020-10 - Ordinance - Exhibit A 2009 Comp Sanitary Sewer Plan UpdateCity of Port Orchard
Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan Update
September 2009
loll
BHC Consultants LLC
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98101
206-505-3400
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Fred Chang
John Clauson
Fred Olin
Larry Coppola
Mayor
City Council
Robert Putaansuu
James R Weaver, AICP
City Development Director
Jerry Childs
Jim Colebank
Carolyn powers
Mark R Dorsey, PE
,iblic Works Director
®C
®P 'IN
E E 9®
Prepared by:
BHC Consultants LLC
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98101
206-505-3400
This document was prepared under the direct supervision of the following:
�, WILS
of WASgI O l�
C�' C.�) Ir
14681
����SIOIVAL
John C Wilson PE
Project Manger
DAM
SCE
r r
39911 0�
GIST
�SI0NAL�
Adam Schuyler PE
Project Engineer
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
1. PURPOSE
1.1
Need for Plan Update
2
1.2
Growth Management Compliance
2
1.3
System Responsibilities
2
2. GOALS AND POLICIES
2.1
Approach
3
2.2
Management
4
2.3
Cooperation and Coordination
6
2.4
Sewer System Design
6
2.5
Environmental Stewardship
8
2.6
Operations and Maintenance
9
2.7
Financial Policies
10
®k
3. SEWER SERVICE AREA ®A®•
®P Mk
3.1
Urban Growth Area
12
3.2
Existing City of Port Orchard ewer System
12
3.3
McCormick Woods - ULID 6
14
3.4
South Kitsap Industrial Area
15
3.5
West Sound Utility District Facilities
15
3.6
Existing and Planned Drainage Basins
16
3.7
A
Topography _ a
17
3.8
Water Features
17
3.9
Water Systems
18
4. PROJECTED POPULATION
4.1
Existing Population
21
4.2
Kitsap County Population and Employment Projections
22
4.3
Projected Growth Distribution by Basin
24
4.4
Industrial Connections
25
4.5
South Kitsap Industrial Area
25
5. WASTEWATER FLOWS
5.1
Historic Wastewater Flows
27
5.2
Existing Unit Flows
28
5.3
Peaking Factors
29
5.4
South Kitsap Industrial Area Projections
30
5.5
McCormick Woods
30
5.6
Sedgwick Road Developments
32
5.7
Projected Wastewater Flows
32
6. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM
6.1
Existing City Sewer Pipe System
35
6.2
Existing Sewer Pump Stations
35
6.3
Infiltration and Inflow
40
7. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
7.1
Trunk Sewers Required for Build -Out
43
7.2
Pump Station Required for Build -Out
47
7.3
Trunk Sewers Required for 2025
47
7.4
Sewer Service Alternatives for SKIA
48
7.5
Satellite Treatment Alternatives
49
7.6
Conveyance Improvement Priorities
52
7.7
Proposed Interception Improvements
53
8. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
8.1
Six -Year Capital Improvement Program
55
8.2
Planned Facilities for Build -Out Conditions
58
8.3
Sewer Extensions into Undeveloped Basins
58
®�
9. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS L
®'a
9.1
Ar 10,
Financial Situation ®®®,
60
9.2
® ®;�
Wastewater Funding Options - v
60
9.3
Sewer Rates -
60
9.4
Sewer Capital Facilities Charge
60
9.5
Financial Summary of Sewer Operations
61
9.6
Affect of CIP on Sewer Rates
62
LIST OF TABLES
3-1
Existing Trunk Sewer Capacities
12
3-2
Marina Pump Station
13
3-3
Existing Pump Stations
13
3-4
McCormick Woods Land Use Designations
14
3-5
Sewer Basins
17
3-6
City of Port Orchard Water Facilities
19
4-1
Historic Population
21
4-2
Equivalent Residential Units for City Sewer System
21
4-3
City Population Served by City Sewers
22
4-4
Population and Employment by TAZ
23
4-5
Population and Employment by Basin
24
4-6
Industrial Structures
25
4-7
Marine Related Businesses
25
5-1 Marina Pump Station Flow Summary 27
5-2 Annual Average Daily Flow in MGD 28
5-3 Average Daily Flow per ERU 28
5-4 Wastewater Flow per Employee 29
5-5 Historic Peak Day Factor for City Sewer System 29
5-6 Projected Build -Out Wastewater Flow in Trunk Conveyance Facilities 33
5-7 Projected 2025 Wastewater Flow in Trunk Conveyance Facilities 34
6-1 Projected Conveyance Pipe Capacity Limitations 35
6-2 Projected Pump Station Capacity Limitations 36
6-3 Marina Pump Station Flow Summary 40
6-4 2007 Flow Comparison in GPD 41
7-1 Projected Pump Station Capacities Needed for Build -Out Conditions 47
7-2 Projected Facility Capacities Needed for 2025 Conditions 47
7-3 Sewer Improvements Revised for Reduced SKIA Flow 49
7-4 Potential Satellite Treatment Facilities 53
8-1 Capital Improvement Program
8-2 Funding of Capital Improvement Program
8-3 Six -Year Capital Improvement Program
9-1 Sewer Operations Financial Summary
®P 1W
LIST OF FIGURES
56
57
58
61
All Figures Are Attached After Chapter Text
1-1 City of Port Orchard Location Map
1-2 Vicinity Map
3-1 Urban Growth Area all M
Imd
3-2 UGA Zoning
3-3 City of Port Orchard Zoning
3-4 Existing Sewer System
3-5 South Kitsap UGA/ULID #6 Sub -Area Plan
3-6 Sewer Basins & conveyance System
3-7 Ross Creek Stream Augmentation
3-8 Port Orchard & the South Kitsap Water Lines
3-9 Aquifer Recharge Areas
4-1 Kitsap County TAZ Map Excerpt
4-2 Transportation Analysis Zones
5-1 McCormick Woods Urban Village
8-1 Capital Improvement Program
GLOSSARY
ABREVIATIONS
APPENDICIES
A SEPA Checklist
B Public Hearing
C City of Port Orchard & West Sound Utility District Agreement
D Fact Sheet — Joint Wastewater Treatment Plant
E Pump Station Site Visit, July 9, 2008, by John Freck PE, BHC Consultants
F Pump Station Flow Evaluation
G Trunk Sewer Capacities
H Capital Cost Estimation Spreadsheets
I Financial Documentation
J Comments Received
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
City of Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan 2007
City of Port Orchard 2007 Water System Plan
City of Port Orchard Comprehensive Sewer Plan 2000
City of Port Orchard, SKIA Infrastructure Assessment & Technical Memorandum
July 28, 2008®®
Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan Update, Decemberl 1, 2006
West Sound Utility District Sewer Comprehensive Plan, November 2007
Engineering Report Update, April 2002, City of Port Orchard & Karcher Creek Sewer
District
South Kitsap Industrial Area Plan, September 30, 2003
City of Bremerton, Financial Assessment, SKIA Area Annexation, June 16, 2008
GLOSSARY
100-year flood: The magnitude of a flood likely to occur, on average, once every 100
years.
Average Wet Weather Flow: Wastewater flow during period when groundwater table
is high and precipitation is at its peak, generally from October to May in the Sultan area.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD): Measure of the biodegradable material in a
wastewater sample by the amount of oxygen used by waste -consuming organisms over 5-
days.
Bioselector: Process component in beginning of wastewater treatment train wherein air
and nutrients are kept at a level to select for the most desirable organisms to biodegrade
the organic materials in the wastewater.
Class `A' Reclaimed Water: An oxidized, coagulated, filtered, disinfected wastewater
with the median number of total coliform organisms not exceeding 2.2 per 100 milliliters
and the maximum number of total coliform organisms in any one sample not exceeding
23 per 100 milliliters.
Class 1 Stream: A perennial or intermittent stream that is used by threatened or
endangered fish or larger numbers of other fish, or that is used as a direct source of water
for domestic use.
Infiltration: Groundwater entering the sewage cf lion system through defective
joints, pipes, and improperly sealed manholes.
Inflow: Sewage flows resulting from stormwater runoff entering the sewage collection
system, typically through manhole covers, roof leaders, and area drains connected
directly to sewer, cross connections from storm drains and catch basins, and direct flows
into broken sewers.
Maximum Monthly Flow: Av aitly flow during the highest flow month of the
year. `
National Flood Insurance Progr ' Federally funded program providing flood
insurance to property owners in flood plains; provided the local government meets certain
criteria for management of flood damage risk.
Orange Book: Criteria for Sewage Works Design, published by the Washington State
Department of Ecology
Oxidation Ditch: Activated sludge wastewater treatment system wherein wastewater is
pumped around an oval using a surface aerator.
Peak Hourly Flow: Wastewater flow during the highest flow hour.
Polymer: Chemical mixed with sludge to enhance coagulation in the dewatering
process.
Sensitive Area: Area in which development potential is limited by environmental
factors such as steep slopes, cultural resources, wetlands, and valuable natural habitat.
Secondary Clarifier: Large quiescent tank in which activated sludge is directed into a
center hopper and clear effluent is discharged over a weir.
Sewer Lateral: A sewer from a sewer main to serve one or more customers with no
other common sewers discharging into it.
Sewer Submain: A sewer that receives flow from one or more sewer lateral.
Sewer Main or Trunk: A sewer that receives flow from one or more submains.
Sewer Interceptor: A sewer that receives flow from a number of main or trunk sewers,
force mains, etc.
Total Suspended Solids: Measure of the total of biodegradable and non -biodegradable
solids in wastewater.
UV Disinfection: Disinfection of clarified treated sewage effluent by exposure to
ultraviolet radiation using banks of lamps suspended in a narrow effluent channel.
ABBREVIATIONS
AWWF Average Wet Weather Flow
BOD
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CIP
Capital Improvement Program
CWA
Clean Water Act
DOE
Washington State Department of Ecology
DOH
Washington State Department of Health
EPA
United States Environmental ProtectionAgency
ESA
Endangered Species Act ®®°®l
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Act 'IN
FPS
Feet per second
FWPCA
Federal Water Pollution Control Act ("The Clean Water Act")
GPCD
Gallons per capita per day
GPAD
Gallons per acre per day
GPD
Gallons per day
HPA
Hydraulic Project Approval
I & I
Infiltration and Inflow
MGD
Million Gallons per Day
mg/L
Milligrams Per Liter
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OCD
Washington State Office of Community Development
OFM
Washington State Office of Financial Management
PVC
Polyvinyl Chloride
RCW
Revised Code of Washington
SRF
State Revolving Fund
TSS
Total Suspended Solids
USFWS
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
UV
Ultraviolet
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The area authorized for sewer service in and around the City of Port Orchard includes four areas:
area within the existing city limits, the City urban growth area (UGA) as expanded, the South
Kitsap UGA/ULID #6, and the South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA). Responsibility for
providing sewer service within this geographic area is shared between the City sewer utility and
the West Sound Utility District. This Plan identifies the additional sewer facilities required by
the City to provide sewer service within that part of the UGA that is the City's responsibility;
and to confirm the commitment by the City to provide the sewer service in a timely manner.
For purposes of planning future needs, Kitsap County has divided the entire County into
Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ). Population and employment for each TAZ has been
projected by the County for the year 2025 and at build -out under current land use plans with the
UGA boundaries as presently defined. This Plan identified the TAZ affecting the defined UGA,
and where some City sewer responsibility exists. The County 2025 and build -out population and
employment projections were extracted for these TAZ. In many cases only part of a TAZ would
receive sewer service, and be served by City sewers. Populations and employment projections
were apportioned from these TAZ, recognizing that most development would occur within the
UGA where parcels receive sewer service.
AP Ms
Historic City records for wastewater flow sent from the Marina Pump Station to the treatment
facility operated at Karcher Creek by the West Sound Utility District were reviewed. Annual
average day wastewater flows were identified and the unit flow attributable to a typical City
resident or employee were determined from past population records. Average day wastewater
flows for 2025 and build -out conditions were projected. The historic ratio of peak day flow to
annual average at the Marina Pump Station was established. The peak flow for 2025 and build -
out conditions was projected.
The potential sewer service area tributary to the City sewer system was divided into sewer basins
based on drainage topography and existing sewer service patterns. Existing trunk sewers and
principal pump stations conveying wastewater from and through these basins were identified.
City records were reviewed to determine the peak hour capacity from the existing pumping
capacities plus the tributary pipe sizes and slopes, which then indicated existing peak hour trunk
capacity.
Projected peak hour flow in each trunk under build -out conditions was compared with existing
capacity available. Where additional capacity will be needed, the added trunk sewer size was
identified. Capacity needs for 2025 were then compared with existing capacity and with build -
out needs to establish trunk sewer upgrade priorities.
These improvements total about $ 13,450,000. Approximately $ 5,320,000 is projected to be
funded within the next six years by the City. Additional improvements may be funded by
property development as well as the new collector sewer extensions. The annual average day
flow for 2025 is projected to be about 1.47 MGD, and adequate treatment capacity will be built.
A variety of funding options are available to the City to implement the required improvements.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09
1. PURPOSE
1.1 Need for Plan Update
A number of changes have occurred within the City vicinity since the last Comprehensive
Sanitary Sewer Plan was prepared in 2000. This 2009 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan
Update has been prepared as one step in demonstrating compliance with the Growth
Management Act (GMA).
1.2 Growth Management Compliance
Figure 1-1 shows the location of the City of Port Orchard in relation to the Puget Sound area.
Existing wastewater treatment facilities within 20 miles of the City are also indicated.
The immediate vicinity surrounding the City of Port Orchard and the urban growth area (UGA)
assigned to the City plus the South Kitsap UGA and the SKIA is shown in Figure 1-2. This
Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan shows how sewer service will be extended throughout that
portion of the UGA that is the responsibility of the City of Port Orchard.
1.3 System Responsibilities ®®
®®s
The City of Port Orchard operates a sewer collection and interception system within part of the
UGA assigned to the City. Portions of the area within the existing city limits are served by this
sewer system, as are some areas outside the current city limits.
West Sound Utility District also operates sewer collection facilities serving part of the UGA
including some portions within the current city limits for Port Orchard. District boundaries are
shown on Figure 1-2.
Wastewater treatment and disposal facilities are operated by the West Sound Utility District for
both the City and the District under an inter -local agreement defining responsibilities and
financial obligations.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 2
Clallam_C.o - __� Ei
Island Co
Lynnwood TP
Snohomish Co
Edmonds TP
Ilia
a .
Kingston TP r
Jefferso Co 0°b°b
Suquamish TPiV
.. Carkeek Park TP
' Y �• Central Kitsap TP .
West Paint TP '
}
I ' LlowTP#
_ 111111 I �' : }-. Puget
Kitsap Co {� -f Sound
.. } _ '• Lake
Washington
Bremerton TP Kitsap SD #7
Alki TR :. 5
} Bremerton TP 0`-
i# Manchester TP
fy I PortOrchard TP
~� Port Orchard l
_ King Co
`t
7 Salmon Creek TP
113
Rent.
Vashon Island TP 4'
Miller Creek TP
Soatnd Des Moines TPf
;;r.. f.
Mason Co 4
r
r�
I` Gig Harbor TP Redondo TP
Lakota TP Y#
Wollochet Harbor TP - /� r-+�
Tacoma North End T ��.
I
Tacoma TP J.
f Pierce Co { '
20 mile Radius 4 � Tacoma Central TP,
Puyallup River TP__,
I Ili/ I
Cherrywood M{HP TP
McNeil Island TP �_ 1 I h, Puyallup TP II
. y
�} Taylor Bay TP CHAMBER\CRE EK TP
Thurston Co
Legend
Comprehensive Sanitary
II'J Treatment Plants
Sewer Plan Update
This map is a geographic representation based on information
City of Port Orchard
ZI
�=
City of Port Orchard WA
available. It does not represent survey data. No warranty is
made concerning the accurecy, currency, or completeness of
,-{„- r
[
data depicted on this map.
Counties
Location Map
MAP DATE AUGUST 2008; UPDATED AUGUST 2009
Miles Water Bodies
:�
P'VNappingVNaps_GenerateSPM_OrcM1aN\profeo6\0]-1nm801\009\maps\1-1 Uitlnity MaRmxtl
0 2.5 5 Freeways
Figure 1-1
04 ktk-
I
i.
I
2. GOALS AND POLICIES
2.1 Approach
City of Port Orchard manages and operates their sewer system in accordance with all known
state, local and federal regulations. The policies and criteria described in this chapter are
established by the City to provide a framework for the planning, design, operation, and
management of the system. Used together, policies and criteria provide the desired level of
service to sewer utility customers.
While the City has many policies related to the City Customers and Public Infrastructure, these
policies are provided to seek goals of uniform treatment to all City customers, today and in the
future. These policies are limited to those things related to the sewer system and its design and
operation.
While the City has discretion in setting performance and design criteria and standards for its
sewer system, the criteria set must meet or exceed the minimum standards for public sewers as
set forth by the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) through Chapters 90.48, 90.52,
and 90.54 RCW. The criteria focus on planning, design®parameters, and other details that have
been developed to establish consistency and to ensureat adequate levels of service are
provided throughout the system. The criteria alsot�eed
desFplanning process with measuring
tools to identify any areas of the existing system to be improved to achieve the desired
level of customer service.
Other publications such as the Developer's Handbook, 2004, and the Sewer System Design
Standards document the design standards and procedures for development of the sewer system.
The Goals and Policies documented in the Chapter are drawn from existing City documentation,
with such statements shown in regular type. New statements added through this Comprehensive
Sewer Plan Update are shown in italics.
Accordingly the City of Port Orchard establishes the following goals for sewer service:
Goal 1: Provide safe, reliable and timely sewer service to its consumers at a fair and
reasonable price.
Goal 2: Provide reliable levels of service and ensuring adequate capacity within the
sewer system by upgrading the system to protect the natural environment, as deemed necessary.
Goal 3: Ensure that sewer system infrastructure expansion provides an adequate level of
public service to support new development consistent with the City's policies, criteria, and
standards. In addition, sewer system expansion should also be consistent with current land use
plans and development regulations of the State of Washington, Kitsap County, and appropriate
local planning agencies.
In order to achieve these goals, the City has developed the policies and criteria presented herein.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09
1. Service Area, Extensions, and Service Ownership. Service area and extension
policies define the sewer service area and conditions for service extension within those
boundaries. The customer service policies define the level of service provided to sewer utility
customers, as well as public and private ownership and responsibility for sewer system
components.
2. Coordination/Cooperation with Other Agencies. These policies summarize the
City's willingness to coordinate and cooperate with other agencies, as well as to enter into
interlocal agreements with neighboring jurisdictions for the provision of sewer service.
3. Sewer System Design. The sewer system design policies and criteria detail the City's
design standards for sewer system infrastructure necessary facilities required to provide safe,
continuous sewer service.
4. Environmental Stewardship. These policies outline the City's dedication to develop
and implement facilities and programs that will protect the environment.
5.Operation and Maintenance Standards. The City's operation and maintenance
standards define the Operation's Plan and Maintenance Program for the sewer utility
infrastructure. IN
6. Financial. This section summarizes the City's general financial policies and criteria to
create and maintain a self-supporting utility through sewer rate structures, connection charges
and capital improvement financing.
2.2 Management L
Service area and extension policies define the sewer service area and conditions for service
extension within those boundaries. The customer service policies define the level of service
provided to sewer utility customers, as well as public and private ownership and responsibility
for sewer system components.
Service Area
The City of Port Orchard should plan for and provide sewer service to property within the City
limits and within the established boundaries of Kitsap County ULID #6, as agreed upon by
Karcher Creek Sewer District and the City.
The City should provide sewer service to property outside the City limits but within the Urban
Growth Area, subject to annexation unless otherwise approved by the City Council. If the
property is outside an Urban Growth Area, the City should not provide sewer service unless the
Kitsap County Health District requests such service for health reasons or unless the service
existed prior to the establishment of the Urban Growth Boundary.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 4
Agreements
The City should establish agreements with neighboring utility districts, cities, and Kitsap
County for the provision of sewer services. These agreements will establish a defined
sewer service area for the City.
The City has established an agreement with Karcher Creek Sewer District (formerly Sewer
District #5) for the District to operate and maintain treatment and discharge facilities serving the
City of Port Orchard and the Sewer District.
The City has established (1994) an agreement with Kitsap County regarding sewer system
extension from ULID #6. The City agrees to accept wastewater flow from properties within
ULID #6 and as out -of -city customers per terms of the agreement and upon conditions consistent
with the rules, regulations and resolutions governing the City. Wastewater shall be conveyed
from ULID #6 to the treatment plant using City owned transmission mains. The City shall assess
a fee to latecomers to ULID #6 to connect to the system.
Service Extensions
All homes and businesses within 200 feet of a sewer main shall connect to that main. Sewer
system service extensions should be allowed to provide sewer service within the City's sewer
service area if the development is consistent with adopted development polices and all sewer
utility policies and criteria. The proponent's development may require an improvement as
described in the comprehensive plan that shall be made at the cost of the proponent. If the City
makes a determination that the proponent's development requires system upgrades beyond any
upgrade planned by the City and/or before a scheduled capital project, the upgrades shall be
made at the cost of the proponent. Said extensions should be installed pursuant to Methods 1, 2,
or 3 as described below.
Local Improvement Districts - Method 1
The Local Improvement District is the conventional means to provide sewer facilities. This
allows the new customer to share the cost of the improvement and to finance the expense over a
long period of time, such as 20 years. It may eliminate most up -front costs to the new customer.
A property owner may petition for the formation of a Local Improvement District (LID) orUtility
Local Improvement District (ULID) to install an extension to the City's sewer system. The
property owner may request the City Council authorize a petition for formation of the ULID or
the property owner may request formation of a ULID by Resolution of the City Council. Upon
successful completion of the required steps to form the ULID as prescribed by statute, the City
should proceed with the construction of the facilities. All costs of design, construction, and
associated ULID requirements, shall be borne by assessments to the benefited properties within
the ULID.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09
Developer Financed with Reimbursement - Method 2
The City provides for Developer Extension Agreements, as per Ordinance 1587. The Developer
Extension Agreement allows the developer to recoup a specific cost from specific properties
when those properties connect to the improvement that the developer has financed. The
agreement cannot be accepted by the City until there is a public hearing to allow all affected
parties the opportunity to participate in the discussions.
Developer Financed without Reimbursement - Method 3
When the developer decides not to request a public hearing and a Developer Extension
Agreement, then the cost of the improvement is borne by the developer.
Service Ownership
The portion of any side sewer pipe from the main to the edge of street right-of-way or sewer
easement shall be kept within exclusive control of the City. The portion of the side sewer and any
associated appurtenances beyond said right-of-way or ®ever easement shall be the responsibility
of the sewer customer or property owner served by the e.
.&N °®
2.3 Cooperation and Coordination
These policies summarize the City's willingness to ccfordinate and cooperate with other agencies,
as well as to enter into inter -local agreements with neighboring jurisdictions for the provision of
sewer service.
,all M
In
r,.
n
Regional/County Participati
The City should support and participate in applicable regional planning efforts with Kitsap
County to provide and maintain a reliable and adequate sewer system.
Mutual Aid
The City will investigate opportunities in mutual aid agreements with adjacent jurisdictions to
provide personnel and equipment to each other upon request for assistance during a disaster or
emergency.
2.4 Sewer System Design
The sewer system design policies and criteria detail the City's design standards for sewer system
infrastructure necessary facilities required to provide safe, continuous sewer service.
In accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, the City should design its
sewer system facilities with sufficient capacity to handle the anticipated peak daily flow under
normal conditions during at least a 5-year storm event without any overflows to the environment.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09
If the sewer system facilities must be installed or upgraded as a result of a developer's impacts,
the new facilities or upgrades shall conform to the City's policies, criteria and standards and shall
be accomplished at the developer's expense. The City, however, shall be responsible for any
portion of the costs that are attributable to general facilities such as over -sizing or over -depth
requirements.
The City complies with the standards of the American Public Works Association and the
Washington State Department of Ecology.
Main Line Requirements
The minimum diameter for gravity collector pipes shall be 8 inches, unless specifically exempted
by the City Engineer. Pipe sizes larger than 8 inches may be required for major conveyance or
interceptor lines and trunks. The pipe size selection shall consider the design flow, design slope,
pipe material and roughness, cleaning equipment available to the City and normal maintenance
scheduling.
In cases of proximity near water mains, the sewer main shall: 1) be lower than the water main,
2) be at least 10 feet from the water main, if the pipes are parallel, and 3) be at least 36 inches
AL
below the water main if the pipes cross.
Detecting tape with wire for underground locates shall bellastalled over all non-metallic sewer
mains and laterals. The tap shall be 1 foot above the pipe and extend its full length.
Sewer mains shall be televised prior to acceptance. The main shall hold 5 psi for 15 minutes.
Sewer Stub Service Requirements
The minimum diameter for sewer service line shall be 4 inches. One or two dwelling units can
be served with a 4-inch sewer service line. Otherwise the minimum diameter shall be 6 inches
for up to six dwelling units. Sewer service to seven or more dwelling units shall have an 8-inch
sewer main extension. Each single-family residence, apartment or other building shall have its
own sewer lateral from its building to the sewer main. Two laterals may be connected at the
right of way to be served by one service line to the main.
Cleanouts are required at the right of way and by the building being served by sewer. The
cleanout shall be flush with the final grade.
Manholes
Manholes shall be provided at a minimum of 400 feet. In addition, manholes will be installed at
locations where the pipe diameter of the main increases and where the main changes grade and
or direction and/or intersections of sewer mains. All new manholes shall be water tight and
grouted from both the outside and inside.
Manholes shall be provided at the beginning of a new sewer main, unless otherwise approved by
the City Engineer.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 7
Sewers shall have uniform slope between manholes.
The manhole diameter shall be 48 inches. The bottom of the manhole shall be formed to provide
for a channel of flow. Joints between the precast units shall have rubber gaskets and shall be
grouted.
Inside drops are acceptable in existing manholes. All drops will be extended to the floor of the
manhole and directed into the channel flow.
Pump Stations
Pumped systems may be used only when construction of gravity system is not feasible. Pumped
systems shall be design in accordance with DOE'S "Criteria for Sewage Works Design" and the
City's current Sewer Design Standards. The City has established control panel requirements to
maintain operational consistency. Unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director, all
pump stations shall be duplex submersible pump installations with on -site emergency power and
telemetry.
The force main pipe material shall be PVC water main, HDPE, or DI, as defined by the City. The
minimum diameter for sewer force mains shall be 4 inches to allow transport of a 3-inch
minimum diameter solid with maximum velocity of 8 feet per second.
Grinder Pump Stations VU-
Transporting sewage by gravity is the best method of providing sewer service. A single
residential lot may be served by a grinder pump provided gravity sewer service is deemed not
feasible by the Public Works Director and said service is approved by the City. However,
alternative pressure systems may be permitted in those circumstances where a gravity system
would be impractical, unreasonably expensive, result in unreasonable impacts to the environment
or would be otherwise infeasible.
The grinder pump installation shall comply with the City's Sewer System Standards in the
Developer Handbook, specifically Kitsap County's Division VI Individual Grinder Pump
Installations guidelines.
2.5 Environmental Stewardship
These policies outline the City's dedication to develop and implement facilities and programs
that will protect the environment.
Best Management Practices (BMP's)
The City will perform operations and maintenance activity using BMP's to reduce the impact to
environmental resources adjacent to work areas.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09
Reuse
The City is committed to wastewater reuse and rainwater reclamation. They can serve as cost
effective and environmentally beneficial sources of water for industrial processes, sanitation and
irrigation and thereby increase the security and reliability of the area's drinking water supply.
The City will explore opportunities to reclaim wastewater for reuse in stream augmentation,
irrigation, and other non potable uses.
Conservation
The City encourages water conservation by requiring the use of low -flow plumbing fixtures in
new construction and by structuring water rates of non-residential accounts into tiered groups
based on water use, thereby reducing the total volume of sewerage.
The City supports energy conservation by installing gravity sewer mains instead of a pump
stations where possible to minimize electrical requirements of the collection system.
Water Resource Protection
The City shall protect groundwater resources within Akhr
service area from degradation related
to the City's sewer system operations.
2.6 Operations and Maintenance
The City's operation and maintenance standards define the Operation's Plan and Maintenance
Program for the sewer utility infrastructure.
Operations Plan
The City shall establish and regularly update an operations plan for the sewer collection system
to include preventative maintenance activities and safety procedures to maintain system
efficiency and enhance worker safety.
Maintenance Program
Public Works employees shall perform regularly scheduled inspection and maintenance activities
on select sewer mains, manholes and all sewer pump stations according to an established
priority list. Maintenance includes cleaning and vacuuming of all sewer mains (semi-annually,
monthly, or as needed), monthly inspection of manholes that have recurring problems, and
daily/weekly inspections servicing, and maintenance of all pump stations.
Safety and Emergency Operations
The City is committed to the health and safety of each Public Works employee. Each employee
will be trained in operations and maintenance duties, safety, and first aid. Each employee will
receive annual certification renewal.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 9
Confined Spaces
Without the proper precautions, entry into a confined space, such as a manhole, is inherently
dangerous and lethal. Public Works employees required to enter confined spaces shall follow
established City policies and procedures to minimize the safety risk of such activity. Public
Works employees who may be required to enter a confined space shall receive annual formal
training from a City representative. Each new Public Works employee shall receive one session
of individual training before the new employee is allowed to enter any confined space. City
procedures for confined space work shall include requirements for pre -entry, entry, and post -
entry tasks, equipment, and documentation.
Emergency Operations
The City shall invest the resources necessary to develop and maintain an Emergency Response
Plan in coordination with Police, Fire, and other agencies.
Public Works will construct, maintain and rehabilitate the sewer system infrastructure and
equipment to ensure that customers are provided with covsistent, reliable service. All City
owned pump stations shall have permanent backup p P , such as a generator, and an automatic
switching station, unless specifically exempted by Citouncil.
Infiltration and Inflow
The City shall continue to fund and execute its existing Infiltration and Inflow (I&I) program to
minimize 1/I to the collection system. The City's overall goal is to reduce I&I flow. The City
shall continue to prohibit direct connections to the sewer system from roof drains, storm water
catch basins and other improper connections. The program shall include television inspections
and grouting of manholes and other infrastructure.
2.7 Financial Policies
This section summarizes the City's general financial policies and criteria and includes sewer rate
structures, connection charges and capital improvement financing.
Rate Structure
The City shall establish rates, charges, and fees to maintain sufficient funds to operate, maintain,
retire debt, and upgrade its sewer system as necessary to provide safe reliable sewer service to its
customers. These rates should be evaluated periodically as part of the budget process. This will
ensure that forecasted expenses and impacts of regulations are reflected in the rate structure.
Sewer rates are based on a monthly rate and are billed on a bimonthly schedule, according to the
rate class. Monthly sewer rates are intended to pay all operation, maintenance, and
administrative costs plus retire all debt. In the event that an established rate does not accurately
reflect the impact on the sewer system, the City Engineer may determine the specific monthly
rate.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 10
Fess shall be established to reimburse the City for the costs of the service provided, such as late
fees, inspections, and similar activities.
Properties served which are outside the city limits shall have a 50 percent surcharge on the
monthly rate.
Development Fees
The City has established fees and charges to recover its costs related improving the sewer
infrastructure to accommodate growth. Sewer fees are paid at the time a building permit is
issued.
The Connection Fee is designed to mitigate the impact of new demands on the existing sewer
system.
An Installation Fee is designed to reimburse the utility for construction cost of connection.
New accounts are assessed a Fee In Lieu of Assessment (with exceptions).
The Facility Construction Fee mitigates future construction costs for wastewater treatment
facilities.
®r
The ULID No 6 Latecomer Fee is applicable to properties outside the boundaries of the ULID
who connect to the improvements constru5ted as part of ULID No 6.
Capital Financing Plan
The City shall establish a Capital Facility Plan that describes the anticipated repairs,
improvements, expansions, or modifications to the sewer system for the next 10 year period. The
plan should address required repairs to the sewer system, planned replacement of aging
facilities, upgrades to existing facilities to provide additional capacity for projected growth, and
the construction of general facilities to aid growth.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 11
3. SEWER SERVICE AREA
3.1 Urban Growth Area
The Urban Growth Area designated by Kitsap County in the City of Port Orchard vicinity is
shown on Figure 3-1. The Urban Growth Area in effect on February 15, 1999, is delineated as
well as the revised urban growth boundary as amended June 11, 2007, following the 10-year
update of Kitsap County planning for urban growth management.
Zoning within the City of Port Orchard Urban Growth Area has been established by Kitsap
County as shown in Figure 3-2.
3.2 Existing City of Port Orchard Sewer System
Zoning within the existing city limits is shown on Figure 3-3. The existing City sewer system is
shown on Figure 3-4, which is derived from the graphic information system (GIS) files
maintained by Kitsap County.
These GIS files were prepared by Kitsap County and wgire assembled by inputting record CAD
drawings. Field verification of horizontal and vertical® to should be done when time and budget
permit. Vertical data available, such as manhole lid or in°®° -elevations are very limited; and not
all pipe attributes were available, such as pipe diameters and lengths. The resulting GIS files are
not sufficient for direct transfer into a hydraulic model to compute hydraulic capacities.
The principal trunk sewers are highlighted on Figure 3-4 with pertinent characteristics
summarized in Table 3-1. The full pipe capacity in millions of gallons per day (MGD) for each
trunk identified in Table 3-1 is defined by the most limiting pipe segment within that trunk based
on City record drawings.
Table 3-1
Existing Trunk Sewer Capacities
Trunk
Location
From
To
Diameter
Sloe
MGD
A
Bay Street
North Bay
Bethel
12
0.2239 %
1.05
B
Bethel Road
Melcher
Bay
10
0.80 %
1.25
C-east
Bay Street
Bethel
Marina PS
18
0.155 %
2.6
C-west
Bay Street
Pt Orchard
Marina PS
24
0.092 %
4.3
D — 1
Port Orchard old
Tremont
Bay
12
0.90 %
2.15
D — 2
Port Orchard (new)
Tremont
Bay
12
1.68 %
2.9
E
Pottery & stream
Lippert
Tremont
10
0.37 %
0.83
F
Bay Street
Caseco
Pt Orchard
18
0.155 %
2.6
G
Pottery Avenue
Fireweed
Lippert
10
0.26 %
0.7
H
Tremont Street
Pottery
Pt Orchard
15
0.69 %
3.3
I
Old Clifton Road
Berry Lake
McCormick 1
15
1.30 %
4.7
J
Old Clifton Road
Feigley
McCormick 2
15
0.90 %
3.9
K
McCormick Woods
Marymac
Old Clifton
10
0.33 %
0.80
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 12
The City sewer system formerly included a wastewater treatment facility on the waterfront; and
the trunk sewers conveyed all flow to that location. The treatment facility was replaced with the
Marina Pump Station and wastewater flow is now conveyed east through an 18-inch force main
to a new treatment facility on City property that is operated by the West Sound Utility District.
The Marina Pump Station operating parameters are summarized in Table 3-2 from City records.
Table 3- 2
Marina Pump Station
Pump
GPM
Horsepower
TDH
1 -variable
1,500 to 2,400
150
115
2
2,400
150
115
3
1,150
20
37
4
1,150
20
37
Note: Station has an overflow into Sinclair Inlet
The firm capacity of the Marina Pump Station is defined by leaving one of the large pumps out
of service. The total existing capacity of the remaining three pumps is something less than the
4,700 GPM total, perhaps about 4,000 GPM or 5.8 MGD, but has not been verified by hydraulic
modeling or field measurements.®®®
The remaining City sewage pump stations are shown in Table 3-3 with the associated parameters
including horsepower (HP) and total dynamic head (TDH) derived from City records.
Table 3-3
Existing Pump Stations
Station
Location
ump 1
ump 2
Force
Main
GPM
HP
TDH
GPM
HP
TDH
Bay Street
1207 Bay Street
515
7.5
20
515
7.5
20
---
Tremont Place
281 Tremont Place
60
3
23
60
3
23
---
Eagle Crest
1091 Eagle Crest PI
100
5
35
1 100
5
35
---
Cedar Heights
2220 Pottery Avenue
50
7.5
150
50
7.5
150
---
Sed wick
505 Sed wick Road
180
25
165
180
25
165
6
McCormick #1
1190 Old Clifton Rd
1000
75
122
1000
75
122
16
McCormick #2
2200 Old Clifton Rd
1000
25
60
1000
25
60
16
Canyon Court
512 Cedar Canyon Ct
50
7.5
150
50
7.5
150
---
Harrison Hospital
444 So Kitsap Blvd
350
40
118
350
40
118
---
Golden Pond
385 Golden Pond Rd
137
7.5
78
137
7.5
78
---
Ridge
200
15
90
200
15
90
6
Albertson
176
30
100
176
30
176
6
Notes: Canyon Court PS has a third pump identical to the two pumps shown in Table 3
Albertson PS is currently privately owned, though maybe transferred to the City
Bay Street PS has an overflow into Sinclair Inlet
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 13
No overflows have been recorded within the sewer pipe systems or at any pump stations. This
record appears to indicate that the existing sewer system has adequate capacity for current
conditions.
3.3 McCormick Woods — ULID No 6
The area known as McCormick Woods has been developing under the South Kitsap UGA/ULID
#6 Sub -Area Plan dated December 8, 2003, as revised in 2006. Land use within this Sub -Area is
planned as shown on Figure 3-5 and is summarized in Table 3-4.
Table 3-4
McCormick Woods Land Use Designations
Land Use Designation
Density per Buildable Acre
Gross Acres
Urban Low Residential
4 to 9 dwelling units
1,306
Urban Cluster Residential
4 to 9 dwelling units
905
Urban Medium Residential
10 to 18 dwelling units
78
Urban Village Center
Up to 18 dwelling units
10
Business Park
---- ®=.
52
Public Facilities
----- -
19
Total
2,370
The original houses in McCormick Woods were developed with on -site septic systems. These
were converted to septic tank effluent pump (STEP) units discharging to a community drainfield
south of Old Clifton Road near the extrerWta of the UGA.
10
_..
Under ULID # 6, the City of Port b arch greed to provide sewer service and to assume
responsibility for the STEP units. Two mp stations were built to facilitate sewer service,
McCormick Woods 1 and McCormick Woods 2, in addition to trunk sewer pipe extensions in
Old Clifton Road.
One of these pipe extensions was to the west edge of the UGA to collect effluent from the former
drainfield, and to allow future service to the SKIA. This drainfield is no longer used and the fl-
inch sewer connection into the Old Clifton Trunk sewer has been plugged. A 4-way cross at
McCormick Woods and Marymac Drives SW with valves on each leg has the line to the old
community drainfield closed so no effluent from the STEP units can go there. All effluent flows
through Trunk K into McCormick Woods PS 2.
Additional and subsequent developments north of Old Clifton Road known as McCormick
Woods No. 2, or The Ridge, are served through conventional sewers into the Ridge Pump
Station, now owned by the City, which discharges into the Old Clifton Road trunk sewer,
downstream of McCormick Woods Pump Station No 2. The new development south of Old
Clifton Road enters Trunk K by gravity.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 14
Although shown within an urban growth boundary, McCormick Woods has not been formally
assigned to any city for eventual annexation. The City of Port Orchard anticipates annexing this
area in the near future.
3.4 South Kitsap Industrial Area
The SKIA Plan covers about 3,400 gross acres, of which about 2,300 acres are described as
available for development. About 550 net acres are anticipated to be developed during the
planning period extending through 2021. In 1997 there were about 500 employees within the
SKIA.
At present, all parcels use on -site septic systems and most are connected to a community system
operated by the Port of Bremerton. The community system has a capacity of 72,000 GPD with
an average day flow in 2001 of about 14,000 GPD, which is about 28 GPD per employee.
Commercial -industrial customers within the SKIA consumed an average of about 50,681 gallons
of potable water per day during that year, or an average of about 101 gallons per day per
employee. Water is provided by the City of Bremerton.
There are no residences within the SKIA and none are 64pected under the SKIA Plan.
The SKIA Plan does project that during the planning periodnew development may increase
employment to a total of 9,350 employees; and that average day demand (ADD) for water would
increase to about 1.4 million gallons per day (MGD). Maximum day demand (MDD) is
projected as double the ADD, or 2.8 MGD. No projection is provided in the SKIA Plan for peak
hour demand (PHD). A schematic water distribution plan was included with the SKIA Plan,
which shows a proposed water trunk extending around the northeast end of the runway and due
south along the east SKIA property line. Further water mains would be extended by developers.
Wastewater flows for the anticipated 9,350 employees are projected in the SKIA Plan to be 1.2
MGD for the average day of the year. No peak or wet weather flow projection was included in
the Plan; nor has a schematic sewer system layout yet been developed.
3.5 West Sound Utility District Facilities
The District operates the wastewater treatment facilities for the City under NPDES Permit WA-
002034-6 from the State Department of Ecology under a 1982 contract with the City. The
treatment facilities actually consist of three interrelated and complementary systems:
• Activated sludge secondary treatment system
• Membrane bioreactor secondary treatment system production reclaimed water
• Ballasted clarifier for advanced primary treatment system for peak storm flows
These facilities are designed for a flow of 4.2 MGD during the average day of the maximum
month with a peak day capacity of 16 MGD. Flows exceeding 6 MGD are treated through the
ballasted clarifier to achieve a blended effluent meeting the effluent requirements define in the
NPDES permit. The City and the District have agreed that this capacity is to be shared equally.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 15
The highest average daily flows recorded during November and December 2006 were 3.94 MGD
and 4.6 MGD during days of measured rainfall of 2.1 and 2.41 inches. Neither now was
sufficient to require operation of the ballasted clarifier. However, the 3 December 2007 storm
produced about 12 MGD and the ballasted clarifier performed as designed.
Annual average day flow for 2007 was about 1.5 MGD. The District projects wastewater flow
will increase to about 2.3 MGD by 2025 with an average day flow during the maximum month
of about 7.7 MGD. Hydraulic capacity will be increased by then to be 16 MGD. The District
and the City expect to continue sharing treatment capacity about 50-50 for each agency.
The District also operates an extensive sewerage collection system. Some of the District sewers
in the immediate vicinity of City sewers are shown on Figure 3-4. Figure 3-4 also shows that
some parcels within the city limits are served by the District.
The sewer service area boundary has not been defined by formal agreement, but has evolved as
various properties have developed and needed sewer service. Generally speaking, the District
expects to eventually extend service further south from Sedgwick Road to the extremities of the
urban growth area. The City expects to provide sewer service east to about Bethel Road.
Eventually, the City expects to annex the entire UGA.
3.6 Existing and Planned Drainage Basins
The `Comprehensive Sewer Plan 2000' divided the City sewer system into four `branches':
• East — the area east of Blackjack Creek
• Central — from Sidney/Tremount intersection northward along Cline Avenue
• South — from Sedgwick/Sidney intersection northward into Port Orchard Boulevard
• West — McCormick Woods and area west of SR 16 as shown in Figure 3-5
These branches each comprise areas tributary to a trunk sewer that still remains in service.
However, to evaluate the adequacy of the existing capacity in these trunks and to project future
capacity requirements, a finer subdivision of the City sewer service area into sewer basins was
employed. These basins and the associated trunk conveyance facilities are described in Table 3-
5, with the basins delineated on Figure 3-6.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 16
Table 3-5
Sewer Basins
Basin
Acres
Trunk
Tributary Facilities
Discharge Terminus
1
547
L
Basin 21
Trunk J
2
300
future
none
Trunk I
3
288
future
none
Albertson PS
4
123
A
none
Bay Street PS
5
270
B
none
Bay Street PS
6
460
C
none
Marina PS
7
178
H
McCormick 1
Trunk D
8
141
D
Trunks E and H
Trunk C
9
245
I
The Ridge PS, McCormick 2,
Basins 2, & 15
McCormick 1
10
438
F
none
Trunk C
11
262
E
G
Trunk D
12
247
Albertson
Basin 3
Trunk G
13
131
G
Albertson PS AL =
Trunk E
14
347
E
Bravo Terrace PS ®7� in,
Trunk E
15
67
I
none ®„ .16
Trunk I
16
64
Ride
none
Trunk I
17
347
J
none
McCormick 2
18
192
J
Basins I qA
McCormick 2
19
105
K
Basin 20
McCormick 2
20
418
K
none"
Trunk K
21
300
K
none
Basin 20
3.7 Topography
The City is built on uplands rising from Sinclair Inlet. These uplands are cut irregularly by
streams and ravines that are generally unbuildable. Within the presently developed city limits
and City sewer service area, these uplands reach a maximum elevation of about 250 feet above
sea level. McCormick Woods is being developed on a plateau west of the existing city limits.
These lands range in elevation from 300 to 500 feet above sea level.
The SKIA properties further west from McCormick Woods generally are on a plateau at
elevations from about 440 to 480 feet above sea level. However the western properties of the
SKIA fall away to elevations of about 240 feet.
3.8 Water Features
The City of Port Orchard is located along the south shore of Sinclair Inlet, which is an arm of
Puget Sound. The City is immediately across the water from the US Navy Yard and the City of
Bremerton. A number of marine -related businesses and features exist along the Port Orchard
waterfront.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 17
A number of streams flow north into Sinclair Inlet from the upper elevations in and south of the
City. Some of these are within the West Sound sewer service area of the City UGA. The more
prominent creeks within the City portion of the UGA sewer service area include the following:
• Blackjack Creek
• Unnamed stream in the ravine of Port Orchard Boulevard
• Ross Creek
• Anderson Creek
• Two unnamed streams flowing north from McCormick Woods
• Tributaries to Gorst Creek originating in McCormick Woods and the SKIA
Long Lake is a significant water body that borders the UGA for the City, but is outside of the
City sewer service area and in the West Sound sewer service area. Several small ponds,
marshes, and wetlands exist within the City sewer service area.
Many of the streams flowing through the City are believed capable of supporting fish runs,
though stream flows are often small. The City has agreed to augment the flow in two streams at
the locations described below, and perhaps others in the future:
• Ross Creek at the future extension of St. Andrews Drive SW
• Blackjack Creek at Sedgwick Road west of SR 16
An excerpt of the stream augmentation facility for Ross Creek is shown in Figure 3-7. This
representation is similar for other augmentation sites. Augmentation is seasonal using potable
water at the rate of 5 GPM. It may be practical to construct a small satellite wastewater
treatment facility, perhaps using a membrane bioreactor (MBR), so reclaimed water could be
used for this application and conserve potable water from other uses.
3.9 Water Systems
Five water purveyors provide water service within the City and the sewer service area as
described below:
City of Port Orchard— serves within the city limits and selected adjacent areas as shown
on Figure 3-8. The system is supplied by six active wells into a Low Zone with a
hydraulic grade line (HGL) of 260 feet, an Intermediate Zone at HGL 336, and a High
Zone at HGL 391. Five reservoirs provide 4,200,000 gallons in storage. There is an
intertie to the City of Bremerton HGL 256 Zone and a second to the West Sound Utility
District. Two booster pump stations can move water from the Low Zone through the
Intermediate Zone to the High Zone. The pipe system totals over 300,000 feet of pipe
ranging from 4 to 18-inch diameter.
McCormick Woods Water Company — which is owned and operated by the City, serves
McCormick Woods and ULID No 6. The existing facilities include a 450,000 gallon
reservoir near SW Clifton Road at Figley Road with a booster pump station serving the
existing 580 zone from two tanks totaling 120,000 gallons supplied by three wells. Pipe
sizes range from 6 to 10-inch diameter.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 18
City of Bremerton — serves the SKIA through a transmission pipeline from Gorst with a
1,200,000 gallon storage tank and a booster pump station with three installed pumps with
capacity totaling 3,600 GPM.
Berry Lake Manors — buys water from the City and serves a 30-unit mobile home park
West Sound Utility District — serves properties east of Blackjack Creek and generally
outside the City sewer service area.
Aquifer recharge areas in the vicinity of Port Orchard are shown on Figure 3-9. The principal
facilities comprising the City of Port Orchard water system are summarized in Table 3-6.
Table 3-6
City of Port Orchard Water Facilities
Description
Dimensions
Capacity
Wells
PO 5 — Port Orchard Blvd
240 feet x 10-inches
40 GPM
PO 6 — Maple Street
806 feet x 10-inches
250 GPM
PO 7 — Port Orchard Blvd
804 feet x 10-inches Ak,
725 GPM
PO 8 —Sidney Avenue
577 feet x 12-inches ®"®®
- ®®s
450 GPM
PO 9 — Sidney Avenue
624 feet x 12-inches ®®;�
450 GPM
PO 10 —(pending)
1,074 feet x 10-inches
1,000 GPM
McCormick Woods 1
281 feet x 12-inches
175 GPM
McCormick Woods 2
210 feet x 12-inches
350 GPM
McCormick Woods 3
183 feet x 12-inches
350 GPM
Jnterties
Bremerton
260 zone
8-inch meter
Bremerton
580 zone
8-inch meter
West Sound — Mitchell
390 zone
6-inch valve (no meter)
West Sound - Sedgwick
390 zone
6-inch meter
Reservoirs
Park
130 feet diameter
2,000,000 gallons — 260 zone
Morton Street
14.59 diameter x 100 feet high
100,000 gallons — 260 zone
Maple Street
50,000 gallons — 260 zone
South Sidney
13.6 diameter x 73 feet high
100,000 gallons — 390 zone
Old Clifton
100 diameter x 30 feet high
1,000,000 gallons — 390 zone
Sed wick
68 diameter x 40 feet high
1,000,000 gallons — 390 zone
McCormick Woods 580
42 feet high
450,000 gallons — 580 zone
McCormick Woods Tank 1
25 diameter x 15 feet high
60,000 gallons — 431 to 580 zone
McCormick Woods Tank 2
25 diameter x 15 feet high
60,000 gallons — 431 to 580 zone
Booster Pump Stations
City Hall
260 zone
690 and 620 GPM
Melcher Street
390 zone
1000 and 750 GPM
McCormick 580
580 zone
350 and 350 GPM
Well 6 Booster
260 zone
400 GPM
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 19
Development of the western part of McCormick Woods will require a new reservoir of at least
300,000 gallons with a booster pump station to create the 660 zone. An additional water source
of at least 187 GPM and 191 acre-feet per year will be needed to support new development. The
McCormick Woods Golf Course is presently irrigated separately with a non -potable private well.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 20
W"
6�
I
W.
I
W%MF
IL
mom! milli
wi i 6.0 ;rj; ■
INIM
v
VI
ME
W. �ffimll
lire
IX
Fa
Aze
of
wm
�* �:i �i �111�7�
.'+ �
t.
. . . .-.. .. - -11 1
r
11- il'II'uT.r rr "I I I�.J --i - r�,x.�.,l„I I
r 15 1
I � I 11 L Ir I - 1 - I I I -+ I • , f 1,4� � � , Irt
Lu
LO
f I — .. I I +a: r I•I L e � ` ."I 4: * I
I�3- i -r W IJ '.jt , I
• L . , �. i Ni TI I iLl 1
-i1 _ `Y•���tl I I I _-jI i'rF
-
1-
CL
Ali I
o�—_
� ' 41• _ +� -� " "3 ��i95Ky,L r � + � ' - I �!f+�69i �wt�' I� i !.I Y' �;��,
-- .� i -- r •� --irrarWx, L ; r 7r+? `�' r I I I— .f' "P+
' �.�I � L _I J I� LIIL•
I II
!' Ate`
Icy i
i
* a, `• . - t � �Y k �F raj � � ��=��•`.-` :rr. � �"
.�: -�' ��-�� �� '- fir•.: � .w�* w� i
*� ' :�r� N�■ fill a. I+�aG
ill+"�F� ■��l' ���� � � .fir;„Mi • �i� F.i#��i 1 '' .;
�� Wll7 CFI.*it�4 ..,��r` yr: • 1111alt.
- M
Elm 4
mill
fs� a
aIM94 MIN
jjhL
Jo
PAO
Ld
N.
skjq
�F � t1 t� . � fib■ ■�#'�#_r ■�_
r
d
■:
*�rl
4. PROJECTED POPULATION
4.1 Existing Population
Table 4-1 summarizes the population estimates prepared by the Washington State Office of
Financial Management since the 2000 census.
Table 4-1
Historic Population
Kitsap C unty
City of Port Orchard
Year
Population
Percent
Change
Population
Percent
Change
Percent of
Count
2000 Census
231,969
---
7,693
---
3.32
2001 Estimate
233,400
0.60
7,810
1.52
3.35
2002 Estimate
234,700
0.56
7,900
1.15
3.37
2003 Estimate
237,000
0.98
7,910
0.13
3.34
2004 Estimate
239,500
1.05
8,060
1.90
3.37
2005 Estimate
240,400
0.38
8,250
2.36
3.43
2006 Estimate
243,400
1.25
8,31
0.73
3.55
2007 Estimate
244,800
0.58
8,426'mr
1.01
3.44
Table 4-1 does show a distinct trend for the City of Port Orchard to capture an increasing share
of the Kitsap County population. This is in accord with the intent of the Growth Management
Act and indicates that current City and County policies are successful.
--t
le
4re
a
City sewer service is budgeted baseft tlfe mix of commercial and residential customers
reduced to the `equivalent residential a ts' or ERU. One ERU is defined as the sewage
generated by one single family home, estimated at 180 GPD. Table 4-2 summarizes the historic
relationship between residential and commercial customers served by City sewers as estimated
by the City Department of Public Works.
Table 4-2
Equivalent Residential Units for City Sewer System
Budget Year
Total ERU
Residential
Commercial
ERU
Percent of Total
ERU
Percent of Total
2001
4,087
2,791
68.3
1,296
31.7
2002
4,201
2,855
68.0
1,346
32.3
2003
4,077
2,853
70.0
1,224
30.0
2004
4,185
2,895
69.2
1,290
30.8
2005
4,319
3,011
69.7
1,308
30.3
2006
4,407
3,030
68.8
1,377
31.2
In addition to the Table 4-2 ERU numbers, McCormick Woods added an additional 616 ERU in
2005 and 629 ERU in 2006. Thus the total ERU served by the City sewer system was 4,935 in
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan - Sep 09 21
2005 and 5,036 in 2006. Total ERU for the City sewer system through October 2007 is 4,643
units, plus an additional 659 customers in McCormick Woods for a total of 5,302 ERU. Most of
the McCormick Woods customers are effluent pump units, which influences the organic loading
but does not affect the sewer hydraulic loads as the sewage flow would be similar to regular
homes.
The City share of the treatment plant capacity as operated by the Karcher Creek Sewer District
has been about 45 or 46 percent in recent years.
Typical household size for Kitsap County is reported by OFM to be about 2.5 persons.
However, Port Orchard may average only about 2.4 persons per household. In both cases, the
trend is for continued gradual reductions in the average household size. Table 4-3 describes
recent estimates of the share of City population served by the City sewer system.
Table 4-3
City Population Served by City Sewers
Based on 2.4 Persons per Household
Year
City Population
Residential ERU
Served Population
Percent Served
2004
8,060
2,895 ®"®®,
6,948
86.2
2005
8,250
3,010
®®®� - 7,226
87.6
2006
8,310
3,030
7,272
87.5
Table 4-3 indicates that City sewers are serving a slightly increasing share of the City population.
It also may be that most of the population growth within the city limits is occurring in areas
served by the City sewer system. -
4.2 Kitsap County Population an mployment Projections
Kitsap County has identified a series of Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ) for the entire
County, an excerpt of which is shown as Figure 4-1. The TAZ associated with the City of Port
Orchard, the urban growth area served by the City sewer system, and McCormick Woods are
shown in Figure 4-2.
As part of transportation analysis, population and employment projections for Kitsap County are
distributed among all TAZ for 2025 conditions and for Build -out at current land use planning
densities by County Planning. The resulting projections have been assembled as summarized in
Table 4-4.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 22
Table 4-4
Population and Employment by TAZ
TAZ
Area in
Acres
Basins
2025 Projections
Build -Out Projections
Population
Employment
Population
Employment
154
222
4 & 5
1,104
380
1,111
398
156
59
6
170
775
170
775
158
51
4 & 5
224
106
225
105
159
96
5 & 6
177
521
177
522
161
29
6
30
461
30
480
162
56
6 & 8
215
104
215
117
163
182
8 &10
342
37
342
39
164
273
7, 8, 10
1,194
710
1,195
714
165
39
6
231
913
232
914
166
72
5 & 6
415
48
415
49
168
58
5
114
527
120
537
169
314
7,10, 11
1,186
22
826
29
170
53
6 & 8
349
111-,
350
133
171
28
6
57
�®®®,
57
7
172
18
5
34
® A�43 '��
24
49
173
148
5, 6, 8
254
N06
842
223
180
72
6 & 8
655
26
725
47
181
60
5 & 6
86
2
655
2
182
119
5
105
124
287
266
183
481
9
681
195
800
693
188
1,043
9, 16, 17
826
75
826
827
191
694
17
382
12
476
191
194
109
6, 7, 11
1,212
400
1,213
89
195
141
7 & 11
427
490
427
401
197
43
6
90
2
96
4
199
28
5
163
384
173
384
201
1 304
9 & 13
210
135
220
373
202
335
11 & 14
2,053
364
2,072
383
203
294
14
468
79
839
850
211
1,338
3, 12, 13
1,229
114
619
1,054
212
108
12 & 13
54
119
61
608
215
1,296
2, 15, 19,
20,21
2,569
89
4,150
92
216
2,013
1, 18, 21
2,997
0
3,526
0
217
336
14
1,203
263
2,108
986
223
468
12
242
73
280
376
225
217
3 & 12
230
1 155
1 250
1 362
Totals
11,194
---
21,969
1 8,094
1 26,134
1 13,079
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 23
Some anomalies can be seen as the projections move from 2025 to Build -Out conditions. Some
residential properties will convert to commercial use, and some existing commercial land uses
will evolve. These differences are not deemed significant for the sewer system as a whole, or
even for specific sewer trunks.
4.3 Projected Growth Distribution by Basin
The TAZ population and employment projections are proportioned among the sewer basins to
generate wastewater flow into the trunk sewer system. Of course some TAZ are not entirely
with the City sewer service area so only part of the area, population, and employment shown in
Table 4-4 will actually contribute to the City sewers. The resulting distribution of population
and employment follow specific parcels and are not directly related to proportional areas. Some
portions of certain basins and the relevant TAZ cannot be developed due to sensitive area
concerns. The resulting assumed distributions are summarized in Table 4-5.
Table 4-5
Population and Employment Projections by Basin
Basin
2025 Projections
Build -Out
Projections
Population
Employment
Population
Employment
1
1,199
0
1,410
0
2
642
18
1,038
618
3
1,000
39
1,000
247
4
508
178
512
186
5
611
925
935
1,035
6
2,319
2,664
2,832
2,707
7
937
422
1,117
554
8
942
411
957
426
9
513
139
585
536
10
1,166
288
1,022
293
11
1,955
343
1,986
600
12
240
289
195
1,318
13
173
92
115
513
14
1,824
373
2,059
801
15
257
9
415
9
16
165
8
165
83
17
387
40
401
452
18
599
0
705
0
19
385
36
623
37
20
771
27
1,245
28
21
1,113
0
1,535
0
Totals
17,706
6,301
20,839
10,211
The resulting projections of population and employment shown in Table 4-5 allow wastewater
flows to be projected for the two future conditions.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 24
4.4 Industrial Connections
The City has three structures classified as an industrial/manufacturing building type by the City
Building Inspector. These are summarized in Table 4-6.
Table 4-6
Industrial Structures
Address
Owner
Telephone
Business
1340 Lumsden Road
Tony Jacobellis
206-842-6352
1420 Lumsden Road
Gig Harbor Holdings LLC
360-876-5800
ICS Controls
1540 Leader International
Rick Flaherty
360-895-1184
In addition, there are a number of marine related businesses, which are summarized in Table 4-7.
Table 4-7
Marine Related Businesses
Name
Address
Contact
Phone
Port Orchard Marine Railway
405 Bay Street
Jeremy McNeil
702-966-8041
Sinclair Inlet Marina
501 Bay Street
Peter & Kathleen
Tierman
360-895-5167
Thompson Pile Driving
1089 Bay Street
Paul Fritts
360-731-8911
Port Orchard Marina
707 Sidney Ave
Brian Sauer
360-876-5535 ext 23
Dock Side Yacht Sales
53 Bay Street
360-876-9016
Kitsap Marina
1595 Bay Street
Rudolph Oelofse
206-634-3080
Suldan's Boat Works
1345 Bay Street
Greg, Mark,
Mike Suldan
360-867-3435
None of these facilities are believed to have a State Waste Discharge Permit from the
Department of Ecology.
4.5 South Kitsap Industrial Area
Bremerton National Airport has been the most visible facility within the SKIA. These aircraft
related facilities include terminal buildings, hangers, aircraft maintenance facilities, aviation fuel
storage, and other aviation related businesses.
Kitsap County Public Works has a number of facilities within SKIA including the Public Works
Annex, plus the Household Hazardous Waste Facility and the Olympic View Transfer Station
operated by Waste Management.
The former Kitsap County Landfill is also within the SKIA. This facility has been closed and
capped. Historically, leachate from this facility was spread on the vegetation ground cover. The
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 25
City has recently reached an agreement for the leachate to be trunked to the City sewer system
for discharge into a manhole in Bay Street at SW Wilkens Drive.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 26
All
NPIR
fa IN
j P
. fe
j I
milli, NamI
Mm ■Is A Ni 11 510101111,111110 .1.2
lil wil
WA2
V-
El
III, 1022Z
vr'j,
IL
lik I, iiiIIIIIS
I "In ji OEM AN
P. r1a.
1, P:kdo IN
.--77
A
MM
all p
W-F -
4W4N.". bi
wo
VAN WIMM
Ot
NOW AMR 131 1 h
G
bill
M4 ii quil In
IN
Nil
ILI
is
W50%
y,
WWJ ■�fuY.�i�l��;�l
il
MIN
PX S r1l Pil 'liff rill I
W
Islas
IN JIM
-4 LIM
rk T�
Eli
mommov
w. -
ILI Ir., ,Ril�� � .+' ��� ■�FJ �I �� �7�j��I
I T. 0, P- AIL-1 j'-! L] I:jj0'Z-'0
L;�R - .err--. - - �-�� _ ��'��I�Fi��r�� ei���J
471
Jill
A• mL ,r■ phi I
mo IME
30
EE
Form
tok Now
loll Iff
I FRIO-
IN.
ri
7LL ON
A=,
.41Z go' VL . ;pI
FU
5. WASTEWATER FLOWS
5.1 Historic Wastewater Flows
All wastewater from the City sewer system passes through the Marina Pump Station to reach the
Karcher Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility. Flow at the pump station is metered.
Wastewater flow for Port Orchard is seasonal, as it is for most western Washington communities.
Late summer from July through September is usually dry and flows are minimal. Early winter
brings significant rainstorms and wastewater flow rises accordingly.
Review of metered wastewater flow over several recent years allows four flow parameters to be
identified that are useful in projecting future flow conditions:
• The total annual flow defines the average daily flow.
• Summer minimal flows define the approximate sewage component
• Winter flows during periods without significant rain, less the summer minimum, defines
the infiltration component
Winter flow during or following a significant rainstorm defines the rain -induced
infiltration inflow component
Selected City flow records for the Marina Pump Station are summarized in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1
Marina Pump Station Flow Summary
Monthly Average Flow in Millions of Gallons per Day
Month
2007
2006
2005
2004
July
0.679
0.658
0.657
na
August
0.663
0.633
0.643
0.675
September
0.688
0.641
0.651
0.683
Average
0.677
0.644
0.650
0.679
January
0.902
1.266
0.843
1.037
February
0.740
0.849
0.728
0.794
November
0.778
1.128
0.792
0.722
December
1.087
1.001
0.991
0.856
Average
0.877
1.061
0.839
0.852
Maximum Day
3 Dec @ 3.84
14 Dec @ 3.37
18 Jan @ 1.75
10 Dec @ 2.08
Rain inches
1 5.15
1 2.41
1 1.50
1 2.15
Note: Flow data are not available for some months, and other months are incomplete.
The early December 2007 storm event was likely an abnormal occurrence. The maximum daily
flow was recorded on 3 December 2007 was 3.84 MGD, which is within the existing station
capacity of 4,000 GPM (5.8 MGD) as discussed in Section 3.2. Average daily flows over entire
years for the City sewer system are computed as shown in Table 5-2 for the calendar years 2004,
2005, and 2006 from City records for the Marina Pump Station.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan - Sep 09 27
Table 5-2
Annual Average Daily Flow in MGD
Month
2007
2006
2005
2004
Jan
0.902
1.266
0.843
1.037
Feb
0.740
0.849
0.728
0.794
Mar
0.802
0.744
0.766
0.758
Apr
0.699
0.702
0.796
0.687
May
0.721
0.692
0.726
0.714
Jun
0.708
0.684
0.695
0.700
Jul
0.679
0.658
0.657
0.000
Aug
0.663
0.633
0.643
0.675
Sep
0.688
0.641
0.651
0.683
Oct
0.716
0.644
0.681
0.000
Nov
0.758
1.128
0.792
0.722
Dec
1.097
1.001
0.991
0.856
Total
9.164
9.642®;
8.969
7.626
Average
0.764
0.804®®0,747
0.763
As shown in Table 5-2, the 2006 calendar year included,three months with flows averaging more
than 1.000 MGD. These high months may have been unusual due to severe rainstorms such as
the event on December 2nd when 5.15 inches of precipitation was recorded. These severe events
form the benchmarks to gage the capacity of the sewer system. No overflow occurred during
that event any where in the City sewer system - meaning, the sewer system has adequate
capacity to accommodate such peak storm events under existing conditions.
5.2 Existing Unit Flows
Annual average daily flows as shown in Table 5-2 divided by the number of ERU described in
Section 3.1 for the referenced year, including McCormick Woods, provides the unit flow in
gallons per day per ERU. These computations are summarized in Table 5-3.
Table 5-3
Average Day Flow per ERU
Parameter
2007
2006
2005
2004
Annual Average Day Gallons
764,000
804,000
747,000
763,000
ERU
5,036
4,935
4,830
Gallons per ERU
160
151
158
Table 5-3 indicates that on an annual average day basis, each equivalent residential unit
connected to the City sewer system contributes about 160 gallons. At the City housing rate of
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan - Sep 09 28
2.4 persons per household, the historic per capita wastewater generation rate has been about 67
GPD per person, which is similar to other communities in the Puget Sound area.
Wastewater flow per employee is a more difficult value to derive. Commercial flow varies
widely. Retail stores may generate little wastewater. Food establishments and some industries
may generate high flows per employee. Even establishing the number of employees within city
limits poses challenges. Puget Sound Regional Council has employment data; however the basis
of PSRC data collection changed between 2004 and 2005, which resulted in significantly
different employment numbers. This is the best employment data available and provides the best
basis for estimating the average wastewater flow generated in the City as summarized in Table 5-
4 based on 160 GPD per ERU divided by the Employees per ERU for the relevant year.
Table 5-4
Wastewater Flow per Employee
Year
Employment
Commercial ERU
Employees per ERU
GPD per Employee
2006
4,778
1,377
3.5
45.7
2005
4,873
1,308
3.7
43.2
2004
2,108
1,290
®„ 1.6
100.0
2003
1,910
1,224
ONO, 1.6
" ®,
100.0
in
IN
The data for 2005 and 2006 appears to be the most complete in terms of an accurate estimate of
employment connected to City sewers. An average day wastewater flow of 45 GPD per
employee is believed to be similar to the experience of other Puget Sound jurisdictions, though
slightly higher, and will be used for this planning analysis.
5.3 Peaking Factors
NO
Comparison of the maximum day events recorded in recent years defines the peak day factors
experienced by the City sewer system. These comparisons are summarized in Table 5-5.
Table 5-5
Historic Peak Day Factor for City Sewer System
Peaking Elements
2007
2006
2005
2004
Peak Day of Year in MGD
3.838
3.367
1.754
2.075
Average Day of Year in MGD
0.764
0.804
0.747
0.763
Peak Day Factor
5.0
4.2
2.3
2.7
Available data is not sufficient to establish the peak hour flow for the City sewer system. The
peak hour factor needs to recognize that the storm hydrograph as it moves through the sewer
system may coincide with the diurnal peak for the day. Accordingly, the peak hour factor for the
City sewer system is estimated at 6 multiplied by the average day flow. For the year 2007, the
peak hour flow is estimated to have been about 6 x 0.764 MGD = 4.6 MGD. This rate is within
the existing capacity of the Marina Pump Station as discussed in Section 3-2. Since the station
was able to accommodate the 14 December 2006 event without an overflow, this peaking factor
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 29
is believed to be appropriate. The general experience of most communities is that peaking
factors decline as the population and employment increases, especially if the sewer system is
rehabilitated to reduce extraneous flows such as infiltration and inflow.
5.4 South Kitsap Industrial Area Projections
The potable water demand stated for the projected 9,350 employees in the SKIA Plan is
presented as the average day demand in 2017 being 1.4 MGD, or about 150 GPD per employee.
The industrial development is projected to generate an average day wastewater flow of about 1.2
MGD, or about 85 percent of the potable water demand. This is a typical relationship. However,
historic recorded flows indicate wastewater averages about 28 GPD per employee.
No specific quantity is mentioned in the SKIA Plan for peak hour wastewater flow. Peak hour
industrial/commercial/business wastewater flow is usually at least double the average, which
would be about 2.4 MGD. An allowance for infiltration/inflow must also be included. These
extraneous flows during a winter storm may average 800 GPD per acre. At that rate the 550 net
developed acres would produce about 0.44 MGD. Therefore, the total peak hour SKIA
wastewater flow projected from the Plan would be about 2.84 MGD.
The projected water demand stated in the SKIA Plan is considerably more than the 101
GPD/employee used in 1997 (the only date referenced). Even the 1997 value is about triple the
usual water use in commercial and business park development. The SKIA Plan could be
indicative that a water -intensive industrial use is expected within SKIA. This seems unlikely.
The high water use recorded in 1997 may be due to washing of aircraft stored at the airport,
which is not a water demand likely to increase significantly.
The Kitsap County Solid Waste Facility is located within the SKIA and leachate from that
facility has been discussed as a possible contribution to any sewerage facilities serving the area.
The projected wastewater volume would seem adequate to include this flow, though the pollutant
loading may need separate consideration.
The SKIA is a large site with many possibilities for future development, such as a NASCAR race
track or another major facility. However, these possibilities are only speculative for now.
Consequently, longer term or build -out projections of wastewater flow projection for the SKIA
have not yet been developed by Kitsap County or the Port of Bremerton.
5.5 McCormick Woods
The June 2005 `Sewer Capacity Analysis' prepared for McCormick Woods North Phase 1
summarizes the current land use planning for parcels within the McCormick Woods development
that will be tributary to the Old Clifton Road sewer as shown on Figure 5-1 (an excerpt from the
planning map prepared for that development). That `Analysis' provides more detail of future
development than the TAZ projections shown in Tables 4-4 and 4-5; and such detail is
appropriate to the largest development area now served by the City. Those development parcels
that will be tributary to the McCormick Woods Pump Station No 2 through the 15-inch pipe
from the west can be summarized as follows for average day wastewater flow conditions:
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 30
Residential 2,677 units 160 GPD/unit 0.428 MGD
Commercial 4,291 employees 45 GPD/employee 0.193 MGD
High School 1,100 students & staff 26 GPD/person 0.029 MGD
Recreation Park little use during school ---------- 0.010 MGD
Projected Average Day Domestic Sewage 0.660 MGD
This portion of the McCormick Woods development totals about 487.1 acres. Under wet
weather conditions, infiltration and rain -induced inflow may average 800 GPD per acre at peak
hour for these parcels that include many homes using low pressure sewer systems instead of
conventional gravity sewers. The resulting extraneous flow is projected to total about 0.390
MGD. Total flow from the west in the 15-inch pipe in Old Clifton Road under peak hour
conditions is estimated as follows:
Domestic Sewage = 0.428 MGD x 3.0 peak factor = 1.284 MGD
Infiltration & Inflow = 487.1 acres x 800 GPD/acre = 0.390 MGD
Total peak hour wastewater flow 1.674 MGD
Additional parcels enter Pump Station No 2 through other piping as summarized below:
Residential 808 units 160 GPD/unit 0.129 MGD
Commercial 347 employees 45 GPD/employee 0.016 MGD
Club House 90 persons 50 GPD/person 0.005 MGD
Inn/Motel 200 rooms 130 GPD/room 0.026 MGD
Total average day sewage flow 0.176 MGD
These additional parcels encompass about 658.6 acres. Under wet weather conditions, this land
area may average 800 GPD per acre. The total peak hour flow from these parcels is estimated as
follows:
Domestic Sewage = 0.176 MGD x 3.0 peak factor = 0.528 MGD
Infiltration & Inflow = 487.1 acres x 800 GPD/acre = 0.527 MGD
Total peak hour wastewater flow 1.055 MGD
Pumping capacity required for the McCormick Woods parcels at Pump Station 2 is summarized
as follows:
From the west in Old Clifton Road 1.674 MGD
From other parcels 1.055 MGD
Total Peak Hour Flow 2.729 MGD = 1,895 GPM
This value indicates that when the parcels are fully developed some years in the future, the
McCormick Woods Pump Station No 2 capacity will need to be about doubled. The influent
gravity pipes and the force main have adequate capacity to accommodate this increase.
Several additional parcels are planned to discharge through separate pump stations downstream
of the McCormick Woods Pump Station No 2. The flow from these parcels is summarized
below:
Residential 687 units 160 GPD/unit = 0.110 MGD x 3.0 peak = 0.330 MGD
Land area 338.7 acres 800 GPD/acre = 0.271 MGD
Total additional peak hour flow to force main = 0.601 MGD
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 31
The peak hour flow from McCormick Woods parcels without SKIA in the 15-inch gravity sewer
in Old Clifton Road between McCormick Woods Pump Station No 2 and No 1 would total about
2.729 + 0.601 = 3.33 MGD, which is well within the flowing full capacity of 4.8 MGD for this
pipe stretch.
5.6 Sedgwick Road Developments
The sewer basins along SW Sedgwick Road and Pottery Avenue as shown on Figure 3-6 as
Basins 3, 12, 13, and 14 are experiencing considerable development interest. The build -out
population for Basin 3 in particular may exceed the projections shown in Table 4-5 due to the
proposed Stetson Heights development proposed by Quadrant Homes. This development alone
is planned for 385 single family homes. At the typical household size for Port Orchard of 2.4
persons, these homes would contain over 900 people; yet Table 4-5 projects the population for
the entire basin as only 530 people.
A number of commercial developments have occurred in recent years and others are planned for
this area. However, available data does not indicate a reason to question the employment
projections.
.&N
5.7 Projected Wastewater Flows °®®®�
Wastewater flows are projected to future conditions to identify the sewerage facilities needed to
accommodate residential and commercial developments based on the land uses established by
current zoning for the urban growth area tributary to the City sewer system.
Build -out conditions were projected first to establish the maximum capacities needed as
summarized in Table 5-6 assuming future unit flows are similar to those recorded in the past
based on the basin delineation shown in Figure 3-6 and including SKIA.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 32
Table 5-6
Projected Build -Out Wastewater Flow in Trunk Conveyance Facilities
Trunk Facility
Contributing Basins
Avg. Day
GPD
Peak
Factor
Peak Hour Flow
Build -Out Capacity Needed
A
4
43,000
5.0
0.21 MGD
B
5
109,000
5.0
0.55 MGD
Bay Street
4 & 5
152,000
5.0
0.76 MGD & 630 GPM
C-east
6 & Coast PS
471,000
5.0
2.32 MGD
C-west
D & F
2,553,000
4.0
10.21 MGD
D
8 + E & H
2,471,000
3.5
8.65 MGD
Marina PS
C-east & west
3,016,000
4.5
12.07 MGD & 10,060 GPM
Sed wick
14-S
23,000
5.0
0.115 MGD & 96 GPM
E
11,13,&14-N
+ Bravo & Albertson
501,000
4.5
2.45 MGD
F
10
82,000
5.0
0.41 MGD
G
3 & 13
354,000
3.0
1.42 MGD
Albertson PS
3 & 13
154,000
3.0
0.46 MGD & 390 GPM
H
7 + McCormick PS 1
1,887,000
4.0
7.55 MGD
McCormick 1
I
1,793,000
4.0
7.17 MGD & 5,000 GPM
Ridge PS
16
15,000
5.0
0.074 MGD & 62 GPM
I
2, 9,15 + Ridge &
McCormick 2
1,793,000
4.0
7.17 MGD
McCormick 2
J & K
1,617,000
3.0
4.85 MGD & 4,000 GPM
J
1, 17, & 18
1,386,000
3.5
4.85 MGD
K
19, 20, & 21
231,000
5.0
1.16 MGD
SKIA
SKIA
1,197,000
2.4
2.87 MGD & 2,000 GPM
Future peaking factors identified in Table 5-5 from historic data are expected to decline as the
system expands and population grows, as shown in Table 5-6 for several reasons:
• Some decline can be expected simply as sewer systems increase in size and the local
peaks become averaged with the broader system.
• New constriction is anticipated to allow less infiltration and inflow to enter the sewers,
which is a major contributor to peak flows.
• Some rehabilitation of existing sewers will also occur, which should at least allow the
existing sewers to maintain the historic peaking factors and may reduce these factors
somewhat.
Accordingly, a peak factor of less than 5 multiplied by average day flow is believed appropriate
for several parts of the system. This factor will decrease to about 4.0 or even 3.0 as more trunks
are combined. Commercial areas will be a further exception, since their peaking factors are
normally even less; perhaps as low as 2.4 may be appropriate.
Conditions were then projected for 2025 to establish the facilities needed in a more immediate
timeframe as summarized in Table 5-7.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan - Sep 09 33
Table 5-7
Projected 2025 Wastewater Flow in Trunk Conveyance Facilities
Trunk Facility
Contributing Basins
Avg. Day
GPD
Peak
Factor
Peak Hour Flow
A
4
42,000
5.0
0.21 MGD
B
5
88,000
5.0
0.42 MGD
Bay Street
4 & 5
130,000
5.0
0.65 MGD & 540 GPM
C-east
6 & Coast PS
407,000
5.0
2.04 MGD
C-west
D & F
2,405,000
4.5
9.62 MGD
D
8 + E & H
2,314,000
4.5
8.10 MGD
Marina PS
C-east & west
2,813,000
4.0
11.25 MGD & 9,380 GPM
Sed wick
14-S
23,000
5.0
0.12 MGD & 96 GPM
E
11,13,&14-N
+ Bravo & Albertson
381,000
4.5
1.72 MGD
F
10
91,000
5.0
0.46 MGD
G
3 & 13
343,000
4.0
1.37 MGD
Albertson PS
3 & 13
150,000
3.0
0.45 MGD & 370 GPM
H
7 + McCormick PS 1
1,743,000
4.0
6.97 MGD
McCormick 1
I
1,661,000
4.5
6.65 MGD & 5,540 GPM
Ridge PS
16
11,000
5.0
0.057 MGD & 48 GPM
I
2, 9,15 + Ridge &
McCormick 2
1,661,000
4.0
6.65 MGD
McCormick 2
J & K
1,533,000
3.0
4.60 MGD & 3,830 GPM
J
1, 17, & 18
1,378,000
3.5
4.82 MGD
K
19, 20, & 21
155,000
5.0
0.78 MGD
SKIA
SKIA
1,197,000
2.4
2.87 MGD
The projected peak hour flows shown in Tables 5-6 and 5-7 allow the existing conveyance
facilities to be evaluated for adequate capacities to accommodate future flow conditions.
Average day flow in 2025 is projected from the population projection shown in Table 4-4 at 67
GPD per capita, plus the projected employment at 45 GPD per employee. The 2025 average day
flow projection is 2.813 MGD, which is about 3.5 times the average day flow recorded at the
Marina Pump Station for 2006 as shown in Table 5-2.
The projected annual average day flow for the Build -Out Projection shown in Table 4-4 is about
3.016 MGD, which is only about 7 percent above the 2025 projected average day flow.
These values are only projections based on data currently available. Planning assumptions do
change over the years. The flow projections should be reviewed from time to time as better
planning data becomes available.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan - Sep 09 34
1 � � ,` ±5�,�• {. i'_�Ff f�� trr�rfl �Jf r= JI rr �� {�� •A{�"_,r �_ ',
qu
5 X • ' �+ 71d$97kb9H jrAti KdLlrkOrY ,f .
$4w'�rn #' 7
�� �. =1'rr•Ii•. IBC i f f � ���'�i�s.� rJ ; l5`, .. �- �+ /.
'L.d AL '.!r x� Il+ .IIII F5i / R 5
LIILII +I+rI.
dr
_F 1T�*� '� l�ff', j { '�I.1 4 }l - ,'F� ��- ++/J,•��4 t � _
yWyyry4/�fj,
}5' 's 5f _j i1 i,� %%• +f, F +�' I frS �1L Cos +'r
I1jrf
JQ
fff Y �fJt{ L ' , F 15 f � q•�'*a� � -- � 11 4}{
./.15 F{ J, +4a
f/ '5�"+�y//J,i 7�• •r jy rfff0.
•I, 5 I d' `J
}1{ 5 , fl'•,� / Y I ��'Y ,o �h _tw' + 4a�M1 •¢ 2 �.
/}
` w4 *+' �'' }{ 1 �5 r. 'I �F J •' s IN �h yY
F1
ek
i t f'{ - ill l r _ " • r, '_1r *pabEmni _
� # ! I� ` � ` �� 'fill " f � `� •�� �'F�".• � - �':
IL
EZ
rs
:47IVd '1{f,� k feu3� *3S ]j
}
`� � � k .tea' � J� �+ `{ �•.f � 1 'i�F F H?YI� � Ih} }.
at
AS
�I_ sk115M�o aavy �ru �r�nani
vim .35go-4
min
/ may/ {'eiv vw) �. ?
' J 4", e8yy ;1 l
f1' y filly siZ 'IYI.LN R Fi it J S F•�f'SL"�W WFS '+' ',9f1 { _ - i
6. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM
6.1 Existing City Sewer Pipe System Evaluation
Not all of the flows projected in Table 5-6 and 5-7 can be conveyed by the existing City sewer
system of interceptor pipes, pump stations, and force mains. Table 6-1 summarized the City
conveyance system in relation to the projected peak hour flows to identify which elements will
be stressed.
Table 6-1
Projected Conveyance Pipe Capacity Limitations
Peak Hour Flow Projections
Trunk
Location
Exist Inches
Diameter
2025 Projection
Build -out Projection
MGD
Pipe Inches
MGD
Pipe Inches
A
Bay Street
12
0.21
ok
0.21
ok
B
Bay Street
10
0.42
ok
0.55
ok
C-east
Bay Street
18
2.04
ok
2.32
ok
C-west
Bay Street
24
9.62
33
10.21
ok
D — 1
Port Orchard
12 new
8.10
ok
8.65
ok
D — 2
Port Orchard
12 old
18
18
E
ravine
10
1.72
15
2.45
15
F
Bay Street
18
0.46
ok
0.41
ok
G
Pottery Avenue
10
1y37
15
1.42
15
H
Tremont Street
8
6.97
21
7.55
21
I
Old Clifton Road
_ 1 '70e
6.65
18
7.17
18
J
Old Clifton Road
5
4.82
18
4.85
18
K
McCormick Woods
M
0.78
ok
1.16
12
Several of the trunks are shown in Table 6-1 to need more capacity for 2025 or built -out flow
projections. These trunks are discussed below; and the alternatives believed appropriate are
explored in the next chapter.
6.2 Existing Sewer Pump Stations
Table 6-2 provides a summary of capacity limitations for the principal pump stations of the City
trunk sewer system, and the associated force mains.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 35
Table 6-2
Projected Pump Station Capacity Limitations
Pump
Existing Parameters
2025 Projection
Build -out Projection
Station
GPM
Force Main Inches
GPM
Pipe Inches
GPM
Pipe Inches
Coast
515
none — lift station
540
ok
630
ok
Marina
3,700
18
9,380
24
10,060
24
McCormick 1
1,000
16
5,000
ok
5,540
18
McCormick 2
1,000
16
3,830
ok
4,000
ok
Albertson
176
6
380
ok
370
ok
Sed wick
180
6
96
ok
96
ok
Force main should be designed with sufficient pipe diameter that velocities remain below 8 feet
per second under peak flow conditions and above 2 feet per second at low flow conditions,
which is the criteria used to indicate acceptable force mains in Table 6-2.
Engineering field inspections were conducted for three pump stations within the City sewer
system to identify improvements needed that should be included in the capital improvement
program. The McCormick Woods Pump Stations No 1 and No 2 plus the Marina Pump Station
are the most important stations to the functioning ®f the City sewer system, and were selected for
this evaluation.
s
Marina Pump Station
Existing Facilities: Marina lift station is located on Bay Street and was built in 1983. The
pump control and generator room was built on an existing concrete wastewater treatment tank,
likely a clarifier. The exact age of the tank and surrounding sheet pile is unknown, but it was
likely built in the early 1960s. The pump station wet well and drywell were also constructed in
1983 and are in the parking lot just south of the control building. The structure that houses the
wetwell and drywell is substantial with 18-inch reinforced concrete walls and a 36-foot by 28.5-
foot by 24-foot deep building envelope.
The Marina Pump Station is located at the shoreline and is the last pump station before the City
wastewater reaches the treatment plant. The station collects sewage from the upper basin and the
heavy STEP component that entering McCormick Woods Pump Stations 1 and 2 has been
diluted. The Marina Pump Station does receive a great deal of storm water flow form older parts
of the sewer system during storm events. Odor is confined to the wet well and corrosion
associated with sewage does not seem to be an issue.
The pump station is designed with two 25 HP chopper pumps to convey typical sewage flow and
two larger 150 HP centrifugal pumps to convey high flows associated with storms. The large
pumps are each rated for 2,600 GPM at 115 feet of lift. Storm flows that exceed the capacity of
the two main pumps discharge excess flow through an overflow pipe leading to Sinclair Inlet.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 36
The large 150 HP pumps are plumbed from the wet well and to an 18-inch force main with 14-
inch ductile iron pipe. Each large pump is equipped with a 14-inch plug valve on the inlet side
and a 14-inch check valve and plug valve on the discharge side. The smaller 25 HP chopper
pumps are plumbed from the wet well and to the force main in a similar fashion with 8-inch pipe
and valves. Separate flow meters measure flow from the large pump and the small pumps and
are located before the 18-inch force main. These flow meters measure low flows associated with
sanitary sewer and the high flows discharged during storm events.
The drywell is in excellent condition and the valves are likely to be in working order.
Verification of the valve's heath and proper operation is recommended. The capacity of these
valves and force mains are in excess of the current pump discharge rates and provide capacity
into the future. For example, the large pumps are rated for force main are ideally designed
between 4 and 8 feet per second (fps) fluid velocity. Following this criteria a 14-inch valve can
convey approximately 3,900 GPM at 8 fps and an 18-inch force main can convey about 6,800
GPM at 8 fps.
A detailed list of equipment sizes and dimensions of equipment was developed for this
evaluation based on a field visit on July 91h, 2008, and on plans developed by KCM, Incorporated
for the Marina Pump Station, dated March 1983.
®c
Deficiencies: The main deficiencies at the Marina Pump Station include the following: The
large pumps are reaching the end of their lifespan. Control of the large pump includes one VFD
system and one constant speed system resulting in the VFD controlled pump being operated
more often causing uneven wear. The engine -generator is becoming difficult to maintain as parts
are becoming scarce, the generator's automatic transfer switch (ATS) is 25 years old, and the
generator fuel storage does not provide secondary containment. The drywell ventilation needs to
be continuous and provide 6 air exchanges per hour to meet DOE requirements. The ventilation
duct work appears to be adequately sized and a new fan and controls may be all that is needed.
The sheet pile structure around the water side of the control room is beginning to fail potentially
compromising the building foundation.
Items that need further investigation before it can be determined if replacement, repair or
modification is required include, the plug and check valves around the pumps and on force main,
drywell and control room lighting, the potable water connection for cross connection control,
drywell sump pump, wetwell access, wetwell condition, and the level sensing system.
Recommendations: Replace the two large 150 HP pumps and replace the constant speed
controller of Pump 2 with new VFD system. Replace generator, fuel tank and ATS. Replace
ventilation fan and controls in drywell ventilation system to provide 6 air exchanges per hour and
to operate continuously. Construct new ring of sheet pile around control room and replace
backflll.
Upon further investigation the following items may need to be replaced or rehabilitated if they
are determined to be in poor condition. These items include, check and plug valves in drywell
associated with pumps and force main, the drywell sump pump, the wet well interior, the level
sensor system, and the potable water system cross connection control valve.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 37
Optional changes that would improve the stations operation, but are not absolutely required are
described as follows. Replace the existing VFD that controls Pump 1 to provide a matched set of
controllers. Improve lighting in the drywell and control room. Increase access to wet well for
better maintenance.
McCormick Woods Pump Stations No 1 and No 2
Existing Conditions: McCormick Woods Pump Stations 1 and 2 were built as part of ULID No
6 in late 1994 or 1995. Pump Station No 1 is located on Old Tremont Street just west of SR 16
and Pump Station No 2 is located on Old Clifton Road near McCormick Woods. The pump
stations share a common design with the exception of the pump and generator size. Both pump
stations are designed with duplex submersible pumps, an exterior control panel, a stand alone
generator, a 10-foot by 10-foot fiberglass reinforced building to house chlorine bleach injection
equipment and air compressor for force main corrosion control, chemical holding tank and an air
scrubber for odor control.
Both pump stations are constructed with the same valve arrangement. A 10-inch check and plug
valve follow each pump, piping then combines to flow through a 16-inch isolation plug valve
and into the force main. The capacity of these valves and force mains are well in excess of the
current pump stations demands and provide capacity welht�o the future. For example, force
main are ideally designed between 4 and 8 feet per second (fps) fluid velocity. Following this
criteria a 10-inch valve can convey approximately 2,000 GPM at 8 fps and a 16-inch force main
can convey about 5,100 GPM at 8 fps.
A detailed list of equipment sizes and dimensions of equipment was developed based on a field
visit on July 9th, 2008, plus plans developed by NL Olson and Associates for ULID No. 6,
McCormick Woods Lift Stations 1 and 2, dated June 1994.
IF
Pump Station No 1 collects flow from the County Juvenile Detention Center, an office park the
1,200 decant facility operated by the City, and flow from McCormick Woods Pump Station No
2. The sewage is a mixture of fresh gravity sewage and aged STEP sewage from Pump Station
No 2. Odor and corrosion is an issue, but not as severe as Pump Station 2. Ragging is
occasionally a problem as a result of the inmates at the detention center flushing items down the
toilets.
Pump Station No 2 receives sewage from the McCormick Woods development. Most houses in
the McCormick Woods area have septic tanks with effluent pumps (STEP systems) that
discharge the effluent to Pump Station No 2. As a result, the sewage reaching the pump station
is aged and odorous. Efforts to reduce the odor and possibly other constituents in the aged
influent sewage with chlorine bleach (NaOCI) have led to tremendous corrosion problems.
Deficiencies: Pump Station 1 and 2 have similar problems with those at Station 2 being more
severe. Each station has corrosion issues with aged valves that do not operate, pipe saddles that
are corroded and have failed or are close to failure, check valves that are slow to close due to
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 38
missing or rusted springs resulting in loud operation and pressure surges in the force main, and
rails and rail mounts that are corroded and need replacement.
Discharge piping from the pump up to the elbow exiting the wet well is designed with an 8-inch
force main. This pipe is oversized, likely to provide for future growth. The problem that can
occur from the excess size is the exit velocity can be too low to carry larger solids up the stack.
As a result, a chunk of gravel or other large and dense solid can get trapped near the pump
causing unnecessary damage. This is not likely a problem with STEP systems as in Pump
Station 2, but may be a problem with Pump Station 1.
Odor control systems that filter the exhaust air are not currently operated at the either pump
station since they are not effective at removing odor. Operator reports that the odor control
systems have never worked effectively suggest the media in the systems may not have been well
matched for the odor creating chemicals present in the STEP system effluent.
Related to odor control is the wet well storage volume. The construction drawings show 7-feet
of active storage in the wet well. This provides excessive storage causing sewage in the wetwell
to age unnecessarily. The active storage in the wet well should about one -quarter the volume for
Station 2 and one-third the volume for Station 1 to protect the pumps against over -cycling.
®2
A'P '®'
Chemical injection systems at each pump station use chloAne bleach that is hazardous, causes
corrosion, and may inhibit treatment processes down stream at the wastewater treatment plant.
The pumps and control systems are close to 25-years old and are likely nearing the end of their
lifespan. This was reinforced by the fact that on the day of my site visit, one of the pumps failed
at Pump Station 2.
No equipment is available to remove and service pumps other than independent contractor. No
area lighting provided. These deficiencies make maintenance difficult.
More examination of the wetwell, force main and discharge piping is recommended. The
existing equipment is sized large enough for future use. For this report is assumed that the
structures may be reused.
Recommendations: Replace pump system including pumps, controls and panels, level sensors,
rails and reducers connecting to existing discharge elbows. Provide free standing roof structure
above the pump control panel with integrated lights to illuminate area and to protect workers
from the rain with a design similar to the McCormick Ridge installation. Replace check valves,
plug valves and saddles downstream of the pump station in kind. Reduce the volume of storage
in the wet well to reduce odors caused by long residence time. Employ new corrosion control
system utilizing less toxic chemicals. If odor remains an issue at the station with the new
corrosion control system, provide an odor control system that treats hydrogen sulfide and also
the complex odors formed by STEP system effluent. Purchase a truck with a Pump with a
swinging boom to be used to service all the pump stations.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 39
6.3 Infiltration and Inflow
Ecology Publication No 97-03 defines criteria for determination of whether excessive infiltration
or inflow may exist in a sewer system based on the served population. Table 6-3 shows the
maximum day flow recorded at the Marina Pump Station in relation to the annual average day
flow. The ratio of these flows is an indication of the magnitude of infiltration and the response
to rainfall. The approximate served population shown in Table 6-3 was derived from the historic
populations shown in Table 4-1 and the residential ERU shown in Table 4-2 at 2.4 persons per
residential unit.
Table 6-3
Marina Pump Station Flow Summary
Monthly Average Flow in Millions of Gallons per Day
Month
2007
2006
2005
2004
Maximum Day
3 Dec @ 3.84
14 Dec @ 3.367
18 Jan @ 1.754
10 Dec @ 2.075
Rain inches
5.15
2.41
1.50
2.15
Annual Average
0.764
0.804
0.747
0.763
Ratio
5.0
4.2
®„ 2.3
2.7
Served Population
7,333
7,272
7,226
6,948
Average GPD per
®®®,,
Capita
104
110 _
103
110
Average GPD per
Capita in Storm
702
463 1,
243
299
The early December 2007 storm event was likely an abnormal occurrence. The maximum daily
flow was recorded on 3 December 2007 was 3.84 MGD, which is within the existing station
capacity of 3,700 GPM (5.33 MGD) as discussed in Section 2.2. Average daily flows over entire
years for the City sewer system are computed as shown in Table 6-3 for the calendar years 2004,
2005, and 2006 from City records for the Marina Pump Station.
As shown in Tables 5-1 and 5-2, the 2006 calendar year included three months with flows
averaging more than 1.000 MGD. These high months may have been unusual due to severe
rainstorms such as the event on December 14th when 2.41 inches of precipitation was recorded.
These severe events form the benchmarks to gage the capacity of the sewer system. No overflow
occurred during that event any where in the City sewer system — meaning, the sewer system has
adequate capacity to accommodate such peak storm events.
`Possibly excessive infiltration' is defined in Ecology Publication No 97-03 as annual average
day flow exceeding 120 GPD per capita. Table 6-3 shows the annual average day flow was
typically 110 GPD per capita. Infiltration into the Port Orchard sewer system as a whole does
not appear excessive. Selected pipe reaches within the system may exceed this criteria and
warrant rehabilitative efforts.
`Possibly excessive inflow' is defined in Ecology Publication No 97-03 as annual average day
flow exceeding 275 GPD per capita during significant rain storms. Table 6-3 shows the flow per
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 40
capita during the largest storm of the year exceed that criteria during some years. However, the
publication defines `significant rain storms' as `any storm that creates surface ponding and
runoff. Clearly the largest storms of the year exceed that criteria, and are not intended as the
basis for `possibly excessive inflow' determination. However, even the peak storm of some
years does not exceed the criteria. Therefore, inflow does not appear to be excessive into the
City sewer system as a whole. Selected pipes within the system, however, may exceed the
criteria and may warrant rehabilitation efforts.
A more local picture of infiltration/inflow issues can be achieved by evaluating the records of
individual pump stations. Table 6-4 compares flows from McCormick Woods No 2 and through
McCormick Woods No 1 for 2007.
Table 6-4
2007 Flow Comparisons in GPD
McCormick Woods No 1 and 2
Month
McCormick 1
McCormick 2
Difference
Jan
82,839
63,677
19,162
Feb
70,071
5,3,571
16,500
Mar
75,290
-6 129
19,161
Apr
69,200
52;0
16,400
May
73,161
54,387
18,774
Jun
73,400
54,000
19,400
Jul
74,129
54,774
19,355
Aug74,323
53,226
21,097
Sep
78,600
54,200
24,400
Oct
78,581
51,677
26,904
Nov
84,600
56,400
28,200
Dec
108,968
70,452
38,516
Annual Average
78,597
56,275
22,322
Maximum Day
342,000 (Dec 3)
282,000 Dec 3)
60,000
Ratio
4.35
5.02
2.69
Table 6-4 indicates that the McCormick Woods Pump Station No 2 experiences larger peak
flows than McCormick Woods Pump Station No 1. This means that a significant
infiltration/inflow contribution comes from within the McCormick Woods development.
These results indicate that construction and long-term integrity of the sewer system within
McCormick Woods has not matched design expectations, and thus is using more system capacity
than originally intended. Some system rehabilitation would seem appropriate to minimize
capacity additions to the interceptors and three major pump stations.
As shown in Table 6-3, flow through the Marina Pump Station for the peak day during 2007 also
was five times the annual average day flow. This indicates that some areas downstream from
McCormick Woods Pump Station No 1 also have a sufficient response to rainfall to increase the
peaking factor back up to about five times the annual average day flow. These areas are likely to
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan - Sep 09 41
be among the older sections of the sewer system, and those pipe reaches in depressions with high
ground water.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 42
7. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
7.1 Trunk Sewers Required for Build -Out
There are four basic alternatives to address capacity concerns within the trunk piping system:
1. Allow pipe to surcharge since the capacity is only needed for brief peak hour flows
2. Replace the trunk with a larger pipe, or install a parallel pipe
3. Divert some or all flow to a new or different trunk
4. Intercept some flow to a satellite treatment facility for reclamation and reuse as stream
augmentation, irrigation, or other purposes
Each of the trunks identified in Table 6-1 as requiring additional capacity for build -out
conditions are discussed below. It is best to consider first the capacity that may be needed in
comparison with the need projected for build -out flow conditions. Capacity needed by 2025 as
shown in Table 6-1provides an indication of the urgency the capacity issue should be addressed.
Trunk C-west — Bay Street
Existing Conditions: The existing 24-inch pipe in Bay Street extends from Port Orchard
Boulevard to the Marina Pump Station. The pipe burial isl ported to average about 10-feet of
cover reported for most pipe reaches.
p --
Deficiencies: Future peak hour flows under the bui -out scenario may cause the pipe to
surcharge for periods of several hours.
Alternatives: Three alternatives are possible:
A. Surcharging of the sewer pipe may be acceptable for limited time periods as
there are no basements known to exist along this alignment.
B. Pipe capacity can be increased by pipe bursting or by installing a parallel pipe.
C. Flow can be reduced by use of satellite treatment facilities to produce reclaimed
water for stream augmentation or reused in other manners.
Trunk D — Port Orchard Boulevard
Existing Conditions: Two 12-inch pipes have been installed at different dates in ravine corridor
containing Port Orchard Boulevard.
Deficiencies: Some portions of the older pipe in this alignment have only 4-feet of cover.
Alternatives: Three alternatives are possible:
A. Surcharging of the sewer pipe may be acceptable for limited time periods as there
are no basements known to exist along this alignment.
B. Pipe capacity can be increased by pipe bursting or by installing a parallel pipe.
C. Flow can be reduced by use of satellite treatment facilities to produce reclaimed
water for stream augmentation or reused in other manners.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 43
Trunk E — Port Orchard Ravine
Existing Conditions: An existing 10-inch pipe connects Pottery Avenue into the dual 12-inch
trunks flowing north from Tremont Street in Port Orchard Boulevard. This existing 10-inch pipe
is laid in an easement with the stream corridor without the benefit of a dedicated public right-of-
way. The stream is a `sensitive area', which severely limits access for maintenance or
reconstruction. Five lateral or collector sewers discharge into the existing 10-inch sewer along
this stretch of pipe.
Deficiencies: Maintenance access is currently difficult for this stretch of pipe. South up Pottery
Avenue towards Sedgwick Road is one of the rapidly developing areas of the City. Additional
sewer capacity will be needed in the immediate future. Yet the `sensitive area' designation
severely limits opportunities to reconstruct or replace this pipe, even at abnormally high costs.
Alternatives: Two basic alternatives are possible regarding capacity limitations for the 10inch
pipe, and combinations of these two basic alternatives offer a range of variations:
A. Construct a new pump station on Pottery Avenue at Lippert Drive with a force
main north in Pottery Avenue to discharg into the sewer in Tremont Street.
B. Using membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology, construct a satellite wastewater
treatment facility near Pottery Avenue at Sedgwick Road to produce reclaimed
water for the new commercial development occurring in this vicinity and/or
augment flow in Blackjack Creek. .. I
Excess flow and sludge from the MBR facility would continue to flow through the existing 10-
inch sewer.
Trunk G — Pottery Avenue
Existing Conditions: The existing trunk in Pottery Avenue is 10-inch diameter.
Deficiencies: Development in the Pottery-Sedgwick-Sidney area is threatening to exceed the
capacity available.
Alternatives: Two alternatives seem feasible:
A. Surcharging of the sewer pipe may be acceptable for limited time periods as there
are no basements known to exist along this alignment.
B. A satellite MBR wastewater treatment facility could be built near Pottery Avenue at
Sedgwick Road to produce reclaimed water for the new commercial development
occurring in this vicinity and/or augment flow in Blackjack Creek.
Trunk H— Tremont Street
Existing Conditions: The 16-inch force main from McCormick Woods Pump Station No 1
discharges into an existing gravity sewer is 8-inch diameter in Tremont Street, which extends
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 44
from the hospital east to Pottery Avenue. The record drawings indicate the minimum pipe
gradient is about 0.69 percent.
Deficiencies: The existing 8-inch pipe receives the 1,000 GPM (1.44 MGD) discharge from
McCormick Woods Pump Station No 1, which exceeds the pipe capacity when flowing full of
about 0.65 MGD. The pipe also receives the 50 GPM discharge from the Canyon Court Pump
Station as well as the Harrison Hospital Pump Station at 350 GPM. The pipe capacity is clearly
exceeded.
Alternatives: The existing 8-inch pipe should be replaced with a pipe having capacity for about
2,400 GPM or about 3.5 MGD. A 15-inch pipe at a gradient of 0.75 percent should be adequate.
Trunk I — Old Clifton Road
Existing Conditions: The lower part of Old Clifton Road contains a 15-inch trunk from the
terminus of the 16-inch force main from McCormick Woods Pump Station No 2 east and north
into McCormick Woods Pump Station No 1.
Deficiencies: The existing pipe may need additional cacity when the SKIA properties reach
AL
full development. Ank
®P I®A
,&N In
® In
Alternatives: �.^
A. Surcharging of the sewer pipe may be acceptable for limited time periods as there
are no basements known to exist along this alignment.
B. Flow can be reduced by use of satellite treatment facilities to produce reclaimed
water for stream augmentation or reused in other manner.
Trunk J — Old Clifton Road
Existing Conditions: A 15-inch trunk exists in upper Old Clifton Road from the west edge of
the McCormick Woods tract at Feigley Road east to McCormick Woods Pump Station No 2.
Deficiencies: The existing pipe may need additional capacity when the SKIA properties reach
full development.
Alternatives:
A. Surcharging of the sewer pipe may be acceptable for limited time periods as there
are no basements known to exist along this alignment.
B. Flow can be reduced by use of satellite treatment facilities to produce reclaimed
water for stream augmentation or reused in other manner.
Trunk K —McCormick Woods
Existing Conditions: A 10-inch trunk convey wastewater from the STEP systems within
McCormick Woods north to the McCormick Woods Pump Station No 2.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 45
Deficiencies: This pipe capacity may be inadequate when McCormick Woods is fully
developed.
Alternatives: Three alternatives may be feasible:
A. Surcharging of the sewer pipe may be acceptable for limited time periods as there
are no basements known to exist along this alignment.
B. Pipe capacity can be increased by pipe bursting or by installing a parallel pipe.
C. Flow can be reduced by use of satellite treatment facilities to produce reclaimed
water for stream augmentation or reused in other manners.
The alternatives described above for each of the trunk sewer capacity concerns is believed
feasible. Cost considerations can be generally described as follows:
> Surcharging the sewer pipes as indicated has no apparent capital cost; and little
risk beyond the possibility of a brief sewer overflow should peak flow briefly exceed projections,
which may involve some maintenance cost if cleanup becomes required.
> Pipe reconstruction, either by pipe bursting, installing a parallel sewer, or by
replacing the existing pipe has significant capital cost, though little added on -going maintenance
or operating costs. The community disruption during construction may be severe however.
> Building and operating satellite MBR treatment facilities likely have the most
expensive direct costs. However, such facilities may j p off -setting savings in extending
available water sources, environmental benefits, and imp ®,ed community relations.
Selection of which alternative to implement for each of the various trunk capacity issues may
vary depending on the preferences of the participating property owners, funding available, and
the community priorities.
SKIA Wastewater Flow Management
Existinz Conditions: The SKIA is presently served by onsite sewage systems. These facilities
are adequate for current conditions and may remain sufficient indefinitely.
Deficiencies: Capacities of the existing onsite systems will eventually be exceeded in
accordance with the development projected in the SKIA Plan. The City of Port Orchard has
provided capacity in Trunk J and onwards to the wastewater treatment facility. However, this
capacity is limited and may not suffice for build -out development planned for the SKIA.
Alternatives: The City has two basic alternatives to providing added wastewater capacity:
A. Enlarge all downstream facilities
B. Provide a satellite treatment facility within the SKIA
Alternative A is very expensive and disruptive. Alternative B can be implemented when needed
at SKIA, the water can be reclaimed and percolated into the ground for aquifer recharge, and the
sludge can be trucked or pumped to the existing sewer in Old Clifton Road. Discharge can be
managed to occur only during off-peak times so capacities throughout the City sewer system do
not need to consider SKIA at all in defining peak hour capacities.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 46
7.2 Pump Station Improvements Required for Build -Out
Capacity needed for build -out conditions at the principal pump stations in the City sewer system
are summarized in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1
Projected Pump Station Capacities Needed for Built -Out Conditions
Station
Existing
GPM
Required
GPM
Station
Adequacy
Existing Force
Main - inches
Force Main
Needed - inches
Bay Street
515
633
no
none
lift into trunk
Bravo Terrace
180
96
ok
6
Adequate
Albertson
176
390
no
6
Adequate
Ride
200
46
ok
6
Adequate
McCormick 1
1,000
2,237
no
16
Adequate
McCormick 2
1,000
1,749
no
16
Adequate
Marina
3,500
6,217
no
15
Adequate
Force mains shown in Table 7-1 may be adequate with velocities less than 8 feet per second at
the Build -Out peak pumping rate. The resulting dynamic head loss and power requirements to
use the existing force mains may warrant some replacements though.
7.3 Trunk Sewers Required for 2025
�..
s
Table 7-1 also indicates that several pump stations will need additional capacity under projected
Build -Out conditions. Conditions were then projected for 2025 to establish the facilities needed
in a more immediate timeframe as shown in Table 7-2.
Table 7-2
Projected Facility Capacities Needed for 2025 Conditions
Facilities Exceeded
at Build -Out
Pi a CapacityAvailable/Required in MGD
Existing
Build -Out
2025
Upgrade Needed
Trunks C-west
4.3
10.21
9.62
Surcharge ok in 2025
D
5.1
8.65
8.10
Surcharge ok in 2025
E
0.83
2.45
1.72
Yes
G
0.70
1.42
1.37
Yes
H
0.65
7.55
6.97
Yes
I
4.70
7.17
6.65
Surcharge ok in 2025
J
3.90
4.85
4.82
Surcharge ok in 2025
K
0.80
1.16
0.78
No — maybe @ build -out
Pump Stations Bay Street
515
630
540
No — maybe @ build -out
Albertson
176
390
370
Yes
McCormick 1
1,000
5,000
5,540
Yes
McCormick 2
1,000
4,000
3,830
Yes
Marina
3,700
10,060
9,380
Yes
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 47
Table 7-2 indicates that under the current routing of wastewater flows, Trunks C-west, E, H, and
I plus the three larger pump stations will needed to be upgraded before 2025.
7.4 Sewer Service Alternatives for SKIA
Both Table 5-6 and Table 5-7 indicate substantial capacity increases are needed to accommodate
peak hour wastewater flows from the SKIA as reflected in subsequent tables through Table 7-2.
The City can provide this capacity through reconstruction of the existing facilities. However,
there is little indication that the SKIA is prepared to provide the necessary funding in the short
term for the benefit conferred. It is therefore necessary and appropriate that the City consider
alternatives if sewer service is to be extended to the SKIA under the six -year capital
improvement program developed in subsequent chapters.
Examination of the SKIA properties shows that almost all of the parcels proposed for
development and served by the proposed water main extensions lie within the Union River
watershed, including. Some approximate key elevations are summarized below:
SW Barney White @ SR 3 440
SW Barney White @ west SKIA boundary 240
SR 3 crest to northeast & Gorst 460
East boundary of the SKIA 480
10,
10,
Old Clifton Road @ Feigley Road SW 10®530
® r
®®
The SW Barney Road at SR 3 intersection can be considered as approximating the center of the
developed area. The main SKIA pump station could be located near this interception. A
tributary pump station would be needed near the west SKIA boundary on SW Barney White
Road, and perhaps at other locations..
For wastewater from SW Barney White Road at SR 3 to reach the nearest City sewer in Old
Clifton Road requires a pipeline length of about 13,000 feet. Table 5-6 identified the required
pumping capacity as 2,000 GPM, which would need a 16-inch diameter force main to convey
wastewater at about 3.3 feet per second with about 50 feet of dynamic head loss. The static head
would be about 90 feet plus the wet well depth, for a total lift approaching 160 feet. This is near
the limit for most wastewater pumping systems. Each pump would need at least a 125
horsepower motor. Odor and corrosion control would be an even more of a challenge than at
present in the interceptor system from Old Clifton Road through McCormick Woods Pump
Station 2, thence to Pump Station 1, and on to the Marina Pump Station.
However, the wastewater volumes shown in Table 5-6 are projected in the SKIA Plan only
through about 2017, and only for 550 acres of 2,300 total acres that are considered developable.
Build -out wastewater capacity needs for the entire site have not been estimated. The existing
development is served through an on -site septic system with a capacity of 72,000 GPD. The
SKIA Plan envisions development in phases. The first phase would extend until capacity is
reached with the existing on -site system.
The second phase would provide connection to the City sewer system. Given the uncertainties
involved and the funding constraints, this second phase might need an average day wastewater
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 48
capacity of about 150,000 GPD, which is double the existing on -site capacity. This capacity
would be provided by duplex 310 GPM pumps with 25 horsepower motors and an 8-inch force
main to Old Clifton Road.
A third phase would be initiated with the second phase capacity is reached by constructing a
satellite treatment facility using a membrane bioreactor (MBR) process to produce `Class A'
reclaimed water. Sludge wasted from the treatment facility would be sent through the phase 2
pump station and force main to the City sewer at old Clifton Road. The reclaimed water could
be used by local businesses such as gravel washing, concrete production, or other processes. The
water would also be available to augment the three streams draining from the SKIA:
➢ Gorst Creek flowing into Sinclair Inlet
➢ Union River flowing into Hood Canal
➢ Coulter Creek flowing into Case Inlet
The MBR treatment process would be designed in modular packages so it can be expanded as
wastewater flows from the SKIA increase. The resulting impacts to the existing City sewer
system downstream from Old Clifton Road would be significantly reduced as shown in Table 7-3
for the affected trunk sewers and pump stations.
Table 7-3
Sewer Improvements Revised for Reduced SKIA Flow
Facilities Exceeded at Build -Out
Pipe apacity Available/Required
in MGD
Trunks
Location
Existing
Build -Out
2025
Upgrade Needed
J
Upper Old Clifton
3.9
1.2
1.2
No
McCormick 2
McCormick Woods
1.4
1.7
1.5
Yes
I
Lower Old Clifton
4.7
3.0
2.6
No
McCormick 1
SR 16
1.4
3.0
2.5
Yes
H
Tremont
0.65
3.4
2.8
Yes
D
Port Orchard Blvd
5.1
5.0
4.4
No
C-west
Bay Street
4.3
6.0
5.4
see note)
Marina PS
Bay Street
5.8
7.7
7.1
Yes
Note: Trunk C-west may surcharge for a few hours during peak storm events
Comparison of the capacity needs shown in Table 7-3 with the capacity requirements shown in
Table 7-1 and 7-2 shows that planning for a satellite MBR facility will significantly reduce the
upgrades required to existing City sewer facilities, and the cost to operate the smaller resulting
pump stations.
7.5 Satellite Treatment Alternatives
Intercepting at least some wastewater flow into a satellite treatment facility offers the potential to
eliminate, reduce, and/or delay the need for capacity additions to several existing interceptor
sewers and to the three major pump stations.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 49
Membrane bioreactors (MBR) are currently the accepted `state-of-the-art' treatment process for
reclaiming wastewater to `Class A' standards for reuse applications that may involve public
contact. MBR processes are available from several manufacturers using two basic technologies:
flat plate and hollow fiber. Both processes can readily produce `Class A' reclaimed water. The
hollow fiber process maybe be best suited to larger installations because the membrane density is
higher. The flat plate processes has simpler, less expensive maintenance requirements.
Regulatory requirements to produce `Class A' reclaimed water are defined in `Water
Reclamation and Reuse Standards' September 1997 by the Departments of Ecology and Health,
which is based on regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. `Class A
Reclaimed Water' is defined as an oxidized, coagulated, filtered, and disinfected wastewater.
An MBR process does not normally include coagulation as a treatment step. However, the State
of California has accepted the MBR technology as providing an equivalent treatment quality, and
the State of Washington has followed suite. The required minimum effluent standards to qualify
as Class A reclaimed water can be summarized as follows:
1. Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) not exceeding
30 milligrams per liter (mg/L).
2. Average monthly operating turbidity not exceeding 2 nephelometric turbidity units
(NTU) and not exceeding 5 NTU at any time.
3. Median total coliform not exceeding 2.2 organitims per 100 milliliters (mL) for the
past seven days and no sample exceeding 23 per'100 mL.
4. Chlorine residual of 0.5 mg/L during conveyance from the reclamation facility to the
use areas.
The MBR process will routinely exceed the Class A requirements as the effluent typically
produced from a flat plate membrane will be less than 5 mg/L for BOD and TSS, while the
turbidity will be less than 0.2 NTU. About 4-Log coliform reduction will occur through the
membrane, though disinfection will still be required to meet the standard for viruses.
Nitrogen will be a concern with reclaimed water applications where surface streams or
groundwater may be affected. The drinking water standard of 10 mg/L is generally the minimum
requirement. Removal of nitrogen compounds is usually done through a biological process that
is somewhat temperature dependent. A single stage nitrification-denitrification process can be
included with an MBR facility and will remove total nitrogen to below 10 mg/L. A two -stage
process will reduce total nitrogen to below 5 mg/L.
All MBR processes have significant limitations. The ability to accommodate peak flows is a
major concern. Most MBR processes can accept flow at about twice the design rate for a limited
time period. However, wastewater flow under storm conditions in Port Orchard can result in
peak flows of three, or four, or five, or more times the average day flow rates. Consequently,
reliability and redundancy are key requirements in the treatment process design. Some of these
considerations can be outlined as follows:
1. The treatment facility requires continuous monitoring with alarms providing warning
for emergency conditions, which typically include at least power failure, high flow,
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 50
aeration failure, disinfection failure, and disposal failure. These alarms will use a
notification tree to individuals for appropriate responses.
2. Emergency power is usually provided through a standby generator with an automatic
transfer switch with sufficient capacity to start and operate all required treatment and
disposal components. The alarm and notification system will have an additional
battery backup provision.
3. All treatment components shall have at least two units, with one unit capable of
treating the design flow when one unit is out of service.
4. Flow equalization is required where influent flows may have peak rates exceeding the
design capacity of the MBR process.
5. Emergency storage for at least 24-hours of influent flow is needed in the event the
treatment process fails, or diversion to an alternate treatment facility provided.
6. Additional emergency storage of the treated effluent is required should the
reuse/disposal facility fail or become unavailable, or an alternate disposal system
provided.
A wide variety of reuse options for reclaimed water are described in the literature. Many uses
are only seasonal and may not be suitable for Port Orchard. Some of the reuse opportunities that
may be applicable to at least parts of the City system are briefly described as follows:
• Commercial uses can include water features or fountains, street cleaning, dust
control, fire protection, as well as toilet and urinal flushing. Some of these uses
can be designed into new structures, though they are often not cost-effective as
retrofitting or remodeling. Vkh..
• Industrial applications can include ship ballast, washing aggregate, making
concrete, industrial cooling, and process water. Such uses may appear in the
future though no immediate demands are known to exist.
• Irrigation can be provided for landscaping, golf courses, and agricultural produce;
however, the application of water has to be at the agronomic rate suitable to the
crop and growing season. This usually mean irrigation can only occur seasonally,
and is not suitable during the winter, wet season when wastewater flows are
generally largest and disposal needs are greatest.
• Stream augmentation is currently provided by the City using potable water at
several locations within the sewer service area. These demands could be met with
reclaimed water, though the requirement only exists during summer, low flow
conditions. However, it may be feasible and acceptable to augment stream flows
year-round if a beneficial use can be substantiated.
• Percolation to groundwater can be used through a surface application such as a
percolation basin, drainfield, drip irrigation, or similar technology; provided the
water quality protects public health and water quality standards as well as
providing a net environmental benefit, but the quality does not have to meet the
standards for groundwater aquifer recharge.
• Wetlands can be constructed to receive reclaimed water, and natural wetlands
other than Category I or salt water can be used, provided beneficial use is
demonstrated. The hydraulic loading can not exceed 2 centimeters per day
(cm/day) for Category II or 3 cm/day for Category II and IV. The vegetation
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 51
must be protected so the water level can not be increased more than 10 cm above
average.
Class A reclaimed water facilities are required to meet various setback distances. Reclaimed
water pipelines must be at least 50 feet from a potable well. A wetland or unlined reclaimed
water storage pond must be at least 500 feet from a potable well unless the impoundment is
sealed, in which case 100 feet of setback is required.
Several opportunities exist in and around Port Orchard where satellite treatment facilities may be
appropriate. Three of these are briefly described below:
McCormick Woods, either within the existing developments or the proposed
McCormick West, could have a satellite treatment facility with the reclaimed water
used for irrigation of the existing golf course or similar sites, augmentation of
Anderson Creek or other streams, or flow through various existing wetlands.
2. Stetson Heights and other existing or proposed developments near the Sedgwick
Road interchange with SR 16 could produce reclaimed water for augmentation of
Blackjack Creek or through several existing wetlands.
®c
3. SKIA offers several possibilities for reclaimed water. As an industrial area,
commercial and/or industrial applications may be created. Stream augmentation is
possible. There are wetlands that may be suitable. The airfield has extensive open
space that may be suitable for percolation year-round.
Site requirements for an MBR facility are modest for just the treatment facilities, depending
primarily on the design flow volume, the peak flow management, and the maintenance facilities
to be included at the site. The area required for disposal is more variable and depends on the
reuse concept employed, local soils, and the flow volumes.
7.6 Conveyance Improvement Priorities
The magnitude of difference between `Existing Capacity' and `Capacity Required in 2025' as
shown in Tables 7-2 and 7-3 is an approximate indicator of the urgency as to when these existing
conveyance upgrades will needed. The indicated priorities for pipe improvements are
approximately as follows:
1. Trunk H in Tremont Street Need 4.3 x existing capacity
2. Trunk E in ravine Pottery to Tremont Need 2.1 x existing capacity
3. Trunk G in Pottery/Sidney Avenue Need 2.0 x existing capacity
Improvements are also required to at least three pump stations as indicated in Table 7-3. A
similar indication of priority can be assembled as shown below:
1. McCormick Woods PS 2 Need 1.8 x existing capacity
2. Marina Pump Station Need 1.2 x existing capacity
3. McCormick Woods PSI Need 1.1 x existing capacity
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 52
Section 6.2 outlined the principal deficiencies for these pump stations and described the
recommended improvements, except for the recommended pumping capacities.
7.7 Proposed Interception Improvements
The three trunk alignments indicated in Tables 7-2 and 7-3 as needing to be upgraded before the
year 2025, can be addressed as summarized below:
• Trunk H extends east in Tremont Street from the McCormick Woods Pump Station No 1
force main under SR 16 on east to Port Orchard Boulevard and Trunk D. No real
alignment alternative exists. Capacity can be increased in either of two ways:
➢ The existing pipe can be pipe burst to achieve the desired new diameter
➢ A new pipe can be installed in a new trench, which allows service to continue in the
existing pipe.
• Trunk E extends south from the Port Orchard Boulevard intersection with Tremont Street
up the creek and wetlands to Pottery Avenue and thence south to Fireweed Street. The
wetlands make reconstruction by any method along the existing alignment questionable
as to obtaining environmental permits. A more realistic approach to adding capacity may
be to construct a new pump station on Pottery, -Avenue at Lippert Drive with the force
main extending north in Pottery Avenue to join Trunk H in Tremont Avenue.
Trunk G is in Sidney Avenue north from Sedgwick Road until it becomes Pottery Avenue
thence to Lippert Drive. No real alignment alternative exists. Capacity can be increased
in either of two ways:
➢ The existing pipe can be pipe burst to achieve the desired new diameter
➢ A new pipe can be installed in a new trench, which allows service to continue in the
existing pipe.
The alternative approach for managing capacity in these trunks and the associated pump stations
would build satellite MBR facilities for McCormick Woods and/or near the Sidney/Sedgwick
intersection. Table 5-6 and 5-7 indicate the potential reductions in trunk sewer flows, and the
approximate treatment capacities needed, as restated in Table 7-4.
Table 7-4
Potential Satellite Treatment Facilities
Capacities in Millions of Gallons per Day
Parameters
SKIA
McCormick
Sidney-Sedgwick
Totals
2025 Average Day
1.20
0.16
0.34
1.70
Average Day Max Month
1.56
0.21
0.44
2.21
Peak Hour
2.90
0.78
1.37
5.05
Build -out Average Day
1.50
0.23
0.35
2.08
Average Day Max Month
2.00
0.30
0.46
2.76
Peak Hour
4.00
1.16
1.42
6.58
MBR Design Flow (in 2020)
1.00
0.22
0.45
1.67
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan - Sep 09 53
Projected build -out flows not available for SKIA. The values shown in Table 7-4 are assumed.
Table 7-4 indicates that satellite treatment facilities could remove about 5.0 MGD of peak hour
flow from the rest of the City sewer system for 2025. That exclusion would reduce the need to
add capacity to trunk piping, the pump stations, and the Karcher Creek treatment facility. Only
for the SKIA MBR facility is likely to show direct cost benefits. However, there are other
considerations that may make the McCormick Woods and/or the Sidney-Sedgwick facilities
attractive.
Washington State now requires reuse of wastewater be considered in all general sewer plans.
However, implementation of an MBR treatment facility would be a major change in the
operation of the City sewer utility. The technology is well -proven; however, there are a number
of issues to be resolved besides just the capital cost comparisons. Some of these are outlined
below:
• Acceptance of reclaimed water at the golf course
• Rate structure to pay the cost of operating the MBR facility
• Revisions to the City agreement with the S O"r District regarding wastewater
treatment capacity and operations
These are issues that can be resolved during the next several years while the more immediate
needs are implemented through the six -year capital improvement program..
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 54
8. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
8.1 Six -Year Capital Improvement Program
Section 7.6 indicates that three sewer trunks may need at least double the existing capacity
before the year 2025. Three major pump stations need at least rehabilitation and some capacity
increase. Some of these improvements need to be addressed in the six -year capital improvement
program (CIP) to be completed by about the year 2014.
These CIP decisions necessarily mean decisions should also be made regarding future
wastewater management for the SKIA. Actual development planned for the SKIA is only
conceptual at this point. It is not prudent for the City of Port Orchard to invest in capital
improvements that may not be needed in the foreseeable future. This is particularly true since a
satellite wastewater treatment facility using some form of land application within the SKIA-
Airport property is almost certainly more environmentally responsible and cost-effective.
An MBR treatment and reuse facility for the SKIA would require capacity based on the average
day during the maximum month of the design year, which is usually about 1.3 multiplied by the
annual average day. Table 7-4 indicates that about 2,000,000 GPD for the average day of the
maximum month may eventually be needed. Specific satellite treatment capacity would be made
through a Facilities Plan for the SKIA to be provided in modular units bought and installed as
flows increase. However, projections shown in the SKIA Plan indicate that the existing on -site
treatment and disposal system will be adequate for at least 10 to 15 years. When additional
capacity is needed; an improved on -site or satellite facility can be developed. It may be that a
modest pump station with a force main to the City trunk in Old Clifton Road will eventually be
cost-effective for movement of leachate and sludge.
Required increases in the capacities of other City facilities can be further minimized if satellite
treatment facilities are built for McCormick Woods and/or Sidney-Sedgwick. However, in
addition to the direct comparison of project costs, several other considerations deserve attention:
• Irrigation of the golf course currently uses water from a well that could become a potable
water source, which has a significant dollar value.
• Below market interest rate loans or even grants may be available to implement water
reuse facilities, so the funding availability would affect the life cycle cost comparison.
• At some point, additional treatment capacity would be required at the Karcher Creek
treatment facility in lieu of the MBR at McCormick Woods.
• The `green' image created through water reuse at the golf course has some value to the
City of Port Orchard, and some environmental value in reducing discharge of secondary
effluent into Sinclair Inlet, which may help relations with Tribes and other groups.
A facilities plan in accordance with the State Revolving Fund (SRF) checklist will be the
appropriate method to develop the decision and preliminary design for these MBR treatment
facilities and the Class A water reuse systems. An expanded SEPA Checklist may provide
adequate environmental review for these projects.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 55
Some additional property rights will be needed for the Pottery Pump Station, the MBR facility,
the SKIA percolation site, and the McCormick irrigation site within the privately owned golf
course. The actual sites for these facilities have not been established. Specific locations will
affect facilities like force main lengths and pumping horsepower required, so only opinions are
currently available. These details should be resolved through preparation of engineering reports
for the specific projects that leads to preliminary design and SEPA once the implementation
timing is defined.
Subject to the above assumptions, Table 8-1 summarizes the projects that appear to require
action in the immediate future.
Table 8-1
Capital Improvement Program
Project
Improvement
Description
Construction
Cost Estimate
Project Cost
Estimate
A
Bay Street PS (09 budget)
Engineering
Construction
$------------
1,000,000
$ 250,000
1,100,000
B
Trunk H - En r Report
Preliminary design
------------
20,000
C
Interim McC PS 2 Improv
Odor, mech &`elect
180,000
200,000
D
Marina PS En r Report
Preliminary design
-------------
50,000
E
Trunk H -Tremont
2,400 LF x 15-inch'
$ 500,000
$ 650,000
F
Marina Pump Station
5,000 GPM x 150 HP
1,740,000
2,100,000
G
Pottery PS En r Report
Preliminary design
-------------
20,000
H
Trunk E: Pottery PS
Force Main
1,300 GPM x 50 HP
2,500 LF x 12-inch
1,300,000
400,000
1,600,000
500,000
I
Sidne -Sedgwick PS
Preliminary Design
-------------
20,000
J
Sidne -Sed wick PS
Construct PS & FM
850,000
1,000,000
K
McC PS 1 En r Report
Preliminary design
-------------
25,000
L
McCormick PS 1
2,000 GPM x 120 HP
680,000
820,000
M
Trunk G - Sidney Av
7,000 LF x 15-inch
2,510,000
3,060,000
N
McC PS 2 En r Report
Preliminary design
------------
25,000
O
McCormick PS 2
1,400 GPM x 50 HP
630,000
740,000
P
SKIA Facilities Plan
MBR, PS, & FM
-------------
100,000
Q
SKIA - Pump Station
Force Main
310 GPM x 25 HP
13,000 LF x 8-inch
360,000
1,470,000
430,000
1,800,000
R
Tremont Place PS
Mechanical & elect
120,000
140,000
S
I/I Exist Pipe Rehab
$25,000 annually
150,000
150,000
Estimated Total
------------
$ 11,890,000
$ 14,800,000
Our opinion of construction costs as shown in Table 8-1 are based on recent construction bids in
the Puget Sound area for similar work, including state sales tax and contingencies for 2008
prices. However, the facilities described are only developed in a cursory manner and may
change when more detailed engineering is performed.
Similarly, our opinion of project costs include engineering design, construction oversight,
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan - Sep 09 56
property acquisitions, permit applications, environmental review, and project contingencies.
These costs will be revised as the project specific requirements become better defined through
the engineering reports. Financing costs are not included as these costs depend on the financing
program actually adopted.
Improvements listed in Table 8-1 fall into two categories: Some are dependent on new
development to drive the capacity increase and for those developments to provide the funding.
The remaining improvements are needed to existing facilities, and are the financial responsibility
of the City.
A series of engineering reports and one facilities plan are shown in Table 8-1. These documents
would develop preliminary designs for the relevant facilities to verify that the capacities
identified in the General Sewer Plan are appropriate for the time frame envisioned when
construction is expected. This is a particular concern regarding the SKIA facilities where
projected 2017 employment is rather large and the wastewater volume projected is larger than
typical for such employment. These large projections affect capacity planning for downstream
facilities including both McCormick Woods pump stations and the Marina pump station, plus the
wastewater treatment facility. Facilities along Pottery and Sidney Avenues are also dependent
on specific development plans. It is appropriate that the City prepare these engineering
documents in advance of when the actual facilities may be needed so the designs are coordinated
and funding can be secured, either from the property owners/developers or from other sources.
Accordingly, the improvements shown in Table 8-1 can be reorganized and numbered as shown
in Table 8-2 to identify facilities that will be funded by the City -funded under some priority.
Table 8-2
Funding of Capital Improvements
Project
Improvement
Construction
Cost Estimate
Project Cost
Estimate
1
Bay Street Pump Station Improve
$ 1,000,000
$ 1,350,000
2
McCormick PS 2 Interim Improve
180,000
200,000
3
Trunk H — Engineering Report
----------
20,000
4
Trunk H — Construct -Tremont Widening
500,000
650,000
5
Marina PS Engineering Report
----------
50,000
6
Marina PS Improvements
1,740,000
2,100,000
7
Pottery PS — Engineering Report
----------
2000
8
Pottery Pump Station & Force main
1,700,000
12,100,000
9
Sidney-Sed wick PS — Engineer Report
----------
20,000
10
Sidney-Sedgwick PS & FM Const
850,000
1,000,000
11
McCormick PS I — Engineer Report
----------
25,000
12
McCormick PSI - Construction
680,000
820,000
14
McCormick PS 2 — Engineer Report
----------
25,000
15
McCormick PS 2 — Construction
630,000
740,000
16
Existing Pipe Rehabilitation
150,000
150,000
Estimated City Total
$ 7,430,000
$ 9,270,000
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 57
Additional improvements required as development occurs will be funded as an integral part of
those projects under a less definite time frame. Some further sewer extensions from the existing
system will also be required to serve specific parcels within the various developments. These
extensions are not included in the CIP and can not be identified until the development plan
actually materializes, which may occur in several phases.
The City -funded improvements required by 2014 are organized into a six -year capital
improvement program as shown in Table 8-3.
Table 8-3
Six -Year Capital Improvement Program
Improvement
Annual
Funding in $ 000
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
1-Bay Street PS
250
1,100
1,350
2-McCorm 2 Interim
20
180
200
3-Trunk H Eng Rep
20
20
4 Trunk H Construct
50
600
®e,
650
5-Marina PS Eng Rep
50
50
6-Marina PS Improve
200
1,900
2,100
7-Pottery Eng Rep
20
20
9-Sidney PS Eng Rep
20
20
10-McCorm 1 Eng R
25
25
I I -McCormick 1 PS
100
720
820
12-McCorm 2 Eng R
25
25
13-McCorm 2 Const
240
500
740
14-Ex Pipe Rehab
25
25
25
25
25
25
150
Totals
135
1,805
1,350
2,050
985
545
6,170
Escalated Totals
135
1,149
1,460
2,306
1,152
663
6,865
Estimated costs shown in Table 8-3 are shown in current 2009 dollars; then escalated at 4 percent
annually to provide appropriate budget information.
8.2 Planned Facilities for Build -out Conditions
Tables 7-1 and 7-1 indicate the capacities needed to accommodate projected peak hour
wastewater flow under build -out conditions based on the urban growth area as presently defined
and the established land use densities. Conveyance facilities to be built under the six -year CIP or
other programs should adhere to these capacity requirements unless different requirements are
established in future land use plans or development agreements.
8.3 Sewer Extensions into Undeveloped Basins
New sewer extension will be needed to serve developments envisioned for several basins in and
adjacent to McCormick Woods as shown on Figure 5-2. Specific plans for the sewer extensions
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 58
have not been prepared and will be the responsibility of the developer. Some of the
developments shown will require local pump stations.
Specific plans for the development of the SKIA also remain to be prepared. Developments
within the SKIA are intended to occur in phases over a number of years. This phasing scheme
and local economic conditions may cause some adjustment to the sewer improvements planned
by the City to serve these parcels.
Major land developers will be preparing site -specific plans for street layouts, residential lot
distribution, commercial parcels, sensitive area delineations, required setbacks with buffers, and
other land use intentions for approval by the permitting authorities. These land use decisions,
and the timing of when specific parcels are developed will influence the sewer collection
facilities within these basins. Some basins may use traditional gravity sewers, perhaps
supplemented by one or more local pump stations, as has been the case for Basins 15 and 16.
Other basins may consider alternative, innovative collection systems such as E-1 grinder pumps
for individual homes, or vacuum sewer systems. The City of Port Orchard has decided that no
additional STEP units will be allowed. Any of these sewer collection technologies can be
compatible with an MBR treatment facility and reuse of the water.
Basin 10 presents a different development challenge, and for the extension of sewers. Trunk F
currently extends about 2,500 feet west in Bay Street froialport Orchard Boulevard. This sewer
can be extended further by using a pump station. However, most of the properties fronting Bay
Street have steep slopes and may not be suitable for development. More suitable sites exist on
the plateau about 200 feet above sea level. These parcels are separated by the Ross Creek gorge
from other developments with sewer service west of Pottery Avenue. Either an additional pump
station will be needed for the plateau to transfer wastewater into Basin 7, or a sewer can be laid
down the steep slope west of Ross Creek to connect into Trunk F. These decisions need to be
made in association with the interests of the property owners some time before 2025, and may or
may not involve participation by the City for over -sizing or late -comer financing.
Some coordination between the City and the West Sound Utility District will be required as
properties are developed along the fringes of their two sewer service areas to establish which
agency will serve which properties. These sewer extensions are not expected to require
significant financial investment by the City.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 59
9. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
9.1 Financial Situation
Sewerage operation and finances for the City of Port Orchard comprise two parts:
• Sewer collection and interception system — totally the responsibility of the City
• Wastewater treatment facilities — Joint Partnership with West Sound Utility District
The Joint Partnership built the treatment facility using a utility local improvement district.
Bonds for this construction have since been paid off. The Partnership continues to set the
monthly rate per ERU for operating the treatment facility. An ERU is defined by the Partnership
as 180 GPD. The Partnership has also established a Facilities Fee per ERU to pay for future
capital improvements at the treatment facilities.
In addition to the Partnership fees, the City determines and collects an additional charge to
operate and maintain the sewer collection system, the pump stations, and the transmission piping.
An additional Facilities Fee is also collected from new connections to pay for capacity upgrades
to the City sewer system.
®C
9.2 Wastewater Funding Options Ar4%
®®s
The identified capital improvements are divided between improvements needed to increase
capacity, such as a new interceptor extension or enlarging an existing pipe. Facilities charges
paid by new customers are a key funding source for these improvements.
Other improvements are needed simply to maintain the existing system, such as replacing
mechanical or electrical equipment that is worn out. Corroded valves and piping replacement is
another example. These costs are paid by existing customers through monthly service charges.
9.3 Sewer Rates
Chapter 13.04.020 of the City Code defines the present bimonthly sewer rates in effect. Sewer
rates are defined for 19 customer classes. Class 1 being single-family residences, for example,
which are billed $72.00 for two months of sewer service. Additional classes are defined for
apartments, offices, various types of businesses, and public facilities with bimonthly sewer rates
established for each class as a multiple or a fraction of the single-family rate. Several classes
have defined sub -classes based on size (such as square feet or seating capacity) or by the
inclusion particular services (such as a bakery or private kitchen).
9.4 Sewer Capital Facilities Charge
City Code Chapter 13.04.040 defines the Sewer Capital Facilities Charge as two components:
• General Facilities Fee $2,770.00 per ERU
• Wastewater Treatment Facility Fee $3,230.00 per ERU
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 60
Properties within Divisions 1 through 10 of the McCormick Woods Land Company are charged
a Wastewater Treatment Fee of only $ 791.25, however.
These two charge components represent first, the capital costs of the general sewer facilities
operated and maintained by the City; and second, the capital costs of those treatment facilities
operated and maintained by the Partnership.
9.5 Financial Summary of Sewer Operations
Recent years have combined the financial accounting for water and sewer operations. Separate
accounting has been maintained for revenues and direct operating expenses. Generally speaking,
administrative expenses like management and billing are divided equally between the two
utilities. Records for the past fives years are summarized in Table 9-1.
Table 9-1
Sewer Operations Financial Summary
OPERATING REVENUES
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Sewer Service - Flat Rate
1,326,8N
1,572,023
1,845,635
1,923,341
1,479,138
Service to Public Municipalities
5,482
6,707
7,633
7,763
5,760
Sales to Public Authorities
118,553
134,873
153,573
148,023
100,894
Late Payment * Penalties*
12,387
13,959
14,613
16,044
15,326
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE
1,463,202
1,727,562
2,021,454
2,095,170
1,601,118
OPERATING EXPENSES
Power Purchased for Sewer Pumping
18,836
20,224
24,164
27,619
18,398
Labor & Expenses for Lift Stations
32,003
40,066
36,752
40,366
29,727
Maintain Pump Station Structures
256
444
10,360
1,923
615
Maintain Power Production Equipment
0
0
632
1,740
0
Maintain Pump Equipment
14,572
34,807
51,846
36,830
50,776
Chemicals - Sewage Treatment
16,740
11,634
11,860
14,416
1,012
Operations, Labor & Equipment - Sewage Treat
602,969
940,179
1,088,654
1,149,091
858,997
Maintenance Labor - Sewer Mains
43,453
54,615
71,166
195,173
129,697
Maintenance of Service
53,475
55,601
65,314
68,229
78,012
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES
782,304
1,157,570
1,360,748
1,535,388
1,167,234
CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS
Customer Records & Collection Expense*
71,484
68,601
77,848
79,413
64,846
ADMINISTRATION/GENERAL EXPENSE*
Administration & General Salaries
61,851
58,482
66,140
72,885
54,217
General Salaries - Clerical
42,531
59,063
64,485
90,387
84,480
Office Supplies & Other Expenses
10,744
14,793
13,669
16,905
11,475
Administrative Expense Transferred Overhead
4,104
2,488
2,102
5,558
3,411
Outside Services Employed
5,785
26,925
6,224
2,141
4,600
Property Insurance
17,157
13,702
14,725
16,339
13,150
Injury & Damages - Liability Insurance
25,736
20,553
22,087
24,508
19,725
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan - Sep 09 61
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Employee Pensions - Personnel Retirement
3,736
1,976
0
0
0
Employee Benefits - Vacation
11,017
14,560
13,462
18,139
12,918
Employee Benefits - Sick Leave
8,710
10,146
7,457
8,684
6,869
Employee Benefits - Holiday
9,597
7,441
7,777
8,647
6,367
Maintenance of General Plant
19,242
17,975
23,050
21,635
15,771
Transportation of Equipment Expense
10,876
11,215
15,515
13,298
15,723
TOTAL ADMIN/GENERAL EXPENSE*
222,878
254,343
252,489
288,010
241,883
TAXES - CITY & STATE
City B&O Tax
72,419
84,219
100,267
103,390
85,409
State Excise Tax
19,685
17,020
20,749
27,706
21,859
TOTAL TAXES
92,104
101,239
121,016
131,096
107,267
TOTAL REVENUES
1,463,202
1,727,562
2,021,454
2,095,170
1,601,118
TOTAL EXPENSES/TAXES
1,168,770
1,581,754
1,812,101
2,033,906
1,581,230
OPERATING INCOME (LOSS)
294,432
145,808
209,352
61,264
19,889
DEPRECIATION EXPENSE
239,238
266,080
229,137
233,898
1753424
NET OPERATING INCOME (LOSS)
55,194
(120,272)
(19,784)
(172,634)
(155,535)
Note * Totals for these accounts reflect a split of 50% Water aT s50% Sewer
Table 9-1 indicates that Total Revenue for the Sewer Utility exceeded Total Expenses & Taxes
for the past five years. However, when Depreciation Expenses are included the sewer system
has been operating at a loss.
An increase in Sewer Rates of abo 10 fkI*ercent has been needed for the past several years,
lm
according to Table 9-1.
lF
9.6 Affect of CIP on Sewer Rates
Specific funding for the $14,800,000 Capital Improvement Program shown in Table 8-1 has not
yet been established by the City. Some these improvements will be dependent upon developer or
property owner funding. It is hoped that some of the $9,270,000 of City -funded improvements
shown in Table 8-2 will be funded through the federal economic stimulus program, and some
projects will not be needed within the next six years. It is anticipated that the remainder of the
CIP cost will be funded in part through the General Facilities Fee with the rest financed by loans
repaid through Sewer Rates. Table 8-3 shows the Capital Improvement Program being
implemented over six years and the resulting cost escalation to become $6,865,000
Table 4-2 indicates that the City can anticipate adding an average of about 1 percent annually in
population. A similar increase in ERU can be expected, or about 44 ERU annually. At the
present General Facilities Fee, these additional ERU would generate about $730,000 during the
six year of the proposed CIP. As part of the general increase in the capital valuation of the City
sewerage facilities, an increase the General Facilities Fee of $500 is assumed realistic, which
would generate an additional $130,000 during the six -year period of the CIP. Therefore funding
generated by the General Facilities Fee is estimated to total about $860,000.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan - Sep 09 62
Accordingly, the anticipated funding for the City portion of the CIP can be summarized as
follows:
Federal Economic Stimulus $1,000,000
General Facilities Fee 860,000
Debt Funded through Rates 5,005,000
Total City -funded CIP $6,865,000
A single bond issue for $5,005,000 to fund the CIP may carry a municipal interest rate of about 4
percent over a maturity of 20 years. The resulting capital recovery factor of 0.07358 would cost
about $368,000 annually. For the approximately 4,500 existing customer ERU, the increased
cost would be about $6.80 monthly, or an impact of about $13.60 for the bimonthly sewer bill.
Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Sep 09 63
Appendix A
SEPA Checklist
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY BEFORE FILLING OUT THE CHECKLIST
PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST:
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies
to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact
statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of
the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify
impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the
agency decide whether an EIS is required.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS:
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal.
Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are
significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information
known, or give the best description you can.
You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases,
you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire
experts. If you really do not know the answer or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not
know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later.
Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark
designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist
you.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of
time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or
its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers
or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact.
USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSAL
Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not
apply." In addition, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (Part D).
For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," applicant," and "property or
site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively.
SEPA RULES
RCW 197-11-960 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
Name of proposed project, if applicable:
City of Port Orchard - 2009 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan Update
2. Name of applicant:
City of Port Orchard Public Works Department
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
City of Port Orchard Public Works Department
216 Propsect Street
Port Orchard, WA 98366
(360) 876-4991
Contact. Mark R. Dorsey, P.E.
4. Date checklist prepared:
September 25, 2009
5. Agency requesting checklist:
City of Port Orchard Planning Department
Washington State Department of Ecology
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
The proposed date for adoption of the 2009 Comprehensive Saintary Sewer Plan Update by the
Port Orchard City Council is expected to be November 13, 2009.
Do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, or further activity related to or connected with
this proposal? If yes, explain.
This is a non -project action adopting the Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan. In addition to the
City's Comprehansive Sanitary Sewer Plan and the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), incremental
sanitary sewer facilities may be constructed in conjunction with private development, as they
occur.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, directly related to this
proposal.
City of Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Update, December 2008
City of Port Orchard 2009 Water System Plan Update (adoption pending)
City of Port Orchard 2000 Comprehensive Sewer Plan
City of Port Orchard SKIA Infrastructure Assessment & Technical Memorandum, July 2008
Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan Update, December 2006
West Sound Utility District Sewer Comprehensive Plan, November 2007
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly
affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
Property owners and developers have, and are expected to apply for approval of development that
will require sanitary sewer service. These developments are not addressed specifically in the Plan.
The Plan provides for necessary public sewer collection and treatment improvements necessary to
support such development in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and development code. All
project -level improvements will be subject to environmental review at the time of their
application. No pending proposal will affect this non -project action.
10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
The Plan must be approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Review by other
jurisdictions and agencies include Kitsap County, West Sound Utility District, The City of
Bremerton, the City of Port Orchard City Council, Kitsap County Health District and the State
Department of Health.
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project
and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of
your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this
form to include additional specific information on project description). '
As needed for for demonstrating compliance with the Growth Management Act (GNU), this
proposal involves adoption of amendments to the 2000 City of Port Orchard Comprehensive
Sewer Plan. The amendments identify three categories of action:
Programmatic — Updating the Comprehensive Sewer Plan to address a revised 25-year population
forecast for the urban growth area which has been expanded since the 2000 Plan. This will enable
the City to address future needs for sanitary sewer service within the defined urban growth area.
Capital Projects — Updating the list of specific capital projects that are necessary to implement the
Comprehensive Sewer Plan. These will be included in the Comprehensive Plan Capital
Improvement Program Element. Subsequent project -level environmental review will be
conducted at the time these projects are proposed for implementation.
Operation. Maintenance& Repair — Day-to-day and periodic projects necessary to maintain the
current and future sewer system in working order are described in the Comprehensive Sewer Plan
as further addressed in the sewer utility operations and maintenance standards and procedures.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of
your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a
proposal would occur aver a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(S). Provide a
legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you
should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans
submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist.
The service area covered by the 2009 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan Update includes area
within the current City of Port Orchard municipal limits and portions of the designated Urban
Growth Area (UGA), which includes established boundaries of Kitsap County ULID #6, as agreed
upon by Kitsap County, the City of Bremerton and the West Sound Utility District. Port Orchard
is located on the Kitsap peninsula, south of Sinclair Inlet. The main body of Puget Sound is to the
east.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep, slopes, mountainous, other.
The City of Port Orchard is characterized by shoreline adjacent to Sinclair Inlet. The topography
is generally hilly with some flat areas.
What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
There are steep slopes with in the City (100% in places), however, this non -project action will not
impact slopes generally, and any project proposed under this ordinance will be reviewed
separately for SEPA compliance where required.
C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you
know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland.
Soils and soil types are not generally impacted by this non -project action. An extensive discussion
of the soils and their properties can be found in the USDA Soil Survey of Kitsap County.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
Unstable soils and steep slopes do exist, but will not generally be impacted by this non -project
action. Separate site -specific review will determine impacts to soils and slopes and SEPA
compliance.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate
source of fill.
No filling or grading is proposed as part of this non -project action. Fill or grading related to site -
specific proposals under this ordinance will be reviewed separately for SEPA compliance.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
No clearing or construction is proposed as part of this non -project action.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for
example, asphalt or buildings)?
No construction is proposed as part of this non -project action.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any?
No specific measures are proposed as part of this non -project action. Each project will be
evaluated as part of site -specific project review for compliance with SEPA and other regulations
in the Port Orchard Municipal Code.
11
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e. dust, automobile, odors, industrial
wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and
give approximate quantities if know.
Sewer odors have been reported for a few locations in the past. The Sewer Plan lists future
projects that will address odors. This non -project action will have no impact on air quality. Air
quality will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis.
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally
describe.
This non -project action will have no impact on air quality. Air quality will be evaluated as part of
site -specific project review and SEPA analysis.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
The Six -year Capital Improvement Program includes improvements to McCormick Woods Pump
Station No. 2 that will specifically address odor. This non -project action will have no impact on
air quality. Air quality will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis.
Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and
seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds wetlands)/ If yes, describe type and provide names, if
appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
Port Orchard is bordered on the north by the waters of Puget Sound. There are numerous
wetlands, streams and creeks. Impacts on shoreline, surface water, seasonal streams and wetlands
will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis.
2) Will the project require any work over, in or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described water? If yes,
please describe and attach available plans.
This non -project action will not require any work over, in or adjacent to these waters. Impacts on
wetlands, surface water, seasonal streams and shoreline will be evaluated as part of site -specific
project review and SEPA analysis.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water
or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
This non -project action will not require any filling or dredging. Impacts as a result of filling or
dredging will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis.
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose,
and approximate quantities if known.
This non -project action will not require any surface water withdrawals or diversions. The
proposed permit, policy, and ordinances will provide additional protection for all water bodies.
Impacts of this type will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan.
Some areas of the City are identified as lying within the 100-year flood plain (as defined in the
Federal Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973.) This non -project action does not impact flood
areas specifically. Any proposal involving flood areas will comply with Chapter 15.38, Flood
Damage Prevention, of the Port Orchard Municipal Code and will be evaluated as part of site -
specific review and SEPA analysis.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type
of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
This non -project action will not require discharge of materials to surface waters. The proposed
ordinance will prohibit the discharges of water materials and provide additional protection for all
water bodies. Impacts of this type will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and
SEPA analysis
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description,
purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
This non -project action will not require any withdrawal of groundwater or discharge to
groundwater. Impacts of this type will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and
SEPA analysis.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any
(for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.).
Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served
(if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
This non -project action will not require any discharge of waste material to groundwater. Existing
health regulations control the location, type and density of development which utilizes septic
tanks.
C. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any
(include quantities, if know). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so,
describe.
This non -project action will not impact surface and stormwater. Stormwater flow and outfall will
be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
This non -project action will not impact ground or surface waters and the goals to minimize the
effects of discharge of waste materials. Possible contamination of ground or surface waters with
waste materials will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
This non -project action will not have a effect on surface, ground or runoff waters. Possible
impacts surface, ground, and runoff water impacts will be evaluated as part of site -specific project
review and SEPA analysis.
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
shrubs
grass
VO pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
This non -project action will have no effect on vegetation removal or alteration. Vegetation
removal and enhancement will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA
analysis
C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
This non -project action will have no impact on threatened or endangered species. Flora will be
evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the
site, if any:
No landscaping is proposed as part of this non -project action. Open space and planting
regulations will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis
Animals
a. Underline any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or
near the site:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: sea lion, raccoon
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other
b. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
This non -project action will not have an effect on wildlife. Effects of proposals on wildlife will be
evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis.
C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
Puget Sound, including Port Orchard, is an important nesting place, feeding area, and wintering
ground for thousands of birds in the Pacific Flyway. This non -project action will have no effect on
migration patterns. Effects on wildlife will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and
SEPA analysis
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any.
This non -project action will not have an effect on animals or birds. Effects of individual proposals
on wildlife will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis.
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed
project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
No energy is required for this non -project action. Energy consumption will be evaluated as part
of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis and in accordance with the Washington State
Energy Code which the City has adopted.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally
describe.
This non -project action will have no effect on solar access. Solar access will be evaluated as part
of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis.
C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other
proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:
None. The City uses the Washington State Energy Code to enhance electricity conservation.
Energy conservation features will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA
analysis.
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and
explosion, spill or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe.
This non -project action not effect threats of environmental health hazards. Environmental health
hazards will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis.
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
No special emergency measures will be required as part of this non -project action.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
No measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards are necessary as part of this non -
project action.
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment,
operation, other)?
Noise levels in Port Orchard are regulated under Chapter 9.24 (Offenses Against Public Order) of
the Port Orchard Municipal Code. This non -project action will not be affected by noise levels.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a
long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would
come from the site.
This non -project action will have no effect on noise levels. Noise impacts of individual proposals
will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
Noise levels on Port Orchard are regulated under Chapter 9.24 (Offenses Against Public Order) of
the Port Orchard Municipal Code.
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
Land uses in Port Orchard are primarily residential and commercial, with some industrial, light
Manufacturing, recreation, and open space.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
Not applicable.
C. Describe any structures on the site.
The proposal is a non -project action, and includes no specific development activity. Therefore
there are no structures associated with the proposal.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
This non -project action requires no demolition. Any future proposed demolition will be evaluated
as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
Zoning in Port Orchard is according to the Official Zoning Map, which is available at the
Department of Planning and Community Development.
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
Comprehensive Plan designations are according to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map in
accordance with GMA requirements. The Land Use Map is available at the Department of
Planning and Community Development.
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
Not applicable.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.
Environmentally sensitive areas in Port Orchard include wetlands, aquifer recharge areas,
geologically hazardous areas, continuous and seasonal streams and waters including the waters of
Puget Sound, and fish and wildlife habitat. These areas are inventoried in the City's
Comprehensive Plan and are regulated under Chapter 14.04, State Environmental Policy Act, of
the Port Orchard Municipal Code. Environmentally sensitive areas will be evaluated as part of
site -specific project review and SEPA analysis.
Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
Not applicable to this non -project action.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
Not applicable to this non -project action.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
Not applicable to this non -project action.
Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans,
if any:
This non -project action will have no effect on existing and projected land uses and plans.
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-
income housing.
Not applicable to this non -project action.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-
income housing.
No units will be eliminated by the non -project action.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
None
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal
exterior building material(s) proposed?
This non -project action has no effect on building and structure height. Building and structure
height are regulated in the Zoning Code.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
This non -project action will have no impact on views. View alteration and obstruction is
regulated by the Zoning Code and the Shoreline Management Master Program. Views will be
evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis.
10
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
None
11. Light and lg are
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?
This non -project action will not produce any light and/or glare. Light and glare will be evaluated
as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
This non -project action will not produce any light and/or glare. Light and glare will be evaluated
as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis.
C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
This non -project action will not be affected by any off -site source of light or glare. Off -site sources
of light and glare will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
None
12. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
Not applicable to this non -project action.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
This non -project action will not displace any existing recreational uses.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be
provided by the project or applicant, if any:
None
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers
known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe.
Archeological and historic resources are recorded at the State of Washington Departments of
Community, Trade and Economic Development, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural
importance known to be on or next to the site.
A map and listing of all the historic resources is available at the Department of Planning and
Community Development, 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA. 98366.
11
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any.
None
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highway serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street
system. Show on site plans, if any.
State Route 16 connects the City with the balance of the Kitsap Peninsula. The City has an
extensive system of arterials, suburban and local public streets. Location of, and access to, public
streets and highways will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit
stop?
The City is served by Kitsap Transit. Kitsap Transit operates a commuter system which is
coordinated with the ferry schedules in neighboring communities in addition to a dial -a -ride
service.
C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate?
This is a non -project action. Parking requirements are contained in Chapter 16.45, Parking
Standards, of the Port Orchard Municipal Code.
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not
including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private).
This non -project action will not create the need for any new or improved streets. Transportation
facilities will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis.
e. Will the project use or occur in the immediate vicinity of water, rail or air transportation? If so,
generally describe.
The various modes of transportation will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and
SEPA analysis.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate
when peak volumes would occur.
This non -project action will have no direct impact on vehicular trips. Trip generation and the
cumulative impact will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
This non -project action will have no direct impact on transportation. Transportation impacts will
be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis.
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police
protection, health care, schools, other)? Is so, generally describe.
12
This non -project action will have little effect on public services, except as would normally be
required for individual proposals. The need for public services will be evaluated as part of site -
specific project review and SEPA analysis.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
This non -project action will have no effect on public services.
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone,
sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general
construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed.
This non -project action will not directly affect public utilities. The provision of utilities for
individual proposals will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis.
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is
relying on them it make its decision.
Signature:
Date Subn
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
(Do not use this sheet for project actions.)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the
elements of the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result
from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not
implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms.
How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or
release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise?
This non -project action will have no effect on discharges to water bodies. No negative impacts will
occur in terms of emissions to air; production or storage of toxic or hazardous substances; or
production of noise
13
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
Effects on discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous
substances; or production of noise will be reviewed as part of site -specific review and SEPA
analysis.
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish or marine life?
This non -project action will have no effects to plants, animals, fish or marine life. All specific
effects to plant, animal, fish and other marine life will be evaluated as part of site -specific project
review and SEPA analysis.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish,
or marine life are:
Effects of individual proposals on wildlife and marine life will be reviewed as part of site -specific
review, and SEPA analysis.
How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
This non -project action will not affect energy or natural resources. Effects of individual proposals
on energy or natural resources will be reviewed as part of site -specific review, and SEPA analysis
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
Construction of individual projects is reviewed under the Washington State Energy Code, adopted
under Chapter 15 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or
eligible or under study) for governmental protection, such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers,
threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime
farmlands?
This non -project action not impact environmentally sensitive areas or other areas designated for
protection. Effects of individual proposals on environmentally sensitive areas or other protected
areas will be reviewed as part of site -specific review, and SEPA analysis.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
Impacts of individual proposals on environmentally sensitive areas or other protected areas will
be reviewed as part of site -specific review, and SEPA analysis.
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or
encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
This non -project action will not affect land or shoreline use. Impacts of individual proposals on
land or shoreline use will be reviewed as part of site -specific review, and SEPA analysis.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
Impacts of individual proposals on land or shoreline use will be reviewed as part of site -specific
review, and SEPA analysis.
14
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities?
This non -project action will have no effect on the demand for transportation or public service and
utilities.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
None. Projects approved under this ordinance are subject to review by the City Planning
Department, Public Works Department, and the local Health District.
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws requirements for
the protection of the environment.
The non -project proposal is consistent with all local, state and federal requirements for the
protection of the environment.
15
Appendix B
Public Hearing
Planned Public Hearing Date: November 24, 2009
Appendix C
City of Port Orchard &West Sound
Utility District Agreement
WEST SOUND UTILITY DISTRICT
RESOLUTION 01-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
OF WEST SOUND UTILTIY DISTRICT NO.1
FORMALIZING AND PROVIDING GUIDANCE TO THE NEW DISTRICT
WHEREAS RC W 57.32.010 authorizes water and sewer districts to
consolidate into combined districts if such combination "shall be conducive to
the public health, welfare, and convenience and be of special benefit to the lands
of the districts.", and
WHEREAS, the voters in Annapolis Water District and Karcher Creek
Sewer District ("prior districts") approved the consolidation of each district into a
new district entitled "West Sound Utility District No. I" at the November 6, 2007
general election; and
WHEREAS, Kitsap County certified the said election on November 27,
2007, which served to formally establish West Sound Utility District as a
municipal corporation of Washington State, and terminate the legal existence of
the prior districts; and
WHEREAS, West Sound's Board of Commissioners have determined to
enter into this resolution to formalize creation of the new district and to establish
initial guidance for its operation, now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF WEST SOUND UTILITY
DISTRICT ("West Sound") HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
1. Prior Resolutions to Remain Valid. The resolutions entered into by the
prior districts shall continue to be valid, to wit, the resolutions previously entered
into by Annapolis Water District shall continue to govern West Sound's water
operations, and the resolutions entered into by Karcher Creek Sewer District shall
continue to govern West Sound's waste water operations. From this starting
point, West Sound will act accordingly to consolidate, amend, and/or terminate
the resolutions of the prior districts, so one uniform set of resolutions governing
all district operations and matters will result.
2. Pre -Consolidation Debts. All pre -consolidation debts duly incurred,
and agreements entered into, by Annapolis Water District and/or Karcher Creek
Sewer District, shall continue to be honored by West Sound and satisfied
according to their terms.
3. Management of Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility. Karcher Creek
Sewer District presently has management responsibility for the Joint Wastewater
Treatment Facility in South Kitsap County owned and operated with other
governmental entities. West Sound shall assume all of Karcher Creek's prior
management responsibilities for this facility as of the date of its formal creation.
West Sound Utility District
Resolution 01-07 Page lof3
4. One Finance Department. West Sound shall have one financial
department and shall prepare a single consolidated district annual report.
5. Existing Water & Sewer Expenses / Future Expenses. All debts of
Annapolis Water District at the time of consolidation shall be paid from the water
supply related revenues of the West Sound, and all debts of Karcher Creek Sewer
District at the time of consolidation shall be paid from the wastewater related
revenues of West Sound. Thereafter, as a general proposition, water supply
related debts shall be paid from water supply related revenues, and wastewater
operation debts shall be paid from wastewater related revenues.
6. Revenue Bonds. Any revenue bonds representing the sole obligation of
Annapolis Water District prior to consolidation, shall be satisfied after
consolidation from water supply related revenues, and any revenue bonds
representing the sole obligation of Karcher Creek Sewer District prior to
consolidation, shall be satisfied after consolidation from wastewater operation
revenues. Any cost sharing agreements for the repayment of revenue bonds in
place between the prior districts before consolidation, shall continue unabated:
that portion of the bonds to be repaid by Annapolis Water District, shall continue
to be repaid from water supply operation revenues, and that portion of the bonds
to be repaid by Karcher Creek Sewer District, shall continue to be repaid from
wastewater operation revenues.
7. Administrative Expenses. The administrative expenses of West Sound,
for those joint services provided to water supply and sewer operations, such as
district management, financial administration, customer service, and the like,
shall be paid jointly from water supply and sewer operation related revenues as
determined by the board members of West Sound from time to time.
8. Insurance. At the time of consolidation, West Sound shall consolidate
all the prior districts' respective insurance coverage, such as liability and casualty
insurance, and obtain the same through the Water -Sewer Risk Pool. After
consolidation, prior separate requirements placed on developers for project
insurance dealing with water supply and wastewater shall be combined into one
unified requirement.
9. Property Ownership. At the time of consolidation, all prior monies,
personal property, and real property, owned by Annapolis Water District and
Karcher Creek Sewer District, shall become the sole property of West Sound.
10. Consolidation Agreement. The Consolidation Agreement entered into
by Annapolis Water District on March 28, 2007, and by Karcher Creek Sewer
District on April 2, 2007, shall continue in effect as applicable.
11. General Manger / Legal Counsel. The General Manager of both prior
districts, namely, LAWRENCE J. CURLES, shall continue to be the General
Manager of West Sound. The prior general legal counsel for Annapolis Water
West Sound Utility District
Resolution 01-07 Page 2of3
District, RICHARD GROSS, shall continue as the general legal counsel for West
Sound.
INTRODUCED, CONSIDERED, AND PASSED THIS 12th DAY OF
William Hunt gton
West Sound Utility District
Resolution 01-07 Page 3of3
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
AND KARCHER CREEK SEWER DISTRICT
FOR USE OF THE CITY DECANT STATION
I. PREAMBLE
This Interlocal Agreement (hereafter "AGREEMENT") for reference purposes
only is dated .QjJtC7Y LXX- ,255 2007 and is entered into by and between the
City of Port Orchard (hereafter "CITY") and Karcher Creek Sewer District
(hereafter "DISTRICT").
II. RECITALS
This AGREEMENT establishes the terms with which the DISTRICT may use the
CITY's decant station located at 1272 Lloyd Parkway, Port Orchard, WA 98366.
The Interlocal Cooperation Act, Chapter 39.34 RCW, authorizes the parties
hereto to enter into the AGREEMENT.
Accordingly, the parties agree as follows:
II1. AGREEMENT
A. Purpose.
1. The CITY owns and operates a decant station in which the liquid in its
municipal vactor truck is decanted into the CITY's sanitary sewer system.
2. The DISTRICT currently decants the liquid from its DISTRICT vactor
truck into its sanitary sewer system via manholes and prefers to use an
established decant station in lieu of constructing a new facility.
The CITY currently has an agreement with Kitsap County to allow the
County's vactor truck to use the CITY's decant station, as defined by
Interlocal Agreement KC-219-03.
B. Payment.
The DISTRICT shall pay the CITY a sanitary sewer fee corresponding to
one (1) sanitary sewer equivalent residential unit (ERU) at the Class 2
rate. Fees for use will be billed bimonthly. The current bimonthly fee is
$72.00 however the CITY reserves the right in its sole discretion to
increase the sewer rate fees upon reasonable notice. The DISTRICT will
pay the bimonthly sewer bill in accordance with CITY utility billing
terms, which are thirty (30) days after the due date.
2. The DISTRICT shall pay its fair share pro-rata payment of the cost of
operation and maintenance of the decant station, as located on 1272 Lloyd
ILA for Decant Station Page I of 4
Karcher Creek Sewer District/City of Port Orchard
Parkway. It is understood that this cost will be calculated and billed
quarterly by the CITY based on actual annual operation and maintenance
costs for the decant station.
C. City and DISTRICT Representatives.
This AGREEMENT shall be jointly administered by the representatives
identified in this section. This AGREEMMENT does not create any separate
legal or administrative entity.
1. The CITY's representative is the Public Works Director, 216 Prospect
Street, Port Orchard, Washington 98366. This person shall represent the
CITY in all matters pertaining to the services to be rendered under this
AGREEMENT. All requirements of the DISTRICT pertaining to the
services and materials to be rendered under this AGREEMENT shall be
coordinated through the CITY representative.
2. The DISTRICT's representative is the General Manager, 2924 SE Lund
Avenue, Port Orchard, Washington 98366. This person shall represent the
DISTRICT in all matters pertaining to the services to be rendered under
this AGREEMENT. All requirements of the CITY pertaining to the
services and materials to be rendered under this AGREEMENT shall be
coordinated through the DISTRICT representative.
D. Responsibilities of the parties.
It is mutually understood that the DISTRICT will provide the CITY with
timely payment of all amounts due the CITY as described in Section III,
Paragraph B, above.
It is mutually understood that the CITY will provide the DISTRICT with the
following:
1. 24-hour access to the decant station for DISTRICT employees, agents,
and equipment only. Private vendors' use of the facility is prohibited.
2. Timely notice in advance if the decant station will be temporarily closed
for maintenance or repair.
3. Bi-monthly sewer billings and invoices for a pro-rata share of operation
and maintenance costs mailed to the attention of the DISTRICT's
representative.
E. Hold Harmless/indemnification.
The CITY shall defend, indemnify and hold the DISTRICT, its
officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all
claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorney fees,
arising out of or resulting from the acts, errors or omissions of the
CITY, its agents, employees, or sub consultants in performance of this
ILA for Decant Station Page 2 of 4
Karcher Creek Sewer District/City of Port Orchard
AGREEMENT, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole
negligence of the DISTRICT.
2. The DISTRICT shall defend, indemnify and hold the CITY, its
officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all
claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorney fees,
arising out of or resulting from the acts, errors or omissions of the
DISTRICT, its agents, employees, or sub consultants in performance
of this AGREEMENT, except for injuries and damages caused by the
sole negligence of the CITY.
3. This mutual indemnification and hold harmless shall apply regardless
of whether the claim is brought pursuant to the Worker's
Compensation Act, RCW Title 51, or otherwise.
F. Amendments.
This AGREEMENT shall not be amended except in writing signed by both
parties to the AGREEMENT.
G. Duration.
This AGREEMENT shall become effective as set forth in paragraph K,
below. This AGREEMENT will continue automatically for twelve (12)
month increments commencing with the effective date of the AGREEMENT,
unless terminated by either party as detailed in paragraph H, below.
H. Termination.
Either party to this AGREEMENT may elect to terminate this AGREEMENT
for any reason by delivering a thirty (30) day written Notice to Terminate to
the other party.
I. Severability.
If any provision of this AGREEMENT is determined to be invalid, the
remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.
J. Financing: Budget.
This AGREEMENT does not contemplate joint financing of the activities
within its scope, nor does it contemplate a joint budget.
K. Effective Date; Recording or Web Posting.
This AGREEMENT shall be effective upon being recorded with the Kitsap
County Auditor or, alternatively, on the date it is posted on the CITY's and
the DISTRICT's web sites or other electronically retrievable public source.
ILA for Decant Station Page 3 of 4
Karcher Creek Sewer District/City of Port Orchard
L. Authorization by Governing Body.
The governing bodies of the CITY and the DISTRICT have taken appropriate
action by ordinance, resolution or otherwise pursuant to law to authorize the
execution of this AGREEMENT.
City of Port Orchard Karcher Creek Sewer District
Kim Abel 1I �j 2�� �� Lav ence J. Cyr es 2/
Mayor General Manager
ATTEST:
Michelle Merlino
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
tw/u
Agr City Atto e
ILA for Decant Station Page 4 of 4
Karcher Creek Sewer District/City of Port Orchard
INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONTRACT FOR
WASTEWATER FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
1. Purpose of Agreement. It is the purpose of this con-
tract to provide for an intergovernmental arrangement appropri-
ate to carry out the improvement of the existing wastewater
transmission, treatment and discharge facilities serving the
City of Port Orchard and sewer District No. 5 and capable of
serving other areas as may in the future be so served, as called
for in the Sinclair Inlet Sewerage Plan, dated June, 1976, and
to operate and maintain such facilities. It is recognized that
this contract may be relied on by the holders of revenue bonds
of the Participants in this contract. Tnis contract is entered
into in accordance with RCW 35.13A.070 and amends and supersedes
(1) the Intergovernmental Contract for Wastewater Facilities
Management entered into by the City and the District on August
1, 1977; and (2) the Agreement for Trunk Line Expense entered
into by the City and the District on August 9, 1977.
2. Definitions. The following words and phrases used in
this contract shall have the following meanings:
(a) "City" shall mean the City of Port Orchard,
Washington.
(b) "District" shall mean Sewer District No. 5,
Ritsap County, Washington.
(c) "Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU)" shall mean:
(1) One separate single family residence; or
(2) With respect to residential duplexes and
multiple residential structures, one per single family
unit; or
(3) With respect to all remaining users served
by the Joint Facilities, each 700 cubic feet or less
of monthly discharge of sewage based on metered water
consumption.
An ERU shall be counted if the structure to which it
is charged is either connected to or billed for availability of
use by Local Facilities.
Any structure having a mixed residential and nonresi-
dential use shall be charged one ERU for each residential unit
and the estimated value Of ERU usage for the balance of the.
structure.
(d) "Future Joint Facilities" shall mean any Joint
Facilities, not Original Joint Facilities, which include all
future additions and betterments to and improvements of the
treatment plant described in subparagraph 2(a) as that will have
.
been expanded and upgraded and all other sewerage facilities
which the Participants shall from time to time agree in writing
to include as Joint Facilities.
(e) "Joint Facilities" shall mean the sewage treat-
ment facilities, sewage outfall lines, sewage pumping stations,
sewage force mains, and appurtenances and communication facili-
ties related thereto, and other sewage facilities which are used
to transport, treat and dispose of sewage from more than one
.participant, and which include the Original Joint Facilities and
Future Joint Facilities.
(f) "Joint Facilities Bonds" shall mean sewer revenue
bonds issued by the City to pay only Joint Facility costs of the
Joint Facilities or Future Joint Facilities, and bonds issued to
refund such bonds. The payment of the revenue bonds shall be
made by assessments of properties within a utility local
improvement district or districts to be created by the City, and
which will include all property of the District together with
properties adjoining that of the District.
-
2
(g) "Joint Facilities Costs" shall include all costs
and expenses attributable to the construction and installation
Of Joint Facilities and financing thereof, including but not
limited to the actual cost of design and construction, reloca-
tion of the District's office, compliance with any applicable
environmental policy act or procedures, engineering fees, legal
fees, financial consultant fees, interest during construction,
Joint Facilities Bond discount, taxes, publication costs, con-
tract administration costs and other costs and expenses relating
to the planning, design, construction, installation, and financ-
ing --- Of the treatioehE plant and such office relocation, excluding
the costs of acquiring all land necessary to the construction of
the treatment plant as a part of the Original Joint Facilities.
Joint Facilities costs include the costs and expenses attriout-
sole to the construction and installation of the port Orchard
Marina pump station and force main.
(h) "Joint Facilities Maintenance and Operation
Expenses" shall mean all costs and expenses relating to laoor,
fringe benefits, power, light, water, heat, chemicals, equipment
including repair and replacement thereof, tools, materials,
supplies, insurance premiums, contract services, legal services,
inspections and tapes and "in lieu of taxes" directly and prop-
erly chargeable to the operation and maintenance of the Joint
Facilities plus administrative overhead expenses chargeable to
the Joint Facilities.
(i) "Local Facilities" shall mean all sewer facili-
ties other than Joint Facilities owned or operated by individual
Participants for the local collection and transmission of sewage
to be delivered to the Joint Facilities.
(j) "Original Joint Facilities" shall mean the sewage
treatment plant constructed pursuant to this contract, the force
main and the pumping station from the City, and the necessary
(llio '
- 3 -
land required therefor, all as more specifically described in
Exhibits A and B.
(k) "Participants" shall mean the City and the
District, and hereafter any other political subdivision or
municipal corporation which contracts with the then existing
Participants to be served by the Joint Facilities pursuant to
the terms of this contract and such other terms as may then be
agreed upon, but Participants may agree to permit any person,or
governmental entity to use the Joint Facilities without becoming
a Participant.
3. Land -and -Right -of -Way -Acquisition.- It is understood
by and oetween the Participants that the treatment plant as a
part of the Original Joint Facilities shall be wholly con-
structed on land, described on Exhibit A attached hereto and by
this reference made a part hereof, which is located outside the
present corporate limits of the City. The portion of such land
40 identified as "state land" on Exhibit A shall be acquired by the-�
City from the State of Washington at the sole expense of the
City. The cost of acquiring the "state land" by the City shall
not be included within the Joint Facilities Costs. All right,
title and interest in and to the remaining portion of the land
necessary to the construction and completion of the treatment
plant, identified as "sewer district land" on Exhibit A, is
presently owned by the District. In consideration of the exer-
cise of the rights set forth herein, the District hereby cove-
nants to convey to the City all of its right, title and interest
to the "sewer district land" for Joint Facilities purposes, out
subject to reversion to the District when it is no longer used
for such purposes.
4. Construction of the original Joint Facilities. Except
as otherwise provided in the Agreement, the City shall construct
-4-
)
r
'r
twi
the sewage treatment plant and the other Original Joint Facili-
ties described on Exhinit », attached hereto and by this refer-
ence made a part hereof. Construction shall include, out not be
limited to, engineering design and inspection, financing and
legal services, advertising for bids, awarding construction con-
tracts, supervising and inspecting construction and accepting
work as complete.
(a) The City, with the participation of the District
as described below, will create a utility local improvement dis-
trict or districts, and assessments shall De pledged to the pay-
ment -of revenue bonds which shall be issued to finance the Joint
Facility Costs. such utility local improvement district or dis-
tricts will include all property of the District, together with
properties adjoining that of the District.
(b) The District shall have the right to approve the
inclusion of any properties outside the District within the
utility local improvement district and shall further have the
right to final approval of the assessment formula for the util-
ity local improvement district for properties within and outside
the District, but not within the corporate boundaries of the
City.
(c) In addition to revenue raised from bonds, as pro-
vided herein, the City shall apply for and administer federal
and state grants available therefor, and shall secure such
regulatory approvals and make such environmental assessments as
may be required.
(d) During construction of the Original Joint
Facilities, any change order exceeding by $1,000.00 the amount
stated in the original contract specifications, as Did, must be
approved Dy one representative of both the City and theDis-
trict, those representatives being voting members of the
Advisory Committee as provided below.
- 5 -
4
(e) The District reserves the right .to withdraw from
this Agreement before the award of a construction contract if
.
the total Joint Facilities costs exceed $16,000,000 after bids
' o,00CNIl� '
have peen
5. Maintenance and Operation of Joint Facilities. The
maintenance and operation of the Joint Facilities shall be con-
ducted as follows:
(a) The District shall maintain and operate the Joint
Facilities in accordance with high engineering standards and in
conformity with the then current standards and requirements
established by applicable state and_federal agencies having
jurisdiction over such maintenance and operation. Included with
such maintenance and operation shall be the carrying of public
liability insurance with limits in accordance with standard
practice at any such time. The District shall hold the other
Participants harmless and defend all claims for personal injury
or property damage arising out of the maintenance and operation
of the Joint Facilities which are not caused by neglect or fail-
ure of such Participants to perform maintenance or operation as
contemplated in.paragraph 11.
(b) In the event ofmismanagement by the District
'materially affecting the cost of maintenance or operation of the
Joint Facilities, or a material violation of state or federal
standards or requirements due to neglect, misfeasance or mal-
feasance by the District, operation and maintenance shall revert
to the City subject to the maintenance and operations standards
set forth in paragraph 5. It shall be the responsibility of the
Advisory committee and/or an Arbitrator, as provided in para-
graph 15, to determine whether there has been a violation, mis-
management or failure by the District so'material as to warrant
transfer of management and operation of the Joint Facilities to
(
the City.
�/
to
- 6 -
(c) The party responsible for operation and mainte-
nance of the Joint Facilities shall be liable for all penalties
and assessments charged against the Facility by any state or
federal agency resulting from negligence, misfeasance or mal-
feasance in the maintenance and operation of the facility, and
shall further indemnify and hold harmless the other from any
such penalty or assessment.
(d) The employment of the Chief operator of the Joint
Facilities shall be made by the District only upon the express
approval --of the Adyisory Committee.
- (e) In the event that a supervisor of the District is
e tion of the Chief Operator, no
responsible to oversee the func
more than 20% of the salary of the supervisor shall be charged
as a Joint Facility Maintenance and Operation Expense. Clerical
support will be a Joint Facility Maintenance and operation
Expense as required, Subject to review of the Advisory Committee.
7
(• nance of Joint
Financin Construction and mainte
. Facie•
(a) The Joint Facilities Costs shall be financed by a
utility local improvement district as provided ar paragraph 9.
es shall be
The costs for said Joint Facilitishared as follows:
(1) Each party shall pay an amount proportionate
to the assessed valuation of the properties of each party as it
bears to the total assessed valuation of the properties included.
in the utility local improvement district-
(2) For purposes of determining the assessed
valuation of the properties of the parties, the District shall
include all properties within and adjoining its ooundaries out
not within the corporate boundaries of the City.
(3) Each patty's proportionate snare of the cost
for the Original JointFacil ities, as provided above, shall
- 7 -
r
(
determine the proportionate interest that each party has in the
plant capacity, measured in terms of ERU's.
(0) Either party shall have the right to acquire
additional ERU's from the other party. The party acquiring any
additional ERU shall pay to the 'other an amount agreed upon by
the parties, if the. parties cannot agree upon an amount, the
• valuation of the ERU shall be submitted to the Advisory
Committee and in the event of dispute the valuation shall be
determined by binding arbitration, as provided in paragraph 13.
(c) The costs of those facilities not included within
the Joint Facilities as defined in paragraph 2(e) or within the
Joint Facilities Costs as defined in paragraph 2(g), shall be
the sole responsibility of the party constructing them.
(d) Joint Facilities Maintenance and Operations
Expenses shall be paid as follows:
(1) Within three months of completion of con-
struction and by October 1 of each year thereafter, the District v
shall notify the City of its proposed budget for the Joint
Facilities, showing the Joint Facilities. Maintenance and Opera-
tion Expense and the ERU charge rate for the ensuing year.
Thereafter the District shall adopt its final budget, subject to
approval of the Advisory Committee. The ERU charges for the
Participants shall be based on that final budget, except as
otherwise provided in this paragraph. By October 1 of each year
following the year in which the estimates apply, the District
shall determine and notify the City of the actual Joint Facili-
ties Maintenance and Operation Expenses. If the actual require-
ments and expenses exceed the total payments made by the City
and District pursuant to this paragraph for that preceding
calendar year, then the City within thirty (30) days after such
notification shall pay to the District its share, based on its
-
(
total ERUs for the previous year, of that deficit. If the
- 8 -
v
actual requirements and expenses were less than the total pay-
ments made by the City and District pursuant to this paragraph
for that preceding calendar year, then the District shall retain
those excess payments and credit the excess payments against the
next payments due from the City.
(2) During any year the District shall operate
within the Joint Facilities budget. Expenoitures not included
in the budget shall not be made without the approval of the
Advisory Committee. Should the Joint Facilities Maintenance and
Operation Expenses increase above budget estimates, the District
shall- notify -the Advisory Committee, which shall have the sole
power to amend the Joint Facilities budget and to increase the
ERU charge rate to the Participants, after first notifying the
City of such increase. Any amendment to the Joint Facilities
budget will be made only after demonstrating actual need, based
on unforeseen circumstances over which the District had no
reasonable control.
(3) Neither the District nor the City shall have
an interest in the Local Facilities of the other, and each party
shall be solely responsible for the management, operation, and
expense of its Local Facilities. The management,a-operation,unl AMICn,
of the Port Orchard Marina Pump Station and transmission line,
and force main transmissi line from Port Orchard to the treat -
on, Yle
ment plant, shall be the responsibility of the City.
$o4F
7. Billings - Payments. Commencing on
for all City ERU charges prescribed in paragraph 6, the District
shall bill the City on the first day of each calendar month for
charges accrued to the first day of the immediately preceding
month, and the City shall pay such charges so billed oy the 20th
day of the month in which such bill is received, after which
time such billing shall be delinquent. Charges omitted in one
month may be billed in the following months. Delinquent charges
rl
,� - 9 -
shall accrue interest on the unpaid balance at the rate of 88
per annum from date of delinquency until paid.
8. Covenants to Make Payments. The City irrevocably
covenants, obligates and binds itself to pay the District the
charges representing the City's share of the Joint Facilities
Maintenance and Operation Expenses as determined in accordance
with paragraph 6(d), out of the gross sewSA revenues and/or
water and sewer revenues of the D'0
ty:e4-, or from such other
(�. 0-
money legally available to the �istrint for such purpose as
P,`4y.
determined by the -D��-r , and such sewage service charges
shall, subject to the qualification below, be deemed maintenance
and operation expenses of the City's system of sewers or water
and sewer system in any future bond issue or other financing of
the City payable in whole or in part from the revenues of such
system and shall be payable and constitute a charge prior and
superior to any charge or lien of any revenue bonds issued by
the City payable from the gross revenues of its system, unless _
such future bond issue or other financing shall be on a parity
of lien on such revenues with presently outstanding revenue
bonds and such outstanding bonds do not permit such priority of
payment.
It is recognized that the City has outstanding revenue
bonds payable in whole or in part from the gross revenues of its
sewerage and/or water system. Nothing in this section is
intended to violate, nor shall it be construed to violate, any
covenants respecting those outstanding bonds, and such cove-
nants, to the extent there is a conflict between them and this
section, shall control with respect to such outstanding bonds
and bonds issued on a parity therewith.
The City irrevocably covevants'and agrees to establish
rates and collect fees for sewer service or sewer and water
service in the case of a combined utility which will be at least
i
- 10 -
147
V
sufficient to pay the sewer service charge to the District and
to pay the other maintenance and operation expenses of its
system and the principal of and interest on all revenue oonds
issued by it for its sewer oc water and sewer utility and to
meet the coverage covenants thereof which will constitute a
charge upon the gross revenues of its system. The District
agrees to establish rates and collect fees for sewer service
which will be at least sufficient to pay the expenses of mainte-
nance and operation of its water and sewer utility and meet the
principal, interest and coverage requirements of any and all
---revenue--bonds—of--t-he—Distci-ct which constitute a charge upon the
gross revenue of such utility.
9. Maintenance of Local Facilities and Sewage Quality -
Insurance - Liability. The Participants shall maintain and
operate their respective Local Facilities and control and regu-
late the discharge of sewage into those Local Facilities in
accordance with high engineering standards and in conformity
with the standards established by the state and federal agencies
having jurisdiction over the same. If there are any deficien-
cies in the respective Local Facilities or the discharge of
sewage into them causing excessive flow or below standard qual-
ity sewage, such deficiencies shall De corrected by the appli-
cable Participant forthwith. Deficiencies may constitute exces-
sive flow, 80D discharges for a five-day period of over 300
parts per million, suspended solids over 300 parts per million,
or quality -of sewage discharge which damages the sewage treat-
ment process or Joint Facilities, increases the Joint Facilities
Maintenance and operation Expenses per unit of sewage treated,
or causes the violation of any federal or state law or regula-
tion. The offending Participant shall pay for any additional
cost or expense caused by its breach of this paragraph.
at other times when requested, all data pertaining to water con-
sumption, sewerage discharge, sewer connections, sewage quality,
plans for additional Local Facilities, ERUs and other informa-
tion relating to the Joint Facilities.
The first task of the Advisory Committee shall be the
review and assessment of all nonresidential units of each
Participant connected or billed for availability of use to the
Local Facilities and the assignment of an initial ERU factor for
each such use. The Advisory Committee shall annually review the
ERU factor assigned to each nonresidential unit and shall make
necessary adjustments based on actual or estimated sewage dis-
charge as the committee deems appropriate.
13. Disputes. In the event of a dispute between any of
the Participants relating to the amount of Joint Facilities
Costs, the estimated or actual Joint Facilities Maintenance and
Operation Expenses, the number of ERUs of any Participant or the
compliance with any maintenance, operation or construction
standards or requirements, Iny party to such dispute may submit
the dispute to the Superior Court of Kitsap County for aroitra-
tion proceedings provided by Chapter 7.04 RCW. Such arbitration
shall be limited to the interpretation and application of this
contract and ma not impair the contract and debt obligations of
Y!a
or the District, or the powers of the District to
determine the methods used in the management of the Joint
Facilities.., The arbitrator appointed shall prescribe the rules
of the arbitration not agreed upon by the parties to the dis-
pute. The parties to the dispute may agree upon any other
method of resolving this dispute.
14. Industrial Cost Recovery.- Industrial Share Payment.
Under the provisions of United States Public Law 92-500 sewerage
agencies providing wastewater treatment must identify all
i
industrial/commercial waste dischargers as defined by the United
- 14 -
VStates Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Once identified,
PL 92-500 requires that the industry must repay that portion of
any federal grant received by local agencies for wastewater
treatment relating to the treatment of that discharger's
industrial waste discharges.
Each Participant agrees that any waste discharger
whose total discharge into the Joint Facilities is sufficient to
cause that discharger to be classified as a significant indus-
trial waste discharger (as described by Pretreatment of Pollut-
ants Introduced into Publicly Owned Treatment Works, October,
__1173.,_..EPA,._.as_tha.t__.publ ica t ion or the standards contained
therein may be changed from time to time by EPA) shall be
required to enter into a contract with the Participant into the
Local Facilities of which that discharger discharges sewage in
order to provide for waste treatment services and the payment of
the required local and industrial cost recovery costs pursuant
to PL 92-500 and federal and state regulations.
40 Any Participant which receives industrial cost recov-
ery funds from any affected industry or a federal or state
agency shall pay all such money to the City which in turn shall
use that money for the same purposes as set forth for payments
by the District attributable to bond coverage in paragraph 10,
out no matching money from any Participant shall be required.
In addition to the industrial cost recovery payment
and any sewer charges of a Participant for its Local Facilities,
the industry shall pay to the City or to the District for pay-
ment to the City its share of the Joint Facilities Costs based
on its share of sewage flow capacity and the cost of those por-
tions of the Joint Facilities designed to handle BOD loadings
and suspended solids from that industry and the industry's share
of the Joint Facilities Maintenance and Operation Expenses and
bond coverage requirements based on sewage flow and the expenses
40
the City may assign the Joint Facilities' responsibilities here-
under to such metropolitan municipal corporation subject to all
other terms and conditions of this contract. In the event that
any Participant should be dissolved or should no longer be
authorized to operate sewer facilities, the Local Facilities
owned and operated by such Participant shall be assigned and
transferred to the City subject to any outstanding deots of the
Participant which had been incurred for the specific purpose of
constructing or acquiring such facilities and subject to the
acceptance by the City of the obligation to continue to provide
sewer service —to -the -residents served by such Local Facilities
upon payment by such residents of sewage disposal charges deter-
mined as herein provided and the reasonable costs of local sewer
service.
17. Notices. Whenever in this contract notice is required
'to be given, the same shall be given by registered mail
addressed to the respective Participants at the following
addresses:
City of Port Orchard Kitsap County'SewerJ� istrict No. 5
City Hall 13u r:-2-28@ Beach Drive (�
216 Prospect Port Orchard, Washington 98366
P. 0. Box 186
Port Orchard, Washington 98366
.unless a different address shall be hereafter designated in
writing by either of the Participants.
The date of giving such notice shall oe deemed to be
the date of mailing thereof. Billings and payments described in
paragraph 7may be made by regular mail.
18. Effective Date - Term of Contract. The effective date
of this contract shall be , 1983. Because
this contract gives all Participants rights to use and, there-
fore, interest in the Joint Facilities, such rights must con-
tinue until by agreement they are terminated. This contract
shall be for at least a term of 35 years from August 1, 1977, or
- is -
such longer period as any Joint Facilities Bonds are outstanding
or the payment thereof is not fully provided for, secured and
funded, and shall continue thereafter until terminated by the
agreement of all Participant's.. Any Participant may individually
withdraw from the obligations of this contract with the consent
of the other Participants after all of such bonds are retired or
payment thereof is fully provided for, secured and funded, and
the remaining Participants shall continue to be bound by this
contract as it may be amended.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Participants hereto have exe-
cuted this contract__as_of —� �. , 1983.
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WAS✓HINNGGTON SEWER DISTRICT NO. 5
KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON
By
Title
Attest
Title
0205p
- 19
Appendix D
Fact Sheet —Joint Wastewater
Treatment Plant
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT WA-002034-6
PORT ORCHARD/KARCHER CREEK SEWER DISTRICT
JOINT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
SUMMARY
There are three entities involved in wastewater treatment in the Port Orchard area: The City of
Port Orchard collection system, Karcher Creek Sewer District collection system, and the Joint
Wastewater Treatment Facility (treatment plant). The treatment plant is considered a separate
entity which is jointly owned by the City of Port Orchard (City) and Karcher Creek Sewer
District (Sewer District). The City has contracted with the Sewer District to operate the
treatment plant.
The treatment plant was recently upgraded and expanded to accommodate increasing demand for
sewer service in the City's and Sewer District's service areas. The existing activated sludge
treatment plant was upgraded with the addition of a Zenon - membrane bioreactor (MBR) -
treatment process. In addition, a ballasted clarifier was added at the plant to provide advanced
primary treatment for peak flows during wet weather periods. The new plant began operation in
March 2006. During normal operation, the incoming wastewater is provided secondary
treatment via the activated sludge and MBR treatment processes. Effluents from both these
secondary treatment processes are combined and disinfected prior to discharging to Sinclair
Inlet, Puget Sound. When influent flows to the plant exceed 6 million gallons per day (MGD),
the excess wastewater (greater than 6 MGD) is provided advanced primary treatment via the
ballasted clarifier treatment system. Effluents from all three treatment processes are combined
and disinfected prior to discharging to Sinclair Inlet.
Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 2
Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................4
BACKGROUND INFORMATION................................................................................................5
DESCRIPTION OF THE FACILITY.................................................................................5
History...................................................................................................................... 5
Description of the Wastewater Collection System..................................................5
Wastewater Sources.................................................................................................5
Wastewater Characteristics......................................................................................6
Description of the Wastewater Treatment Plant and Discharge Outfall..................6
ResidualSolids.........................................................................................................7
FlowBlending..........................................................................................................7
PERMITSTATUS...............................................................................................................8
SUMMARY OF INSPECTIONS........................................................................................8
SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXISTING PERMIT................................8
PROPOSED PERMIT LIMITATIONS...........................................................................................9
DESIGNCRITERIA...........................................................................................................9
TECHNOLOGY -BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS..................................................10
SURFACE WATER QUALITY -BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS .........................10
Numerical Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life...........................................11
Numerical Criteria for the Protection of Human Health........................................I I
NarrativeCriteria...................................................................................................11
Antidegradation...................................................................................................... I I
CriticalConditions................................................................................................. I I
MixingZones......................................................................................................... I I
Description of the Receiving Water.......................................................................12
Surface Water Quality Criteria..............................................................................12
Consideration of Surface Water Quality -Based Limits for Numeric Criteria .......13
Whole Effluent Toxicity........................................................................................16
HumanHealth........................................................................................................17
SedimentQuality...................................................................................................17
GROUND WATER QUALITY LIMITATIONS..............................................................17
COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITS WITH THE
EXISTING EFFLUENT LIMITS..........................................................................17
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS..............................................................................................18
LAB ACCREDITATION..................................................................................................19
OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS.................................................................................................19
REPORTING AND RECORD KEEPING........................................................................19
PREVENTION OF FACILITY OVERLOADING...........................................................19
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE(O&M)................................................................19
RESIDUAL SOLIDS HANDLING...................................................................................19
PRETREATMENT............................................................................................................19
GENERAL CONDITIONS...............................................................................................20
Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 3
Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility
PERMIT ISSUANCE PROCEDURES.........................................................................................20
PERMIT MODIFICATIONS............................................................................................20
RECOMMENDATION FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE........................................................20
REFERENCES FOR TEXT AND APPENDICES........................................................................21
APPENDIX APUBLIC INVOLVEMENT INFORMATION...................................................22
APPENDIX B—GLOSSARY.......................................................................................................23
APPENDIX COUTFALL LOCATION AND TREATMENT PROCESS SCHEMATIC .......28
OUTFALL LOCATION IN SINCLAIR INLET...............................................................28
TREATMENT PROCESS SCHEMATIC.........................................................................29
APPENDIX D—REASONABLE POTENTIAL CALCULATION FOR WATER
QUALITYCRITERIA.............................................................................................................30
APPENDIX E—WATER QUALITY -BASED PERMIT LIMITS CALCULATIONS
FORCHLORINE......................................................................................................................32
APPENDIX F—LIST OF POLLUTANTS FOR TESTING REQUIRED IN PERMIT
CONDITIONS2.A.(3)..............................................................................................................33
APPENDIX G—RESPONSE TO COMMENTS..........................................................................34
Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 4
Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility
INTRODUCTION
The Federal Clean Water Act (FCWA, 1972, and later modifications, 1977, 1981, and 1987)
established water quality goals for the navigable (surface) waters of the United States. One of the
mechanisms for achieving the goals of the Clean Water Act is the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System of permits (NPDES permits), which is administered by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA has authorized the State of Washington to administer the
NPDES permit program. Chapter 90.48 RCW defines the Department of Ecology's authority and
obligations in administering the wastewater discharge permit program.
The regulations adopted by the State include procedures for issuing permits (chapter 173-220
WAC), technical criteria for discharges from municipal wastewater treatment facilities (chapter
173-221 WAC), water quality criteria for surface and ground waters (chapters 173-201A and 200
WAC), and sediment management standards (chapter 173-204 WAC). These regulations require
that a permit be issued before discharge of wastewater to waters of the state is allowed. The
regulations also establish the basis for effluent limitations and other requirements which are to be
included in the permit. One of the requirements (WAC 173-220-060) for issuing a permit under the
NPDES permit program is the preparation of a draft permit and an accompanying fact sheet. Public
notice of the availability of the draft permit is required at least thirty (30) days before the permit is
issued (WAC 173-220-050). The fact sheet and draft permit are available for review (see Appendix
A Public Involvement of the fact sheet for more detail on the public notice procedures).
The fact sheet and draft permit have been reviewed by the Permittee. Errors and omissions
identified in this review have been corrected before going to public notice. After the public
comment period has closed, the Department will summarize the substantive comments and the
response to each comment. The summary and response to comments will become part of the file
on the permit and parties submitting comments will receive a copy of the Department's response.
The fact sheet will not be revised. Comments and the resultant changes to the permit will be
summarized in Appendix G Response to Comments.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant
City of Port Orchard
216 Prospect Street
Port Orchard, WA 98366
Facility Name and Address
City of Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District Joint
Wastewater Treatment Plant
1165 Beach Drive
Port Orchard, WA 98366
Type of Treatment
Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) and Activated Sludge —
Secondary Treatment System
Discharge Location
Sinclair Inlet, Puget Sound
Latitude: 47' 33' 10" N.
Longitude: 122' 36' 40" W.
Waterbody ID Number
1224026474620
Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page S
Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
DESCRIPTION OF THE FACILITY
HISTORY
The treatment plant was recently upgraded and expanded to accommodate increasing demand for
sewer service in the City's and Sewer District's service area. The plant was upgraded by adding
a new Zenon - Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) - treatment process to provide additional secondary
treatment capacity at the plant. In addition, a new ballasted clarifier was added at the plant to
provide advanced primary treatment to peak flows during wet weather periods. Effluents from
these treatment processes are combined and disinfected. The plant effluent is discharged to
Sinclair Inlet, Puget Sound. The new plant began operation in March 2006.
DESCRIPTION OF THE WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
The City's sewage collection system consists of a combination of many neighborhood systems.
The age of the sewer mains in the City vary from 70 years old to brand new. The older areas of
the City have noticeable flows from infiltration and inflows (I/I) in the system. As part of the I/I
reduction efforts, many roof drains have been disconnected from sanitary sewers and the pipe
joints air tested and grouted. However, groundwater still enters the system. Currently, the City
allocates approximately $25,000 per year for the I/I reduction program.
The Sewer District's sewage collection system includes two major trunk sewers, collector sewer
lines, and 18 pump stations and associated forcemains. Developments constructed in the 1990s
have primarily installed PVC pipes for the collector sewers and laterals. Developments
constructed prior to 1990 primarily used concrete pipe for collector sewers. A small percentage
of the collector sewers have concrete asbestos and clay pipe.
Based on the I/I reports submitted for the treatment plant, annual 1/1 (from 1991 through 2004)
has ranged from 12 to 28 percent of the plant inflow.
Both the City and the Sewer District have ongoing programs to reduce I/I. The City's efforts to
reduce I/I include grouting of leaking joints, and locating and eliminating inflow sources. The
Sewer District's Capital Improvement Plan includes wartime (World War II) era sewer
replacement projects over the next 20 years.
WASTEWATER SOURCES
Primary sources of wastewater tributary to the facility are domestic sewage from residential and
light commercial activities in the sewer service areas of the City of Port Orchard and Karcher
Creek Sewer District.
Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 6
Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility
WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
Wastewater received at the facility is typical domestic wastewater with conventional pollutants
and low levels of metals, as shown in the following table. The influent and effluent monitoring
data for conventional pollutants are the annual averages for the year 2004. The effluent
measurements for copper and zinc shown in the table below are the highest of the measurements
from effluent monitoring conducted during July 1995 through January 2006. Effluent
measurements during this period, for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, and
silver were all below method detection limit (MDL).
PARAMETERI
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
Concentration
(m /L)
Mass Emission
(lbs/da)
Concentration
(m /L or u /L)
Mass Emission
(lbs/da )
Flow
--------------
--------------
1.59 MGD
--------------
BOD5
236 m /L
3051 lbs/da
20 m /L
265 lbs/da
TSS
340 m /L
4035 lbs/da
16 m /L
210 lbs/da
Fecal Coliform
--------------
---------------
551100 mL
--------------
---------------
a
Zinc
I --------------
I ---------------
536 u
---------------
Effluent sample measurement of 16 µg/L for copper is less than the reportable detection limit
(RDL).
DESCRIPTION OF THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND DISCHARGE OUTFALL
The liquid stream treatment at the plant consists of three different treatment systems:
(1) The activated sludge (secondary) treatment system.
(2) The MBR (secondary) treatment system.
(3) The ballasted clarifier (advance primary) treatment system for treatment of peak flows when
influent flows exceed 6 MGD.
The liquid stream treatment system at the plant includes 3 (mechanically cleaned) rotary fine
screens and 1 (manually cleaned) standby bar screen, 3 vortex grit removal units (2 units
preceding primary clarifiers for use during dry weather, and 1 unit preceding ballasted clarifier
for use during wet weather), 3 primary clarifiers, a ballasted clarifier for primary treatment of
peak flows (when influent flows exceed 6 MGD), 2 aeration basins (with 3 chambers per basin)
for activated sludge treatment, 2 secondary clarifiers, 2 MBR basins, 2 chlorine contact channels
(along the outer periphery of the secondary clarifiers) for disinfection by sodium hypochlorite, a
sodium bisulfite dechlorination unit for effluent dechlorination, and a Parshall flume for effluent
flow measurement.
The solids stream treatment system at the plant includes 4 sludge storage tanks, 2 anaerobic
digesters, and 2 centrifuges for sludge dewatering and thickening.
Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 7
Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility
Treated and disinfected effluent from the plant is discharged to Sinclair Inlet, Puget Sound. The
effluent is discharged via a 36-inch diameter outfall terminating 1600 feet offshore into Sinclair
Inlet at a depth of approximately 52 feet below mean lower low water (MLLW). The terminal
portion of the outfall consists of a 10-port diffuser with 8-inch diameter risers at 10-foot spacing.
The diffuser ports discharge horizontally in alternating directions.
Appendix C includes diagrams of the outfall location in Sinclair Inlet and the treatment process
schematic.
RESIDUAL SOLIDS
The treatment plant removes solids from the wastewater at the headworks (grit and screenings),
and at the primary and secondary clarifiers (primary and secondary sludge), in addition to
incidental solids (rags, scum, and other debris) removed as part of the routine maintenance of the
equipment. Grit, rags, scum, and screenings are disposed of as solid waste at a local landfill.
Primary and secondary sludge are thickened, stabilized, and dewatered for utilization. The
dewatered sludge is transported to any Class B site as permitted by local health departments.
FLow BLENDING
The wastewater treatment system is designed for a maximum month flow of 4.2 million gallons
per day (MGD) and a peak (wet weather) flow of 16 MGD. The primary treatment train at the
plant consists of primary clarifiers, followed by a secondary biological treatment (conventional
activated sludge or MBR) system, and secondary clarifiers. This portion of the treatment plant is
designed to provide secondary treatment for a minimum of 6 MGD peak flow without
compromising its integrity. During the plant's design life, influent flows are expected to exceed
6 MGD only a few times during wet weather months, in any given year. Therefore, a ballasted
clarifier with a design capacity of 10 MGD was constructed at the plant to provide primary
treatment for flows that would need to be bypassed around the secondary treatment system to
protect its integrity. The ballasted clarifier provides advanced primary treatment and is expected
to remove 90% or greater total suspended solids and 40% or greater BOD.
As described in the engineering report for the treatment plant, approved by the Department of
Ecology, influent flows in excess of 6 MGD as a result of precipitation may bypass secondary
treatment and receive primary treatment via the ballasted clarifier. During such events, the
ballasted clarifier effluent is blended with the secondary treated effluent prior to disinfection and
discharge. The practice of flow blending is used to protect the secondary treatment process from
major upsets that can detrimentally impact effluent quality.
Condition S 11 of the proposed permit, Flow Blending, allows influent flows greater than 6 MGD
to bypass the secondary treatment system. The permit requires that all bypassed flows must be
provided advanced primary treatment through the ballasted clarifier, and that the combined
effluent from the ballasted clarifier and secondary treatment must comply with the secondary
treatment limits specified in Condition S LA at all times. This alternative would ensure
compliance with the permitted effluent limits without compromising the secondary treatment
system at the plant.
Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 8
Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility
Port Orchard area experienced very heavy rains during November and December 2006. Highest
daily average flows recorded at the plant were 3.94 MGD and 4.6 MGD in November and
December 2006, respectively. Rainfalls recorded on these days were 2.1 inches and 2.41 inches,
respectively. During this period, the flows at the plant did not reach high enough to have any
flow to bypass the secondary treatment system, and there was no need to operate the ballasted
clarifier.
PERMIT STATUS
The existing permit for the plant expired on June 30, 2006. An application for permit renewal
was received by the Department on September 6, 2005, and accepted by the Department on
March 9, 2006. The existing permit was extended by the Department on June 9, 2006. The
treatment plant is currently operating under the terms and conditions of the extended permit.
SUMMARY OF INSPECTIONS
A Class I inspection of the treatment plant was conducted on March 18, 2005, by the
Department's Northwest Regional Office (NWRO) staff. Construction of the plant
expansion/upgrade using two new technologies - Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) and High Rate
(Ballasted) Clarification (HRC) - was under way at the time of this inspection. All the treatment
units appeared to be operating well at the time of this inspection. The effluent looked very clear,
and the plant appeared to be well operated and maintained. The inspection reports are on file at
the Department's NWRO office.
As stated in Port Orchard/KCSD 5 Mixing Zone Study, Cosmopolitan Engineering Group, May
2002, the outfall and diffuser were visually inspected by a certified diver and licensed
professional engineer on April 11, 1998. The diffuser ports were found to be flowing fully with
no significant structural damage to the diffuser. The study report includes photographs of the
outfall and diffuser ports.
SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXISTING PERMIT
Based on Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) submitted to the Department, from
November 1, 2001 through February 1, 2006, there were three violations of the BOD effluent
limits, two violations of the TSS effluent limits, and one violation of the chlorine effluent limit.
Two BOD and the chlorine effluent limits violations were minor violations. One BOD and the
two TSS effluent limits violations occurred during the month of August 2004, when the plant
received excessive influent TSS loading. During this month, the influent TSS exceeded the
approved design criteria for the plant. Based on DMRs submitted to the Department, the
Permittee has remained in compliance with the effluent limits and there have been no exceedance
of influent design criteria since August 2004.
Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 9
Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility
PROPOSED PERMIT LIMITATIONS
Federal and state regulations require that effluent limitations set forth in an NPDES permit must
be either technology- or water quality -based. Technology -based limitations for municipal
discharges are set by regulation (40 CFR 133, and chapters 173-220 and 173-221 WAC). Water
quality -based limitations are based upon compliance with the surface water quality standards
(chapter 173-201A WAC), ground water standards (chapter 173-200 WAC), sediment quality
standards (chapter 173-204 WAC) or the National Toxics Rule (Federal Register, Volume 57,
No. 246, Tuesday, December 22, 1992.) The most stringent of these types of limits must be
chosen for each of the parameters of concern. Each of these types of limits is described in more
detail below.
The limits in this permit are based in part on information received in the application. The
effluent constituents in the application were evaluated on a technology- and water quality -basis.
The limits necessary to meet the rules and regulations of the state of Washington were
determined and included in this permit. Ecology does not develop effluent limits for all
pollutants that may be reported on the application as present in the effluent. Some pollutants are
not treatable at the concentrations reported, are not controllable at the source, are not listed in
regulation, and do not have a reasonable potential to cause a water quality violation. Effluent
limits are not always developed for pollutants that may be in the discharge but not reported as
present in the application. In those circumstances the permit does not authorize discharge of the
non -reported pollutants. Effluent discharge conditions may change from the conditions reported
in the permit application. If significant changes occur in any constituent, as described in 40 CFR
122.42(a), the Permittee is required to notify the Department of Ecology. The Permittee may be
in violation of the permit until the permit is modified to reflect additional discharge of pollutants.
DESIGN CRITERIA
In accordance with WAC 173-220-150 (1)(g), flows or waste loadings shall not exceed approved
design criteria.
The following design criteria are taken from the plans and specifications for the treatment plant,
approved by the Department of Ecology on September 2, 2004.
Parameter
Phase I Design Criteria
Average flow for the maximum month
4.2 MGD
BOD5 influent loading for the maximum month
6340 lbs/da
TSS influent loading for the maximum month
6910 lbs/day
Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 10
Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility
TECHNOLOGY -BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Municipal wastewater treatment plants are a category of discharger for which technology -based
effluent limits have been promulgated by federal and state regulations. These effluent limitations
are given in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 40 CFR Part 133 (federal) and in chapter
173-221 WAC (state). These regulations are performance standards that constitute all known,
available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control, and treatment for municipal
wastewater.
The following technology -based limits for pH, fecal coliform, BOD5, and TSS are taken from
chapter 173-221 WAC are:
Parameter Limit
pH I Shall be within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 standard units.
Fecal Coliform Bacteria I Monthly Geometric Mean = 200 organisms/100 mL
Weekly Geometric Mean = 400 organisms/ 100 mL
BOD5 Average Monthly Limit is the most stringent of the following:
(concentration) - 30 mg/L
- may not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the average
influent concentration
Averaize Weeklv Limit = 45 mLY/L
TSS Average Monthly Limit is the most stringent of the following:
(concentration) - 30 mg/L
- may not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the average
influent concentration
Average Weekly Limit = 45 mg/L
The following technology -based mass limits are based on WAC 173-220-130(3)(b) and
173-221-030(11)(b).
Monthly average effluent mass loadings for BOD5 and TSS = 4.2 MGD (maximum monthly
design flow) x 30 mg/L (concentration limit) x 8.34 (conversion factor) = 1051 lbs/day.
Weekly average effluent mass loadings for BOD5 and TSS = 4.2 MGD (maximum monthly
design flow) x 45 mg/L (concentration limit) x 8.34 (conversion factor) = 1577 lbs/day.
SURFACE WATER QUALITY-BASEDEFFLUENTLIMITATIONS
In order to protect existing water quality and preserve the designated beneficial uses of
Washington's surface waters, WAC 173-201A-060 states that waste discharge permits shall be
conditioned such that the discharge will meet established surface water quality standards. The
Washington State surface water quality standards (chapter 173-201A WAC) is a state regulation
designed to protect the beneficial uses of the surface waters of the state. Water quality -based
effluent limitations may be based on an individual waste load allocation (WLA) or on a WLA
developed during a basin -wide total maximum daily loading study (TMDL).
Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 11
Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility
NUMERICAL CRITERIA FOR THE PROTECTION OF AQUATIC LIFE
"Numerical" water quality criteria are numerical values set forth in the state of Washington's
water quality standards for surface waters (chapter 173-201A WAC). They specify the levels of
pollutants allowed in a receiving water -body while remaining protective of aquatic life.
Numerical criteria set forth in the water quality standards are used along with chemical and
physical data for the wastewater and receiving water to derive the effluent limits in the discharge
permit. When surface water quality -based limits are more stringent or potentially more stringent
than technology -based limitations, they must be used in a permit.
NUMERICAL CRITERIA FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH
The state was issued 91 numeric water quality criteria for the protection of human health by the
U.S. EPA (EPA 1992). These criteria are designed to protect humans from cancer and other
disease and are primarily applicable to fish and shellfish consumption and drinking water from
surface waters.
NARRATIVE CRITERIA
In addition to numerical criteria, "narrative" water quality criteria (WAC 173-201A-030) limit
toxic, radioactive, or deleterious material concentrations below those which have the potential to
adversely affect characteristic water uses, cause acute or chronic toxicity to biota, impair
aesthetic values, or adversely affect human health. Narrative criteria protect the specific
beneficial uses of all fresh (WAC 173-201A-130) and marine (WAC 173-201A-140) waters in
the state of Washington.
ANTIDEGRADATION
Washington State's Antidegradation Policy requires that discharges into a receiving waterbody
shall not further degrade the existing water quality of the waterbody. In cases where the natural
conditions of a receiving waterbody are of lower quality than the criteria assigned, the natural
conditions shall constitute the water quality criteria. Similarly, when receiving waters are of
higher quality than the criteria assigned, the existing water quality shall be protected. More
information on the Washington State Antidegradation Policy can be obtained by referring to
WAC 173-201A-070.
CRITICAL CONDITIONS
Surface water quality -based limits are derived for the waterbody's critical condition, which
represents the receiving water and waste discharge condition with the highest potential for
adverse impact on the aquatic biota, human health, and existing or characteristic waterbody uses.
MIXING ZONES
The water quality standards allow the Department of Ecology to authorize mixing zones around a
point of discharge in establishing surface water quality -based effluent limits. Both "acute" and
"chronic" mixing zones may be authorized for pollutants that can have a toxic effect on the
aquatic environment near the point of discharge. The concentration of pollutants at the boundary
of these mixing zones may not exceed the numerical criteria for that type of zone. Mixing zones
Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 12
Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility
can only be authorized for discharges that are receiving all known, available, and reasonable
methods of prevention, control and treatment (AKART) and in accordance with other mixing
zone requirements of WAC 173-201A-100.
The National Toxics Rule (EPA, 1992) allows the chronic mixing zone to be used to meet human
health criteria.
DESCRIPTION OF THE RECEIVING WATER
The treatment plant effluent is discharged to Sinclair Inlet, Puget Sound, which is designated as
Class A -Marine Waters, in the vicinity of the outfall. Characteristic uses include the following:
Class A (Excellent) water supply (domestic, industrial, agricultural); stock watering; fish
migration; fish and shellfish rearing, spawning and harvesting; wildlife habitat; primary
contact recreation; sport fishing; boating and aesthetic enjoyment; commerce and navigation.
Water quality of this class shall meet or exceed the requirements for all or substantially all uses.
SURFACE WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
Applicable criteria are defined in chapter 173-201A WAC for aquatic biota. In addition, U.S.
EPA has promulgated human health criteria for toxic pollutants (EPA 1992). Criteria for this
discharge are summarized below:
Parameter
Criteria
Fecal Coliforms
14 or anisms/100 mL maximum geometric mean
Dissolved Oxygen
6 m /L minimum
Temperature
16 degrees Celsius maximum or incremental increases above background
H
7.0 to 8.5 standard units
Turbidi
Less than 5 NTUs above background
Toxics
No toxics in toxic amounts
The Federal Clean Water Act (Section 303(d)) requires the state to prepare a list of water bodies
that do not meet water quality standards. This list is called the 303(d) list because the process is
described in section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. The Department is required to submit the
303(d) list to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After approval by the
EPA, the Department is required to develop water clean up plans, also known as Total Maximum
Daily Loads or TMDLs, for each of the water bodies on the 303(d) list. The latest approved
303(d) list is the 2002/2004 303(d) list, which lists Sinclair Inlet for various parameters for both
water and tissue mediums. The parameters listed for water medium in this list are dissolved
oxygen (DO), fecal coliform, pH, and temperature.
Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 13
Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility
Of the parameters listed for water medium in Sinclair Inlet in the 2002/2004 303(d) list, only DO
is listed as Category 5; the rest are listed as Category 2, Waters of Concern. The parameters
included in Category 2 of the 303(d) list are the ones that show some evidence of water quality
problem, but not enough to require a TMDL study at this time. Additional monitoring for these
parameters would need to be conducted to determine if a TMDL study needs to be conducted.
The Department, in the near future, is planning to conduct a TMDL study in Sinclair Inlet to
address noncompliance with the water quality standards for DO. The results of the TMDL study
will be used to determine whether wasteload allocations for BOD and nutrients are necessary.
Nutrients can contribute indirectly to DO depression by stimulating phytoplankton growth).
Fecal coliform bacteria in Sinclair Inlet are listed as Category 2, Waters of Concern, on the 2004
303(d) list, also called the Water Quality Assessment. A fecal coliform TMDL was initiated in
2000 based on the 1998 303(d) listing of fecal coliform bacteria in Dyes and Sinclair Inlets.
Though these listings are not on the 2004 303(d) list, the marine waters of nearshore areas of
Sinclair and Dyes Inlets have been shown to be impaired through additional monitoring
conducted for the TMDL and routine monitoring conducted by Kitsap County Health District
and Washington State Department of Health. The Department of Ecology is continuing to
develop the TMDL in a cooperative effort with Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS) in
Bremerton and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10. The Department plans
to establish wasteload allocations for fecal coliform bacteria from point sources (wastewater
treatment plants and Municipal Phase II NPDES Stormwater Permittees) and from nonpoint
sources that discharge to Sinclair Inlet. If the fecal coliform waste load allocation for the
Permittee's treatment plant results in lower than permitted effluent limits, the Department may
impose the more stringent TMDL-based limits through permit modification or issuance of an
Administrative Order. A reasonable time period may be given to the Permittee to make plant
modifications, if needed, to comply with the more stringent limits.
CONSIDERATION OF SURFACE WATER QUALITY -BASED LIMITS FOR NUMERIC CRITERIA
Pollutant concentrations in the proposed discharge exceed water quality criteria with
technology -based controls which the Department has determined to be AKART. Acute and
chronic mixing zones are authorized in accordance with the geometric configuration, flow
restriction, and other restrictions for mixing zones in chapter 173-201A WAC. Mixing zone
boundaries for discharges to estuaries such as Sinclair Inlet are defined as follows:
(a) In estuaries, mixing zones, singularly or in combination with other mixing zones,
shall:
(i) Not extend in any horizontal direction from the discharge port(s) for a
distance greater than 200 feet plus the depth of water over the discharge
port(s) as measured during mean lower low water; and
(ii) Not occupy greater than 25 percent of the width of the waterbody as
measured during mean lower low water.
(b) In estuarine waters, a zone where acute criteria may be exceeded shall not extend
beyond ten percent of the distance established in (a) above, as measured
independently from the discharge port(s).
Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 14
Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility
(c) Vertical limitations for both chronic and acute zones is the depth of water over the
discharge port(s) as measured during mean lower low water (MLLW).
The acute and chronic mixing zone boundaries for the plant's discharge are determined based
on the above definitions and are specified in Condition S 1.13 of the proposed permit.
The dilution ratios of effluent to receiving water that occur within these zones have been
determined at the critical condition by using near -field and far -field dilution modeling. The
modeling provides dilution predictions under critical (worst case) receiving water conditions and
for the range of receiving water conditions expected at the discharge site. The dilution modeling
and results are discussed in the "Port Orchard/KCSDS Mixing Zone Study, " Cosmopolitan
Engineering Group, May 2002. The effluent flows used in the model are Phase II design flows
(for the year 2020) for the plant - 4.8 MGD maximum month flow and 16 MGD maximum day
flow. The current (Phase I) capacity of the treatment plant is 4.2 MGD maximum month flow
and 16 MGD maximum day flow. Model -predicted dilutions for the 2020 (Phase II) discharge
conditions (4.8 MGD maximum month flow and 16 MGD maximum day flow) are as follows:
Dilution Ratios for the Year 2020 (Phase II) Design Conditions - 4.8 MGD Maximum
Month Flow, and 16 MGD Maximum Day Flow:
Pollutants in an effluent may affect the aquatic environment near the point of discharge
(near -field) or at a considerable distance from the point of discharge (far -field). Toxic pollutants,
for example, are near -field pollutants —their adverse effects diminish rapidly with mixing in the
receiving water. Conversely, a pollutant such as BOD is a far -field pollutant whose adverse
effect occurs away from the discharge even after dilution has occurred. Thus, the method of
calculating water quality -based effluent limits varies with the point at which the pollutant has its
maximum effect.
The derivation of water quality -based limits also takes into account the variability of the
pollutant concentrations in both the effluent and the receiving water.
BOD5—This discharge with technology -based limitations results in a small amount of BOD
loading relative to the large amount of dilution (321:1) occurring in the receiving water at critical
conditions. Technology -based limitations will be protective of dissolved oxygen criteria in the
receiving water.
Temperature —Due to the high dilution achieved (321:1) under critical conditions, there is no
predicted violation of the water quality standard for surface waters. Therefore, no effluent
limitation for temperature is placed in the proposed permit.
Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 15
Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility
pH —Because of the high buffering capacity of marine water, compliance with the
technology -based limits of 6.0 to 9.0 will assure compliance with the water quality standards for
surface waters.
Fecal ColiformAs stated earlier, the Department is planning to develop wasteload allocations
for fecal coliform for various point and non -point sources that discharge to Sinclair Inlet. Until
then, technology -based fecal coliform limits (200/100 mL monthly average and 400/100 mL
weekly average) are placed in the proposed permit. If the fecal coliform wasteload allocation for
the treatment plant results in lower than permitted effluent limits, the Department will impose the
more stringent TMDL-based limits through permit modification or issuance of an Administrative
Order.
Toxic Pollutants —Federal regulations (40 CFR 122.44) require NPDES permits to contain
effluent limits for toxic chemicals in an effluent whenever there is a reasonable potential for
those chemicals to exceed the surface water quality criteria. This process occurs concurrently
with the derivation of technology -based effluent limits. Facilities with technology -based effluent
limits defined in regulation are not exempted from meeting the water quality standards for
surface waters or from having surface water quality -based effluent limits.
The following toxics were determined to be present in the discharge: chlorine, ammonia, and
metals. A reasonable potential analysis (see Appendix D of this fact sheet) was conducted for
ammonia and metals to determine whether or not effluent limitations would be required in this
permit. Of the various metals measurements, only copper and zinc were determined to be
present in the effluent. The effluent metals measurements were in the form of "Total Metals,"
whereas, the water quality standards are in the form of "Total Recoverable Metals." Total metal
measurements in a water sample are always either equal to or greater than total recoverable metal
measurements. By using total metal values, the results of this reasonable potential analysis for
metals are more conservative.
The determination of the reasonable potential for ammonia, copper and zinc, to exceed the water
quality criteria was evaluated with procedures given in EPA, 1991 (Appendix C) at the critical
condition. The dilution ratios used in the critical condition modeling are as follows: acute
dilution ratio 25:1 and chronic dilution ratio 321:1.
Valid ambient background data was available for ammonia, copper, and zinc. Calculations using
all applicable data resulted in a determination that there is no reasonable potential for this
discharge to cause a violation of water quality standards.
The plant effluent is disinfected with sodium hypochlorite. Since chlorine is toxic to aquatic life,
effluent limits were derived for chlorine using methods from EPA, 1991, as shown in
Appendix E of this fact sheet.
The resultant effluent limits for chlorine are: (i) Average Monthly 0.13 mg/L, and (ii) Maximum
Daily 0.33 mg/L. These limits are specified in Condition SLA. of the permit.
Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 16
Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility
WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY
The water quality standards for surface waters require that the effluent not cause toxic effects in
the receiving waters. Many toxic pollutants cannot be detected by commonly available detection
methods. However, toxicity can be measured directly by exposing living organisms to the
wastewater in laboratory tests and measuring the response of the organisms. Toxicity tests
measure the aggregate toxicity of the whole effluent, and therefore this approach is called whole
effluent toxicity (WET) testing. Some WET tests measure acute toxicity and other WET tests
measure chronic toxicity.
Acute toxicity tests measure mortality as the significant response to the toxicity of the effluent.
Dischargers who monitor their wastewater with acute toxicity tests are providing an indication of
the potential lethal effect of the effluent to organisms in the receiving environment.
Chronic toxicity tests measure various sublethal toxic responses such as retarded growth or
reduced reproduction. Chronic toxicity tests often involve either a complete life cycle test of an
organism with an extremely short life cycle or a partial life cycle test on a critical stage of one of
a test organism's life cycles. Organism survival is also measured in some chronic toxicity tests.
Accredited WET testing laboratories have the proper WET testing protocols, data requirements,
and reporting format. Accredited laboratories are knowledgeable about WET testing and capable
of calculating an NOEC, LC50, EC50, IC25, etc. All accredited labs have been provided the most
recent version of the Department of Ecology Publication No. WQ-R-95-80, Laboratory
Guidance and Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Review Criteria, which is referenced in the permit.
Any Permittee interested in receiving a copy of this publication may call the Ecology
Publications Distribution Center at (360) 407-7472 for a copy. Ecology recommends that
Permittees send a copy of the acute or chronic toxicity sections(s) of their permits to their
laboratory of choice.
If the Permittee makes process or material changes which, in the Department's opinion, results in
an increased potential for effluent toxicity, then the Department may require additional effluent
characterization in a regulatory order, by permit modification, or in the permit renewal. Toxicity
is assumed to have increased if WET testing conducted for submission with a permit application
fails to meet the performance standards in WAC 173-205-020, "whole effluent toxicity
performance standard." The Permittee may demonstrate to the Department that changes have not
increased effluent toxicity by performing additional WET testing after the time the process or
material changes have been made.
Toxicity caused by unidentified pollutants is not expected in the effluent from this discharge as
determined by the screening criteria given in chapter 173-205 WAC. However, in order to
determine the impacts of the facility's discharge on the receiving waterbody, whole effluent
toxicity characterization testing is required in this permit. In addition, Part E, Toxicity Testing
Data of the EPA Form 3510-2A, NPDES application, requires treatment plants with design
flows equal to or greater than 1.0 MGD to test for whole effluent toxicity.
Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 17
Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility
HUMAN HEALTH
Washington's water quality standards now include 91 numeric health -based criteria that must be
considered in NPDES permits. These criteria were promulgated for the state by the U.S. EPA in
its National Toxics Rule (Federal Register, Volume 57, No. 246, Tuesday, December 22, 1992).
Based on monitoring data submitted by the Permittee, the Department has determined that the
applicant's discharge does not contain chemicals of concern. The discharge will be reevaluated
for impacts to human health at the next permit reissuance.
SEDIMENT QUALITY
The Department has promulgated aquatic sediment standards (chapter 173-204 WAC) to protect
aquatic biota and human health. These standards state that the Department may require
Permittees to evaluate the potential for the discharge to cause a violation of applicable standards
(WAC 173-204-400).
The Department has been unable to determine at this time the potential for this discharge to cause a
violation of sediment quality standards. If the Department determines in the future that there is a
potential for violation of the sediment quality standards, an order will be issued to require the
Permittee to demonstrate that either the point of discharge is not an area of deposition or, if the point
of discharge is a depositional area, that there is not an accumulation of toxics in the sediments.
GROUND WATER QUALITYLIMITATIONS
The Department has promulgated ground water quality standards (chapter 173-200 WAC) to protect
uses of ground water. Permits issued by the Department shall be conditioned in such a manner so
as not to allow violations of those standards (WAC 173-200-100).
This Permittee has no discharge to ground and therefore no limitations are required based on
potential effects to ground water.
COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED EFFL UENT LIMITS WITH THE EXISTING EFFL UENT
LIMITS
Comparison of the proposed and existing effluent limits (monthly averages) is shown in the
following table. The effluent limits for conventional pollutants (BOD, TSS, fecal coliform bacteria,
and pH) in the proposed permit are same as the ones in the existing permit. The effluent limits for
chlorine are technology -based limits in the existing permit, but (more stringent) water quality -based
limits in the proposed permit.
Parameter
Existing Effluent Limits
Proposed Effluent Limits
BOD5 (average monthly concentration)
30 m /L
30 m /L
TSS (average monthly concentration)
30 mg/L
30 mg/L
Fecal Coliform (average monthly concentration)
200/100 mL
200/100 mL
pH (standard units)
6.0 to 9.0
6.0 to 9.0
Total Residual Chlorine
(average monthly concentration)
0.5 mg/L
0.13 mg/L
Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 18
Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monitoring, recording, and reporting are required (WAC 173-220-210 and 40 CFR 122.41) to
verify that the treatment process is functioning correctly and the effluent limitations are being
achieved.
The monitoring schedule is detailed in the proposed permit under Condition S2. Specified
monitoring frequencies take into account the quantity and variability of discharge, the treatment
method, past compliance, significance of pollutants, and cost of monitoring. The required
monitoring frequency is consistent with agency guidance given in the current version of
Ecology's Permit Writer's Manual (Publication No. 92-109) for Activated Sludge Plant with 2.0
to 5.0 MGD Average Design Flow.
Priority pollutants (listed in Appendix F of this fact sheet) and conventional pollutants
monitoring is required [see Condition S2.A.(3) and (5) of the permit] for reporting in the next
permit application. Monitoring for additional nitrogen compounds (nitrite, nitrate and TKN) is
required for use by the Department in the Sinclair Inlet TMDL study.
It should be noted that the Permittee has been monitoring effluent from its new MBR treatment
system for various parameters including, BOD, TSS, and ammonia. MBR system effluent is also
continuously monitored for turbidity. Grab samples of MBR system effluent are collected
periodically for these analyses. The Permittee has submitted analytical results for samples
collected from March 2006 through January 2007. Based on the sample results, the MBR
treatment system is producing effluent with very low turbidity and very low concentrations of
BOD, TSS, and ammonia. Based on the monitoring data submitted by the Permittee, the
summary of the analyses in the table below indicates the quality of effluent produced by the
MBR treatment system. The Permittee through sampling and analysis has shown the
effectiveness of the new MBR treatment system in producing good quality effluent.
MBR Effluent Analyses Results from March 2006 through January 2007
PARAMETER
SAMPLE DATES
NUMBER OF
SAMPLE RESULTS
SAMPLES
BOD
03/21/2006 through
47
34 samples < 1 mg/L
12/28/2006
1 sample > 10 m /L
TSS
03/20/2006 through
29
All samples < 2 mg/L
01/12/2007
Ammonia (NH3-N)
05/16/2006 through
76
63 samples < lmg/L
01/17/2007
6 samples > 10 mg/L
Turbidity
3/14/2006 through
50
All samples < 0.11 NTU
10/ 13/2006
Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 19
Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility
LAB ACCREDITATION
With the exception of certain parameters, the permit requires all monitoring data to be prepared
by a laboratory registered or accredited under the provisions of chapter 173-50 WAC,
Accreditation of Environmental Laboratories. The laboratory at this facility is accredited for
BOD, TSS, ammonia, fecal coliform, and pH. Samples for analyzing other parameters are sent
to commercial laboratories.
OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS
REPORTING AND RECORD KEEPING
The conditions of S3 are based on the authority to specify any appropriate reporting and record
keeping requirements to prevent and control waste discharges (WAC 173-220-210).
PREVENTION OF FACILITY OVERLOADING
Overloading of the treatment plant is a violation of the terms and conditions of the permit. To
prevent this from occurring, RCW 90.48.110 and WAC 173-220-150 require the Permittee to
take the actions detailed in proposed permit requirement S4 to plan expansions or modifications
before existing capacity is reached and to report and correct conditions that could result in new
or increased discharges of pollutants.
OPERATIONAND MAINTENANCE (O&M)
The proposed permit contains condition S5. as authorized under RCW 90.48.110, WAC
173-220-150, chapter 173-230 WAC, and WAC 173-240-080. It is included to ensure proper
operation and regular maintenance of equipment, and to ensure that adequate safeguards are
taken so that constructed facilities are used to their optimum potential in terms of pollutant
capture and treatment.
RESIDUAL SOLIDS HANDLING
To prevent water quality problems, the Permittee is required in permit Condition S7 to store and
handle all residual solids (grit, screenings, scum, sludge, and other solid waste) in accordance
with the requirements of RCW 90.48.080 and state water quality standards.
The final use and disposal of sewage sludge from this facility is regulated by U.S. EPA under 40
CFR 503, and by Ecology under chapter 70.95J RCW and chapter 173-308 WAC. The disposal
of other solid waste is under the jurisdiction of the local health department(s).
PRETREATMENT
Since the pretreatment program has not been delegated to the Permittee, the pretreatment
Condition S8 in the permit is a standard condition derived from the Federal Regulation 40 CFR
403.5.
Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 20
Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility
GENERAL CONDITIONS
General Conditions are based directly on state and federal law and regulations and have been
standardized for all individual municipal NPDES permits issued by the Department.
PERMIT ISSUANCE PROCEDURES
PERMIT MODIFICATIONS
The Department may modify this permit to impose numerical limitations, if necessary, to meet
water quality standards, sediment quality standards, or ground water standards, based on new
information obtained from sources such as inspections, effluent monitoring, outfall studies, and
effluent mixing studies.
The Department may also modify this permit as a result of new or amended state or federal
regulations.
This proposed permit meets all statutory requirements for authorizing a wastewater discharge,
including those limitations and conditions believed necessary to protect human health, aquatic
life, and the beneficial uses of waters of the state of Washington. The Department proposes that
this permit be issued for the full allowable five (5)-year period.
Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 21
Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility
REFERENCES FOR TEXT AND APPENDICES
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
1992. National Toxics Rule. Federal Register, V. 57, No. 246, Tuesday, December 22, 1992.
1991. Technical Support Document for Water Quality -based Toxics Control. EPA/505/2-90-001.
1983. Water Quality Standards Handbook. USEPA Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
Washington State Department of Ecology
Laws and Regulations http://www.ecy.wa.gov/laws-rules/index.html
Permit and Wastewater Related Information
htip://www.ecy.wa.aov/proarams/wq/wastewater/index.html
1994. Permit Writer's Manual. Publication Number 92-109
City of Port Orchard and Karcher Creek Sewer District
2004. City of Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District Joint Wastewater Treatment
Facility Expansion Phase 11— Facility Expansion Construction Plans and Specifications,
RH2 Engineering
2002. City of Port Orchard and Karcher Creek Sewer District Joint Wastewater Treatment
Facility Engineering Report, RH2 Engineering
2002. Port Orchard/KCSD S Mixing Zone Study, Cosmopolitan Engineering Group
Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 22
Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility
APPENDIX A —PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT INFORMATION
The Department has tentatively determined to reissue a permit to the applicant listed on page 1 of
this fact sheet. The permit contains conditions and effluent limitations which are described in the
rest of this fact sheet.
Public Notice of Application (PNOA) was published on March 10 and 17, 2006, in the Kitsap
Sun to inform the public that an application had been submitted and to invite comment on the
reissuance of this permit.
The Department published a Public Notice of Draft (PNOD) on May 24, 2007, in the Kitsap Sun
to inform the public that a draft permit and fact sheet were available for review. Interested
persons were invited to submit written comments regarding the draft permit. The draft permit,
fact sheet, and related documents were available for inspection and copying between the hours of
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. weekdays, by appointment, at the regional office listed below. Written
comments were mailed to:
Water Quality Permit Coordinator
Department of Ecology
Northwest Regional Office
3190 — 160th Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98008-5452
Any interested party may comment on the draft permit or request a public hearing on this draft
permit within the thirty (30)-day comment period to the address above. The request for a hearing
shall indicate the interest of the party and the reasons why the hearing is warranted. The
Department will hold a hearing if it determines there is a significant public interest in the draft
permit (WAC 173-220-090). Public notice regarding any hearing will be circulated at least thirty
(30) days in advance of the hearing. People expressing an interest in this permit will be mailed
an individual notice of hearing (WAC 173-220-100).
Comments should reference specific text followed by proposed modification or concern when
possible. Comments may address technical issues, accuracy and completeness of information,
the scope of the facility's proposed coverage, adequacy of environmental protection, permit
conditions, or any other concern that would result from issuance of this permit.
The Department will consider all comments received within thirty (30) days from the date of
public notice of draft indicated above, in formulating a final determination to issue, revise, or
deny the permit. The Department's response to all significant comments is available upon
request and will be mailed directly to people expressing an interest in this permit.
Further information may be obtained from the Department by telephone, (425) 649-7201, or by
writing to the address listed above.
Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 23
Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility
APPENDIX B—GLOSSARY
Acute Toxicity —The lethal effect of a pollutant on an organism that occurs within a short period
of time, usually 48 to 96 hours.
AKARTAn acronym for "all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention,
control, and treatment."
Ambient Water Quality —The existing environmental condition of the water in a receiving
water body.
Ammonia —Ammonia is produced by the breakdown of nitrogenous materials in waste water.
Ammonia is toxic to aquatic organisms, exerts an oxygen demand, and contributes to
eutrophication. It also increases the amount of chlorine needed to disinfect waste water.
Average Monthly Discharge Limitation —The highest allowable average of daily discharges
over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of all daily discharges measured during a
calendar month divided by the number of daily discharges measured during that month
(except in the case of fecal coliform). The daily discharge is calculated as the average
measurement of the pollutant over the day.
Average Weekly Discharge Limitation —The highest allowable average of daily discharges
over a calendar week, calculated as the sum of all daily discharges measured during a
calendar week divided by the number of daily discharges measured during that week. The
daily discharge is calculated as the average measurement of the pollutant over the day.
Best Management Practices (BMPs)Schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices,
maintenance procedures, and other physical, structural and/or managerial practices to prevent
or reduce the pollution of waters of the state. BMPs include treatment systems, operating
procedures, and practices to control: plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste
disposal, or drainage from raw material storage. BMPs may be further categorized as
operational, source control, erosion and sediment control, and treatment BMPs.
BOD5Determining the Biochemical Oxygen Demand of an effluent is an indirect way of
measuring the quantity of organic material present in an effluent that is utilized by bacteria.
The BOD5 is used in modeling to measure the reduction of dissolved oxygen in a receiving
water after effluent is discharged. Stress caused by reduced dissolved oxygen levels makes
organisms less competitive and less able to sustain their species in the aquatic environment.
Although BOD is not a specific compound, it is defined as a conventional pollutant under the
federal Clean Water Act.
Bypass —The intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility.
CBOD5—The quantity of oxygen utilized by a mixed population of microorganisms acting on
the nutrients in the sample in an aerobic oxidation for five days at a controlled temperature of
20 degrees Celsius, with an inhibitory agent added to prevent the oxidation of nitrogen
compounds. The method for determining CBOD5 is given in 40 CFR Part 136.
Chlorine —Chlorine is used to disinfect waste waters of pathogens harmful to human health. It
is also extremely toxic to aquatic life.
Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 24
Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility
Chronic Toxicity —The effect of a pollutant on an organism over a relatively long time, often
1/10 of an organism's lifespan or more. Chronic toxicity can measure survival, reproduction
or growth rates, or other parameters to measure the toxic effects of a compound or
combination of compounds.
Clean Water Act (CWA)—The Federal Water Pollution Control Act enacted by Public Law
92-500, as amended by Public Laws 95-217, 95-576, 96-483, 97-117; USC 1251 et seq.
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)—The event during which excess combined sewage flow
caused by inflow is discharged from a combined sewer, rather than conveyed to the sewage
treatment plant because either the capacity of the treatment plant or the combined sewer is
exceeded.
Compliance Inspection - Without SamplingA site visit for the purpose of determining the
compliance of a facility with the terms and conditions of its permit or with applicable statutes
and regulations.
Compliance Inspection - With Sampling —A site visit to accomplish the purpose of a
Compliance Inspection - Without Sampling and as a minimum, sampling and analysis for all
parameters with limits in the permit to ascertain compliance with those limits; and, for
municipal facilities, sampling of influent to ascertain compliance with the percent removal
requirement. Additional sampling may be conducted.
Composite SampleA mixture of grab samples collected at the same sampling point at
different times, formed either by continuous sampling or by mixing a minimum of four
discrete samples. May be "time -composite" (collected at constant time intervals) or
"flow -proportional" (collected either as a constant sample volume at time intervals
proportional to stream flow, or collected by increasing the volume of each aliquot as the flow
increased while maintaining a constant time interval between the aliquots).
Construction Activity —Clearing, grading, excavation, and any other activity which disturbs the
surface of the land. Such activities may include road building; construction of residential
houses, office buildings, or industrial buildings; and demolition activity.
Continuous MonitoringUninterrupted, unless otherwise noted in the permit.
Critical Condition —The time during which the combination of receiving water and waste
discharge conditions have the highest potential for causing toxicity in the receiving water
environment. This situation usually occurs when the flow within a water body is low, thus,
its ability to dilute effluent is reduced.
Dilution Factor —A measure of the amount of mixing of effluent and receiving water that
occurs at the boundary of the mixing zone. Expressed as the inverse of the effluent fraction
for example, a dilution factor of 10 means the effluent comprises 10% by volume and the
receiving water 90%.
Engineering Report —A document which thoroughly examines the engineering and
administrative aspects of a particular domestic or industrial wastewater facility. The report
shall contain the appropriate information required in WAC 173-240-060 or 173-240-130.
Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 25
Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility
Fecal Coliform Bacteria —Fecal coliform bacteria are used as indicators of pathogenic bacteria
in the effluent that are harmful to humans. Pathogenic bacteria in wastewater discharges are
controlled by disinfecting the waste water. The presence of high numbers of fecal coliform
bacteria in a water body can indicate the recent release of untreated wastewater and/or the
presence of animal feces.
Grab Sample —A single sample or measurement taken at a specific time or over as short a
period of time as is feasible.
Industrial User —A discharger of wastewater to the sanitary sewer which is not sanitary
wastewater or is not equivalent to sanitary wastewater in character.
Industrial Wastewater —Water or liquid -carried waste from industrial or commercial processes,
as distinct from domestic wastewater. These wastes may result from any process or activity
of industry, manufacture, trade or business; from the development of any natural resource; or
from animal operations such as feed lots, poultry houses, or dairies. The term includes
contaminated storm water and, also, leachate from solid waste facilities.
Infiltration and Inflow (I/1)"Infiltration" means the addition of ground water into a sewer
through joints, the sewer pipe material, cracks, and other defects. "Inflow" means the
addition of precipitation -caused drainage from roof drains, yard drains, basement drains,
street catch basins, etc., into a sewer.
InterferenceA discharge which, alone or in conjunction with a discharge or discharges from
other sources, both:
Inhibits or disrupts the POTW, its treatment processes or operations, or its sludge processes,
use or disposal; and
Therefore is a cause of a violation of any requirement of the POTW's NPDES permit
(including an increase in the magnitude or duration of a violation) or of the prevention of
sewage sludge use or disposal in compliance with the following statutory provisions and
regulations or permits issued thereunder (or more stringent state or local regulations):
Section 405 of the Clean Water Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) [including
Title II, more commonly referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), and including State regulations contained in any State sludge management plan
prepared pursuant to Subtitle D of the SWDA], sludge regulations appearing in 40 CFR
Part 507, the Clean Air Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, and the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act.
Major FacilityA facility discharging to surface water with an EPA rating score of > 80 points
based on such factors as flow volume, toxic pollutant potential, and public health impact.
Maximum Daily Discharge Limitation —The highest allowable daily discharge of a pollutant
measured during a calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents the calendar
day for purposes of sampling. The daily discharge is calculated as the average measurement
of the pollutant over the day.
Method Detection Level (MDL)—The minimum concentration of a substance that can be
measured and reported with 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is above zero and
is determined from analysis of a sample in a given matrix containing the analyte.
Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 26
Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility
Minor FacilityA facility discharging to surface water with an EPA rating score of < 80 points
based on such factors as flow volume, toxic pollutant potential, and public health impact.
Mixing ZoneA volume that surrounds an effluent discharge within which water quality
criteria may be exceeded. The area of the authorized mixing zone is specified in a facility's
permit and follows procedures outlined in Washington State regulations (chapter 173-201A
WAC).
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)—The NPDES (Section 402 of
the Clean Water Act) is the federal wastewater permitting system for discharges to navigable
waters of the United States. Many states, including the state of Washington, have been
delegated the authority to issue these permits. NPDES permits issued by Washington State
permit writers are joint NPDES/State permits issued under both state and federal laws.
Pass -through —A discharge which exits the POTW into waters of the state in quantities or
concentrations which, alone or in conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other
sources, is a cause of a violation of any requirement of the POTW's NPDES permit
(including an increase in the magnitude or duration of a violation), or which is a cause of a
violation of state water quality standards.
pH —The pH of a liquid measures its acidity or alkalinity. A pH of 7 is defined as neutral, and
large variations above or below this value are considered harmful to most aquatic life.
Potential Significant Industrial UserA potential significant industrial user is defined as an
Industrial User which does not meet the criteria for a Significant Industrial User, but which
discharges wastewater meeting one or more of the following criteria:
a. Exceeds 0.5 % of treatment plant design capacity criteria and discharges <25,000 gallons
per day; or
b. Is a member of a group of similar industrial users which, taken together, have the
potential to cause pass -through or interference at the POTW (for example, facilities
which develop photographic film or paper, and car washes).
The Department may determine that a discharger initially classified as a potential significant
industrial user should be managed as a significant industrial user.
Quantitation Level (QL)A calculated value five times the MDL (method detection level).
Significant Industrial User (SIU)-
1) All industrial users subject to Categorical Pretreatment Standards under 40 CFR 403.6
and 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N; and
2) Any other industrial user that discharges an average of 25,000 gallons per day or more of
process wastewater to the POTW (excluding sanitary, noncontact cooling, and boiler
blow -down wastewater); contributes a process wastestream that makes up 5 percent or
more of the average dry weather hydraulic or organic capacity of the POTW treatment
plant; or is designated as such by the Control Authority* on the basis that the industrial
user has a reasonable potential for adversely affecting the POTW's operation or for
violating any pretreatment standard or requirement [in accordance with 40 CFR
403.8(f)(6)].
Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 27
Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility
Upon finding that the industrial user meeting the criteria in paragraph 2, above, has no
reasonable potential for adversely affecting the POTW's operation or for violating any
pretreatment standard or requirement, the Control Authority* may at any time, on its own
initiative or in response to a petition received from an industrial user or POTW, and in
accordance with 40 CFR 403.8(f)(6), determine that such industrial user is not a significant
industrial user.
*The term "Control Authority" refers to the Washington State Department of Ecology in the
case of non -delegated POTWs or to the POTW in the case of delegated POTWs.
State Waters —Lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt waters,
wetlands, and all other surface waters and watercourses within the jurisdiction of the state of
Washington.
Stormwater—That portion of precipitation that does not naturally percolate into the ground or
evaporate, but flows via overland flow, interflow, pipes, and other features of a storm water
drainage system into a defined surface water body, or a constructed infiltration facility.
Technology -based Effluent LimitA permit limit that is based on the ability of a treatment
method to reduce the pollutant.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)—Total suspended solids are the particulate materials in an
effluent. Large quantities of TSS discharged to a receiving water may result in solids
accumulation. Apart from any toxic effects attributable to substances leached out by water,
suspended solids may kill fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms by causing abrasive
injuries and by clogging the gills and respiratory passages of various aquatic fauna.
Indirectly, suspended solids can screen out light and can promote and maintain the
development of noxious conditions through oxygen depletion.
Upset —An exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance
with technology -based permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable
control of the Permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by
operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, lack of preventative maintenance,
or careless or improper operation.
Water Quality -based Effluent LimitA limit on the concentration or mass of an effluent
parameter that is intended to prevent the concentration of that parameter from exceeding its
water quality criterion after it is discharged into a receiving water.
Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 28
Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility
APPENDIX C—OUTFALL LOCATION AND TREATMENT PROCESS SCHEMATIC
OUTFALL LOCATION IN SINCLAIR INLET
8
Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 29
Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility
TREATMENT PROCESS SCHEMATIC
Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 30
Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility
APPENDIX DREASONABLE POTENTIAL CALCULATION FOR
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
Several of the Excel® spreadsheet tools used to evaluate a discharger's ability to meet
Washington State water quality standards can be found on the Department's homepage at
(htt2://www.ecy.wa.jzov/programs/wq/wastewater/index.html
AMMONIA WATER QUALITY CRITERIA CALCULATION
Calculation of seawater fraction of un-ionized ammonia
from Hampson (1977). Un-ionized ammonia criteria for
salt water are from EPA 440/5-88-004.
Based on Lotus File NH3SALT.WK1 Revised 19-Oct-93
in INPUT
1. Temperature (deg C): 18.0
2. pH: 8.4
3. Salinity (g/Kg): 28.0
OUTPUT
1. Pressure (atm; EPA criteria assumes 1 atm): 1.0
2. Molal Ionic Strength (not valid if >0.85): 0.574
3. pKa8 at 25 deg C (Whitfield model "B"): 9.312
4. Percent of Total Ammonia Present as Unionized: 6.776%
5. Unionized ammonia criteria (mg un-ionized NH3 per liter)
from EPA 440/5-88-004
Acute: 0.233
Chronic: 0.035
6. Total Ammonia Criteria (mg/L as NH3)
Acute: 3.44
Chronic: 0.52
7. Total Ammonia Criteria (mg/L as NH3-N)
Acute: 2.83
Chronic: 0.42
Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 31
Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility
REASONABLE POTENTIAL CALCULATION TO DETERMINE
EXCEEDANCE OF WATER QUALITY -BASED CRITERIA
Fact She tf r NPDES Permit W2-00 0 4 4 Page 22
Port Orcha d Ka c e Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facity
APPENDIX £—WATER QUALITY -BASED
PERMIT LIMITS CALCULATIONS FOR CHLORINE
Several of the Excels spreadsheet tools used mevaluate aaKhm2%ability to meet Washington State
water ga!ltystandards can bfound othe Department's hmeaOk
G±dwww.ey. agov/ograms/w »mewac/£index: m
`
)4\!§
�!
!!
^!
\\
10
!7
!)
:
!
)Z§§k
/{
z_
§S
:{
�0
/]|
Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 33
Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility
APPENDIX F—LIST OF POLLUTANTS FOR TESTING
REQUIRED IN PERMIT CONDITION S2.A.(3)
EPA "PART_D" NPDES_ APPLICATION FORM 2A TESTING REQUIREMENTS
The following pollutant scan data are required at the time of NPDES permit application for
municipal treatment facilities with design flow greater than 1.0 mgd. At least three scans are to
be conducted during the term of the permit. The metals are to be analyzed as "Total recoverable
Metals" Section 4.1.4, Publication EPA-60014-79-020, Methods for Chemical Analysis of water
and Wastes, 1979. Please see Condition S2.A(4) of the permit.
METALS & MISC.
VOL. ORGANICS (Cant.)
BASE NEUTRALS (Cont.)
Antimony
Eth ibenzene
Bis (2-Chloroeth 1)-Ether
Arsenic
Methyl Bromide
Bis (2-Chloroiso-Pro1) Ether
Beryllium
Methyl Chloride
Bis (2-Eth [hex 1) Phthalate
Cadmium
Methylene Chloride
4-Bromo hen 1 Phenyl Ether
Chromium
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloro-Ethane
Butyl Benz l Phthalate
Copper
Tetrachloro-Ethylene
2-Chlorona hthalene
Lead
Toluene
4-Chlorphenyl Phenyl Ether
Mercury
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Chrysene
Nickel
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Di-N-But l Phthalate
Selenium
Trichloreth lene
Di-N-Oct 1 Phthalate
Silver
Vinyl Chloride
Dibenzo(A,H) Anthracene
Thallium
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Zinc
ACID EXTRACTABLES
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
Cyanide
P-Chloro-M-Cresol
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Total Phenolic Compounds
2-Chlorohenol
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
Hardness (As CaCO3)
2,4-Dichloro henoi
Diethyl Phthalate
2,4-Dimeth 1 henoi
Dimeth 1 Phthalate
VOLATILE ORGANICS
4,6-Dinitro-O-Cresol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Acrolein
2,4-Dinitro henol
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Acrylonitrile
2-Nitrophenol
Fluoranthene
Benzene
4-Nitrophenol
Fluorene
Bromoform
Pentachlorohenoi
Hexachlorobenzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Phenol
Hexachlorobutadiene
Clorobenzene
2,4,6-Trichioro henol
Hexachloroc clo-Pentadiene
Chlorodibromo-Methane
Hexachloroethane
Chloroethane
BASE NEUTRALS
Indeno(1,2,3-CD)P rene
2-Chloro-Eth loin 1 Ether
Acena hthene
Iso horone
Chloroform
Acena hth lene
Na hthalene
Dichlorobromo-Methane
Anthracene
Nitrobenzene
1,1-Dichloroethane
Benzidine
N-Nitrosodi-N-Pro lamine
1,2-Dichloroethane
Benzo(A)Anthracene
N-Nitrosodi-Meth lamine
Trans-1,2-Dichloro Ethylene
3,4 Benzo-Fluoranthene
N-Nitrosodi-Phen lamine
LI-Dichloroeth lene
Benzo(Ghi)Per lene
Phenanthrene
1,2-Dichloro ry ane
Benzo(K)Fluoranthene
Pyrene
1,3-Dichloro-Prolene
Bis (2-Chloroethox ) Methane
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 34
Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility
APPENDIX G—RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
No comments were submitted to the Department of Ecology during the public notice period.
Appendix E
Pump Station Site Visit, July 9, 2008, by
John Freck PE, BHC Consultants
City of Port Orchard
Pump Station Site Visit
July 9th, 2008
John Frech of BHC Consultants toured four sewage pump station facilities with Jay
Cookson and Dave Boltz. Three of the pump stations, McCormick Woods #1,
McCormick Woods #2 and Marina Pump Station have been identified as stations most
needing repair. The fourth pump station visited, McCormick Ridge, was recently
constructed and is considered a model for other pump stations.
Pump Station constructed around 1994
Pumps
Submersible Centrifugal Sewage Pump Manufactured by Hydromatic S6LX
Configuration - duplex
Power - 25 hp, 1,750 RPM, 460 Volt, 3 Phase
Flow — 1, 000 gpm at 59.74 ft TDH
Rail system — dual rail for each pump complete with discharge elbow.
Wetwell
12-foot diameter fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) manhole
Access — two 31" x 39" aluminum hatches
Float system control
Valve Vault
10-foot diameter fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) manhole
Access — two 31" x 39" aluminum hatches
2 sets of valves to provide control for each pump
10-inch check valve
10-inch plug valve
Isolation Valve Vault
5-foot diameter fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) manhole
Access — one 31" x 39" aluminum hatch
One 16" plug valve
One Saddle for chemical injection
Generator
Size ?
Make — Stamford Generator
Configuration — externally mounted with manufacturer's enclosure
Footprint — 6'-8" x 9'-0"
Sound Attenuation —exhaust muffler only
Building
Structure — 10' x 10' fiberglass enclosure with divider wall. One side for aeration
pump, the second side for chemical feed system. The building is set on a
concrete foundation that is in sound condition.
Exterior — fiberglass appears to be weathering well
Electrical — lights and heater are being corroded by Chlorine chemical attack
Ventilation — exhaust fan
Control Panel
Size — 200 amp x 460 volt
Each pump has a 70 amp x 460 volt breaker
Minimal Corrosion
Pump Power and Float Connection Boxes
Corrosion free in interior
Chemical Feed System
Chemical System — 12.5% Sodium Hypochlorite
Containment — Fiberglass storage tank
Secondary Containment — Concrete floor and raised perimeter with sump
draining to wetwell. 8'x12' containment
Small metering pumps feed system
PVC piping used for feed lines. Pipe glue attacked by chlorine and requires
intermittent replacement.
Injection Points — chemical injected into wetwell. In the past injection occurred in
the wetwell and direct injection into the pipe in the last valve vault
Metering System
No pressure gauge
No flow meter
No pump amp meter. Portable unit available to check amperage
Hour meter -Analog totalizers time each pump
-Separate Analog totalizer sums all pump hours
Flow calculated by multiplying time x pump rate
Telemetry
New system installed recently — 2006+/-
Monitored items:
• Communication — enabled or disabled
• Alarm - displays enabled or not
• Alarm — intrusion will be indicated if control panel is opened w/o dearming
• Power source — displays if primary power is providing power or not
• Pump 1 and 2 — displays on, off or removed for each pump
Aesthetics
Noise from generator
Bad odor from wetwell
Safety
Chlorine gas emitted in building could be hazardous
Security
Comfortable with current level of security
Security sign added to fence has helped
Intrusion alarm on control panel
Deficiency
Corrosion — caused by chlorine feed system and increased by aggressive STEP
influent sewage
• Pump rails and rail mounts are heavily corroded
• Pump power cable insulation may be compromised where exposed to
wetwell gases
• Building lights and heaters are being corroded by chlorine
• Check valves
o Springs are rusted off
o Backflow is occurring during pump shutoff causing valve to slam
• Plug handles are rusted off and many valves are inoperable
• Saddle at second valve vault appears structurally compromised
• Concrete lids of wetwell and valve vaults — coatings are split and rusty
residue is leaking out
Chemical Feed
• Sodium hypochlorite is not recommended due to corrosion, potential
danger, chlorinated byproducts and ability to upset biology of waste
stream prior to reaching treatment plant.
• New storage tank, feed pumps and injection cycle may be needed with
new chemical
• Secondary containment - the concrete area provided for secondary
containment should not be allowed to automatically drain to wetwell
Lighting
• No area lighting
Pumps
Pump failed during visit. May be reaching end of useful life
Generator
• May be too loud for future neighboring houses
• Size may be too small for future pumps
Pump Removal
• City has to contract out service to remove pumps. Makes maintenance
difficult. Truck with swinging boom desired by City
Maintenance
Activities
• Daily site visit to read hour meters and look over station
• Vactor out wetwell when needed
• Cleaning not required frequently since STEP effluent is typically free from
grease and solids that will clog the pumps
Space provided for maintenance
• Two 39" x 31" aluminum hatches allow access the wetwell
• Two 39" x 31" aluminum hatch for valve vault
• One 39" x 31" aluminum hatch for second valve vault
McCormick Woods 1 Pump Station:
Pump Station constructed around 1995
Pumps
Submersible Centrifugal Sewage Pump Manufactured by ???
Configuration - duplex
Power - 60 hp, 460 Volt, 3 Phase
Flow — gpm at TDH
Rail system ??
Loud with significant vibration during operation
Wetwell
12-foot diameter concrete manhole
Access — two 31" x 39" aluminum hatches
Float system control
(Did not look at wetwell)
Valve Vault
10-foot diameter concrete manhole
Access — two 31" x 39" aluminum hatches
2 sets of valves to provide control for each pump
10-inch check valve
10-inch plug valve
Plug valves not exercised regularly and may not close if needed.
Check valve slams when pump stops
Isolation Valve Vault
Concrete Manhole
Access — one 31" x 39" aluminum hatch
One 16" plug valve
Generator
Size 280 KVA
Make — Stamford Generator stamped June1995
Configuration — externally mounted with manufacturer's enclosure
Footprint — 6'-8" x 1 V-0"
Sound Attenuation —exhaust muffler only
Building
Structure — 10' x 10' fiberglass enclosure with divider wall. One side for aeration
pump, the Second side for chemical feed system. The building is set on a
concrete foundation that is in sound condition.
Exterior — fiberglass appears to be weathering well
Electrical — lights and heater are being corroded by Chlorine chemical attack
Ventilation — exhaust fan
Control Panel
Size — 400 amp x 460 volt
Minimal Corrosion
Pump Power and Float Connection Boxed
Corrosion free in interior
Bolts to secure panel shut are corroded and should be replaced
Chemical Feed System
Chemical Used — 12.5% Sodium Hypochlorite 1200 gallons/year
Containment — Fiberglass storage tank. Sprung a leak a few years back and
injured two workers
Secondary Containment — Concrete floor and raised perimeter with sump
draining to wetwell. 8'x12' containment
Small metering pumps feed system
PVC piping used for feed lines. Pipe glue attacked by chlorine and requires
intermittent replacement.
Injection Points — chemical injected into wetwell. In the past injection occurred in
the wetwell and direct injection into the pipe in the last valve vault
Metering System
Pressure gauge is broken
No flow meter
No pump amp meter. Portable unit available to check amperage
Hour meter
• Analog totalizers time each pump
• Separate Analog totalizer sums all pump hours
Flow calculated by multiplying time x pump rate
Telemetry
New system installed recently — 2006+/-
Monitored items:
• Communication — enabled or disabled
• Alarm - displays enabled or not
• Alarm — intrusion will be indicated if control panel is opened w/o dearming
• Power source — displays if primary power is providing power
• Pump 1 and 2 — displays on, off or removed for each pump
• Phone monitoring line cuts out frequently
Aesthetics
Noise from generator OK for area. No future houses sited nearby.
Safety
Chlorine gas emitted in building could be hazardous
Security
Comfortable with current level of security
Security sign added to fence has helped
Intrusion alarm on control panel
Deficiency
Corrosion — less corrosion than McCormick PS#2
• Pump power cable insulation may be compromised where in wetwell
• Building lights and heaters are being corroded by chlorine
• Check valves
o Backflow is occurring during pump shutoff causing valve to slam
• Plug valves are not operated frequently and may be inoperable.
Chemical Feed
• Sodium hypochlorite is not recommended due to corrosion, potential
danger, chlorinated byproducts and ability to upset biology of waste
stream prior to reaching treatment plant.
• New storage tank, feed pumps and injection cycle may be needed with
new chemical
• Secondary containment - the concrete area provided for secondary
containment should not be allowed to automatically drain to wetwell
Lighting
• No area lighting
Pump Removal
• City has to contract out service to remove pumps. Makes maintenance
difficult. Truck with swinging boom desired by City
Maintenance
Activities
• Daily site visit to read hour meters and look over station
• Vactor out wetwell when needed
• Cleaning not required frequently since STEP effluent is typically free from
grease and solids that will clog the pumps. Have occasionally had
ragging caused by activities at Juvenile Detention Center
Space provided for maintenance
• Two 39" x 31" aluminum hatches allow access the wetwell
• Two 39" x 31" aluminum hatch for valve vault
• One 39" x 31" aluminum hatch for second valve vault
Marina Pump Station:
Pump Station originally constructed in 1983, new chopper pumps in 2004
Pumps
Dry Pit Configuration — 4 pumps: 2 large and 2 small
Pumps 1 and 2:
Power - 150 hp GE motors, 460 Volt, 3 Phase, 1175 RPM
Flow - 2,600 gpm at 115 TDH
Control - VFD pump 1, Constant speed pump 2
2 Dry Pit Centrifugal Sewage Pump
Manufactured by McGraw Edison Worthington
Pumps 3 and 4
Power - 25 hp Baldor, 460 Volt, 3 Phase, 1175 RPM
Flow - ??? gpm at 115 TDH
Control - VFD pump 1, Constant speed pump 2
2 Dry Pit Chopper Pump
Manufactured by Vaughn
Pumps are relatively new and appear to be in good condition (pump 3 has
had seal issues- problem seems to be resolved)
Wetwell
(Did not look at wetwell due to difficult access)
Access — Manhole lid and concrete rectangular panel
Dry Pit
Large open room
Access
Personnel - single mandoor at top of staircase
Equipment - Removable concrete panel at top of structure in parking lot to
permit removal of pumps by crane
Valves — Each pump has valves to prevent backflow and provide isolation
Small pumps:
8-inch check valve
8-inch plug valve
Big pumps:
14-inch check valve
14-inch plug valve
Valves appear to be in good condition, need to be exercised to determine proper
operation
Generator
Size 281 KVA, 301 hp diesel engine
Make — Mitusbishi (difficult to get parts)
External fuel tank — single wall, no secondary containment, positioned near floor
drain
Configuration — internally mounted
Sound Attenuation — concrete structure and muffler. Louvers are non sound
attenuating.
Noise — moderate outside during operation, no complaints from nearby marina
neighbors.
Building
Structures —
Wet pit and dry pit below grade
Dry Pit: Appears to be in good condition. Small deposits formed where
groundwater has leaked through. Lighting is minimal, but adequate. Analysis of
ventilation and entrance protocol may be required to protect workers from
dangers of confined space.
Control and Generator Building: Interior in good condition. Leak in ceiling fixed
in past waterfront improvement project. Lighting is minimal, but adequate.
Exterior foundation being compromised by rusting sheet pile around the
perimeter of the structure located at the shoreline.
Control Panels
Pump 1 — Robocon VFD
Pump 2 — Klockner Mueller JBox 480 volt, 3 phase, 180 amp
Pump 3 and 4 — General Electric 8000 Model
No Visible corrosion
No Chemical Feed System
Metering System
Pressure gauge for each pump
Flow meter: 1 meter for small pumps and 1 meter for large
No pump amp meter, can use portable unit to check amperage
Hour meter -Analog totalizers time each pump
-Separate analog totalizer sums all pump hours
Telemetry
System installed ???
Monitored items:
• Communication — enabled or disabled
• Alarm - displays enabled or not
• Alarm — intrusion will be indicated if door is opened to control room??
• Power source — displays if primary power is providing power or if generator is
operating
• Pump 1 and 2 — displays on, off or removed for each pump
Aesthetics
Pump station and control building are very well hidden. Odor coming from
manhole near wetwell has been addressed by placing treated aggregate in a
basket located in the manhole chimney.
Safety
Confined space to drywell could be hazardous. Ventilation and entrance protocol
should be examined.
Security
Comfortable with current level of security
Fence to prohibit access to waterfront side of control room has reduced
vandalism
Intrusion alarm on control room door
Deficiency
Lighting - increased lighting in control room and dry pit may be desired
Generator - parts availability limited and fuel storage needs secondary
containment
Access to wetwell is challenging. Makes routine inspection difficult.
Confined space to drywell could be hazardous. Ventilation and entrance protocol
should be examined.
Maintenance
Activities
• Daily site visit to read hour meters and look over station
Appendix F
Pump Station Flow Evaluation
City of Port Orchard
Watewater Flow Recorded through Marina Pump Station
MONTHLY FLOWS
2007
DATE
STP
HIGH
LOW
CITY
PERCENT
RAIN
FLOW
FLOW
MGD
JAN
1
2.431
804175
9315003
1.10
45.1
1.14
2
4.165
804239
9325332
1.96
47.2
0.42
3
2.801
804838
9338983
1.20
42.8
0.24
4
2.189
804894
9350401
0.87
39.7
0.32
5
3.596
804957
9358452
1.80
50.2
2.08
6
2.877
805377
9372296
1.44
50.0
0.54
7
3.961
805578
9384670
1.58
39.8
0.84
8
2.377
805836
9397853
0.98
41.2
0.02
9
2.083
805901
9406996
0.94
45.2
0.32
10
1.836
805925
9416174
0.83
45.4
0.50
11
1.809
805938
9424375
0.78
43.4
0.00
12
1.605
805963
9431968
0.75
46.9
0.00
13
1.680
806002
9439104
0.70
41.6
0.00
14
1.635
806027
9445849
0.76
46.4
0.00
JAN
15
1.718
806050
9453202
0.73
42.4
0.24
16
1.515
806072
9460260
0.70
45.9
0.00
17
1.637
806095
9466987
0.76
46.2
0.28
18
1.612
806117
9474337
0.75
46.7
0.16
19
1.539
806140
9481641
0.72
46.9
0.23
20
1.540
806180
9488461
0.78
50.4
0.02
21
1.577
806204
9495990
0.71
44.8
0.01
22
1.527
806227
9502828
0.77
50.2
0.01
23
1.403
806237
9510387
0.88
62.4
0.00
24
1.533
806276
9518757
0.52
34.2
0.00
25
1.488
806290
9523859
0.74
49.6
0.00
26
1.443
806329
9530852
0.62
43.0
0.00
27
1.505
806368
9536664
0.73
48.3
0.00
28
1.872
806392
9543694
0.79
42.4
0.00
29
1.402
806415
9551401
0.72
51.7
0.00
30
1.622
806453
9558264
0.69
42.6
0.00
31
1.569
806483
9564866
0.66
41.9
0.00
Total
28.0
7.37
Average
0.902
DATE
STP
HIGH
LOW
CITY
PERCENT
RAIN
FLOW
FLOW
MGD
FEB
1
1.516
806518
9571089
0.75
49.4
0.00
2
1.582
806554
9578222
0.71
44.8
0.00
3
1.541
806579
9585054
0.74
47.9
0.06
4
1.580
806616
9592064
0.65
41.2
0.00
5
1.519
806654
9598190
0.69
45.5
0.00
6
1.592
806691
9604725
0.70
44.2
0.00
7
1.417
806706
9611610
0.71
50.3
0.00
8
1.483
806728
9618522
0.74
49.9
0.10
9
1.397
806752
9625689
0.66
47.1
0.09
10
1.600
806776
9632027
0.81
50.9
0.40
11
1.877
806800
9639933
0.68
36.4
0.25
12
1.482
806823
9646528
0.70
46.9
0.02
13
1.446
806861
9653101
0.70
48.3
0.00
14
1.522
806899
9659711
0.71
46.9
1.00
FEB
15
1.527
806935
9666482
0.71
46.7
0.00
16
1.431
806947
9673492
0.67
46.7
0.50
17
1.573
806984
9679807
0.70
44.5
0.00
18
1.490
807018
9686465
0.68
45.8
0.18
19
1.873
807042
9693056
0.91
48.6
0.59
20
1.661
807068
9701899
0.83
50.2
0.05
21
1.518
807092
9709998
0.70
46.4
0.23
22
1.666
807118
9716777
0.65
38.8
0.00
23
1.432
807143
9722989
0.78
54.8
0.24
24
2.020
807166
9730606
0.91
44.8
0.44
25
2.029
807190
9739425
1.01
49.6
0.31
26
1.767
807214
9749253
0.70
39.7
0.04
27
1.537
807255
9755855
0.81
52.7
0.02
28
1.530
807277
9763740
0.70
46.1
0.02
Total
20.7
4.54
Avera e
1
0.740
DATE
STP
HIGH
LOW
CITY
PERCENT
RAIN
FLOW
FLOW
MGD
MAR
1
1.515
807315
9770409
0.66
43.2
0.02
2
1.345
807338
9776729
0.70
52.4
0.02
3
1.526
807362
9783538
0.75
49.0
0.24
4
1.779
807398
9790652
0.78
43.8
0.00
5
1.559
807422
9798197
0.70
45.0
0.06
6
1.601
807449
9804939
0.73
45.8
0.01
7
1.860
807484
9811921
0.83
44.5
0.24
8
2.158
807508
9819950
0.94
43.4
0.60
9
1.779
807533
9829055
0.86
48.1
0.90
10
2.143
807557
9837373
1.03
48.1
0.08
11
2.376
807583
9847413
1.32
55.5
0.72
12
2.300
807613
9860300
1.08
47.1
1.02
13
1.843
807639
9870876
0.77
42.0
0.01
14
1.714
807664
9878369
0.76
44.4
0.05
MAR
15
1.768
807693
9885682
0.76
43.0
0.00
16
1.607
807722
9892996
0.82
51.1
0.00
17
1.637
807762
9900806
0.59
36.2
0.10
18
1.851
807786
9906486
0.79
42.8
0.00
19
2.034
807809
9914170
0.80
39.6
0.74
20
1.672
807833
9921976
0.89
53.4
0.01
21
1.683
807844
9930788
0.64
38.2
0.15
22
1.690
807883
9936830
0.70
41.3
0.00
23
1.702
807908
9943558
0.76
44.5
0.68
24
2.298
807941
9950805
0.87
37.9
0.30
25
1.983
807965
9959275
0.84
42.6
0.03
26
1.897
807988
9967484
0.80
42.1
0.11
27
1.922
808012
9975225
0.73
37.9
0.19
28
1.657
808035
9982282
0.75
45.1
0.00
29
1.629
808068
9989424
0.76
46.5
0.00
30
1.605
808101
9996674
0.73
45.6
0.48
31
1.846
808126
10003750
0.72
39.2
0.02
Total
24.9
6.78
Average
0.802
DATE
STP
HIGH
LOW
CITY
PERCENT
RAIN
FLOW
FLOW
MGD
APR
1
1.710
808150
10010743
0.62
36.5
0.00
2
1.470
808173
10016762
0.69
47.0
0.08
3
1.570
808197
10023430
0.66
41.8
0.00
4
1.490
808236
10029604
0.63
42.2
0.00
5
1.480
808259
10035667
0.67
45.1
0.00
6
1.420
808293
10042009
0.63
44.3
0.00
7
1.560
808327
10047957
0.69
44.2
0.08
8
1.710
808350
10054624
0.77
45.1
0.48
9
1.560
808361
10062232
0.22
14.3
0.00
10
1.650
808384
10064226
0.37
22.6
0.00
11
1.610
808420
10067596
0.07
4.4
0.05
12
1.670
808458
10067930
2.18
130.7
0.00
13
1.610
808481
10089523
0.63
39.3
0.25
14
1.600
808518
10095479
0.70
43.7
0.00
APR
15
1.500
808543
10102224
0.75
50.1
0.02
16
1.550
808586
10109302
0.68
44.2
0.02
17
1.540
808638
10115630
0.73
47.6
0.20
18
1.510
808671
10122627
0.72
47.5
0.24
19
1.520
808708
10129435
0.75
49.3
0.00
20
1.470
808748
10136525
0.70
47.9
0.00
21
1.520
808771
10143338
0.74
49.0
0.22
22
1.690
808795
10150545
0.72
42.8
0.02
23
1.560
808830
10157428
0.70
45.1
0.20
24
1.490
808864
10164129
0.70
47.3
0.04
25
1.540
808902
10170791
0.73
47.3
0.00
26
1.560
808926
10177842
0.74
47.1
0.00
27
1.370
808949
10184966
0.67
49.2
0.02
28
1.420
808984
10191357
0.71
50.0
0.00
29
1.630
809013
10198167
0.66
40.2
0.00
30
1.530
809036
10204493
0.72
46.9
0.12
Total
21.0
2.04
Average
0.699
DATE
STP
HIGH
LOW
CITY
PERCENT
RAIN
FLOW
FLOW
MGD
MAY
1
1.507
809068
10211355
0.71
47.3
0.13
2
1.480
809103
10218127
0.71
48.0
0.50
3
1.465
809152
10224738
0.72
49.3
0.08
4
1.440
809190
10231585
0.70
48.7
0.15
5
1.517
809225
10238243
0.70
46.0
0.01
6
1.628
809248
10244997
0.71
43.8
0.00
7
1.410
809272
10251887
0.76
54.2
0.00
8
1.601
809294
10259314
0.70
43.5
0.00
9
1.473
809331
10265909
0.72
48.8
0.00
10
1.475
809369
10272723
0.74
50.0
0.00
11
1.387
809403
10279762
0.84
60.6
0.00
12
1.448
809429
10287905
0.67
45.9
0.05
13
1.582
809452
10294325
0.65
41.2
0.00
14
1.656
809484
10300527
0.74
45.0
0.00
MAY
15
1.457
809506
10307756
0.71
48.8
0.00
16
1.352
809545
10314479
0.70
51.8
0.00
17
1.507
809577
10321164
0.72
47.9
0.00
18
1.407
809615
10327999
0.73
52.2
0.24
19
1.484
809650
10334998
0.67
45.0
0.18
20
1.804
809688
10341289
0.75
41.5
0.56
21
1.580
809712
10348532
0.74
47.0
0.25
22
1.450
809724
10355833
0.70
48.4
0.00
23
1.548
809753
10362559
0.74
48.1
0.00
24
1.580
809789
10369641
0.78
49.6
0.00
25
1.415
809826
10377111
0.68
48.2
0.00
26
1.520
809865
10383545
0.69
45.7
0.00
27
1.462
809900
10390137
0.68
46.3
0.04
28
1.533
809923
10396673
0.86
56.3
0.00
29
1.489
809946
10405080
0.67
45.0
0.00
30
1.436
809970
10411542
0.70
48.6
0.00
31
1.426
810006
10418157
0.75
52.3
0.00
Total
22.4
2.19
Avera e
0.721
DATE
STP
HIGH
LOW
CITY
PERCENT
RAIN
FLOW
FLOW
MGD
J U N
1
1.422
810029
10425384
0.62
43.3
0.00
2
1.409
810066
10431171
0.79
56.2
0.00
3
1.589
810091
10438840
0.59
37.2
0.00
4
1.528
810114
10444514
0.70
45.9
0.00
5
1.407
810137
10451298
0.72
51.4
0.21
6
1.361
810182
10458082
0.70
51.5
0.00
7
1.532
810241
10464507
0.75
49.2
0.00
8
1.415
810264
10471821
0.72
51.0
0.00
9
1.546
810306
10478620
0.79
51.3
0.39
10
1.640
810346
10486155
1.15
70.0
0.00
11
1.448
810368
10497415
0.22
14.9
0.00
12
1.349
810399
10499261
0.72
53.4
0.00
13
1.538
810420
10506258
0.72
46.6
0.00
14
1.432
810451
10513114
0.73
51.1
0.00
J U N
15
1.394
810475
10520190
0.75
54.0
0.00
16
1.440
810506
10527401
0.73
50.6
0.22
17
1.554
810540
10534347
0.70
44.9
0.13
18
1.504
810552
10541205
0.72
47.9
0.00
19
1.612
810592
10548002
0.72
44.9
0.00
20
1.652
810629
10554866
0.70
42.2
0.00
21
1.569
810657
10561557
0.72
46.1
0.22
22
1.513
810682
10568541
0.68
44.7
0.00
23
1.440
810731
10574817
0.67
46.7
0.07
24
1.580
810768
10581176
0.65
40.9
0.05
25
1.416
810802
10587302
0.95
67.1
0.00
26
1.632
810828
10596549
0.48
29.3
0.00
27
1.402
810864
10600974
0.68
48.4
0.03
28
1.457
810906
10607338
0.70
48.3
0.23
29
1.614
810944
10613990
0.77
47.6
0.00
30
1.600
810971
10621401
0.71
44.2
0.00
Total
21.3
1.55
Average
0.708
DATE
STP
HIGH
LOW
CITY
PERCENT
RAIN
FLOW
FLOW
MGD
J U L
1
1.320
811010
10628087
0.71
53.5
0.00
2
1.489
811056
10634694
0.73
49.3
0.00
3
1.336
811080
10641793
0.65
48.5
0.00
4
1.395
811115
10647926
0.70
50.5
0.00
5
1.475
811138
10654735
0.70
47.6
0.00
6
1.470
811163
10661505
0.62
41.9
0.00
7
1.485
811187
10667428
0.63
42.6
0.00
8
1.438
811232
10673305
0.63
43.8
0.00
9
1.500
811266
10679259
0.64
42.4
0.00
10
1.443
811345
10684823
0.75
52.0
0.00
11
1.441
811451
10691271
0.63
43.8
0.00
12
1.362
811425
10697844
0.67
49.0
0.00
13
1.467
811458
10704193
0.63
42.7
0.00
14
1.473
811469
10710352
0.62
42.3
0.00
JUL
15
1.455
811484
10716432
0.69
47.5
0.00
16
1.435
811564
10722546
0.64
44.7
0.16
17
1.425
811595
10728648
0.70
49.1
0.10
18
1.548
811627
10735322
0.71
46.0
0.02
19
1.516
811667
10742041
0.70
46.4
0.03
20
1.527
811707
10748673
0.74
48.1
0.12
21
1.626
811742
10755674
0.75
46.2
0.60
22
1.715
811767
10762932
0.67
39.0
0.19
23
1.655
811791
10769387
0.68
41.3
0.00
24
1.496
811832
10775811
0.69
46.0
0.00
25
1.512
811877
10782239
0.69
45.8
0.00
26
1.392
811901
10788920
0.72
51.7
0.00
27
1.541
811938
10795748
0.67
43.5
0.00
28
1.468
811974
10802098
0.59
40.4
0.00
29
1.461
811987
10807892
0.72
48.9
0.00
30
1.556
812049
10814422
0.71
45.6
0.00
31
1.389
812077
10821231
0.66
47.2
0.00
Total
21.0
1.22
Average
0.679
DATE
STP
HIGH
LOW
CITY
PERCENT
RAIN
FLOW
FLOW
MGD
AUG
1
1.646
812118
10827373
0.64
38.7
0.00
2
1.397
812157
10833348
0.67
47.8
0.03
3
1.467
812186
10839741
0.63
43.2
0.00
4
1.354
812228
10845665
0.63
46.2
0.00
5
1.506
812250
10851702
0.65
43.0
0.00
6
1.429
812277
10857905
0.67
46.6
0.00
7
1.425
812317
10864163
0.67
46.8
0.03
8
1.481
812372
10870276
0.66
44.4
0.02
9
1.405
812402
10876558
0.69
48.8
0.02
10
1.392
812439
10883045
0.67
48.0
0.00
11
1.425
812468
10889435
0.60
42.1
0.00
12
1.371
812506
10895050
0.65
47.3
0.00
13
1.423
812532
10901272
0.68
47.8
0.00
14
1.272
812572
10907678
0.62
48.4
0.00
AUG
15
1.385
812601
10913549
0.68
49.3
0.00
16
1.668
812624
10920141
0.67
40.4
0.00
17
1.081
812662
10926504
0.66
61.4
0.00
18
1.425
812699
10932772
0.69
48.6
0.15
19
1.623
812721
10939482
0.65
39.8
0.28
20
1.628
812761
10945539
0.74
45.6
0.24
21
2.046
812795
10952625
0.68
33.4
0.00
22
1.466
812835
10959060
0.69
46.8
0.00
23
1.457
812873
10965537
0.72
49.2
0.00
24
1.419
812912
10972309
0.66
46.4
0.00
25
1.430
812945
10978565
0.64
45.0
0.05
26
1.386
812968
10984776
0.64
46.2
0.00
27
1.373
813015
10990708
0.67
48.9
0.00
28
1.296
813044
10997126
0.67
51.7
0.00
29
1.401
813089
11003370
0.64
45.8
0.00
30
1.463
813138
11009301
0.67
46.0
0.00
31
1.553
813169
11015718
0.67
43.4
0.00
Total
20.6
0.82
Average
0.663
DATE
STP
HIGH
LOW
CITY
PERCENT
RAIN
FLOW
FLOW
MGD
SEP
1
1.504
813208
11022069
0.67
44.5
0.00
2
1.631
813247
11028369
0.63
38.3
0.00
3
1.632
813270
11034392
0.76
46.6
0.30
4
1.559
813293
11041763
0.69
44.5
0.24
5
1.400
813332
11048312
0.57
40.6
0.00
6
1.560
813374
11053580
0.76
48.9
0.00
7
1.377
813414
11060814
0.56
40.3
0.00
8
1.500
813442
11066087
0.69
46.2
0.00
9
1.421
813510
11072330
0.75
52.6
0.00
10
1.591
813558
11079329
0.11
6.7
0.00
11
1.477
813002
11085950
1.23
83.3
0.00
12
1.775
813625
11092025
0.67
37.6
0.00
13
1.482
813655
11098392
0.72
48.4
0.00
14
1.343
813695
11105170
0.69
51.1
0.00
SEP
15
1.620
813740
11111583
0.65
40.2
0.00
16
1.789
813764
11117858
0.72
40.1
0.24
17
1.515
813796
11124718
0.72
47.8
0.04
18
1.332
813828
11131644
0.67
50.0
0.04
19
1.576
813857
11138011
0.68
42.9
0.00
20
1.390
813884
11144507
0.72
51.5
0.00
21
1.351
813907
11151438
0.59
43.5
0.23
22
1.503
813946
11156921
0.64
42.7
0.04
23
1.480
813987
11162929
0.73
49.5
0.00
24
1.495
814033
11169799
0.70
46.5
0.00
25
1.403
814062
11176460
0.66
46.8
0.00
26
1.428
814102
11182625
0.67
47.1
0.00
27
1.478
814142
11188946
0.68
45.7
0.36
28
1.440
814180
11195318
0.67
46.8
0.12
29
1.454
814208
11201784
0.87
59.8
0.52
30
2.180
814221
11210344
0.80
36.8
1.03
Total
20.64
3.16
Average
0.688
DATE
STP
HIGH
LOW
CITY
PERCENT
RAIN
FLOW
FLOW
MGD
OCT
1
1.702
814244
11218129
0.82
48.4
0.32
2
1.831
814268
11226123
0.84
45.8
0.29
3
1.708
814295
11234243
0.72
42.3
0.15
4
1.641
814317
11241246
0.76
46.3
0.50
5
1.780
814340
11248617
0.66
36.8
0.00
6
2.065
814379
11254778
0.74
35.7
0.06
7
1.873
814418
11261758
0.70
37.5
0.32
8
1.841
814457
11268393
0.74
40.4
0.36
9
1.644
814480
11275592
0.70
42.7
0.24
10
1.613
814518
11282226
0.73
45.1
0.04
11
1.582
814550
11289178
0.70
44.3
0.02
12
1.437
814590
11295787
0.62
43.2
0.00
13
1.429
814637
11301519
0.62
43.5
0.00
14
1.434
814675
11307350
0.65
45.3
0.00
OCT
15
1.600
814732
11313282
0.60
37.3
0.14
16
1.470
814741
11319160
0.58
39.3
0.19
17
1.525
814782
11324520
0.66
43.5
0.56
18
1.582
814830
11330674
0.69
43.7
0.35
19
2.270
814857
11337316
0.97
42.6
0.00
20
2.013
814883
11346733
0.76
37.6
0.04
21
1.949
814897
11354164
0.78
40.1
0.12
22
1.704
814921
11361746
0.73
43.1
0.00
23
1.635
814945
11368850
0.70
42.8
0.00
24
1.726
814985
11375451
0.74
42.8
0.25
25
1.680
815024
11382454
0.71
42.5
0.02
26
1.526
815047
11389363
0.66
43.5
0.00
27
1.604
815069
11395784
0.71
44.0
0.00
28
1.805
815107
11402457
0.71
39.5
0.00
29
1.667
815146
11409199
0.84
50.4
0.00
30
1.618
815186
11417203
0.65
39.9
0.00
31
1.614
815224
11423281
0.69
42.8
0.00
Total
22.19
3.97
Average
0.716
DATE
STP
HIGH
LOW
CITY
PERCENT
RAIN
FLOW
FLOW
MGD
NOV
1
1.510
815264
11429785
0.72
47.5
0.00
2
1.660
815302
11436575
0.69
41.4
0.00
3
1.590
815340
11443068
0.68
42.8
0.01
4
1.840
815362
11449651
0.71
38.6
0.00
5
1.680
815375
11456623
0.69
41.0
0.00
6
1.480
815407
11463193
0.69
46.4
0.05
7
1.560
815445
11469683
0.73
46.8
0.05
8
1.630
815483
11476607
0.68
41.5
0.14
9
1.450
815506
11483148
0.65
44.9
0.25
10
1.530
815544
11489280
0.68
44.2
0.08
11
1.750
815566
11495827
0.86
49.1
0.96
12
2.190
815604
11504042
1.05
48.1
0.48
13
1.650
815630
11514311
0.68
41.1
0.00
14
1.620
815669
11520700
0.80
49.3
0.35
NOV
15
3.070
815693
11528448
1.39
45.1
1.68
16
1.930
815762
11541615
0.89
46.0
0.02
17
2.010
815804
11550081
0.81
40.1
0.34
18
1.860
815829
11557896
0.75
40.4
0.00
19
1.690
815853
11565177
0.77
45.4
0.08
20
1.830
815894
11572435
0.74
40.4
0.00
21
1.620
815917
11579590
0.70
43.1
0.00
22
1.650
815957
11586177
0.74
45.1
0.00
23
1.620
815981
11593379
0.70
43.0
0.00
24
1.560
816004
11600113
0.72
46.4
0.00
25
1.820
816026
11607128
0.71
38.9
0.00
26
1.570
816065
11613820
0.76
48.2
0.43
27
1.520
816104
11620995
0.69
45.3
0.00
28
1.660
816115
11627765
0.73
44.1
0.25
29
1.610
816153
11634707
0.74
45.8
0.08
30
1.550
816191
11641693
0.63
40.8
0.00
Total
22.75
5.25
Average
0.758
DATE
STP
HIGH
LOW
CITY
PERCENT
RAIN
FLOW
FLOW
MGD
DEC
1
1.915
816229
11647632
0.94
48.9
0.84
2
4.593
816253
11656747
3.37
73.4
5.15
3
8.755
818542
11667571
3.84
43.8
3.14
4
3.876
821923
11672142
1.76
45.3
0.14
5
2.472
822266
11686286
1.03
41.5
0.05
6
2.167
822293
11696272
0.88
40.7
0.03
7
1.961
822317
11704854
0.85
43.4
0.00
8
1.782
822341
11713128
0.71
40.0
0.00
9
1.999
822365
11720014
0.72
36.0
0.00
10
1.827
822388
11726982
0.77
42.2
0.00
11
1.671
822411
11734465
0.73
43.5
0.00
12
1.952
822448
11741366
0.80
41.1
0.00
13
1.824
822484
11749030
0.66
36.2
0.05
14
1.626
822513
11755340
0.78
48.0
0.50
DEC
15
2.290
822540
11762882
0.94
40.9
0.78
16
2.188
822565
11772006
0.96
44.0
0.62
17
2.093
822591
11781376
0.95
45.2
0.17
18
2.457
822618
11790565
1.14
46.2
0.78
19
2.539
822644
11801660
1.26
49.7
0.58
20
2.291
822669
11814025
0.92
40.0
0.02
21
1.890
822693
11822952
0.81
43.0
0.30
22
2.124
822718
11830829
0.96
45.3
0.24
23
2.540
822743
11840199
1.16
45.8
0.48
24
1.851
822768
11851580
0.84
45.6
0.10
25
1.845
822793
11859773
0.86
46.6
0.21
26
2.113
822819
11868115
0.79
37.6
0.42
27
2.438
822844
11875800
1.02
41.7
0.00
28
2.102
822870
11885699
0.96
45.7
0.10
29
1.957
822897
11895038
0.85
43.6
0.23
30
1.942
822921
11903336
0.70
35.9
0.00
31
1.883
822947
11910045
0.75
39.7
0.00
822971
11917278
Total
33.71
14.93
Average
1.087
An Total
9.164
53.82
An Avg
0.764
Appendix G
Trunk Sewer Capacities
00
O
Q
00
N
V
^m
CL
U
O
.5
0o
Lo
LO
'It
aUe
CD
co
Ln
CV
d t
Q a
co
co
N
00
+
LL )
M
o0
00
00
00
N
(0
00
LO
d=
r
r
N
N
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
3
co
r
CD
�t
m
LO
m I-
CD r
N
Lf) O
f�
N
Ln
00
O
a) LC) 00
"t r r
N a)
N 't
co
r-
O co
O f-
O
Lf)
S
Lf)
O
Ln
LO
N
O
N
Lo
f-
-,T M
N
M co
It
r
'tt M
r
CO O r
co
r
00
00
=
O
O
O
N N
CD
O W
N
O
O O r
0 I,
r-
O O P
r
N
O
d
a
0
U-
0
0
0 0
0
Ln LO
LO 0
0
0 U')0 0 ) LO O
LO 0
0
0 0 0 0 0
U')p
)
O
CD
It
Y
6
6
LC) 6
4
4 M
4 4
6
M LC) 4444
4
4
666 6 6 4
cM
L6
M
4
N
d
3a
O o
�a
L
O
I-
O
m co
LO L(�
-
O 11
O I- ti
0) p ti
LO CD N p
O M
O
r p
p Lf) O CO O
I) O p
CD lC) LC) Cfl
m
p
O
f�
CD
N
N
CA
0o
V
O
N
d0 N
CV
N O N
cY 00
Lf )
Lo
co
r m 0
r 0 O O
r Lo Cfl O C� (` �
N r
oo �
M
Ln r r Cn M
M M Nco f�
O coM I� M
N N p L(j
p � CV
� CD ol CA
p
CD
M
CO
00
3
N
6�
r
U')
r CO
LO
r--
M�'t
c0 � O
LO O
r
rn O
o0 r' M LO O LO
M co
(vj
O
(rj
O M 00 r O
-t a CA 00
co N O
r
CD
Cn
y
++
M
O
r
r
r CD
M
Lf)
CD
r co U')
M
r N r co Cv)
M
d7 _
r- _
O f`
I� O N r r
C3� r co_M
O CO
00 r N
CD
-
O
r
(C >
N
N
r
r
r
r r
r
M
r
d
d
_O
CL
M
LO
LO
m
U')
LO
U') LO LO LO LO
LO
LO LO LO LO
M LO M r04
LO M LO
It
00
W
a
c7
a
O
O
Q
CD
CD
(D
Lfl
(D
(D
(D Cfl CD CD CD
CD
CD CD CD CD
(D (.0(0
CD CD CD
a
c7
m
�4
(D
M
O
(D
co � N
M
I- - � � M �
N
00 (D co
N OLC) O
r- CO m
LO
_O
N Q
00
r
p
�
N
� oc N
CO N
p
N
'T CM LO O O r 00
N r CD LO oc
N
�
r CM 0) 00
LO
LO CD O CM 00
�
0)
M CV O CD
M
(A
c E
CV
CA
M W
O
m
C
O
+. ++
(0
N
LO
N
Cv)
LO CD r
Ln LO r
N
N
O N co CD
O N co r� Lfl LC)
fl-
r
00
CM LC) LC) LO
O CD
r L() r r
LC) U,) M
M It (M O
N
C
r
Lo
M
O
co
CA
C) M co
O
O CO r r 00 r co
r N r
r
p CO r CD
LO
0 CD 0 Lo
N CV Lo -t
O
i Q
N
r M Ln
r
r r C"
r
r N(D
M r r
Z
O
Oa
U
c
C
CIJ [� Zi
Q
Q
L!7
CD
0
00
r
r
O
r
N M
M r 026 r
I�
LO CD
N 6� r r
fl- M
r r r
O O r
r N N
m
r r
a. N
O
N
LO
W O
LL
2$
U
N(D
cn O
r
V -ffiY
CL
0 (6
N O
(a
Y
U)
N
r
0
o
0
o
06
in
06
06 o
V C7 o
c
o
c (oi � O
O—
E o
o6 -0 o
0 0
0 0
o
06
°�
o
Q�ZZ�(0UO
W�a
m
wZZ
-r-
> U,
U=
0
(n
Y�
N
Z
r
N
�
N
U
U
m
Q
7
Q
m
0
W
LL
(DcY
H
V
U
U
�
v�
00
p
7
a+
m
CL
m
U
LO
N
O
N
E a
00 �
M
co�
CD
Ue
l! )
M
Ln
(NO
o0
M
M
a
Ln
M
p
N
Q
00
00
N
00
+
1n
00
00
00
00
00
N
Ln
CD
00
Ln
a =
r
N
N
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
3
N
r
00
M
O
Ln
Ln CD
CD M
N
N
O O
f- O
CD
r
Il
Ln
r LC) O
CD r fl-
00 N
CD fl-
Ln
Nt
O It U')
CS) fl- Nt
N
N
Ln
�
00
CA
O
LC)
N
rl-
O
N
It
CD
r 0
CD
M r
It
It
-It r co
CY) O
CS)
Ln O Co
00
fl-
Ln
N
00
=
G
O
O
N N
CA
O 00
N
O
O O r
0 Cfl
Cfl
O O O
O.
N
co
d
a
0
0
�
00
000Ln
LO
LO 00
00Ln Ln0
Ln00000000
Ln
000
It
�
Ln
LO
LO Lr)
m
M
M
CV
O
d
3a
on
LL a
L
CD
N
w
00 CD
M
r
Cfl
00 O
p 00 M
r`
Ln r co
Ln O N O
t
O Ln
Ln
00
Ln Ln
� O O M
O N
Cn co O O ti
0 f� r M
O
N
0)
O
O
O
�
r
Lo
r
0')
00 O
r r
Ln
OO N
N 4
N CO
1 Ln 6)
O
M
r ) p O O�
r CO LC) O N � LC)
p O
�
r
N O Cfl p r
M � � � �
Cfl co f� oc Cfl
N r "t �
O r I�
3 O Ln Cr
Cfl
O
00
3 Q
N
�
O
r- ti
Lf)
CD
N r
(D N 00
00 Ln M ClN Lo O
N
't
r
CO
r
Cl M C0 - 4 Cfl
CD
Cfl O 4 p�
� N It 'ItN
LO
CO0)
00C\l
M M
M CO
0)~
N co
M M
00
Cfl
� Lo r r Cfl
, 0) cv
N Ln I�
Ln
M
U)
N
N
N
r
r
r
r r
r
N
r
�
CO Q
d1
d
_O
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
It
Ln
Ln
It�
Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln
It It� It
Ln
It
Ln Ln Ln Ln
It
Ln Ln Ln N
Ln Ln Ln
N
Wom
�t
t
't
I '
I r
I �
�
a
a
t7
c�
w
a
O
O
m
(.0
(.0
m
m
(.0
m cD cfl co cD
cfl
co cD co co
(.0 (.0 (.0
(.0 (.0 (.0
Q
a
t7
m
�'
O
CD
00
co
O
CD
N
CM � N
M
0)
fl- Mr � � M �
Ln CA OC\l
N
00 O co
p
N O� O
O O
� CO Ln
O
Ln
a
r
p
�
It
00 N
M
N
M
N r Cfl Ln 00
�
r LO 00
M a0
t
m
M N p
M
0)
r
CV
N CM
r r N
C)
'y W
m
m C
O
C ++
cc)
O
r
0')
r
N
It
LO p�
Ln fl- co
(.0
p
CD co 0)
CD O � r r Ln ti
�
M
N GM Ln Ln
O (fl
f-- O r O
CO M CD
M 0')LO
Ln r r Co
00 P-
C
l!)
O
M
0)N
p r r
r
O� N CD r
N
M
� CD CD
Cfl Ln r r
t CO
M Ln
r N
M r-
O
Z
Q
C\
r M Ln
r
� r � M
r CV
� CV
i O
�a
0
U
=
Z
Q
Q
N't
O
Lo
CD
ao
O
C) N M
06 4 4 �
N d) LO Cfl
� r
ti 00 r
� � �
M O
r N N
�
m
0
r
Ecl)
f° a
a)
a)
L
CD -
d
W
2
C
a)
O
d CLO
a) a)
r
Y
U)
IL —
O
O
�Oi
Y
(7
a)
C
N
O
O
02
+$
0i
aO
Ha)
7OOO
=
C O
i O
O�
06 -0pO
O o
O
cn
ZZ�
m
0�0Lu
U
ZZ
O
0ce
:
v)
Z
ZW
Q
U
a)
r
N
U)
Y
Y
U
U
Q
3Q00
U)�
�p
W
11(D
L
H
U
U
U0
CO
a
City of Port Orchard 16-Oct-08
Trunk Sewer Capacities Revised SKIA Flows in 2025
UpStream
Contributing Basins
Wastewater Flow
Pipe
Pump
Trunk Basins/PS
Basin Popula Employ
GPD/Cap GPD/Employ Avg GPD Peak Pk Hr MGE
inch
GPM
A None
4 508 186
67 45
42,406
5.0
0.212
8
B None
5 611 1,035
67 45
87,512
5.0
0.438
8
Coast PS 4 & 5
129,918
0.650
12
541
C-east Coast PS
6 2,319 2,707
67 45
277,188
5.0
2.165
C-e total
407,106
5.0
2.036
18
C-west D & F
none
1,358,713
4.0
5.435
24
D E & H
8 942 426
67 45
82,284
4.5
0.370
D Total
1,267,406
3.5
4.436
12+18
E Albertson
11 1,955 343
67 45
146,420
4.5
G
3,179 2,879
342,548
E Total
5,134 3,222
488,968
4.0
2.416
15
F None
10 11166 293
67 45
91,307
5.0
0.457
18
G None
3 1,000 247
67 45
78,115
12 240 1,318
67 45
75,390
Albert PS
3&12 1,240 1,565
153,505
3.0
0.461
384
Bravo Terr
14-S 211 197
67 45
23,002
5.0
0.115
96
14-N 1,613 604
67 45
135,251
4.5
13 115 513
67 45
30,790
4.5
G Total
3,179 2,879
342,548
4.0
1.370
18
H McCorm 1
7 937 422
67 45
81,769
4.5
0.368
H Total
696,154
4.0
2.785
18
McCorm 1 1
614,385
4.0
2.458
18
2,048
1 J & K
2 642 18
67 45
43,824
5.0
9 513 536
67 45
58,491
5.0
15 165 9
67 45
11,460
5.0
1 subtotal
113,775
5.0
0.569
Ridge PS
16 165 83
67 45
14,790
5.0
0.074
62
1 Totals
614,385
4.0
2.458
18
J None
17 387 452
67 45
46,269
18 599 0
67 45
40,133
1 1,410 0
67 45
94,470
SKIA 0 9,350
0 128
150,000
J Totals
2,396 9,802
330,872
3.5
1.158
12
K
19 385 37
67 45
27,460
20 771 28
67 45
52,917
21 1,113 0
67 45
74,571
K Totals
2,269 65
154,948
5.0
0.775
15
McCorm 2 J & K
485,820
3.0
1 1.457
16
1,215
Marina C-east & west
1,765,819
4.0
7.063
18
5,886
SKIA None
SKIA None 9,350
0 128
150,000
2.4
0.360
15
300
Build -out Flows with Revised SKIA Flow
UpStream
Contributing Basins
Wastewater Flow
Pipe
Pump
Trunk Basins/PS
Basin Popula Employ
GPD/Cap GPD/Employ Avg GPD Peak Pk Hr MGC
inch
GPM
B None
5 935 1,035
67 45
109,220
5.0
0.546
8
Coast PS 4 & 5
109,220
0.546
12
455
C-east Coast PS
6 2,832 2,707
67 45
311,559
5.0
2.213
C-e total
420,779
5.0
2.104
18
C-west D & F
none
1,506,113
4.0
6.024
24
D E & H
8 957 426
67 45
83,289
4.5
0.375
D Total
1,424,454
3.5
4.986
12+18
E Albertson
11 1,955 343
67 45
146,420
4.5
G
3,356 2,879
354,407
E Total
5,311 3,222
500,827
4.0
2.452
15
F None
10 1,022 293
67 45
81,659
5.0
0.408
18
G None
3 1,000 247
67 45
78,115
12 182 1,318
67 45
71,504
Albertson PS
3&12 1,182 1,565
149,619
3.0
0.449
374
Bravo Terrace
14-S 211 197
67 45
23,002
5.0
0.115
96
14-N 1,848 604
67 45
150,996
4.5
13 115 513
67 45
30,790
4.5
G Total
3,356 2,879
354,407
4.0
1.418
18
H McCormick 1
7 1,117 422
67 45
93,829
4.5
0.422
H Total
840,338
4.0
3.361
18
AcCormick 1
746,509
4.0
2.986
18
2,488
1 J & K
2 1,038 18
67 45
70,356
5.0
9 585 536
67 45
63,315
5.0
15 415 9
67 45
28,210
5.0
1 subtotal
161,881
5.0
0.809
Ridge PS
16 165 83
67 45
14,790
5.0
0.074
62
1 Totals
746,509
4.0
2.986
18
J None
17 401 452
67 45
47,207
18 705 0
67 45
47,235
1 1,410 0
67 45
94,470
SKIA 0 9,350
0 128
150,000
J Totals
2,516 9,802
338,912
3.5
1.186
12
K
19 623 37
67 45
43,406
20 1,245 28
67 45
84,675
21 1,535 0
67 45
102,845
K Totals
3,403 65
230,926
5.0
1.155
15
AcCormick ; J & K
569,838
3.0
1.710
16
1,425
Marina C-east & west
1,926,892
4.0
7.708
18
6,423
SKIA None
SKIA None 9,350
0 128
150,000
2.4
0.360
15
300
Appendix H
Capital Cost Estimation Spreadsheets
City of Port Orchard
Capital Improvement Projects
Cost Estimate CIP
Gravity Trunk Sewer G
Item
No.
Item Description
Unit
Quantity
Unit
Price
Amount
1
Mobilization
LS
1
$ 149,796
$ 149,796
2
Traffic Control Labor and Equipment
LS
1
$ 35,000
$ 35,000
3
Dewatering
LS
1
$ 35,000
$ 35,000
4
Sheeting, Shoring and Bracing
LS
7000
$ 1
$ 7,000
5
Sawcutting Pavement
LF
14000
$ 4
$ 56,000
6
Pavement Removal
SY
4667
$ 4
$ 18,667
7
Temporary Sewer Bypass
LS
0
$ 10,000
$ -
8
8-inch Sanitary Sewer
LF
0
$ 80
$ -
9
10-inch Sanitary Sewer
LF
0
$ 90
$ -
10
12-inch Sanitary Sewer
LF
0
$ 100
$ -
11
15-inch Sanitary Sewer
LF
7000
$ 110
$ 770,000
12
48-inch Dia Manhole, 0' to 8' deep
EA
23
$ 4,000
$ 92,000
13
48-inch Dia Manhole, extra depth
VF
23
$ 300
$ 6,900
14
Lateral Connection, 6-inch PVC
EA
0
$ 1,500
$ -
15
Import Trench Backfill
TN
5200
$ 20
$ 103,992
16
Crushed Surfacing, Base Course
TN
1970
$ 25
$ 49,259
17
Crushed Surfacing, Top Course
TN
985
$ 25
$ 24,630
18
HMA Trench Patch, CL 1/2, PG 58-22
TN
1089
$ 150
$ 163,333
19
Restoration
LS
1
$ 68,089
$ 68,089
20
Cleanup and Testing
LS
1
$ 68,089
$ 68,089
Subtotal
40% Contingency
Subtotal
8.6% State Sales Tax
Estimated Total Construction Costs
PROJECT ALLIED COSTS
Engineering Design, Survey, Geotechnical and Permits
Construction Services
District Project Administration
Legal
Subtotal Project Allied Costs
$ 1,647,755
$ 659,102
$ 2,306,856
$ 198,390
$ 2,505,246
$ 300,630
$ 175,367
$ 50,105
$ 25,052
$ 551,154
Total Estimated Project Costs $ 3,056,400
S:\Projects\Port Orchard\Sewer Plan\Appendices\H-Cost Estimates
City of Port Orchard
Capital Improvement Projects
Cost Estimate CIP
Gravity Trunk Sewer H
Item
No.
Item Description
Unit
Quantity
Unit
Price
Amount
1
Mobilization
LS
1
$ 51,413
$ 51,413
2
Traffic Control Labor and Equipment
LS
1
$ 12,000
$ 12,000
3
Dewatering
LS
1
$ 12,000
$ 12,000
4
Sheeting, Shoring and Bracing
LS
2400
$1
$ 2,400
5
Sawcutting Pavement
LF
4800
$ 4
$ 19,200
6
Pavement Removal
SY
1600
$ 4
$ 6,400
7
Temporary Sewer Bypass
LS
0
$ 10,000
$ -
8
8-inch Sanitary Sewer
LF
0
$ 80
$ -
9
10-inch Sanitary Sewer
LF
0
$ 90
$ -
10
12-inch Sanitary Sewer
LF
0
$ 100
$ -
11
15-inch Sanitary Sewer
LF
2400
$ 110
$ 264,000
12
48-inch Dia Manhole, 0' to 8' deep
EA
8
$ 4,000
$ 32,000
13
48-inch Dia Manhole, extra depth
VF
8
$ 300
$ 2,400
14
Lateral Connection, 6-inch PVC
EA
0
$ 1,500
$ -
15
Import Trench Backfill
TN
1783
$ 20
$ 35,654
16
Crushed Surfacing, Base Course
TN
676
$ 25
$ 16,889
17
Crushed Surfacing, Top Course
TN
338
$ 25
$ 8,444
18
HMA Trench Patch, CL 1/2, PG 58-22
TN
373
$ 150
$ 56,000
19
Restoration
LS
1
$ 23,369
$ 23,369
20
Cleanup and Testing
LS
1
$ 23,369
$ 23,369
Subtotal $ 565,539
40% Contingency $ 226,216
Subtotal $ 791,755
8.6% State Sales Tax $ 68,091
Estimated Total Construction Costs $ 859,846
PROJECT ALLIED COSTS
Engineering Design, Survey, Geotechnical and Permits $ 103,181
Construction Services $ 60,189
District Project Administration $ 17,197
Legal $ 8,598
Subtotal Project Allied Costs $ 189,166
Total Estimated Project Costs $ 1,049,012
S:\Projects\Port Orchard\Sewer Plan\Appendices\H-Cost Estimates
City of Port Orchard
Capital Improvement Projects
Cost Estimate CIP
Force Main E
Item
No.
Item Description
Unit
Quantity
Unit
Price
Amount
1
Mobilization
LS
1
$ 32,782
$ 32,782
2
Traffic Control Labor and Equipment
LS
1
$ 12,500
$ 12,500
3
Dewatering
LS
1
$ 2,500
$ 2,500
4
Sheeting, Shoring and Bracing
LS
2500
$1
$ 2,500
5
Sawcutting Pavement
LF
5000
$ 4
$ 20,000
6
Pavement Removal
SY
494
$ 4
$ 1,975
7
Temporary Sewer Bypass
LS
0
$ 10,000
$ -
8
8-inch Sanitary Sewer
LF
$ 80
$ -
9
10-inch Sanitary Sewer
LF
$ 90
$ -
10
12-inch Sanitary Sewer
LF
$ 100
$ -
11
12-inch Force Main
LF
2500
$ 60
$ 150,000
12
48-inch Dia Manhole, 0' to 8' deep
EA
0
$ 4,000
$ -
13
48-inch Dia Manhole, extra depth
VF
0
$ 300
$ -
14
Lateral Connection, 6-inch PVC
EA
0
$ 1,500
$ -
15
Import Trench Backfill
TN
1662
$ 20
$ 33,230
16
Crushed Surfacing, Base Course
TN
626
$ 25
$ 15,638
17
Crushed Surfacing, Top Course
TN
313
$ 25
$ 7,819
18
HMA Trench Patch, CL 1/2, PG 58-22
TN
346
$ 150
$ 51,852
19
Restoration
LS
1
$ 14,901
$ 14,901
20
Cleanup and Testing
LS
1
$ 14,901
$ 14,901
Subtotal $ 360,597
40% Contingency $ 144,239
Subtotal $ 504,836
8.6% State Sales Tax $ 43,416
Estimated Total Construction Costs $ 548,252
PROJECT ALLIED COSTS
Engineering Design, Survey, Geotechnical and Permits $ 65,790
Construction Services $ 38,378
District Project Administration $ 10,965
Legal $ 5,483
Subtotal Project Allied Costs $ 120,616
Total Estimated Project Costs $ 668,868
S:\Projects\Port Orchard\Sewer Plan\Appendices\H-Cost Estimates
City of Port Orchard
Capital Improvement Projects
Cost Estimate CIP
Force Main South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA)
Item
No.
Item Description
Unit
Quantity
Unit
Price
Amount
1
Mobilization
LS
1
$ 88,126
$ 88,126
2
Traffic Control Labor and Equipment
LS
1
$ 20,000
$ 20,000
3
Dewatering
LS
1
$ 13,000
$ 13,000
4
Sheeting, Shoring and Bracing
LS
13000
$1
$ 13,000
5
Sawcutting Pavement
LF
8000
$ 4
$ 32,000
6
Pavement Removal
SY
2370
$ 4
$ 9,481
7
Temporary Sewer Bypass
LS
0
$ 10,000
$ -
8
8-inch Sanitary Sewer
LF
$ 80
$ -
9
10-inch Sanitary Sewer
LF
$ 90
$ -
10
12-inch Sanitary Sewer
LF
$ 100
$ -
11
8-inch Force Main - In Road
LF
4000
$ 45
$ 180,000
12
8-inch Force Main - X Country
LF
9000
$ 40
$ 360,000
13
48-inch Dia Manhole, 0' to 8' deep
EA
0
$ 4,000
$ -
14
48-inch Dia Manhole, extra depth
VF
0
$ 300
$ -
15
Lateral Connection, 6-inch PVC
EA
0
$ 1,500
$ -
16
Import Trench Backfill
TN
2658
$ 20
$ 53,169
17
Crushed Surfacing, Base Course
TN
1001
$ 25
$ 25,021
18
Crushed Surfacing, Top Course
TN
500
$ 25
$ 12,510
19
HMA Trench Patch, CL 1/2, PG 58-22
TN
553
$ 150
$ 82,963
20
Restoration
LS
1
$ 40,057
$ 40,057
21
Cleanup and Testing
LS
1
$ 40,057
$ 40,057
Subtotal
40% Contingency
Subtotal
8.6% State Sales Tax
Estimated Total Construction Costs
PROJECT ALLIED COSTS
Engineering Design, Survey, Geotechnical and Permits
Construction Services
District Project Administration
Legal
Subtotal Project Allied Costs
$ 969,384
$ 387,754
$ 1,357,138
$ 116,714
$ 1,473,852
$ 176,862
$ 103,170
$ 29,477
$ 14,739
$ 324,247
Total Estimated Project Costs $ 1,798,099
S:\Projects\Port Orchard\Sewer Plan\Appendices\H-Cost Estimates
City of Port Orchard
Capital Improvement Projects
Cost Estimate CIP
Marina Pump Station 2010 Upgrade - Replace Large Pumps
Item Description
No.
Unit
Quantity
Unit
Price
Amount
1
Mobilization
LS
1
$ 103,860
$ 103,860
2
Traffic Control Labor and Equipment
LS
1
$ 2,500
$ 2,500
3
Temporary Flow Bypass
Demolition of Mechanical - Remove Existing Pumps
and Valves
Demolition of Electrical
Cross Connection Control
Replace Valves
8" Check Valve
8" Plug Valve
LS
1
$ 5,000
$ 5,000
4
LS
1
$ 5,000
$ 5,000
5
LS
1
$ 10,000
$ 10,000
LS
1
$ 2,500
$ 2,500
6
LS
1
$ 52,600
$ 52,600
2
$ 2,025
5
$ 1,350
14" Check Valve
2
$ 6,600
14" Plug Valve
4
$ 4,650
18" Cut In Valve
1
$ 10,000
18" Plug Valve
0
$ 6,000
7
Replace Louvers
9' x 12'
LS
1
$ 9,000
$ 9,000
LS
1
$ 5,000
9' x 8'
LS
1
$ 4,000
8
Pumps 4000 gpm x 200 HP x 140 feet TDH
LS
1
$ 476,000
$ 476,000
Level Sensing System
1
9
Drywell Repair
LS
1
$ 14,000
$ 14,000
Ventilation
1
$ 10,000
Lighting
1
$ 2,000
Heater
1
$ 2,000
10
Control Building Repair
LS
1
$ 4,000
$ 4,000
Lighting
1
$ 2,000
Heater
1
$ 2,000
11
Electrical
LS
1
$ 100,000
$ 100,000
12
600 KW Generator and ATS
LS
1
$ 175,000
$ 175,000
13
Seawall Repair
LS
1
$ 180,000
$ 180,000
13
Restoration
LS
1
$ 3,000
$ 3,000
14
Cleanup and Testing
LS
1
$ 2,000
$ 2,000
Subtotal
$
1,144,460
40% Contingency
$
457,784
Subtotal
$
1,602,244
8.6% State Sales Tax
$
137,793
Estimated Total Construction Costs
$
1,740,037
PROJECT ALLIED COSTS
Engineering Design, Survey, Geotechnical and Permits
$
181,603
Construction Services
$
121,803
District Project Administration
$
34,801
Legal
$
17,400
Subtotal Project Allied Costs
$
355,607
Total Estimated Project Costs
$
2,095,644
SAProjects\Port Orchard\Sewer Plan\Appendices\H-Cost Estimates
City of Port Orchard
Capital Improvement Projects
Cost Estimate CIP
Marina Pump Station 2020 Upgrade - Replace Small Pumps
Item Description
No.
Unit
Quantity
Unit
Price
Amount
1
Mobilization
LS
1
$ 17,900
$ 17,900
2
Traffic Control Labor and Equipment
LS
1
$ 1,000
$ 1,000
3
Temporary Flow Bypass
LS
1
$ 5,000
$ 5,000
4
Demolition of Electrical
LS
1
$ 5,000
$ 5,000
5
Pumps 1500 gpm x 60 HP
LS
1
$ 147,000
$ 147,000
6
Electrical
LS
1
$ 20,000
$ 20,000
7
Restoration
LS
1
$ 1,000
$ 1,000
8
Cleanup and Testing
LS
1
$ 1,000
$ 1,000
Subtotal $ 197,900
40% Contingency $ 79,160
Subtotal $ 277,060
8.6% State Sales Tax $ 23,827
Estimated Total Construction Costs
$
300,887
PROJECT ALLIED COSTS
Engineering Design, Survey, Geotechnical and Permits
$
27,080
Construction Services
$
21,062
District Project Administration
$
6,018
Legal
$
3,009
Subtotal Project Allied Costs
$
57,169
Total Estimated Project Costs $ 358,056
SAProjects\Port Orchard\Sewer Plan\Appendices\H-Cost Estimates
City of Port Orchard
Capital Improvement Projects
Cost Estimate CIP
McCormick Woods Number 1
Item Description
No.
Unit
Quantity
Unit
Price
Amount
1
Mobilization
LS
1
$ 40,914
$ 40,914
2
Traffic Control Labor and Equipment
LS
1
$ -
$ -
3
Temporary Flow Bypass
LS
1
$ 20,000
$ 20,000
4
Demolition of Mechanical
LS
1
$ 10,000
$ 10,000
5
Demolition of Electrical
Bypass Connection Vault
Replace Valves
LS
1
$ 4,000
$ 4,000
LS
1
$ 40,000
$ 40,000
6
LS
1
$ 10,800
$ 10,800
10" Check Valve
2
$ 3,150
10" Plug Valve
2
$ 2,250
16" Plug Valve
0
$ 5,250
7
Replace Piping
8" Discharge Piping
LS
1
$ 19,376
$ 19,376
30
$ 88
8" Elbow (FLxFL)
2
$ 686
8" x 10" Reducers (FLxFL)
2
$ 1,182
10" Discharge Piping
40
$ 102
10" Elbow (FLxFL)
2
$ 1,116
10"x16" Cross w/ 16" Blind (FLxFL)
1
$ 6,688
8
Pumps 2000 gpm x 120 HP x 140 feet TDH
LS
1
$ 165,200
$ 165,200
Discharge Elbows
2
Rails
2
Level Sensing System
1
9
Wetwell Repair
LS
1
$ 9,816
$ 9,816
Wet well lid 12' diameter
(3) 3'x3' Aluminum Access Hatch H-20
10
Valve Vault Repair
LS
1
$ 7,452
$ 7,452
Valve vault lid 10' diameter
(3) 3'x3' Aluminum Access Hatch H-20
Ladder
11
Isolation Vault Repair
LS
0
$ 2,643
$ -
Isolation valve vault lid 6' Diameter
3'x4' Aluminum Access Hatch H-20
Ladder
12
Electrical
LS
1
$ 25,000
$ 25,000
13
250 KW Generator and ATS
LS
1
$ 87,500
$ 87,500
14
Odor and Corrosion Control using existing structure
LS
1
$ 5,500
$ 5,500
15
Restoration
LS
1
$ 2,500
$ 2,500
16
Cleanup and Testing
LS
1
$ 2,000
$ 2,000
Subtotal $ 450,058
40% Contingency $ 180,023
Subtotal $ 630,081
8.6% State Sales Tax $ 54,187
Estimated Total Construction Costs $ 684,268
PROJECT ALLIED COSTS
Engineering Design, Survey, Geotechnical and Permits $ 61,584
Construction Services $ 47,899
District Project Administration $ 13,685
Legal $ 6,843
Subtotal Project Allied Costs $ 130,011
Total Estimated Project Costs $ 814,278
City of Port Orchard
Capital Improvement Projects
Cost Estimate CIP
McCormick Woods Number 2
Item Description
No.
Unit
Quantity
Unit
Price
Amount
1
Mobilization
LS
1
$ 37,199
$ 37,199
2
Traffic Control Labor and Equipment
LS
1
$ -
$ -
3
Temporary Flow Bypass
LS
1
$ 20,000
$ 20,000
4
Demolition of Mechanical
LS
1
$ 10,000
$ 10,000
5
Demolition of Electrical
Bypass Connection Vault
Replace Valves
LS
1
$ 4,000
$ 4,000
LS
1
$ 40,000
$ 40,000
6
LS
1
$ 10,800
$ 10,800
10" Check Valve
2
$ 3,150
10" Plug Valve
2
$ 2,250
16" Plug Valve
0
$ 5,250
7
Replace Piping
8" Discharge Piping
LS
1
$ 19,376
$ 19,376
30
$ 88
8" Elbow (FLxFL)
2
$ 686
8" x 10" Reducers (FLxFL)
2
$ 1,182
10" Discharge Piping
40
$ 102
10" 90 elbow (FLxFL)
2
$ 1,116
10"x16" Cross w/ 16" Blind (FLxFL)
1
$ 6,688
8
Pumps 1400 gpm x 50 HP x 90 feet TDH
LS
1
$ 144,900
$ 144,900
Discharge Elbows
2
Rails
2
Level Sensing System
1
9
Wetwell Repair
LS
1
$ 9,816
$ 9,816
Wet well lid 12' diameter
(3) 3'x3' Aluminum Access Hatch H-20
10
Valve Vault Repair
LS
1
$ 7,452
$ 7,452
Valve vault lid 10' diameter
(3) 3'x3' Aluminum Access Hatch H-20
Ladder
11
Isolation Vault Repair
LS
1
$ 2,643
$ 2,643
Isolation valve vault lid 6' Diameter
3'x4' Aluminum Access Hatch H-20
Ladder
12
Electrical
LS
1
$ 25,000
$ 25,000
13
100 KW Generator and ATS
LS
1
$ 70,000
$ 70,000
14
Odor and Corrosion Control using existing structure
LS
1
$ 5,500
$ 5,500
15
Restoration
LS
1
$ 2,500
$ 2,500
16
Cleanup and Testing
LS
1
$ 2,000
$ 2,000
Subtotal $ 411,184
40% Contingency $ 164,474
Subtotal $ 575,658
8.6% State Sales Tax $ 49,507
Estimated Total Construction Costs $ 625,165
PROJECT ALLIED COSTS
Engineering Design, Survey, Geotechnical and Permits $ 56,265
Construction Services $ 43,762
District Project Administration $ 12,503
Legal $ 6,252
Subtotal Project Allied Costs $ 118,781
Total Estimated Project Costs $ 743,946
City of Port Orchard
Capital Improvement Projects
Cost Estimate CIP
Pottery Pump Station
Item Description
Unit
Quantity
Unit
Amount
No.
I
I
I Price
Lynden Pump Station
Difference in Cost Between Stations
Escallation from 1/2006 to 10/2008 (8623/7883)
Lb 1 $ 125,000
$
125,000
LS 1 $ (249,000)
$
(249,000)
Subtotal
$
476,000
9.39%
$
44,683
Subtotal
$
520,683
40% Contingency
$
208,273
Subtotal
$
684,273
8.6% State Sales Tax
$
58,848
Estimated Total Construction Costs
$
743,121
PROJECT ALLIED COSTS
Engineering Design, Survey, Geotechnical and Permits
$
66,881
Construction Services
$
52,018
District Project Administration
$
14,862
Legal
$
7,431
Land Acquaition (3000 SF)
$
45,000
Subtotal Project Allied Costs
$
186,193
Total Estimated Project Costs $ 929,314
City of Port Orchard
Capital Improvement Projects
Cost Estimate CIP
SKIA PUMP STATION
Item Description
Unit
I
Quantity
I
Unit
I
Amount
No.
Price
Rockaway Beach PS - similar configuration 194k in 6/2004
Escallation from 1/2006 to 10/2008 (8623/7883)
Difference in Cost Between Stations
ODOR CONTROL
LS 1 $ 194,000
$
194,000
21.30%
$
41,316
Subtotal
$
235,316
LS 1 $ 10,000
$
10,000
Subtotal
$
245,316
40% Contingency
$
98,126
Subtotal
$
333,443
8.6% State Sales Tax
$
28,676
Estimated Total Construction Costs
$
362,119
PROJECT ALLIED COSTS
Engineering Design, Survey, Geotechnical and Permits
$
32,591
Construction Services
$
25,348
District Project Administration
$
7,242
Legal
$
3,621
Subtotal Project Allied Costs
$
68,803
Total Estimated Project Costs $ 430,921
Appendix I
Financial Documentation
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
OPERATING STATEMENT
4th QUARTER 2005
ACCOUNT#
DESCRIPTION
1ST
QUARTER
2ND
QUARTER
3RD
QUARTER
4TH
QUARTER
YEAR
TO DATE
OPERATING REVENUES
460
UNMETERED SALES CUSTOMERS -WA
30
156
2,241
2,428
461.1
METERED WA SALES-GEN CUSTOMERS
142,337
145,351
298,116
182,147
767,951
461.2
PUBLIC FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES
115
130
140
155
540
461.3
SALES TO PUBLIC MUNICIPALITIES - WA
625
1,032
2,312
878.38
4,848
461.4
METERED SALES -PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
15,225
18,113
17,374
19,531
70,244
462.1
SEWER SERVICES FLAT RATE
303,867
298,848
462,705
506,603
1,572,023
462.2
SVS-PUBLIC MUNICIPALITIES -SEWER
996
1,571
1,800
2,339
6,707
462.3
SALES TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
22,455
32,735
32,097
47,587
134,873
470
LATE PAYMENT / PENALTIES
7,092
5,607
7,463
7,756
27,918
471
MISC SVS REV. -WA SW SVS T-OFF
635
710
750
500
2,595
472
RENT -UTILITY PROPERTIES
9,174
8,242
8,313
8,998
34,727
474
OTHER WA SW REVENUES
910
1,185
1,380
1,810
5,284
474.1
OTHER WA SW REVENUES -INS REIMBURSE
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE WATER
176,143
180,370
336,006
224,016
916,535
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE SEWER
327,318
333,155
496,602
556,529
1,713,604
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES
503,461
513,525
832,608
780,546
2,630,138
OPERATING EXPENSES -WATER
602.1
PURCHASED WATER
267
118
345
395
1,125
603.1
MISC EXPENSE - WATER
-
611.1
MAINTENANCE STRUCTURES&IMPROV
45
-
67
444
555
614.1
MAINTENANCE OF WELLS
7
1
-
8
616.1
MAINTENANCE OF SUPPLY MAINS
-
621.1
FUEL POWER PRODUCTION -WATER
622.1
POWER PROD LABOR & EXPENSE
-
623.1
PWER PURCH FOR PUMPING -WATER
16,180
15,330
22,942
16,330
70,782
624.1
PUMPING LABOR & EXPENSE -WATER
7,684
7,238
7,176
9,555
31,653
631.1
MAINTAIN STRUCTURES -WA PUMP
7
26
7
253
293
632.1
MAINTAIN PWR PRODCTN EQUIP -WATER
-
633.1
MAINTAIN PUMP EQUIPMENT -WATER
6,323
8,561
14,496
6,254
35,634
641.1
CHEMICALS -WATER TREATMENT
3,998
4,036
1,974
3,154
13,162
642.1
MAINT, OPERATION, LBR,EXP-WATER
12,980
15,240
11,504
13,862
53,586
652.1
MAINT WATER TREATMENT EQUIP
-
665.1
MISC EXPENSE - WATER INVENTORY
670.1
OLD CLIFTON LANDFILL -ENGINEERING
671.1
MAINT TRANSMSN DIST EXP-WATER
-
672.1
MAINT DISTRBTN RSRVR& ST PIPES
4,206
6,142
1,656
7,024
19,028
673.1
MAINT TRNSMSN&DISTRBTN MAINS -WA
11,115
10,631
40,098
24,014
85,857
675.1
MAINT OF SVS-WA TRNSMSN DISTRBN
13,407
13,082
31,049
30,554
88,092
676.1
MAINTENANCE OF METERS -WATER
(1,381)
9,050
4,078
4,033
15,780
677.1
MAINT OF HYDRANTS -WATER
(1,004)
-
3,956
-
2,951
TOTAL OPERTATING EXPENSES -WATER 73,832 89,456 139,350 115,871 418,506
OPERATING EXPENSES -SEWER
622.2
POWER PROD LABOR&EXPENSE-SEWER
-
623.2
POWER PURCHASED FOR PUMPING -SEWER
5,148
4,485
5,240
5,351
20,224
624.2
PUMP LABOR & EXP-SW LIFT STATION
9,518
9,542
9,382
11,624
40,066
631.2
MAINTAIN STRUCTURES -SW PUMP
22
239
53
129
444
632.2
MAINT POWER PRODUCTN EQUIP -SW
-
633.2
MAINTAIN PUMP EQUIPMENT -SEWER
9,840
4,857
8,711
11,399
34,807
641.2
CHEMICALS -SEWER TREATMENT
1,025
1,079
8,438
1,091
11,634
642.2
OPER,LABOR, EXP-SEWER PLANT
313,668
234,976
234,935
156,600
940,179
673.2
MAINT,COST OF LABR MAINS -SEWER
3,672
9,562
33,144
8,237
54,615
675.2
MAINT OF SERVICE -SEWER
8,279
25,276
13,511
8,535
55,601
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES SEWER
351,172
290,017
313,414
202,966
1,157,570
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES WA/SW
425,004
379,473
452,763
318,837
1,576,076
Page 1 of 2
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
OPERATING STATEMENT
4th QUARTER 2005
ACCOUNT#
DESCRIPTION
1ST
QUARTER
2ND
QUARTER
3RD
QUARTER
4TH
QUARTER
YEAR
TO DATE
CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS
902
METER READINGS CUST EXP-WATER
8,208
2,280
3,194
4,084
17,766
903
CUSTOMER RECORD & COLLECTION EXP
33,854
32,317
32,988
38,044
137,203
TOTAL CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS
42,062
34,596
36,182
42,128
154,968
ADMIN/GENERAL EXPENSE
920.1
ADMIN/GENERAL SALARIES
19,846
27,087
35,394
34,636
116,964
920.2
GENERAL SALARY -CLERICAL
27,028
27,714
30,625
32,759
118,125
921
OFFICE SUPPLIES & OTHER EXPENSE
5,979
10,829
4,146
8,631
29,585
922
ADMIN EXPENSE TRANSFERRED OVERHEAD
(1,879)
(1,298)
(887)
(913)
(4,977)
923
OUTSIDE SERVICES EMPLOYED
7,232
2,608
23,721
20,289
53,850
924
PROPERTY INSURANCE
7,401
7,401
6,851
5,750
27,404
925
INJURY & DAMAGES -LIABILITY INS
11,102
11,102
10,276
8,626
41,106
926.2
EMPLOYEE PENS-PERS RETIREMENT
3,953
-
-
3,953
926.3
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS -II MED AID SUPPORT
-
926.4
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS -VACATION
2,949
4,670
12,224
9,276
29,120
926.5
EMPLOYEE BENEIFTS-SICK LEAVE
5,982
2,252
4,983
7,075
20,292
926.6
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS -HOLIDAY
5,631
2,321
2,988
3,943
14,883
930
MISC GENERAL EXPENSE
-
931
LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX RENTS
272
(272)
-
932
MAINT OF GENERAL PLANT
7,009
10,654
8,916
9,371
35,950
933
TRANSPORTATION OF EQUIPMENT EXPENSE
4,913
6,073
3,811
7,634
22,431
TOTAL ADMIN/GENERAL EXPENSE
107,419
111,141
143,048
147,077
508,684
TAXES CITY & STATE
408.11
CITY GROSS EARN-UTIL TAX WA -DR
10,167
8,231
15,905
8,206
42,509
408.12
CITY GROSS EARN UT TAX STATE -WA DR
13,404
8,819
16,471
8,536
47,230
TOTAL TAXES -WATER
23,571
17,050
32,376
16,741
89,740
408.21
CITY GROSS EARN-UTIL TAX SW -DR
20,383
16,658
24,830
22,349
84,219
408.22
CITY GROSS EARN UT TAX STATE -SW DR
3,840
4,369
4,284
4,528
17,020
TOTAL TAXES SEWER
24,223
21,027
29,114
26,877
101,240
TOTAL TAXES CITY & STATE
47,794
38,077
61,490
43,618
190,979
TOTAL REVENUES
503,461
513,525
832,608
780,546
2,630,138
TOTAL EXPENSES/TAXES
622,279
563,287
693,484
551,659
2,430,707
OPERATING INCOME (LOSS)
(118,818)
(49,762)
139,124
228,886
199,430
DEPRECIATION EXPENSE
(122,132)
(122,132)
(122,132)
(122,131)
(488,527)
NET OPERATING INCOME (LOSS)
(240,950)
(171,894)
16,992
106,755
(289,097)
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
WATER -SEWER
OPERATING STATEMENT
4th QUARTER 2006
ACCOUNT#
DESCRIPTION
1ST
QUARTER
2ND
QUARTER
3RD
QUARTER
4TH
QUARTER
YEAR
TO DATE
OPERATING REVENUES
460
UNMETERED SALES CUSTOMERS -WA
1,435
30
1,858
16,675
19,999
461.1
METERED WA SALES-GEN CUSTOMERS
146,463
145,669
326,832
190,070
809,034
461.2
PUBLIC FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES
83
549
(1,125)
1,033
540
461.3
SALES TO PUBLIC MUNICIPALITIES - WA
558
1,218
2,942
1,381
6,099
461.4
METERED SALES -PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
10,132
18,087
23,002
20,254
71,474
462.1
SEWER SERVICES FLAT RATE
413,340
402,836
521,753
507,706
1,845,635
462.2
SVS-PUBLIC MUNICIPALITIES -SEWER
1,368
2,088
1,944
2,233
7,633
462.3
SALES TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
29,668
43,956
34,037
45,912
153,573
470
LATE PAYMENT / PENALTIES
7,308
6,404
7,391
8,122
29,225
471
MISC SVS REV. -WA SW SVS T-OFF
262
685
450
670
2,067
472
RENT -UTILITY PROPERTIES
9,140
8,240
8,333
9,822
35,535
474
OTHER WA SW REVENUES
1,411
1,350
1,173
950
4,884
474.1
OTHER WA SW REVENUES -INS REIMBURSE
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE WATER
176,793
182,232
370,856
248,976
978,857
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE SEWER
444,376
448,880
557,735
555,851
2,006,841
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES
621,169
631,111
928,590
804,827
2,985,698
OPERATING EXPENSES -WATER
602.1
PURCHASED WATER
-
78
79
1
159
603.1
MISC EXPENSE - WATER
-
-
611.1
MAINTENANCE STRUCTURES&IMPROV
6
135
144
105
390
614.1
MAINTENANCE OF WELLS
29
-
17
46
616.1
MAINTENANCE OF SUPPLY MAINS
-
-
621.1
FUEL POWER PRODUCTION -WATER
622.1
POWER PROD LABOR & EXPENSE
-
-
-
623.1
PWER PURCH FOR PUMPING -WATER
18,732
18,230
24,403
21,384
82,749
624.1
PUMPING LABOR & EXPENSE -WATER
6,269
7,072
6,558
6,293
26,191
631.1
MAINTAIN STRUCTURES -WA PUMP
6
133
-
139
632.1
MAINTAIN PWR PRODCTN EQUIP -WATER
-
-
-
633.1
MAINTAIN PUMP EQUIPMENT -WATER
14,945
3,858
4,082
11,899
34,785
641.1
CHEMICALS -WATER TREATMENT
1,819
2,315
3,836
3,432
11,402
642.1
MAINT, OPERATION, LBR,EXP-WATER
14,112
(14,112)
10,165
39,571
49,735
652.1
MAINT WATER TREATMENT EQUIP
-
-
665.1
MISC EXPENSE - WATER INVENTORY
670.1
OLD CLIFTON LANDFILL -ENGINEERING
671.1
MAINT TRANSMSN DIST EXP-WATER
-
-
672.1
MAINT DISTRBTN RSRVR& ST PIPES
2,063
2,977
5,371
15,765
26,176
673.1
MAINT TRNSMSN&DISTRBTN MAINS -WA
15,518
17,573
7,838
20,485
61,415
675.1
MAI NT OF SVS-WA TRNSMSN DISTRBN
21,603
11,054
5,774
4,710
43,142
676.1
MAINTENANCE OF METERS -WATER
2,812
27,159
373
134
30,478
677.1
MAINT OF HYDRANTS -WATER
13
734
-
417
1,165
622.2
623.2
624.2
631.2
632.2
633.2
641.2
642.2
673.2
675.2
TOTAL OPERTATING EXPENSES -WATER 97,928 77,073 68,756 124,213 367,972
OPERATING EXPENSES -SEWER
POWER PROD LABOR&EXPENSE-SEWER
POWER PURCHASED FOR PUMPING -SEWER
6,439
5,184
4,933
7,608
24,164
PUMP LABOR & EXP-SW LIFT STATION
7,405
7,604
10,727
11,016
36,752
MAINTAIN STRUCTURES -SW PUMP
49
283
10,028
10,360
MAINT POWER PRODUCTN EQUIP -SW
632
632
MAINTAIN PUMP EQUIPMENT -SEWER
17,918
8,417
4,339
21,173
51,846
CHEMICALS -SEWER TREATMENT
1,135
9,030
1,696
11,860
OPER,LABOR, EXP-SEWER PLANT
363,028
272,097
272,097
181,433
1,088,654
MAINT,COST OF LABR MAINS -SEWER
30,759
22,555
6,780
11,072
71,166
MAINT OF SERVICE -SEWER
9,187
29,652
10,538
15,937
65,314
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES SEWER 434,784 346,645 318,726 260,595 1,360,748
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES WA/SW 532,713 423,718 387,482 384,808 1,728,720
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
WATER -SEWER
OPERATING STATEMENT
4th QUARTER 2006
ACCOUNT#
DESCRIPTION
1ST
QUARTER
2ND
QUARTER
3RD
QUARTER
4TH
QUARTER
YEAR
TO DATE
CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS
902
METER READINGS CUST EXP-WATER
4,011
5,460
3,058
8,375
20,903
903
CUSTOMER RECORD & COLLECTION EXP
38,364
39,688
32,607
45,037
155,696
TOTAL CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS
42,375
45,148
35,664
53,412
176,599
ADMIN/GENERAL EXPENSE
920.1
ADMIN/GENERAL SALARIES
29,262
36,660
30,424
35,933
132,279
920.2
GENERAL SALARY -CLERICAL
28,653
33,730
29,375
37,212
128,970
921
OFFICE SUPPLIES & OTHER EXPENSE
8,640
7,688
5,632
5,377
27,338
922
ADMIN EXPENSE TRANSFERRED OVERHEAD
(1,226)
(633)
(850)
(1,495)
(4,204)
923
OUTSIDE SERVICES EMPLOYED
3,853
367
-
8,228
12,447
924
PROPERTY INSURANCE
7,362
7,362
7,362
7,362
29,449
925
INJURY & DAMAGES -LIABILITY INS
11,043
11,043
11,043
11,043
44,173
926.2
EMPLOYEE PENS-PERS RETIREMENT
-
-
926.3
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS -II MED AID SUPPORT
-
-
926.4
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS -VACATION
2,419
7,433
11,327
5,743
26,923
926.5
EMPLOYEE BENEIFTS-SICK LEAVE
6,402
3,657
1,328
3,528
14,914
926.6
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS -HOLIDAY
6,797
1,892
2,324
4,539
15,553
930
MISC GENERAL EXPENSE
-
-
931
LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX RENTS
-
-
-
932
MAINT OF GENERAL PLANT
9,114
16,868
8,533
11,585
46,100
933
TRANSPORTATION OF EQUIPMENT EXPENSE
6,793
9,667
7,009
7,561
31,030
TOTAL ADMIN/GENERAL EXPENSE
119,114
135,735
113,507
136,616
504,972
TAXES CITY & STATE
408.11
CITY GROSS EARN-UTIL TAX WA -DR
9,977
8,257
17,739
9,354
45,327
408.12
CITY GROSS EARN UT TAX STATE -WA DR
10,352
8,654
18,383
10,202
47,591
TOTAL TAXES -WATER
20,329
16,910
36,122
19,556
92,918
408.21
CITY GROSS EARN-UTIL TAX SW -DR
27,695
22,402
27,887
22,284
100,267
408.22
CITY GROSS EARN UT TAX STATE -SW DR
5,784
4,007
6,019
4,939
20,749
TOTAL TAXES SEWER
33,478
26,409
33,906
27,223
121,016
TOTAL TAXES CITY & STATE
53,808
43,319
70,028
46,779
213,934
TOTAL REVENUES
621,169
631,111
928,590
804,827
2,985,698
TOTAL EXPENSES/TAXES
748,009
647,920
606,681
621,615
2,624,224
OPERATING INCOME (LOSS)
(126,840)
(16,808)
321,909
183,213
361,474
DEPRECIATION EXPENSE
(114,568)
(114,568)
(114,568)
(114,568)
(458,273)
NET OPERATING INCOME (LOSS)
(241,409)
(131,377)
207,341
68,645
(96,799)
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
WATER -SEWER
OPERATING STATEMENT
4th QUARTER 2007
ACCOUNT#
DESCRIPTION
1ST
QUARTER
2ND
QUARTER
3RD
QUARTER
4TH
QUARTER
YEAR
TO DATE
OPERATING REVENUES
460
UNMETERED SALES CUSTOMERS -WA
273
108
236
243
860
461.1
METERED WA SALES-GEN CUSTOMERS
141,221
137,233
317,636
181,819
777,909
461.2
PUBLIC FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES
115
130
140
155
540
461.3
SALES TO PUBLIC MUNICIPALITIES - WA
654
1,245
2,819
1,694
6,412
461.4
METERED SALES -PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
10,969
20,630
24,997
23,170
79,766
462.1
SEWER SERVICES FLAT RATE
418,478
410,076
550,445
544,342
1,923,341
462.2
SVS-PUBLIC MUNICIPALITIES -SEWER
1,392
2,050
1,944
2,376
7,763
462.3
SALES TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
28,520
42,066
32,164
45,273
148,023
470
LATE PAYMENT / PENALTIES
8,189
6,400
9,515
7,982
32,087
471
MISC SVS REV. -WA SW SVS T-OFF
790
410
940
860
3,000
472
RENT -UTILITY PROPERTIES
9,965
9,665
9,460
11,894
40,983
474
OTHER WA SW REVENUES
1,020
1,340
1,330
1,070
4,760
474.1
OTHER WA SW REVENUES -INS REIMBURSE
-
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE WATER 169,102 173,962 362,315 224,895 930,274
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE SEWER 452,484 457,393 589,311 595,982 2,095,170
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 621,586 631,355 951,626 820,877 3,025,444
OPERATING EXPENSES -WATER
602.1
PURCHASED WATER
78
78
603.1
MISC EXPENSE - WATER
-
-
-
-
611.1
MAINTENANCE STRUCTURES&IMPROV
159
7,936
182
49,964
58,241
614.1
MAINTENANCE OF WELLS
14
142
2,615
35,980
38,751
616.1
MAINTENANCE OF SUPPLY MAINS
-
-
-
-
-
621.1
FUEL POWER PRODUCTION -WATER
622.1
POWER PROD LABOR & EXPENSE
-
-
-
-
-
623.1
PWER PURCH FOR PUMPING -WATER
17,301
15,629
26,745
18,101
77,776
624.1
PUMPING LABOR & EXPENSE -WATER
6,009
5,343
5,163
6,668
23,183
631.1
MAINTAIN STRUCTURES -WA PUMP
22
185
135
-
342
632.1
MAINTAIN PWR PRODCTN EQUIP -WATER
-
-
-
-
633.1
MAINTAIN PUMP EQUIPMENT -WATER
3,882
6,021
5,387
5,707
20,997
641.1
CHEMICALS -WATER TREATMENT
540
3,717
4,119
1,989
10,365
642.1
MAINT, OPERATION, LBR,EXP-WATER
12,313
20,080
13,687
13,376
59,455
652.1
MAINT WATER TREATMENT EQUIP
-
-
2,785
480
3,265
665.1
MISC EXPENSE - WATER INVENTORY
-
-
-
670.1
OLD CLIFTON LANDFILL -ENGINEERING
-
-
-
671.1
MAINT TRANSMSN DIST EXP-WATER
1,388
(18)
-
-
1,370
672.1
MAINT DISTRBTN RSRVR& ST PIPES
2,111
1,914
4,437
9,086
17,547
673.1
MAINT TRNSMSN&DISTRBTN MAINS -WA
13,845
12,935
12,154
15,591
54,525
675.1
MAINT OF SVS-WA TRNSMSN DISTRBN
19,131
10,259
6,456
8,180
44,025
676.1
MAINTENANCE OF METERS -WATER
8,279
12,873
8,224
3,968
33,344
677.1
MAINT OF HYDRANTS -WATER
238
637
-
-
875
622.2
623.2
624.2
631.2
632.2
633.2
641.2
642.2
673.2
675.2
TOTAL OPERTATING EXPENSES -WATER 85,231 97,652 92,088 169,167 444,139
OPERATING EXPENSES -SEWER
POWER PROD LABOR&EXPENSE-SEWER
POWER PURCHASED FOR PUMPING -SEWER
6,573
5,482
5,244
10,321
27,619
PUMP LABOR & EXP-SW LIFT STATION
10,383
7,865
10,778
11,340
40,366
MAINTAIN STRUCTURES -SW PUMP
325
366
1,077
155
1,923
MAINT POWER PRODUCTN EQUIP -SW
-
1
-
1,739
1,740
MAINTAIN PUMP EQUIPMENT -SEWER
8,420
7,162
10,220
11,028
36,830
CHEMICALS -SEWER TREATMENT
2,381
-
10,371
1,665
14,416
OPER,LABOR, EXP-SEWER PLANT
383,106
287,217
287,290
191,478
1,149,091
MAINT,COST OF LABR MAINS -SEWER
9,551
61,059
66,048
58,515
195,173
MAINT OF SERVICE -SEWER
12,866
36,033
7,029
12,301
68,229
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES SEWER 433,605 405,185 398,058 298,541 1,535,388
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES WA/SW 518,836 502,837 490,145 467,708 1,979,526
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
WATER -SEWER
OPERATING STATEMENT
4th QUARTER 2007
ACCOUNT#
DESCRIPTION
1ST
QUARTER
2ND
QUARTER
3RD
QUARTER
4TH
QUARTER
YEAR
TO DATE
CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS
902
METER READINGS CUST EXP-WATER
4,641
5,251
3,300
7,106
20,298
903
CUSTOMER RECORD & COLLECTION EXP
32,971
37,038
36,038
52,779
158,826
TOTAL CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS
37,611
42,290
39,338
59,885
179,124
ADMIN/GENERAL EXPENSE
920.1
ADMIN/GENERAL SALARIES
31,099
34,424
31,235
49,011
145,770
920.2
GENERAL SALARY -CLERICAL
36,193
41,885
39,985
62,711
180,774
921
OFFICE SUPPLIES & OTHER EXPENSE
9,571
11,349
4,369
8,521
33,810
922
ADMIN EXPENSE TRANSFERRED OVERHEAD
(859)
(3,540)
(2,624)
(4,094)
(11,117)
923
OUTSIDE SERVICES EMPLOYED
-
353
-
3,930
4,283
924
PROPERTY INSURANCE
8,169
8,169
8,169
8,169
32,678
925
INJURY & DAMAGES -LIABILITY INS
12,254
12,254
12,254
12,254
49,016
926.2
EMPLOYEE PENS-PERS RETIREMENT
-
-
-
926.3
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS -II MED AID SUPPORT
-
-
-
926.4
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS -VACATION
1,761
4,451
13,086
16,979
36,277
926.5
EMPLOYEE BENEIFTS-SICK LEAVE
6,670
3,461
2,869
4,369
17,369
926.6
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS -HOLIDAY
6,914
2,110
3,000
5,270
17,293
930
MISC GENERAL EXPENSE
-
-
-
931
LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX RENTS
-
0
-
932
MAINT OF GENERAL PLANT
10,559
10,787
7,901
14,023
43,270
933
TRANSPORTATION OF EQUIPMENT EXPENSE
4,996
6,822
6,193
8,585
26,595
TOTAL ADMIN/GENERAL EXPENSE
127,328
132,525
126,437
189,729
576,019
TAXES CITY & STATE
408.11
CITY GROSS EARN-UTIL TAX WA -DR
9,734
7,967
17,291
8,176
43,169
408.12
CITY GROSS EARN UT TAX STATE -WA DR
10,520
8,742
18,032
9,351
46,645
TOTAL TAXES -WATER
20,254
16,709
35,324
17,527
89,814
408.21
CITY GROSS EARN-UTIL TAX SW -DR
27,972
22,710
29,228
23,481
103,390
408.22
CITY GROSS EARN UT TAX STATE -SW DR
9,149
5,072
7,571
5,914
27,706
TOTAL TAXES SEWER
37,121
27,782
36,798
29,395
131,096
TOTAL TAXES CITY & STATE
57,375
44,491
72,122
46,922
220,910
TOTAL REVENUES
621,586
631,355
951,626
820,877
3,025,444
TOTAL EXPENSES/TAXES
741,151
722,143
728,043
764,243
2,955,580
OPERATING INCOME (LOSS)
(119,564)
(90,788)
223,584
56,634
69,865
DEPRECIATION EXPENSE
(116,949)
(116,949)
(116,949)
(116,949)
(467,796)
NET OPERATING INCOME (LOSS)
(236,513)
(207,737)
106,635
(60,315)
(397,931)
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
WATER - SEWER OPERATING STATEMENT
3RD QUARTER 2008
ACCOUNT#
DESCRIPTION
1ST
QUARTER
2ND
QUARTER
3RD 4TH
QUARTER QUARTER
YEAR
TO DATE
OPERATING REVENUES
460
UNMETERED SALES CUSTOMERS -WA
2,430
171
402
3,003
461.1
METERED WA SALES-GEN CUSTOMERS
148,426
139,737
373,947
662,110
461.2
PUBLIC FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES
115
130
152
397
461.3
SALES TO PUBLIC MUNICIPALITIES - WA
715
1,098
3,102
4,915
461.4
METERED SALES -PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
10,500
17,893
23,466
51,859
462.1
SEWER SERVICES FLAT RATE
457,072
435,723
586,342
1,479,138
462.2
SVS-PUBLIC MUNICIPALITIES -SEWER
1,584
2,016
2,160
5,760
462.3
SALES TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
27,967
41,302
31,625
100,894
470
LATE PAYMENT / PENALTIES
10,851
8,948
10,854
30,653
471
MISC SVS REV. -WA SW SVS T-OFF
1,000
920
1,000
2,920
472
RENT -UTILITY PROPERTIES
11,546
10,646
10,744
32,937
474
OTHER WA SW REVENUES
1,279
1,450
1,739
4,468
474.1
OTHER WA SW REVENUES -INS REIMBURSE
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE WATER
181,437
176,519
419,979
777,935
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE SEWER
492,049
483,515
625,555
1,601,118
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES
673,486
660,034
1,045,534
2,379,054
OPERATING EXPENSES -WATER
602.1
PURCHASED WATER
60
30
125
215
603.1
MISC EXPENSE - WATER
-
611.1
MAINTENANCE STRUCTURES&IMPROV
417
65
12
493
614.1
MAINTENANCE OF WELLS
5,422
13
412
5,846
616.1
MAINTENANCE OF SUPPLY MAINS
-
621.1
FUEL POWER PRODUCTION -WATER
622.1
POWER PROD LABOR & EXPENSE
-
623.1
PWER PURCH FOR PUMPING -WATER
18,216
19,310
25,142
62,669
624.1
PUMPING LABOR & EXPENSE -WATER
7,097
6,406
7,862
21,366
631.1
MAINTAIN STRUCTURES -WA PUMP
919
11
28
958
632.1
MAINTAIN PWR PRODCTN EQUIP -WATER
-
633.1
MAINTAIN PUMP EQUIPMENT -WATER
6,018
3,481
4,017
13,517
641.1
CHEMICALS -WATER TREATMENT
3,231
2,501
4,729
10,462
642.1
MAINT, OPERATION, LBR,EXP-WATER
13,818
17,221
11,551
42,590
652.1
MAINT WATER TREATMENT EQUIP
2,427
2,156
976
5,559
665.1
MISC EXPENSE - WATER INVENTORY
-
671.1
MAINT TRANSMSN DIST EXP-WATER
-
672.1
MAINT DISTRBTN RSRVR& ST PIPES
5,353
4,348
2,025
11,726
673.1
MAINT TRNSMSN&DISTRBTN MAINS -WA
7,012
15,540
14,698
37,251
675.1
MAINT OF SVS-WA TRNSMSN DISTRBN
15,191
7,845
4,963
27,998
676.1
MAINTENANCE OF METERS -WATER
3,374
8,916
7,364
19,654
677.1
MAINT OF HYDRANTS -WATER
258
3,184
13
3,455
TOTAL OPERTATING EXPENSES -WATER
88,814
91,028
83,916
263,757
OPERATING EXPENSES -SEWER
622.2
POWER PROD LABOR&EXPENSE-SEWER
-
623.2
POWER PURCHASED FOR PUMPING -SEWER
6,684
6,487
5,228
18,398
624.2
PUMP LABOR & EXP-SW LIFT STATION
7,385
10,685
11,658
29,727
631.2
MAINTAIN STRUCTURES -SW PUMP
755
(160)
20
615
632.2
MAINT POWER PRODUCTN EQUIP -SW
-
633.2
MAINTAIN PUMP EQUIPMENT -SEWER
5,016
14,358
31,402
50,776
641.2
CHEMICALS -SEWER TREATMENT
1,012
-
1,012
642.2
OPER,LABOR, EXP-SEWER PLANT
344,130
255,975
258,891
858,997
673.2
MAINT,COST OF LABR MAINS -SEWER
97,360
16,501
15,836
129,697
675.2
MAINT OF SERVICE -SEWER
15,208
38,587
24,217
78,012
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES SEWER
476,539
343,444
347,251
1,167,234
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES WA/SW
565,353
434,471
431,167
1,430,992
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
WATER - SEWER OPERATING STATEMENT
3RD QUARTER 2008
ACCOUNT#
DESCRIPTION
1ST
QUARTER
2ND
QUARTER
3RD 4TH
QUARTER QUARTER
YEAR
TO DATE
CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS
902
METER READINGS CUST EXP-WATER
4,886
6,195
3,149
14,230
903
CUSTOMER RECORD & COLLECTION EXP
47,760
45,496
36,436
129,692
TOTAL CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS
52,646
51,691
39,585
143,922
ADMIN/GENERAL EXPENSE
920.1
ADMIN/GENERAL SALARIES
34,087
43,436
30,910
108,434
920.2
GENERAL SALARY -CLERICAL
49,483
60,120
59,357
168,960
921
OFFICE SUPPLIES & OTHER EXPENSE
8,972
7,628
6,350
22,951
922
ADMIN EXPENSE TRANSFERRED OVERHEAD
(1,821)
(2,424)
(2,578)
(6,823)
923
OUTSIDE SERVICES EMPLOYED
4,941
3,871
388
9,200
924
PROPERTY INSURANCE
8,766
8,766
8,766
26,299
925
INJURY & DAMAGES -LIABILITY INS
13,150
13,150
13,150
39,449
926.2
EMPLOYEE PENS-PERS RETIREMENT
-
926.3
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS -II MED AID SUPPORT
-
926.31
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS-MED PLAN 100%
(4)
(4)
926.4
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS -VACATION
3,842
6,363
15,631
25,836
926.5
EMPLOYEE BENEIFTS-SICK LEAVE
4,576
3,107
6,056
13,739
926.6
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS -HOLIDAY
6,531
3,015
3,187
12,733
930
MISC GENERAL EXPENSE
-
931
LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX RENTS
-
932
MAINT OF GENERAL PLANT
9,629
14,327
7,586
31,543
933
TRANSPORTATION OF EQUIPMENT EXPENSE
6,804
7,093
17,549
31,446
TOTAL ADMIN/GENERAL EXPENSE
148,961
168,454
166,347
483,762
TAXES CITY & STATE
408.11
CITY GROSS EARN-UTIL TAX WA -DR
10,287
7,951
20,053
38,292
408.12
CITY GROSS EARN UT TAX STATE -WA DR
11,098
10,413
21,113
42,625
TOTAL TAXES -WATER
21,385
18,365
41,167
80,916
408.21
CITY GROSS EARN-UTIL TAX SW -DR
30,450
23,952
31,006
85,409
408.22
CITY GROSS EARN UT TAX STATE -SW DR
8,489
6,045
7,325
21,859
TOTAL TAXES SEWER
38,939
29,997
38,331
107,267
TOTAL TAXES CITY & STATE
60,324
48,362
79,498
188,184
TOTALREVENUES
TOTALEXPENSES/TAXES
OPERATING INCOME (LOSS)
DEPRECIATION EXPENSE
NET OPERATING INCOME (LOSS)
673,486 660,034 1,045,534 - 2,379,054
827,284
702,978
716,597
- 2,246,860
(153,799)
(42,944)
328,937
0 132,194
(116,949)
(116,949)
(116,949)
(350,847)
(270,748)
(159,893)
211,988
0 (218,653)
Appendix J
Comments Received
To be created