storage/15' Dike/20days/Buidout MM Fl ows 11 Acres $25,000 $275,000 Assumes Tigher soils







Main Pump Station (2.1 mgd) 1 EA $500,000 $500,000 $1,394,167Medium Pump Station 0 EA $375,000 $0














Power 326617 kWh $0.07 $22,863 12hr/day run time, 100hp pump station








Capital $4,161,439



Option: Rapid Rate Surface Percolation Land Application at Port of Pt. Towsend Airport, Pump from Ness' C orner Rd. and

Shotwell Rd., 1.77 mgd MM B uildout Flows



Date : 8-Sep-08




Dewatering 1 LS $50,000 $50,000

Aphalt Surface Restoration 10,600 SY $30 $318,000 RS Means Assumes Full 12-foot restoration along Rhody DriveGravel Surface Restoration 1,667 SY $10 $16,667 RS Means

Land Purchase: Storage/15' Dike/20days/Buidout MM Fl ows 11 Acres $25,000 $275,000 Assumes Tigher soils







Main Pump Station (2.1 mgd) 1 EA $500,000 $500,000 $1,047,667Medium Pump Station 0 EA $375,000 $0














Power 326617 kWh $0.07 $22,863 12hr/day run time, 100hp pump station








Capital $3,543,067



Option: Rapid Rate Surface Percolation Land Application adjacent to Chimacum H.S, Pump from Ness' Corner Rd. and

Shotwell Rd., 1.77 mgd MM B uildout Flows





APPENDIX D.

PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES FOR RECOMMENDED

ALTERNATIVE

September 2008





By : Tt


July 2008

ENR: 8361.74




CORE PLUS ALCOHOL

2010 2011 2012



Item Description

Labor $40 hr 188 $7,520 188 $7,520 188 $7,520

Septic tank pumping $300 ea $0 $0 $0Diesel oil $4.50 gal $0 $0 $0

Power $0.08 kWh 123390 $9,254 125571 $9,418 128109 $9,608

Structural Maintenance 2% $0 2% $0 2% $0

Equipment replacement 4% $0 4% $0 4% $0

Chemicals $0.00 $0 $0 $0

Hypochlorite $0.60 lb 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0


Polymer $3.00 lb $0 $0 $0

Misc expenses allowance $0 $0 $0










By : Tt

Date : 11-Aug-08

July 2008

ENR: 8361.74

Item Description



Item Description

Labor


Power



Chemicals

Hypochlorite

Sodium Bisulfite

Polymer

Misc expenses

Total Annual Cost







RESIDENTIAL #1 RES

2016 2017 2018

260 $10,400 260 $10,400 260 $10,400 3

$0 $0 $0$0 $0 $0

251990 $18,899 257384 $19,304 263656 $19,774 32

2% $0 2% $0 2% $0

4% $0 4% $0 4% $0

$0 $0 $0

0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

$0 $0 $0

$0 $0 $0

$29,299 $29,704 $30,174

2% $161,289 2% $184,934 2% $194,615

4% $57,600 4% $57,600 4% $57,600

$248,188 $272,238 $282,390






By : Tt

Date : 11-Aug-08

July 2008

ENR: 8361.74

Item Description



Item Description

Labor


Power



Chemicals

Hypochlorite

Sodium Bisulfite

Polymer

Misc expenses

Total Annual Cost







RESIDENTIAL AREA #3

2023 2024 2025 2026

312 $12,480 416 $16,640 416 $16,640 416 $16,640

$0 $0 $0 $0$0 $0 $0 $0

368529 $27,640 492906 $36,968 495956 $37,197 499095 $37,432

2% $0 2% $0 2% $0 2% $0

4% $0 4% $0 4% $0 4% $0

$0 $0 $0 $0

0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0

$40,120 $53,608 $53,837 $54,072

2% $281,901 2% $342,064 2% $367,145 2% $393,183

4% $67,600 4% $92,600 4% $92,600 4% $92,600

$389,621 $488,272 $513,581 $539,855






By : Tt

Date : 11-Aug-08

July 2008

ENR: 8361.74

Item Description

TREATMENT - MBR


Structural

Administration/Lab Building

Electrical Building (generator outside)Mechanical Building

Excavation

Backfill

Headworks Concrete

Slab Concrete and Rebar

Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar

Access Bridge Concrete

Effluent Weir Concrete

Misc Metals (Handrailing, Covers, etc.)

Site Stormwater Piping and Valving

Site Process Piping and Valving

Indoor Process Piping and Valving

Membrane Bioreactor Piping and Valving

Manholes

Stormwater Detention Tank and Control Structures

Paving

Sitework

Landscaping

Electrical Conduit, Sitework

Site Lighting

Laboratory Equipment

Furniture

Land Acquisition

Land Purchase: Storage/8' Dike/20days/Buidout MM FlowsLand Purchase: Buffers

Storage Basins - Sitework

Electrical Conduit, Sitework, Lighting

Liner

Concrete Access Ramps

Inlet / Outlet Structures

Subtotal Structural

Equipment

Biological air blowers (@ 40 hp)

Blower piping

Biological air diffuser systems

Anoxic Mixers (@ 2.5 hp)

Influent Screen - 1/8 in.

Transfer Pump from Membrane to Anoxic Basin

Washer Compactor

Permeate Pumps

Redundant Influent Screen

WAS Pumps

Magnetic Flow Meters

Yard Pump Station Pumps

Plant Water Pumps

Strainer (Manual duplex)

Overhead Crane

Hydro TankOdor Control - Carbon Adsorber, Fans, Piping

Generator

Generator Silencer, Louvers, Acoustics

Underground Fuel Storage Tank, Pumps

Automatic Transfer Switch

Motor Control Centers/Variable Frequency Drives

PLC

Main Pump Station (2.1 mgd)

Medium Pump Station

Small Pump Station (0.036 mgd)

Distribution Piping & Equipment

Aspirating Aerator

Subtotal Equipment




RESIDENTIAL AREA #3

2023 2024 2025 2026

$0 $0 $0 $0

1 $351,895 $351,895

$0 $351,895 $0 $0






By : Tt


July 2008

ENR: 8361.74




CORE PLUS ALCOHOL

2010 2011 2012

Installation, Miscellaneous Mechanical of Equip 40% $854,604 $0 $140,758

Electrical of Equip 20% $427,302 $0 $70,379

Instrumentation and Control of Equip 15% $320,477 $0 $52,784

Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $6,403,375 $0 $615,816

Contractor O&P of Sub Cost 15% $960,506 $0 $92,372

Mobilization, demobilization, bond of Sub cost 6% $384,202 $0 $36,949

Total estimated current construction cost $7,748,083 $0 $745,138

Escalation to time of construction 3.50% $271,183 $0 $26,080

Total estimated construction cost $8,019,266 $0 $771,217

Contingency 30% $2,405,780 $0 $231,365

Engineering Design 15% $1,563,757 $0 $150,387

Construction Management 10% $1,042,505 $0 $100,258

Sales Tax 8.4% $875,704 $0 $84,217

Total Estimated Capital Cost $13,907,000 $0 $1,337,000


Item Description Unit Cost Unit Quantity Annual Cost

Labor $40 HR 2,080 $83,200 2,080 $83,200 2,080 $83,200

Membrane Replacement $75 panel 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

Diesel oil $4.50 GAL 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

Power $0.075 kWh 173,736 $13,030 186,686 $14,001 201,745 $15,131

Other utilities (water, garbage, etc.) $1,000 month 12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000

Chemicals - membrane cleaning $3,380 LS 2 $6,760 2 $6,760 2 $6,760

Hypochlorite $1.50 LB 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

Laboratory Testing at Port Townsend $25.00 Test 416 $10,400 416 $10,400 416 $10,400

Polymer $3.00 LB 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

Misc expenses allowance 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0Total Annual Cost $125,390 $126,361 $127,491

Structural Replacement 2% $53,290 2% $53,290 2% $53,290

Capital Replacement 4% $85,460 4% $85,460 4% $85,460


"overhead " horsepower = 9

"overhead" power with expansion = 16


TREATMENT - MBR





By : Tt

Date : 11-Aug-08

July 2008

ENR: 8361.74

Item Description


Electrical



Contractor O&P





Contingency

Engineering Design


Sales Tax



Item Description

Labor


Diesel oil

Power



Hypochlorite


Polymer



Capital Replacement







RESIDENTIAL #1 RES

2016 2017 2018

$0 $0 $503,757

$0 $0 $251,878

$0 $0 $188,909

$0 $0 $4,091,946

$0 $0 $613,792

$0 $0 $245,517

$0 $0 $4,951,255

$0 $0 $173,294

$0 $0 $5,124,549

$0 $0 $1,537,365

$0 $0 $999,287

$0 $0 $666,191

$0 $0 $559,601

$0 $0 $8,887,000

2,080 $83,200 3,796 $151,840 3,796 $151,840 3

400 $30,000 400 $30,000 800 $60,000 8

0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

290,825 $21,812 323,555 $24,267 406,508 $30,488 40

12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000

2 $6,760 3 $10,140 3 $10,140

0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

416 $10,400 416 $10,400 416 $10,400 4

0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

0 $0 0 $0 0 $0$164,172 $238,647 $274,868

2% $53,290 2% $53,290 2% $91,050

4% $85,460 4% $85,460 4% $135,836

$302,922 $377,397 $501,754


TREATMENT - MBR





By : Tt

Date : 11-Aug-08

July 2008

ENR: 8361.74

Item Description


Electrical



Contractor O&P





Contingency

Engineering Design


Sales Tax



Item Description

Labor


Diesel oil

Power



Hypochlorite


Polymer



Capital Replacement







RESIDENTIAL AREA #3

2023 2024 2025 2026

$0 $140,758 $0 $0

$0 $70,379 $0 $0

$0 $52,784 $0 $0

$0 $615,816 $0 $0

$0 $92,372 $0 $0

$0 $36,949 $0 $0

$0 $745,138 $0 $0

$0 $26,080 $0 $0

$0 $771,217 $0 $0

$0 $231,365 $0 $0

$0 $150,387 $0 $0

$0 $100,258 $0 $0

$0 $84,217 $0 $0

$0 $1,337,000 $0 $0

3,796 $151,840 3,796 $151,840 3,796 $151,840 3,796 $151,840

0 $0 400 $30,000 400 $30,000 800 $60,000

0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

660,137 $49,510 797,890 $59,842 815,989 $61,199 834,622 $62,597

12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000

3 $10,140 4 $13,520 4 $13,520 4 $13,520

0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

416 $10,400 416 $10,400 416 $10,400 416 $10,400

0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

0 $0 $0 0 $0 0 $0$233,890 $277,602 $278,959 $310,357

2% $91,050 2% $91,050 2% $91,050 2% $91,050

4% $135,836 4% $149,912 4% $149,912 4% $149,912

$460,776 $518,563 $519,921 $551,318


TREATMENT - MBR





APPENDIX E.

RELIABILITY AND REDUNDANCY REQUIREMENTS FOR

RECLAMATION AND REUSE STANDARDS

September 2008



E1-14 November 2007 Criteria for Sewage Works Design

Table E1-4. Reliability and Redundancy Requirements of Articles 10 and 11 of the WaterReclamation and Reuse Standards

Article Requirements

Article 10—

General

Requirements ofDesign

1. Flexibility of Design

The design of process piping, equipment arrangement, and unit structures in the reclamation plantmust allow for efficiency and convenience in operation and maintenance and provide flexibility of

operation to permit the highest possible degree of treatment to be obtained under varying

circumstances.

There shall be no bypassing of untreated or partially treated wastewater from the reclamation plant or

any intermediate unit processes to the point of use.

2. Power Supply

The power supply shall be provided with one of the following reliability features:

(a) Alarm and standby power source.

(b) Alarm and automatically actuated short-term storage or disposal provisions as specified in

Article 11, item 1.

(c) Automatically actuated long-term storage or disposal provisions as specified in Article 11,

item 1.

3. Storage Where No Approved Alternative Disposal System Exists

(a) Where no alternative disposal system is permitted, a system storage or other acceptable

means shall be provided to ensure the retention of reclaimed water under adverse weather

conditions or at other times when reuse is precluded.

(b) When wet weather conditions preclude the use of reclaimed water, the system storage

volume shall be established by determining the storage period that would be required for the

duration of a 10-year storm, using weather data that is available from, or is representative of,

the area involved. A minimum of 20 years of climatic data shall be used in storage volume

determinations. (Note that the designer must select an appropriate storm duration to provide the

protection of a 10-year recurrence interval.)

(c) At a minimum, system storage capacity shall be the volume equal to three times that portion

of the average daily flow of reuse capacity for which no alternative reuse or disposal system is

permitted.

(d) Reclaimed water storage ponds or quarantine which can impound a volume of 10 acre-feet

(equivalent to 435,600 cubic feet or 3.258 million gallons) or more may be subject to state dam

safety regulations. See G1-1.4.6E.

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/9837/g1.pdf

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/9837/g1.pdf



Water Reclamation and Reuse November 2007 E1-15


Article 11—

Alternative

Reliability

Requirements

1. Emergency Storage or Disposal

(a) Where short-term storage or disposal provisions are used as a reliability feature, these shall

consist of facilities reserved for the purpose of storing or disposing of untreated or partially

treated wastewater for at least a 24-hour period. The facilities shall include all the necessary

diversion works, provisions for odor control, conduits, and pumping and pump-back equipment.

All of the equipment other than the pump-back equipment shall be either independent of the

normal power supply or provided with a standby power source.

(b) Where long-term storage or disposal provisions are used as a reliability feature, these shall

consist of ponds, reservoirs, percolation areas, downstream sewers leading to other treatment

or disposal facilities, or any other facilities reserved for the purpose of emergency storage or

disposal of untreated or partially treated wastewater. These facilities shall be of sufficient

capacity to provide disposal or storage of wastewater for at least 20 days, and shall include all

the necessary diversion works, provisions for odor and nuisance control, conduits, and pumping

and pump-back equipment. All of the equipment other than the pump-back equipment shall be

either independent of the normal power supply or provided with a standby power source.

(c) Diversion to a different type of reuse is an acceptable alternative to emergency disposal of

partially treated wastewater provided that the quality of the partially treated wastewater is

suitable for that type of reuse.

(d) Subject to prior approval by DOH and Ecology, diversion to a discharge point where thewastewater meets all discharge requirements is an acceptable alternative to emergency

disposal of partially treated wastewater.

(e) Automatically actuated short-term storage or disposal provisions and automatically actuated

long-term storage or disposal provisions shall include, in addition to provisions of (a), (b), (c),

and (d) listed above, all the necessary sensors, instruments, valves, and other devices to

enable fully automatic diversion of untreated or partially treated wastewater to approved

emergency storage or disposal in the event of failure of the treatment process, and a manual

reset to prevent automatic restart until the failure is corrected.

2. Biological Treatment

All biological treatment unit processes shall be provided with one reliability feature, as follows:

(a) Alarm and multiple biological treatment units capable of producing oxidized wastewater with

one unit not in operation.

(b) Alarm, short-term storage or disposal provisions, and standby replacement equipment.

(c) Alarm and long-term storage or disposal provisions.

(d) Automatically actuated long-term storage or disposal provisions.

3. Secondary Sedimentation

All secondary sedimentation unit processes shall be provided with one reliability feature, as follows:

(a) Multiple sedimentation units capable of treating the entire flow with one unit not in operation.

(b) Standby sedimentation unit process.

(c) Long-term storage or disposal provisions.



E1-16 November 2007 Criteria for Sewage Works Design


Article 11—

Alternative

Reliability

Requirements

(continued)

4. Coagulation

(a) All coagulation unit processes shall be provided with all features for uninterrupted chemical

feed, as follows:

• Standby feeders.

• Adequate chemical storage and conveyance facilities.

• Adequate reserve chemical supply.

• Automatic dosage control.

(b) All coagulation unit processes shall be provided with one reliability feature, as follows:

• Alarm and multiple coagulation units capable of treating the entire flow with one unit not in

operation.

• Alarm, short-term storage or disposal provisions, and standby replacement equipment.

• Alarm and long-term storage or disposal provisions.

• Automatically actuated long-term storage or disposal provisions.

• Alarm and standby coagulation unit process.

5. Filtration

All filtration unit processes shall be provided with one reliability feature, as follows:

(a) Alarm and multiple filter units capable of treating the entire flow with one unit not in

operation.

(b) Alarm, short-term storage or disposal provisions, and standby replacement equipment.

(c) Alarm and long-term storage or disposal provisions.

(d) Alarm and standby filtration unit process.

Port Hadlock Sewer Facility Plan 0908

Documents

Transcript of Port Hadlock Sewer Facility Plan 0908