Port Hadlock Sewer Facility Plan 0908

Jefferson County
Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility Plan
September 2008
Volume 1 of 2
PORT HADLOCK UGA - SEWER FACILITY PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page No.
Table of Contents .....................................................................................................i

List of Tables ............................................................................................................vii
List of Figures...........................................................................................................ix
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................x
Executive Summary .................................................................................................ES-1
Permits, Requirements, and Regulations .....................................................................ES-4
Flow and Load Analysis ..............................................................................................ES-4
Population, Flow and Loading Projections........................................................ES-4
Commercial Flow and Loading Projections.......................................................ES-4
Sewer System Phasing ................................................................................................ES-4
Collection System........................................................................................................ES-7
Effluent Discharge/Water Reclamation .......................................................................ES-7
Treatment Processes ....................................................................................................ES-7
Liquid Treatment Process ..................................................................................ES-7
Disinfection Alternatives ...................................................................................ES-8
Solids Handling and Treatment Alternatives .....................................................ES-8
Wastewater Treatment Plant Location...............................................................ES-9
Implementation ............................................................................................................ES-9
Financing Considerations ............................................................................................ES-17
Next Steps....................................................................................................................ES-18
1. Introduction.....................................................................................................1-1
Authorization and Scope .............................................................................................1-1
Ownership and Operation of Proposed Facilities ........................................................1-2
Goals............................................................................................................................1-2
2. Background .....................................................................................................2-1
Jefferson County Vision Statement .............................................................................2-1
Sewer Planning Area and Urban Growth Area (UGA) ...............................................2-3
Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (PHUGA) ....................................................2-3
Port Hadlock Sewer Planning Area (PHSPA) ...................................................2-5
Summary of Land Use and Zoning....................................................................2-6
Population....................................................................................................................2-6
Utility Services ............................................................................................................2-7
Nearby Water Systems.......................................................................................2-7
Nearby Wastewater Facilities ............................................................................2-8
Topography, Soils and Hydrogeology.........................................................................2-8
Topography........................................................................................................2-8
Soils ...................................................................................................................2-8
Hydrogeological Evaluation ..............................................................................2-10
Hazard Areas ...............................................................................................................2-10
Erosion and Landslide Hazard ...........................................................................2-10
Seismic Hazard ..................................................................................................2-13
i
Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility Plan…
Climate.........................................................................................................................2-13
Surface Water/Wetlands ..............................................................................................2-13
Groundwater ................................................................................................................2-13
Related Studies ............................................................................................................2-16
3. Permits, Requirements and Regulations ......................................................3-1

Federal Regulations .....................................................................................................3-1
Federal Water Quality Acts ...............................................................................3-1
Federal Effluent Limitations ..............................................................................3-2
National Environmental Protection Act.............................................................3-3
Federal Standards for Use or Disposal of Sludge ..............................................3-3
Clean Air Act .....................................................................................................3-5
EPA Reliability Criteria.....................................................................................3-5
Historical and Archaeological Sites...................................................................3-8
Floodplains, Wetlands, and Flood Insurance.....................................................3-9
Agricultural Lands .............................................................................................3-9
Coastal Zone Management ................................................................................3-9
Wild and Scenic Rivers......................................................................................3-9
Fish and Wildlife Protection ..............................................................................3-9
Endangered Species Act ....................................................................................3-9
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ......................3-10
Public Participation............................................................................................3-10
State Policies................................................................................................................3-11
Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters.....................................................3-11
State Environmental Policy Act.........................................................................3-12
State Environmental Review Process; Department of Ecology
Documentation ............................................................................................3-12
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit .................................3-13
State Waste Discharge Permit, Wastewater Effluent.........................................3-13
Washington State Standards for Use and Disposal of Sludge ...........................3-13
Washington Department of Ecology Criteria for Sewage Works
Design..........................................................................................................3-13
Standards for Water Reclamation ......................................................................3-14
Washington Department of Natural Resources/Shellfish Closure
Zone.............................................................................................................3-15
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Approval..............................3-15
Local Policies ..............................................................................................................3-16
SEPA Review ....................................................................................................3-16
Critical Areas Review ........................................................................................3-17
Shoreline Management Program........................................................................3-17
International Fire Code / National Fire Protection Association.........................3-17
International Building Code / International Building Code /
Washington State Energy Code...................................................................3-18
Olympic Region Clean Air Agency ...................................................................3-18
Jefferson County Solid Waste Division.............................................................3-18
4. Population, Flow and Loads...........................................................................4-1
Population Forecasts....................................................................................................4-1
Background........................................................................................................4-1
Data Elements Used for Population Forecasting ...............................................4-1
Planning Horizons..............................................................................................4-6
ii
...TABLE OF CONTENTS
Population Projections .......................................................................................4-7

Projected Wastewater Flows........................................................................................4-8
Flow Generation Criteria ...................................................................................4-8
Wastewater Flow Projections ............................................................................4-13
Wastewater Loading Projections .................................................................................4-15
Load Generation Criteria ...................................................................................4-15
Solids Loading Projections ................................................................................4-16
5. Collection System Alternatives ......................................................................5-1

Wastewater Collection Alternatives ............................................................................5-1
Alternatives Considered.....................................................................................5-1
Rejected Alternatives .........................................................................................5-1
Alternatives Considered for Further Evaluation..........................................................5-2
Conventional Gravity Sewers ............................................................................5-2
Pressurized Wastewater Collection Systems (STEP & Grinder Pumps) ...........5-6
Evaluation of Collection System Alternatives.............................................................5-9
Collection System Alternatives..........................................................................5-9
Evaluation Criteria.............................................................................................5-9
Life Cycle Cost Estimating..........................................................................................5-11
Cost Assumptions ..............................................................................................5-11
Cost Assumptions for Pressurized Sewers: STEP and Grinder Pump
Systems........................................................................................................5-11
Evaluation of Alternatives .................................................................................5-12
Recommended Collection System Alternative ............................................................5-14
Stakeholder Workshop Process..........................................................................5-14
Recommendation ...............................................................................................5-14
Population and System Phasing...................................................................................5-15
6. Effluent Discharge/Reuse Alternatives .........................................................6-1
Treatment Plant Effluent – Discharge vs. Re-Use .......................................................6-1
Surface Water Discharge vs. Land Application.................................................6-1
Discharge and Reuse Systems – Treatment Requirements ................................6-1
Discharge/Re-Use Alternatives....................................................................................6-2
Irrigation at Agronomic Rates ...........................................................................6-3
Groundwater Recharge by Surface Percolation – Slow-Rate Infiltration..........6-5
Groundwater Recharge by Surface Percolation – Rapid-Rate Infiltration.........6-6
Constructed Wetlands ........................................................................................6-7
Evaluation of Discharge/Reuse Alternatives ...............................................................6-8
Summary of Life Cycle Costs............................................................................6-10
Summary of Evaluation of Disposal/Reuse Alternatives.............................................6-10
Recommended Re-Use Alternative .............................................................................6-13
Recommendation ...............................................................................................6-13
7. Wastewater Treatment Alternatives .............................................................7-1
iii
Liquid Process Treatment Requirements.....................................................................7-1

Discharge/Reuse Method Determines Treatment ..............................................7-1
Levels of Treatment ...........................................................................................7-1
Reliability and Redundancy Requirements........................................................7-2
Wastewater Treatment Alternatives.............................................................................7-3
Sequencing Batch Reactor + Filter ....................................................................7-5
Membrane Bioreactor ........................................................................................7-7
Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Alternatives ......................................................7-9
Summary of Life Cycle Costs............................................................................7-11
Summary of Wastewater Treatment Evaluation ................................................7-11
Recommended Wastewater Treatment Alternative .....................................................7-11
Recommendation .........................................................................................................7-11
Disinfection Alternatives .............................................................................................7-12
Liquid Sodium Hypochlorite .............................................................................7-13
UV Disinfection .................................................................................................7-15
Evaluation of Disinfection Alternatives ......................................................................7-16
Summary of Disinfection Evaluation.................................................................7-16
Recommended Disinfection Alternative......................................................................7-17
Recommendation .........................................................................................................7-18
Solids Handling/Reuse Alternatives ............................................................................7-18
Storage and Decanting .......................................................................................7-19
Thickening .........................................................................................................7-20
Dewatering.........................................................................................................7-21
Haul Locally to Port Townsend .........................................................................7-22
Haul Remote to Port Angeles WWTP ...............................................................7-22
Contracted Haul and Reuse................................................................................7-23
Evaluation of Solids Handling/Treatment/Reuse Alternatives ....................................7-24
Summary of Solids Handling/Treatment/Reuse Evaluation ..............................7-24
Recommended Solids Handling and Treatment/Reuse System...................................7-26
8. Recommended Alternative and Implementation .........................................8-1

Summary of Recommendations...................................................................................8-1
Gravity Collection System.................................................................................8-1
Effluent Reuse: Ground Water Recharge by Rapid-Rate Surface
iv
Percolation...................................................................................................8-1
Wastewater Treatment – Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)....................................8-2
Effluent Disinfection – Sodium Hypochlorite ...................................................8-2
Solids Handling – Decanting Contracted Haul and Reuse ................................8-3
Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Plant Locations.................................................8-5
Locations Considered ........................................................................................8-5
Summary of Treatment Plant Location Evaluation............................................8-7
Recommended Treatment Plant Location..........................................................8-7
Candidate Treatment Plant Sites ........................................................................8-9
Proposed Site Layout...................................................................................................8-9
Process Diagram and Site Layout ......................................................................8-9
Hydraulic Profile................................................................................................8-9
Land Needs Estimates for Recommended Treatment & Reuse System ............8-14
Summary of Estimated Costs.......................................................................................8-14
Planning level Costs vs. Life Cycle Costs .........................................................8-14
Planning Level Cost Summary ..........................................................................8-14
Staffing Requirements .......................................................................................8-15
Implementation Schedule ............................................................................................8-15
9. Cost and Financing .........................................................................................9-1

Financial Program........................................................................................................9-1
Sources of Capital Funding .........................................................................................9-1
Types of Capital Funding Sources...............................................................................9-1
Grants.................................................................................................................9-1
Low-Interest Loans ............................................................................................9-3
Bonds .................................................................................................................9-3
Other Sources.....................................................................................................9-4
Users ..................................................................................................................9-5
Funding Initial Capital Costs .......................................................................................9-6
Funding Example – Shared Capital Costs ...................................................................9-8
Strategies for Recovering Capital Cost from Users.....................................................9-10
Cost Implications of User Recovery Strategies ...........................................................9-12
When to Pay for Sewer................................................................................................9-13
Current Sewer Expansion Examples ...........................................................................9-14
Operations and Maintenance Cost – Monthly Rates ...................................................9-15
What Does It Mean? ....................................................................................................9-16
How to Continue to Move Forward and Reduce Costs ...............................................9-16
Policy Issues for Future Discussion.............................................................................9-17
10. Public Involvement and Outreach.................................................................10-1

Stakeholder Workshop Process ...................................................................................10-1
Public Meetings ...........................................................................................................10-1
Project Website............................................................................................................10-2
Project Mailings...........................................................................................................10-2
Comment Tracking and Response Process..................................................................10-3
v
Appendices
A. Hydrogeological Evaluation Report
B. Public Outreach – Meeting Summaries
C. Comparative Life Cycle Cost Estimates
D. Planning Level Cost Estimates for Recommended Alternative
E. Reliability and Redundancy Requirements for Reclamation and Reuse Standards
vi
LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page No.
ES-1 Phasing Areas within the Port Hadlock/Irondale UGA ...............................................ES-4

ES-2 Estimated Land Areas for Wastewater Facilities.........................................................ES-12
ES-3 Initial Capital Costs through 2015 (in thousands) .......................................................ES-12
ES-4 Capital Recovery Strategies.........................................................................................ES-17
ES-5 Estimate Monthly Sewer Rate .....................................................................................ES-18
ES-6 Implementation Schedule ............................................................................................ES-19
2-1 Irondale and Port Hadlock UGA Land Use and Zoning Districts ...............................2-5
2-2 Jefferson County and City of Port Townsend 20-Year Population
Projection and Distribution..........................................................................................2-7
3-1 Ceiling Concentrations for Metals in Land-Applied Sludge .......................................3-4

3-2 Metal Concentration Limits for Bulk Sewage Sludge Land Application ....................3-5
3-3 Summary of EPA Design Criteria for System and Component
Reliability ....................................................................................................................3-6
3-4 Reliability Class System in the Orange Book..............................................................3-14
4-1 Planning Zone Designations within the Port Hadlock/Irondale UGA.........................4-2

4-2 Land Area by Planning Zone within the Port Hadlock/Irondale UGA........................4-4
4-3 Phasing Areas within the Port Hadlock/Irondale UGA ...............................................4-6
4-4 Summary of Population Projections within the Port Hadlock/Irondale Sewer
Service Area ................................................................................................................4-9
4-5 Service Area and Estimated Population Equivalents...................................................4-11
4-6 Wastewater Peaking Factors........................................................................................4-12
4-7 2010 Wastewater Flow Projections .............................................................................4-13
4-10 Year 2010 Condition Solids Loading Projections .......................................................4-17
4-11 Year 2024 Condition Solids Loading Projections .......................................................4-18
4-12 Year 2030 Condition Wastewater Loading Projections ..............................................4-19
5-1 Summary of 20-Year Life Cycle Costs........................................................................5-12

5-2 Summary of Alternatives Evaluation...........................................................................5-13
5-3 Expected Number of Sewer System Connections by Phase ........................................5-15
6-1 Water Quality Requirements for Reuse Projects .........................................................6-2

6-2 Treatment and Quality Requirements for Reclaimed Water Used for
Irrigating Crops............................................................................................................6-4
6-3 Criteria used for Estimating Cost Quantities ...............................................................6-9
6-4 Summary of Alternatives Evaluation...........................................................................6-11
7-1 Summary of Treatment Requirements for Various Disposal/Reuse Options ..............7-1

7-2 Water Quality Requirements for Reuse Projects .........................................................7-2
7-3 Criteria Used for Estimating Treatment Plant Cost Quantities....................................7-10
7-4 Summary of Wastewater Treatment Alternatives Evaluation......................................7-12
7-5 Summary of Disinfection Alternatives Evaluation ......................................................7-17
vii
7-6 Summary of Solids Handling/Treatment/Reuse Alternatives Evaluation....................7-25
8-1 Design Data for Membrane Bioreactor Alternative.....................................................8-5

8-2 Summary of Wastewater Treatment Plant Site Evaluation..........................................8-8
8-3 Summary of Wastewater System Costs .......................................................................8-16
8-4 Implementation Schedule ............................................................................................8-15
9-1 Initial Capital Costs through 2015 (in thousands) .......................................................9-6

9-2 Initial Capital Cost through 2015 ................................................................................9-7
9-3 Financing Common/Shared Costs (General and Local) through 2015........................9-8
9-4 Example of Mixing Funding Sources ..........................................................................9-10
9-5 Estimated Repayment Stream through 2024 and 2025-2030 ......................................9-11
9-6 Compare User Recovery Strategies .............................................................................9-12
9-7 Compare Alternatives – When to Pay for Sewer.........................................................9-14
9-8 Current Sewer Expansion Examples ...........................................................................9-14
9-9 Estimated Monthly Sewer Rate ...................................................................................9-15
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Title Page No.
ES-1 Vicinity Map................................................................................................................ES-1

ES-2 Service Area Boundaries and Land Use/Zoning..........................................................ES-3
ES-3 Sewer Phasing and Implementation.............................................................................ES-6
ES-4 Alternative Treatment Plant and Effluent Locations Evaluation.................................ES-10
ES-5 Candidate Sites for Wastewater Treatment Plant ........................................................ES-11
ES-6 Liquids and Solids Stream Process Diagram...............................................................ES-14
ES-7 Site Development Plan ................................................................................................ES-15
ES-8 Hydraulic Profile .........................................................................................................ES-16
2-1 Vicinity Map................................................................................................................2-2

2-2 Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Service Area and Zoning Map........................2-4
2-3 Topographic Map ........................................................................................................2-9
2-4 Soils Map of the Port Hadlock Area............................................................................2-11
2-5 Erosion and Slide Hazard Areas ..................................................................................2-12
2-6 Seismic Hazard Areas..................................................................................................2-14
2-7 Wetlands and Environmentally Sensitive Areas..........................................................2-15
2-8 Wellheads Protection ...................................................................................................2-17
2-9 CARA Locations .........................................................................................................2-18
4-1 Pt. Hadlock Future Land Use and Zoning Map ...........................................................4-3
4-2 Sewer Phasing and Implementation Areas ..................................................................4-5
4-3 Graph of Population Projections for the Pt. Hadlock/Irondale Sewer Service Area ...4-10
5-1 Conventional Gravity Sewer System Service Connection ..........................................5-3

5-2 Proposed Gravity Collection System...........................................................................5-5
5-3 Septic Tank Effluent Pump (STEP) System Service Connection................................5-6
5-4 Proposed Pressurized Collection System.....................................................................5-8
5-5 Proposed Dual Technology (Gravity/Pressurized) Collection System........................5-10
7-1 Sequencing Batch Reactor + Filter ..............................................................................7-5

7-2 Membrane Bioreactor Process Schematic and Example Facility in
Bandon Dunes, Oregon................................................................................................7-8
7-3 Sodium Hypochlorite Feed Pumps at Vashon Island, Washington (left) and
Chlorine Contact Tank at Marysville, Washington .....................................................7-14
8-1 Alternative Treatment Plant & Effluent Reuse Locations ...........................................8-6

8-2 Candidate Sites for Wastewater Treatment Plant ........................................................8-10
8-3 Process Flow Diagram.................................................................................................8-11
8-4 Site Development Plan ................................................................................................8-12
8-5 Hydraulic Profile .........................................................................................................8-13
ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The following firms, individuals, and citizen advisory groups have contributed to the
preparation of this report:
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners

Phil Johnson (District 1), David Sullivan (District 2), John Austin (District 3)
Irondale/Port Hadlock Sewer Project Stakeholders Group
Jefferson County Administration

Interim County Administrator, Dennis Richards
Allen Sartin, Central Services Director
Jefferson County Public Works Department

Frank Gifford, Public Works Director
Jefferson County Department of Community Development

Al Scalf, Community Development Director
Tetra Tech, Inc.

Kevin Dour, Project Manager
James Santroch, Sr. Project Engineer
Raymund Vargas, Project Engineer
Triangle Associates, Inc.

Bob Wheeler, Project Manager
Ellen Blair, Project Assistant
Katy Isaksen & Associates

Katy Isaksen, Financial Analyst
HWA GeoSciences Inc.

Arnie Sugar, Environmental Geologist
x
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As part of its Growth Management Act (GMA) planning activities, Jefferson County (County) has
designated the Port Hadlock and Irondale sewer service area as a potential center for County growth. Per
the 1990 GMA, the County pursued the designation of an Urban Growth Area (UGA) in the Port
Hadlock/Irondale service area. As part of the requirements for establishing an UGA, Jefferson County
contracted with Tetra Tech (Tt) on December 5, 2005 to prepare a Sewer Facility Plan to study
alternatives for developing a sewer system and identify the sewer planning boundary. This sewer planning
boundary will likely coincide with the UGA boundary since urban services must be provided within an
urban growth boundary and sanitary sewers are considered a key urban service.
The proposed Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (PHUGA) is an unincorporated area located
approximately six miles south of the City of Port Townsend, Washington, as shown in Figure ES-1.
Currently, the PHUGA is served by public water, but no sewer facilities exist. On-site septic systems
serve the existing dwellings and commercial establishments. This report is intended to assist the County
in planning for sewer capacity to match their population growth targets. Planning for collection,
treatment, and discharge or reuse facilities will allow sewer capacity to match population growth in a
cost-effective manner that minimizes potential harm to the environment.
This Sewer Facility Plan meets the Washington Administrative Code requirements for comprehensive
sewer plans and engineering reports (WAC 173-240-050 and 173-240-060). This document will also meet
the requirements for facilities plans established in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR
Part 35.2030).
The following goals were established for preparation of this Sewer Facility Plan:
• To identify the service area.
• To develop and evaluate alternatives for wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal to
provide adequate hydraulic and treatment capacity for the planning period; provide planning
level cost estimates for each; and recommend a preferred alternative.
• To estimate rate impacts for development of the recommended capital facilities.
• To evaluate implementation strategies for the recommended capital facilities.
• To develop a strategy for phased implementation of the recommended plan that will ensure
adequate capacity throughout the planning period.
The proposed service area for the new facilities includes the Study Area Boundary (20-year Sewer
Service Area for sewer service availability within the 20-year planning horizon) and a Sewer Service
Boundary (6-year Sewer Service Area) at the onset of this study. These Boundary Areas and land
use/zoning classifications are shown in Figure ES-2.
ES-1
Figure ES-1. Vicinity Map
ES-2
ES-3
Figure ES-2. Service Area Boundaries and Land/Use Zoning
…EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PERMITS, REQUIREMENTS, AND REGULATIONS

Regulations with which the sewage facilities must comply include the following:
• Federal Water Quality Acts
• Federal and state National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System effluent limitations
• National and state Environmental Policy Acts
• Federal and state standards for use or disposal of sludge
• Federal and state reliability criteria
• Endangered Species Act and other federal environmental regulations
• Washington Department of Ecology Criteria for Sewage Works Design
• Washington Department of Ecology and Department of Health Water Reclamation and Reuse
Standards
• Washington State Waste Discharge Permit
• Uniform Fire Code / National Fire Protection Association Standards
• Uniform Building Code / International Building Code / Washington State Energy Code
• Local permits and reviews
• Olympic Region Clean Air Agency.
FLOW AND LOAD ANALYSIS

Future (design) flows and loads were determined using population projections, unit flow and loading
rates, and peaking factors.
Population, Flow and Loading Projections

Tt staff prepared population and wastewater flow and loading projections for a 6-year horizon, a 20-year
horizon, and a buildout condition. Tt developed estimates of wastewater flows, loads, and peaking factors
anticipated for the Port Hadlock and Irondale study area using population data provided by Jefferson
County. These estimates include flows from residential, commercial, and institutional sources.
Commercial Flow and Loading Projections

Tt developed projected commercial flows, loads, and peaking factors based on recent commercial water
meter data provided by Jefferson County PUD No. 1, planned commercial acreage within the sewer
boundary, and flow generation factors based upon data from similar communities.
SEWER SYSTEM PHASING

Wastewater flows and loads were estimated for a sewer system developing and expanding in phases.
These phases are based upon sub-areas within the 20-year sewer boundary described in Table ES-1 and
shown in Figure ES-3.
ES-4
TABLE ES-1.
PHASING AREAS WITHIN THE PORT HADLOCK/IRONDALE UGA
Phasing Area Description Total Acres

Core Area Initial Commercial Area within the 6-year planning boundary. This 298
will be the first area to be implemented.
Alcohol Plant Area Area east of the Core Area, area known as the Old Alcohol Plant. 53
Location of the Hadlock Inn. This area is included in the initial 6-year
boundary and would be part of the initial implementation.
Rhody Drive Area Area along SR-19 from Somerville Road to approximately the 187
intersection with Irondale Road. It is anticipated that this area would
implement sewers after the completion of the initial phase within the
6-year boundary.
Residential Area #1 This area is located northeast of the Core Area. It is anticipated sewers 109
would extend from the Core Area to these residential areas first. This
area is along Irondale Road from Matheson Street to Maple Street.
Residential Area #2 This area is located south of the Core Area. It is anticipated sewers 138
would extend from the core area into this residential area as it
developed and as the need for sewers increased due to existing septic
systems failing. This area is south of SR 116 from Hunt Road to
Christney Road.
Residential Area #3 This area is located north of the Core Area and extends to Chimacum 505
Creek. It is anticipated sewers would extend north from the Core Area
along Cedar Avenue and Mason Street. This area would develop as the
residential area continues to develop and existing septic systems fail.
Total 1290
A summary of estimated residential and commercial population projections for year 2010, 2024 (the
County Comprehensive Plan 20-year planning horizon), and 2030 (the Wastewater Facilities Plan 20-year
planning horizon) are presented in Chapter 4 of the master document, Table 4-5, but are not included in
this Executive Summary.
Projections were generated for conventional gravity sewers and for septic tank effluent pump systems
(STEP). The systems differ in the amount of inflow and infiltration as well as the concentrations of
pollutants, such as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS). The projections
for flow, BOD, TSS, and nitrogen (TKN) are summarized in Chapter 4 of the master document,
Tables 4-7, 4-8 and 4-9, but are not included in this Executive Summary.
ES-5
ES-6
Figure ES-3. Sewer Phasing and Implementation Areas
COLLECTION SYSTEM
Tt evaluated five different types of collection systems: conventional gravity sewers, small-diameter
gravity (SDG) sewers, vacuum sewers, septic tank effluent pumping (STEP) sewers, and grinder pump
sewer systems. An initial screening shortlisted three alternatives: conventional gravity, STEP sewers, and
grinder pumps. The present worth cost of each shortlisted alternative was estimated in addition to an
evaluation of qualitative factors.
Following this analysis, Tt and County staff participated in a stakeholder workshop on collection system
alternatives where the results of the analysis were presented and questions were taken from staff and the
public. Based on the results of the analysis and input received at this workshop, the recommended
collection system strategy is conventional gravity. The detailed discussion of alternatives and analysis of
the collection system evaluation is located in Chapter 5 of the master document.
EFFLUENT DISCHARGE/WATER RECLAMATION

Only one alternative was considered for effluent discharge: a marine outfall to Port Townsend Bay.
Alternatives considered for effluent reuse (beneficial water reclamation) included irrigation at agronomic
rates, natural wetlands, constructed beneficial use wetlands, groundwater recharge by surface percolation
– slow rate, groundwater recharge by surface percolation – rapid rate, and a salinity barrier.
Alternatives removed from further consideration included the marine outfall, natural wetlands, and a
salinity barrier. These were eliminated because they were not feasible for either regulatory or
environmental reasons.
All remaining reclamation alternatives assumed that effluent would meet at least Washington State
reclaimed water standards for Class A reclaimed water, based on discussions with the Departments of
Ecology and Health.
Irrigation at agronomic rates (with winter-time storage), groundwater recharge by surface percolation
(both slow-rate and rapid-rate), and constructed wetlands were evaluated. The results of the evaluation
and life cycle cost analysis recommended groundwater recharge by surface percolation – rapid rate for
effluent reuse. The detailed discussion of alternatives and analysis of the effluent discharge/water
reclamation alternatives is located in Chapter 6 of the master document.
It should be noted that in water reclamation facilities, the reclaimed water can be used for a beneficial
purpose. The identified beneficial reuse is groundwater recharge. The generator of the reclaimed water
may retain the ownership rights for this useful resource. Jefferson County intends to retain the ownership
rights to any reclaimed water generated as part of the work described in this document.
Specific design of any percolation systems would be contingent upon results of a detailed hydrogeologic
and water quality study, to be performed during later predesign efforts.
TREATMENT PROCESSES
Several treatment processes were considered for a new treatment plant for Pt. Hadlock. The detailed
discussions of alternatives and analyses of each process is located in Chapter 7 of the master document.
Liquid Treatment Process

Alternatives considered for the liquid treatment process were suspended growth, fixed-film, and physical-
chemical treatment. All alternatives had to be able to meet Class A reclaimed water standards. Two short-
ES-7
list alternatives were developed for detailed analysis: Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) plus Filter and
Membrane Bioreactor (MBR).
The final analysis of treatment process alternatives included an evaluation of qualitative criteria and life
cycle costs. A stakeholder workshop was held with County staff and the public to review the various
treatment processes being considered, identify advantages and drawback, and to take feedback. Based on
the results of the evaluation process and the stakeholder workshop, an MBR system for the liquid
treatment process is recommended.
Disinfection Alternatives
Several disinfection alternatives were evaluated:
• Hypochlorite disinfection using 12-percent liquid hypochlorite and chlorine contact basins
• On-site generation of 0.8-percent hypochlorite using salt, water, and electricity and chlorine
contact basins
• Chlorine Gas
• Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection (several types evaluated).
Because Class A Reclaimed Water Standards require a chlorine residual in the reclaimed water piping, all
alternatives were assumed to have some minimal hypochlorite feed equipment.
Chlorine gas and on-site generation of sodium hypochlorite were eliminated from consideration. Chlorine
gas because of safety and sodium hypochlorite generation because of operational costs. UV disinfection
was eliminated from consideration due to the high initial capital costs, high O&M costs and the
requirement for chlorine residual discussed above.
The recommended disinfection alternative is hypochlorite feed using 12-percent liquid hypochlorite and
chlorine contact basins. This recommendation is based on cost and the requirement of maintaining a
chlorine residual in the reclaimed water piping.
Solids Handling and Treatment Alternatives

Based on the small size of the system, relatively simple solids handling alternatives were considered.
More complex alternatives, such as on site digestion, require expensive solids handling equipment and
stringent recordkeeping and monitoring; therefore, they were not short-listed. The following alternatives
were short-listed for solids handling:
• Decanting
• Thickening
• Dewatering.
The following alternatives were short listed for solids treatment or reuse to be implemented in
conjunction with a recommended solids handling strategy:
• Haul Locally to Port Townsend Composting
• Haul Remote to Port Angeles WWTP
• Contracted Haul and Reuse.
Based upon the results of the alternative evaluation, the Storage and Decanting alternative for Solids
Handling is recommended and the Contract Haul/Reuse alternative for Treatment/Reuse is recommended.
ES-8
These recommendations are based upon the simplicity of the processes, the lowest initial capital cost, and
the flexibility to switch to another system for handling and/or reuse in the future.
Each of the two recommendations has the lowest 20-year life cycle cost based upon today’s available cost
data. This is a “pay-as-you-go” system. If the economics of these options change in the future, the County
will have very little capital investment in solids handling/reuse equipment and can comfortably explore
other options.
Wastewater Treatment Plant Location

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

An evaluation of qualitative criteria and comparative life cycle costs recommended that a location south
of the service area be chosen for the treatment plant and effluent reuse site. Figure ES-5 shows candidate
treatment plant sites south of the service area. It is recommended the County continue to work to
negotiate a land purchase agreement and/or procure a site prior to the beginning of final design.
IMPLEMENTATION
The recommended plan includes the following:
• Collection System—Gravity Collection System through the service area with local pump
stations.
• Treatment—Membrane bioreactor treatment plant with anoxic basins for nitrogen removal,
aerobic basins for biological oxidation, and immersed membranes for clarification.
Disinfection using 12-percent sodium hypochlorite and chlorine contact basins. Solids
handling using decanting and storage on-site, and solids treatment using contracted haul
treatment and disposal.
• Storage—3-days’ emergency/wintertime storage for effluent reuse and 3-days’ emergency
storage for WWTP using open earthen basins. Lined basins for emergency storage and
unlined basins for wintertime storage.
• Conveyance—Pumps and piping from the collection system to the treatment plant through a
main influent pump station near the intersection of Ness’ Corner Road and Shotwell Road.
Effluent pumping from the treatment plant to surface percolation basins.
• Reuse—Land application using rapid rate surface percolation basins.
ES-9
ES-10
Figure ES-4. Alternative Treatment Plant and Effluent Locations Evaluated
ES-11
Figure ES-5. Candidate Sites for Wastewater Treatment Plant
The estimated land needs for the recommended facilities is shown in Table ES-2.
TABLE ES-2.
ESTIMATED LAND AREAS FOR WASTEWATER FACILITIES
Description Estimated Land Area (acres)

Wastewater Treatment Plant:
2030 Treatment Plant Footprint 3 acres
Area for Future Expansion 2 acres
Buffer/Setback 1 acre
Total, Wastewater Treatment Plant 6 acres
Effluent Reuse Area:
Infiltration Basin (Sized for 2030 Flow) 3 acres
Reserve/Redundancy 3 acres
Buffers 3 acres
Total, Effluent Reuse Area 9 acres
Influent Pump Station:
Pump Station Site 1 acre
Total Estimated Land Need 16 acres
The recommended plan accounts for phased growth in the service area. It also provides flexibility to
Jefferson County to accommodate a wide range of future possibilities with the reclaimed water from the
treatment plant, such as in-town irrigation systems, nearby forest irrigation, additional land application as
sites are identified in the future, and summertime irrigation at the nearby Little League fields and/or H.J.
Carroll Park. Any of these strategies would benefit the local environment by reducing the amount of
groundwater pumped out of the local aquifer and/or helping to replenish the groundwater. Estimated
capital costs for the initial facilities through the year 2018 are presented in Table ES-3
TABLE ES-3.
INITIAL CAPITAL COSTS THROUGH 2015 (IN THOUSANDS)
Est. Capital (2008

estimates escalated to
$2009) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
General 19,467 - 1,337 2,206 - -
Local 6,418 - - 3,140 - -
On-site Conn. 1,412 247 282 321 367 490
Total Capital By Year 27,297 247 1,619 5,667 367 490
Cumulative Capital 27,297 27,544 29,163 34,830 35,197 35,687
No. of ERU's: 432 502 584 679 789 918
ES-12
Figure ES-6 shows the liquids and solids-stream process flow schematics for the recommended
alternative. Figure ES-7 shows the site plan of the recommended treatment plant. Figure ES-8 shows the
hydraulic profile for the recommended alternative. These planning-level figures may change during
detailed design.
ES-13
ES-14
Figure ES-6. Liquids and Solids Stream Process Diagram
ES-15
Figure ES-7. Site Development Plan.
Figure ES-8. Hydraulic Profile
ES-16
FINANCING CONSIDERATIONS
Financing for the new wastewater system will likely be funded from a variety of sources. Sources of
funding may include grants, low-interest loans, bonds, utility local improvement districts (ULID),
connection charges, and developer extensions. Refer to Chapter 9 for more details on financing, including
how costs vary with each phase of implementation.
During the financial analysis, capital costs were separated into three distinct categories when evaluating
methods for financing and repayment. These costs were as follows:
• General Costs: These are costs for facilities that are used by all users or a majority of the
users. These typically include costs for the treatment plant, disinfection, effluent reuse, solids
reuse, influent pump station and oversizing of collection system mainlines to accommodate
future flows. Oversizing of capital facilities is described as the amount of additional capacity
needed to accommodate flows from upstream areas which is beyond the minimum capacity
that would be needed to provide service to the local area.
• Local Costs: These costs include local gravity collection system lines of minimum diameter
(less than 8-inches), and any local pump stations that may be required to serve a particular
area.
• On-Site Costs: These include the costs to connect a home or building to the sewer system.
These usually include a service connection which is located on private property.
The financial analysis evaluated several strategies for recovering capital costs from users and focused on
the two most typical approaches. These included 1) connection charges to recover general and local costs,
and 2) ULID for local costs and connection charges for general costs. Table ES-4 shows the results of the
connection charge strategy and the ULID plus connection charge strategy for funding the projected capital
costs. These costs are presented per equivalent residential unit (ERU). This table also assumes 45 percent
grant funding for residential connections which may be procured through a number of funding programs
including USDA-RD.
TABLE ES-4.
CAPITAL RECOVERY STRATEGIES
Residential Commercial
Assessed When Assessed When
ULID Comes to + Pay When ULID Comes to + Pay When
When To Pay For Sewer Neighborhood Connect Neighborhood Connect
1. Conn. Chg. for GENERAL & LOCAL

Pay GENERAL & LOCAL When Connect $9,570 $17,400
+ On-site to connect $3,500 $3,500
Est. New Connection $13,070 $20,900
2. ULID for LOCAL + Conn. Chg. for GENERAL
Pay LOCAL When ULID Comes to Neighborhood $4,455 $8100
+ Pay GENERAL upon connection $5,115 $9,300
Est. New Connection $4,455 $8,615 $8,100 $12,800
* Assumes 45% Grant for Residential
ES-17
Customer rates required to fund the annual O&M costs are shown in Table ES-5. This is the estimated
beginning monthly rate for the first several years. As the number of customers increase, a reserve for
replacement will be set aside. The rates should be reviewed in three to five years to ensure costs are
being met and to further develop a replacement funding strategy.
TABLE ES-5.
ESTIMATE MONTHLY SEWER RATE
Estimated Monthly Rate For O&M/Admin Costs

O&M per ERU per Mo $50.00
Add Billing/Collection/State Tax/ Administration $10.00
= Estimated Monthly Sewer Rate $60.00
Next Steps
Recommended next steps are as follows:
• Actively pursue grant, low-interest loan and legislative funding options for implementing and
financing the recommended improvements.
• Conduct a detailed hydrogeological analysis for the recommended land application site(s), as
described at the end of Chapter 8.
• Conduct detailed financial and implementation analysis.
• Develop sewer policies for implementing the system, distributing costs, provide incentive for
early participation, and recovering capital costs.
ES-18
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Table ES-6 shows the estimated schedule for the wastewater facilities implementation. Phasing of
implementation is the most significant driver for the schedule. The schedule is subject to change and will
be revised throughout the course of the project.
TABLE ES-6.
Item/Activity Estimated Date of Completion

Wastewater Facility Plan Approval (Dept. of Ecology & Dept. October 2008
of Health)
Complete Site Procurement Finalize Environmental Review July 2009
Agency Planning for Implementation September 2009
Wastewater Facilities Implementation
Permitting September 2009
Detailed Hydrogeological Analysis and Facilities Design June 2009
DOE Approval of Plans and Specs; Application for DOE October 2009
grant/loan fundinga
Phase I Construction October 2009 - December 2010
a. Plans and Specs must be approved by DOE by October 31 in order to apply for DOE funding at the same
time, with funds to be available the following June or later in the year.
ES-19
CHAPTER 1.
INTRODUCTION
As part of its Growth Management Act (GMA) planning activities, Jefferson County (County) has
designated the Port Hadlock and Irondale sewer service area as a potential center for County growth. Per
the 1990 GMA, the County pursued the designation of an Urban Growth Area (UGA) in the Port
Hadlock/Irondale service area. As part of the requirements for establishing an UGA, Jefferson County
contracted with Tetra Tech (Tt) on December 5, 2005 to prepare a Sewer Facility Plan to study
alternatives for developing a sewer system and identify the sewer planning boundary. This sewer planning
boundary will likely coincide with the UGA boundary since urban services must be provided within an
urban growth boundary and sanitary sewers are considered a key urban service.
The proposed Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (PHUGA) is an unincorporated area located
approximately six miles south of the City of Port Townsend, Washington, as shown in Figure 2-1.
Currently, the PHUGA is served by public water, but no sewer facilities exist. On-site treatment and
disposal systems serve the existing dwellings and commercial establishments. This report is intended to
assist the County in planning for sewer capacity to match their population growth targets. Planning for
collection, treatment, and discharge or reuse facilities will allow sewer capacity to match population
growth in a cost-effective manner that minimizes potential harm to the environment.
AUTHORIZATION AND SCOPE

Jefferson County contracted with Tetra Tech to prepare a Sewer Facility Plan that meets the Washington
Administrative Code requirements for comprehensive sewer plans and engineering reports (WAC 173-
240-050 and 173-240-060). This document will also meet the requirements for facilities plans established
in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 35.2030). Under the project scope, the document is to
address the following:
• Facilities planning constraints
• Planning area description
• Regulatory requirements
• Population, flow, and load analysis
• Collection system alternatives
• Wastewater treatment alternatives
• Disposal and reuse alternatives
• Alternatives evaluation and recommended facilities
• Public participation
• Implementation program
• Environmental documentation.
1-1
OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION OF PROPOSED FACILITIES

The owner of the proposed wastewater facilities described in this plan is Jefferson County Department of
Public Works, P.O. Box 2070, Port Townsend, WA 98368. The owner’s representative is Frank Gifford,
Jefferson County Public Works Director (360) 385-9160.
The County will operate the proposed wastewater facilities described in this plan.
The County will retain ownership rights of the treated effluent from the proposed wastewater facilities
described in this plan.
GOALS
The following goals were established for preparation of this Sewer Facility Plan:
• To identify the sewer planning boundary
• To develop and evaluate alternatives for wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal or
reuse facilities to provide adequate hydraulic and treatment capacity for the planning period;
provide planning level cost estimates for each; and recommend a preferred alternative.
• To estimate rate impacts for development of the recommended capital facilities.
• To evaluate implementation strategies for the recommended capital facilities.
• To develop a strategy for phased implementation of the recommended plan that will ensure
adequate capacity throughout the planning period.
1-2
CHAPTER 2.
BACKGROUND
As part of the requirements for establishing a UGA, this Sewer Facility Plan was prepared to evaluate
alternatives for developing a sewer system in the Port Hadlock/Irondale area. The goal of this Sewer
Facility Plan is to assist the county in planning for growth in the area in accordance with the county’s
comprehensive planning efforts; to satisfy RCW 36.94 concerning county’s sewerage, water, and
drainage system responsibilities; and to gain approval from the Washington State Department of Ecology
and the Washington State Department of Health.
Figure 2-1 shows a vicinity map of Port Hadlock. The proposed extent of sewer service is described later
in this chapter.
JEFFERSON COUNTY VISION STATEMENT

The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan contains the following vision for the area:
• Maintain and preserve the natural beauty, rural character, and variety of life styles that make
up the intrinsic character of this community.
• Support a healthy, diversified, and sustainable local and regional economy by recognizing
existing local businesses, making prudent and appropriate infrastructure investments, and
encouraging new business start-ups and recruitment which are compatible with and
complementary to the community.
• Protect and conserve the local natural resource base, balancing both habitat and economic
values.
• Reinforce and enhance the historic sense of "place" or "community" around traditional
population centers.
• Prevent the inappropriate or premature conversion of undeveloped land in favor of infill and
the strengthening of local communities.
• Provide a degree of flexibility and autonomy for local communities to address their own
unique needs.
• Encourage yet unrealized opportunities in community education, technology, transportation
alternatives, habitat restoration and economic diversification.
2-1
Figure 2-1. Vicinity Map
2-2
…2. BACKGROUND
SEWER PLANNING AREA AND URBAN GROWTH AREA (UGA)

This facility plan identifies two distinct areas as related to urban planning and sewer system development
within the Port Hadlock/Irondale area. These are the Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (PHUGA) and the
Port Hadlock Sewer Planning Area (PHSPA) sewer planning area. The PHUGA is the planned urban
growth area as identified by the Jefferson County Department of Community Development and represents
the existing urban planning element for the Port Hadlock/Irondale area within the county’s
Comprehensive Plan through the year 2024. The PHSPA is coincident with the PHUGA and provides for
sewer service availability by the year 2024. A more detailed discussion regarding sewer planning
horizons and the planning horizon used in the county’s Comprehensive Plan is presented in Chapter 4 of
this document.
The coincident PHUGA and PHSPA are shown in Figure 2-2.
The sections below describes these areas and their important distinguishing characteristics as related to
urban planning and sewer facility planning.
Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (PHUGA)

The PHUGA is an unincorporated UGA, located approximately six miles south of the City of Port
Townsend, adjacent to Port Townsend Bay. This unincorporated UGA is subject to the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan (CP) and implementing regulations. Figure 2-2 shows anticipated 6-year and 20-year
sewer service area boundaries within the PHUGA. These boundaries represent the near term plan and the
long term plan to provide sewer service availability within the sewer planning area.
PHUGA Land Use and Zoning

Per the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the PHUGA encompasses approximately 1290 acres.
Population projections in this document are based on the 2000 census which showed a residential
population of 2,553 persons. The existing land use pattern is characterized by commercial development
concentrated along the major highway corridors (Rhody Drive, Ness’ Corner Road, and Chimacum Road)
and existing developed single-family neighborhoods northeast and south of the commercial core area.
There are scattered multi-family apartment complexes mostly located at the fringe of the Port Hadlock
commercial core area.
Land use in the PHUGA includes commercial, public and quasi-public uses. These include facilities such
as churches, the County Library and Chimacum Creek Elementary School, the Jefferson County Sheriff’s
Office and Jail, Jefferson County Public Works Department Maintenance Yard, and the PUD’s Sparling
Well facility along Rhody Drive and the Kively Well along Chimacum Road. In addition, there are
several neighborhood parks and open space areas.
Future land use and zoning designations for the PHUGA are shown in Table 2-1 and are illustrated in the
Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA Zoning Map (Figure 2-2). Land use districts correspond to the CP general
urban land use designations and zoning districts illustrate the site-specific designations implemented by
the Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA Implementing Regulations adopted as Title 18 of the Jefferson County
Code.
2-3
2-4
Figure 2-2. Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Service Area and Zoning Map
…2. BACKGROUND
TABLE 2-1.
IRONDALE AND PORT HADLOCK UGA LAND USE AND ZONING DISTRICTS
Net
Developable
Total Net Acres
Land Use (Gross) Developable Percent of
Designation Zoning District Acres Acresa Total
Urban Residential
Urban Low Density Residential 801 449 56%
Urban Moderate Density Residential 66 50 86%
Urban High Density Residential 50 31 62%
Urban Commercial
Urban Commercial 263 161 61%
Visitor-Orientated Commercial 14 8 57%
Urban Industrial
Urban Light Industrial 25 15 60%
Public
Public 72 1 1%
TOTALS 1,290 715 55%
Source: Jefferson County Central Services, Jefferson County Department of Community Development
a. Net developable area is the total area on which development, residential or commercial, can take place. It is
the Total (Gross) Acres minus critical areas (environmentally sensitive areas), market factor area (land under
private ownership which is assumed to remain undeveloped by the owner’s choice), and roads and reduction
factor area (area for roads, buffers, easements, etc., that will not be built upon).
Port Hadlock Sewer Planning Area (PHSPA)

As mentioned above, the PHSPA is coincident with the PHUGA. The proposed capital facility plan
outlined in this document will demonstrate the availability of sewer service throughout the sewer planning
area within the county’s Comprehensive Plan’s 20-year planning horizon (i.e.), by the year 2024.
Sewer Planning Area Land Use and Zoning

The predominant land use type by area in the sewer planning area is single-family residential
development. It accounts for close to one-half of the existing land area. Most of the residential
neighborhoods south of Irondale Road are largely built-out, although there are a significant number of
pre-existing platted lots (from early in the 20th century) that remain undeveloped. In fact, vacant lands
constitute about one-third of the UGA—most of which are concentrated north of Irondale Road and south
of Chimacum Creek. Many of these lots are “substandard”— meaning that they cannot meet minimum lot
size requirements for on-site septic systems—and therefore must be combined through restrictive
covenant or lot consolidation in order to build upon. Under current regulations, the county may authorize
single-family home development on pre-existing platted lots provided they meet Jefferson County
Environmental Health Department standards for on-site septic systems and drainfields— usually requiring
a minimum 12,500 square foot lot (if served by a public water system). Current developed single-family
residential lots in the UGA range from 2,500 to 20,000 square feet in size and average about 13,000
square feet.
2-5
Summary of Land Use and Zoning

Figure 2-2 and Table 2-1 summarize the land use designations and area totals for the PHUGA and sewer
planning area. Also presented below are descriptions of the various land use designations identified.
Urban Residential. The Urban Residential land use designation accounts for the largest share of land use
in the UGA. The Urban Low Density Residential (ULDR) zone will allow housing density from four (4)
to six (6) dwelling units per acre, except, as previously noted, for parcels both outside the planned sewer
service area and within a designated Critical Aquifer Recharge Area where the maximum density may not
exceed 3.5 units per acre. This zone accounts for more than 800 acres although only about one-third of
those acres are undeveloped (including mostly vacant platted lots). Moderate Density Residential (MDR)
zoning will allow housing at a density of 7-14 units per acre and accounts for 66 total acres within the
UGA. The High Density Residential zone will allow housing at a density of 14-24 dwelling units per acre.
Urban Commercial. Almost one-quarter of the total UGA is designated for commercial land use. Several
different commercial zoning districts may implement this land use designation. The Urban Commercial
(UC) zone is the largest constituting approximately 263 acres. It covers both the existing and planned
future commercial development in the Port Hadlock core area and along Rhody Drive between Ness’
Corner and the “Dogbone.” The Visitor-Oriented Commercial (VOC) zone is applied to the tourism-
oriented potential development area around the Old Alcohol Plant.
Urban Industrial. Approximately 25 acres of land are designated as an Urban Light Industrial (ULI)
zone in the UGA. These uses are located in the southwest corner of the UGA well buffered from the bulk
of the residential neighborhoods in the community.
Public Facilities. Public facilities (P) comprise 72 acres, including public park and open space areas, the
Library and Chimacum Creek Elementary School, the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office and Jail,
Jefferson County Public Works Department Maintenance Yard, and the PUD’s Sparling Well facility
along Rhody Drive and the Kively Well in Port Hadlock.
POPULATION
This section describes countywide population; population within the proposed Port Hadlock UGA area is
described in Chapter 4. The Office of Financial Management (OFM) publishes population projections for
cities and counties for use with planning under GMA. OFM published Population Trends in April 2001 as
Washington State’s official population figures. These estimates are cited in numerous statutes using
population as a criterion for fund allocations, program eligibility, or program operations and as criteria for
determining county participation in the Growth Management Act.
The City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County developed a population projection and urban population
allocation for the City of Port Townsend, Irondale/Hadlock UGA, and the Port Ludlow MPR based on the
OFM projections. The county passed Resolution #55-03 on September 22, 2003, adopting the Updated
Population Forecast. The population forecast is summarized in Table 2-2.
2-6
…2. BACKGROUND
TABLE 2-2.
JEFFERSON COUNTY AND CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
20-YEAR POPULATION PROJECTION AND DISTRIBUTION
Percentage of
Anticipated Total
2000 Growth (2000- Projected 2024 Countywide Compound
Population 2024) Population Growth Growth Rate
Port Townsend 8,344 4,985 13,329 36% 1.97%
UGA
(incorporated)
Irondale/Hadlock 2,553 2,353 4,906 17% 2.76%
UGA
(unincorporated)
Port Ludlow 1,430 2,353 3,783 17% 4.14%
MPR
(unincorporated)
Unincorporated 13,972 4,149 18,121 30% 1.09%
Rural &
Resources Areas
County-wide 26,299 13,840 40,139 100% 1.78%
Total
Sources: 2000 US Census and 2002 Washington State OFM Population Forecasts
The only incorporated city in the county is Port Townsend. Approximately thirty percent of the county’s
population is incorporated, with the remaining areas unincorporated.
UTILITY SERVICES
Nearby Water Systems
There are several water purveyors in eastern Jefferson County. The large Group A Systems include: Cape
George Colony Club, Inc.; Kala Point Water System; Ludlow Water Company; the Jefferson County
PUD; and the City of Port Townsend.
Jefferson County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) provides water to customers in the PHUGA. The
supply is from ground water wells located within the PHUGA. The Sparling Well is located near the
intersection of Rhody Drive and Kennedy Road, while the Kively Well is located just east of Chimacum
Road.
The PUD wells have annual water rights equivalent to 1.14 million gallons per day (mgd). Current
average day water demands are approximately 0.72 mgd for the entire area served by the PUD wells. This
includes contracted amounts of approximately 0.114 mgd for Indian Island and 0.057 mgd for
Marrowstone Island customers (Fort Flagler and a federal fish hatchery). Current peak day demands are
approximately 1.56 mgd.
2-7
Nearby Wastewater Facilities

Currently, there is no public sewer service within the PHUGA. All wastewater treatment is provided by
either individual on-site septic systems or small community-based on-site systems.
Existing sewer systems within approximately 20 miles of the planning area include: the Naval facility at
Indian Island, City of Port Townsend, City of Sequim, and Port Ludlow resort area.. The Port Ludlow
facility is privately owned and is not available for municipal service. The City of Port Townsend
treatment facility is located approximately eight miles north of the PHUGA, while the City of Sequim
treatment plant is located more than 15 miles from the PHUGA.
TOPOGRAPHY, SOILS AND HYDROGEOLOGY

Topography
Ground elevations in the Port Hadlock area range from zero to approximately 100 feet above sea level.
The terrain consists of the relatively flat Chimacum Creek valley, incised areas immediately adjacent to
the Creek, and upland areas surrounding the valley reaching elevations of over 400 feet above sea level.
Some areas near the coastline and valley walls have slopes greater than 15 percent. Figure 2-3 shows a
topographic map of the area.
Soils
Per Simonds, et al. (2004) Gayer (1975) and Grimstad (1981), most of the study area is underlain by
Quaternary Vashon Recessional Outwash, which generally consists of loose, clean, stratified sands and
gravels deposited by meltwater streams emanating from retreating glaciers. Recessional outwash was not
glacially overridden, and has lower densities than advance outwash or lodgement till. Typically outwash
deposits exhibit moderate to high permeabilities and infiltration rates depending on silt content.
There is some Quaternary Vashon Till in the southern portion of the study area, west of the southern cove
in Port Townsend Bay. Vashon till deposits generally consist of a compact unsorted mixture of clay to
boulder size particles, deposited at the base of the Cordilleran ice sheet during the latest glaciation.
Occasional sand and gravel lenses may be present. Till is commonly referred to as “hardpan” due to its
cement-like texture. Till does not provide a favorable infiltration medium. Till acts as an aquitard that
inhibits the flow of ground water, perches water on top of it in the recessional outwash, and also confines
water below it in the advance outwash. In general, the permeability of till ranges from low in weathered
surficial deposits to relatively impermeable in very dense non-weathered materials.
A geologic map provided by Jefferson County (1995) also indicates Vashon Recessional Outwash over
much of the study area, with a large area of Vashon Lacustrine Deposits in the area bounded by the
northern reach and mouth of Chimacum Creek and the coastline (Jefferson County, 1995). Lacustrine
deposits are typically fine-grained (silt and clay) lake-bottom deposits.
2-8
2-9
Figure 2-3. Topography Map
…2. BACKGROUND
Figure 2-4 shows an excerpt of the soil survey map for the study area (McCreary & Raver, 1975). Soil
maps indicate much of the study area is underlain by three major soil types: Cassolary sandy loam, Dick
loamy sand, and Hoypus gravelly sandy loam. The Cassolary series consists of well-drained soils on
upland terraces, formed in reworked glacial and marine sediments. The Dick series consists of somewhat
excessively drained, sandy soils, formed in glacial outwash on plains and terraces. The Hoypus series
consists of somewhat excessively drained, gravelly soils, formed in glacial outwash on terraces.
Preliminary review of selected well logs in the study area on file at the Washington State Department of
Ecology suggest sand and gravel deposits near the surface over most of the study area, although some
well logs indicate clay or “hardpan.”
Hydrogeological Evaluation
A hydrogeological data review was conducted by HWA Geosciences Inc. to evaluate general
hydrogeologic and soil conditions throughout the area for potential land application or rapid rate
percolation sites for reclaimed water discharge. The study found that much or all of the study area is
underlain by relatively well-drained, granular soils, with few areas of steep slopes or wetlands. Based on
this information and other factors, such as property availability and distance to wastewater infrastructure,
several potential sites may be selected. Hydrogeological testing was conducted on a site south of the
service area boundary. The report is included as Appendix A.
HAZARD AREAS
Some geologically hazardous areas are also present in the PHUGA. These are areas particularly
susceptible to erosion, sliding, earthquakes, or other geological events. Steep slopes and marine bluffs
adjacent to Port Townsend Bay and lower Chimacum Creek are prone to impacts related to erosion,
seismic events and landslides. Protection of these areas is regulated under UDC Section 3.6.7
(Geologically Hazardous Areas).
Erosion and Landslide Hazard

Erosion hazard areas contain soils that, according to the SCS Soil Classification System, may experience
severe to very severe erosion. The erosion hazard for any given soil type increases as slope increases.
Erosion hazard includes the transport of soil by wind and water. The susceptibility of soil to erosion
depends on the size of the soil particles, the amount of precipitation, topography, and the type and density
of vegetation. Slopes greater than 15 percent are found along the coastline, and are generally not suitable
for percolation sites. Percolation near steep slopes may impact slope stability, or may cause undesirable
discharge (daylighting) at the base of the slope or on slope faces. These steep slopes (mostly along the
coastline) are shown on Figure 2-5. Slopes less than 15 percent predominate within the area of interest
and will generally be suitable for percolation sites provided that adequate erosion control measures be
taken during construction and site use.
Landslide hazard areas are areas potentially subject to landslides based on geologic, topographic and
hydrological factors, including bedrock and soil characteristics and stratigraphy, slope, and hydrology.
Areas with significant slopes in the PHUGA are located along the coastline and moderate slopes near the
northern boundary of the area are also indicated on Figure 2-5.
2-10
2-11
Figure 2-4. Soils Map of the Port Hadlock Area
…2. BACKGROUND
Figure 2-5. Erosion & Slide Hazard Areas
2-12
…2. BACKGROUND
Seismic Hazard
Seismic hazard areas are areas associated with active faults and earthquakes. The potential for ground-
shaking, differential settlement, or soil liquefaction in these areas poses significant, predictable hazards to
life and property. Seismic-induced events also include tsunamis, surface faulting or seiches. Jefferson
County and all of Western Washington is at risk of seismic activity.
The International Building Code (IBC) requires that a structure be designed for “site-specific” earthquake
motions, and is no longer given a seismic zone value as in older code such as the Uniform Building Code
(UBC). A particular project site is assigned a seismic design category which determines the severity of
the design earthquake. This category is based on both the short period and one-second period response
accelerations for that particular site determined by a geotechnical engineer, and its seismic use group
based on occupancy of the facility. The Jefferson County Area is located in a region of historically high
seismic risk; therefore the seismic design category would be expected to reflect a more severe earthquake
occurrence. Figure 2-6 shows seismic hazard areas within the PHUGA.
CLIMATE
The climate of the Port Hadlock area is mid-latitude “West Coast Marine,” a climate influenced by moist
air originating from the Pacific Ocean. The high summer temperatures in the area are in the range of 60 to
70º Fahrenheit (F). Low winter temperatures are in the range of 30 to 40ºF. The greatest amount of days
in a year that have been recorded as having sub-freezing maximum temperatures is 20, or approximately
three weeks.
Due to the “rain-shadow” effect from the Olympic Mountain Range, annual rainfall averages
approximately 30 inches per year, while average potential and actual evapotranspiration are
approximately 25.2 and 17.7 inches per year, respectively.
SURFACE WATER/WETLANDS
Percolation near surface water drainages or wetlands may increase stream base flows or wetland water
levels. Increased base flows may have negative impacts on stream or wetland hydrology, including:
increased flow volume, decreased time to reach receiving water, increased frequency and duration of high
stream flows, and greater stream velocities (Ecology, 2005).
No major surface water bodies other than Chimacum Creek and Port Townsend Bay are present within
the study area.
Figure 2-7 illustrates the wetlands within the PHUGA.
GROUNDWATER
The entire UGA is served by a public water system now owned and operated by Public Utility District
No. 1 (PUD) of Jefferson County. The water source is groundwater acquired by two separate wells. The
primary source is the Sparling Well located at the intersection of Rhody Drive and Kennedy Road on the
western border of the PHUGA. A secondary well, the Kivley Well, is located just southeast of the Port
Hadlock core area.
2-13
Figure 2-6. Seismic Hazard Areas
2-14
2-15
Figure 2-7. Wetlands and Environmentally Sensitive Areas
…2. BACKGROUND
Criteria which should be evaluated for potential wastewater infrastructure sites, include:
• Nearby domestic or multiple use water wells
• Nearby municipal wells, and associated wellhead protection areas
• Designated critical aquifer recharge areas
• Contaminated sites.
Portions of the PHUGA are vulnerable to groundwater pollution and are designated as a Critical Aquifer
Recharge Area (CARA) due to their hydrogeologic soil characteristics and the presence of public water
supply wellheads. The Jefferson County Public Utility District owns the water system that serves the
UGA. The water system relies on groundwater wells. There is a designated wellhead protection area
around the PUD’s Sparling Well and the Kivley Well. Figure 2-8 shows wellhead protection areas, from
the Washington State Department of Ecology Facility/Site Identification System. Figure 2-9 shows
critical aquifer recharge areas (CARA), from the Jefferson County GIS database. The treatment method
selected will impact the degree to which receptor water quality issues are considered.
The CARA is subject to enhanced wastewater treatment standards which, among other requirements, limit
land use activities; establish minimum lot sizes for uses dependent upon on-site septic systems for
wastewater treatment and disposal; and requires “best management practices” for siting such
development—according to Jefferson County UDC Sections 3.6.5 (Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas);
6.18 (On- Site Sewage Disposal Best Management Practices in CARAs); and Jefferson County Code
Chapter 8.15 (On- Site Sewage Disposal Systems).
RELATED STUDIES
The following plans, studies, and other documents were reviewed as background for the current study:
• Economic and Engineering Services Inc., 2004. General Sewer Plan for the Irondale and Port
Hadlock Urban Growth Area
• Jefferson County, 2004 Update. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan.
• Jefferson County Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 3.6.7 (Geologically Hazardous
Areas).
• U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1958. Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey, Jefferson
County, Washington.
2-16
2-17
Figure 2-8. Wellhead Protection
…2. BACKGROUND
Figure 2-9. CARA Locations
2-18
CHAPTER 3.
PERMITS, REQUIREMENTS AND REGULATIONS
Wastewater must be collected, treated, and disposed of or reused in a way that protects public health and
receiving water quality, generates no objectionable off-site odors or aesthetic nuisances, and complies
with all applicable regulations. Wastewater treatment facilities must meet the regulations and
requirements of many federal, state, and local regulatory agencies. This chapter summarizes applicable
rules and regulations that typically apply to wastewater projects.
FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Federal Water Quality Acts
Programs and policies designed to protect water quality were first initiated on a nationwide scale by the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956. This act was amended by the Water Quality Act of 1965,
the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966, and the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970. The Federal
Water Pollution Act Amendment of 1972 (Public Law 92-500) replaced the previous language of the Act
entirely. This Act requires states to establish water quality standards for all of their water bodies. The
standard must consist of two parts: a designation of the use of the water body; and the water quality
criteria that water body must maintain to protect the designated uses from pollution. The State of
Washington complies with this regulation through WAC 173-201A, which is described later.
The Clean Water Act of 1977, in further amending the Act, required any agency conducting an activity
that may result in a discharge into navigable waters to obtain certification from the appropriate water
pollution control agency, verifying that the discharge complies with applicable effluent limitations and
water quality standards. Further, these amendments established the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits, which regulate point discharges into water, and required various
types of water quality planning by states. Grants for facilities and training were also authorized under
these amendments.
With increased environmental awareness of the extent and effects of nonpoint pollution, including
stormwater, additional amendments to the Federal Clean Water Act were passed by Congress in early
1987. These amendments, referred to as the Water Quality Act of 1987, and especially Section 319, direct
the states in developing programs designed to reduce nonpoint source pollution. These sources of
pollution have become increasingly evident over the past 25 years as abatement of source pollution has
occurred. The Amendments required each state to do the following:
• Submit a report identifying navigable waters that cannot meet water quality standards without
action to control pollution.
• Identify the categories of pollution sources.
• Describe processes for identifying best management practices and control strategies.
• Identify state and local programs for controlling pollution from both point and nonpoint
sources.
These amendments resulted in the formation of the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (PSWQA) and
the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan.
3-1
Puget Sound Estuary Program

The Water Quality Act of 1987 formally established the National Estuary Program and declared that the
increase in coastal population, demands for development, and other direct and indirect uses of estuaries
threaten these unique bodies of water. The law further states that it is in the national interest to maintain
the ecological integrity of the nation’s estuaries through long-term planning and management. The EPA’s
designation of Puget Sound as an estuary of national significance is the federal government’s formal
recognition that Puget Sound is a resource of vital importance to fish and wildlife, to recreation, and to
commerce and trade.
The Puget Sound Estuary Program, which is co-managed by the EPA, the Washington State Department
of Ecology, and the Puget Sound Action Team (formerly the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority), has
been designated as the management conference for Puget Sound. The Puget Sound Action Team is
supplanted by the Puget Sound Partnership in 2007 legislation. The management conference is
responsible for the development and implementation of a site-specific “Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan” (CCMP). Under the law, the management plans developed by each conference must
do the following:
• Assess trends in water quality, natural resources, and uses of the estuary.
• Collect, characterize, and assess data on toxics, nutrients, and natural resources within the
estuarine zone to identify the causes of environmental problems.
• Develop the relationship between the in-place loads and point and nonpoint loadings of
pollutants to the estuarine zone and the potential uses of the zone, water quality, and natural
resources.
• Develop a comprehensive conservation and management plan that recommends priority
corrective actions and compliance schedules addressing point and nonpoint sources of
pollution.
• Develop plans for the coordinated implementation of the plan by the states as well as federal
and local agencies participating in the conference.
• Monitor the effectiveness of the actions taken pursuant to the plan.
• Review all federal financial assistance programs and federal development projects to
determine whether such assistance program or project would be consistent with and further
the purposes of the plan.
The 1987 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan developed by the Authority is recognized as
being a partial CCMP by the National Estuary Program. Successive updates complete the requirements
for a CCMP.
Federal Effluent Limitations

Section 301 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act requires all publicly owned wastewater treatment
facilities to provide a minimum of secondary treatment unless a special waiver is obtained. This act
requires the following:
• The monthly average of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids
(TSS) concentrations shall not exceed 30 milligrams per liter (mg/L).
• The weekly average of BOD and TSS concentrations shall not exceed 45 mg/L.
• The monthly average removal of BOD and TSS shall be at least 85 percent.
3-2
…3. PERMITS, REQUIREMENTS AND REGULATIONS
• The pH of the effluent shall be between 6.0 and 9.0.
There can be exceptions to these regulations when treatment works receive combined sewer flows or
certain industrial wastes. However, in general, these are the minimum federal requirements for effluent
quality. The Washington State Department of Ecology administers these regulations under the NPDES.
National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires appropriate environmental documentation for
projects that could have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the natural and human environment.
The EPA can declare that a proposed action is categorically exempt from these requirements. Otherwise,
the proposing agency must prepare an Environmental Information Document (EID), commonly referred
to as an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Report. An Environmental Report has been
prepared for this project (Tt/KCM, 2007). An Environmental Report looks at various elements of the
environment such as soils, water quality, and air quality. In addition, the document addresses how the
proposed project complies with federal and state regulations. Letters were sent to various regulatory
agencies requesting input and comments regarding the proposed action. The EPA uses the Environmental
Report to determine whether to issue a “finding of no significant impact” or to require an environmental
impact statement.
Federal Standards for Use or Disposal of Sludge

The federal document that regulates the use and disposal of sewage sludge is the Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 503 (40 CFR 503, EPA 1993). These regulations, published in February 1993, address
three main sludge disposal options:
• Land application
• Surface disposal
• Incineration.
Land-applied sludge must meet requirements in the 503 regulations for pathogen and vector attraction
reduction. Two basic classes for pathogen reduction are established in the regulations. In general, sludge
distributed in bagged form must meet Class A requirements. Sludge applied to the land in bulk form must
meet Class B requirements. The discussion below focuses on the regulations applicable to bulk land
application because that is the only disposal option evaluated in this report.
Pathogen Reduction
Class A sludge must have levels of fecal coliform organisms below 1,000 per gram of total solids and
meet other time and temperature requirements, or the sludge must have been treated with an EPA-defined
“process to further reduce pathogens.” These processes include composting, heat drying, heat treatment,
thermophilic aerobic digestion, irradiation, and pasteurization.
Class B sludge must have levels of fecal coliform organisms less than 2 million per gram of total solids,
or meet other requirements, or the sludge must have been treated with an EPA-defined “process to
significantly reduce pathogens.” These processes include aerobic digestion for a mean cell residence time
greater than 40 days at 20ºC or 60 days at 15ºC, air drying, anaerobic digestion, composting, or lime
stabilization.
3-3
Vector Attraction Reduction

The regulations require that land-applied sludge be processed to reduce its “vector attraction.” This means
that the sludge should be stabilized sufficiently to not be an attraction to rodents or birds that could spread
pathogens contained in the sludge and thereby increase the risk of human exposure. The basic measure of
the adequacy of sludge stabilization in the regulations is that the volatile solids concentration in the sludge
be reduced through processing by at least 38 percent. A series of alternative procedures are provided for
reducing vector attraction, including injection below the ground surface.
Metals
Limits are specified for the concentration of various metals in the sludge and for the cumulative loading
of these metals on the land used for its application. Table 3-1 lists the concentration limits for any sludge
that is land applied. Table 3-2 lists further guidelines for sludge that is land applied in bulk. Either the
monthly average concentration criteria or the cumulative pollutant loading rate criteria must be met.
Other Measures
In addition to regulating the quality of biosolids, the regulations require specific management measures,
including the following:
• Record-Keeping and Reporting—Records must be kept by the producer describing the

quantity and quality of the biosolids that have been applied to specific sites for up to five
years. Even if the producer has a contract for biosolids disposal with a private contractor, the
producer is ultimately responsible for the record-keeping and reporting.
• Monitoring—The producer is responsible for monitoring the biosolids for metals and specific
pathogens on a regular basis.
• Management Practices—Biosolids should not be applied to flooded, frozen, or snow-covered

ground, so that biosolids do not enter surface waters.
TABLE 3-1.
CEILING CONCENTRATIONS FOR METALS IN
LAND-APPLIED SLUDGE
Parameter Ceiling Concentration Limit (mg/kg)

Arsenic 75
Cadmium 85
Copper 4,300
Lead 840
Mercury 57
Molybdenum 75
Nickel 420
Selenium 100
Zinc 7,500
3-4
TABLE 3-2.
METAL CONCENTRATION LIMITS FOR BULK SEWAGE SLUDGE
LAND APPLICATION
Monthly Average Concentration Cumulative Pollutant

Parameter Limit (mg/kg) Loading Rate (kg/hectare)
Arsenic 41 41
Cadmium 39 39
Copper 1,500 1,500
Lead 300 300
Mercury 17 17
Nickel 420 420
Selenium 100 100
Zinc 2,800 2,800
Clean Air Act

The Federal Clean Air Act of 1992 requires that all federally funded projects be in compliance with state
and regional air quality plans. The local air-quality authority for Jefferson County is the Olympic Region
Clean Air Agency; agency requirements are discussed later in this chapter.
EPA Reliability Criteria

An important reference for wastewater treatment plant reliability is the EPA’s Design Criteria for
Mechanical, Electric, and Fluid System and Component Reliability (EPA 1974). This document outlines
requirements in three reliability classes, with specific provisions for each unit process. Table 3-3
summarizes its requirements for component reliability.
3-5
TABLE 3-3.
SUMMARY OF EPA DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SYSTEM AND COMPONENT RELIABILITY
Component Class I Class II Class III
Reliability Works discharging into navigable waters that could Works discharging into navigable waters Works not otherwise
classification be permanently or unacceptably damaged by that would not be permanently or classified as Reliability
effluent that was degraded in quality for only a few unacceptably damaged by short-term Class I or II
hours. Examples of Reliability Class I works might effluent quality degradation, but could be
be those discharging near drinking water reservoirs, damaged by continued (on the order of
into shellfish waters, or in proximity to areas used several days) effluent degradation.
for water contact sports.
Trash removal Required Same as Class I Same as Class I
Grit removal Required if sludge is handled Same as Class I Same as Class I
Clean-out of solids Provisions for cleaning of solids required for Same as Class I Same as Class I
components prior to degritting or sedimentation
Controlled Screened, gravity overflow required with alarm, Same as Class I, but no holding basin Same, as Class I but no
diversion annunciation, and measurement of flow discharged. required holding basin required
Holding basin required
Unit operation Required except for unit operations with two or Same as Class I Same as Class I
bypassing more open basins
Mechanically Backup manual screen required Same as Class I Same as Class I

cleaned bar screens
Pumps Capacity to handle peak flow with any one pump out Same as Class I Same as Class I
of service must be provided
Comminution Overflow bypass must be provided with manual bar Same as Class I Same as Class I
screen
Primary With largest unit out, remaining units shall have Same as Class I At least two basins
sedimentation design flow of at least 50 percent of the total design
basins flow to that unit operation
Final and chemical With largest unit out, remaining units shall have With largest unit out, remaining units At least two basins;
sedimentation design flow of at least 75 percent of the total design shall have design flow of at least 50 backup not required
basins, trickling flow to that unit operation percent of the total design flow to that for chemical
filters, filters, and unit operation; backup not required for sedimentation basins,
activated carbon chemical sedimentation basins, filters, filters, and activated
columns and activated carbon columns carbon columns
Aeration basin At least two equal volumes shall be provided Same as Class I Single basin
permissible
Aeration blowers Sufficient to provide for peak oxygen demands with Same as Class I At least two units
or aerators the largest capacity unit out of service
3-6
TABLE 3-3 (continued).

Diffusers Designed so that isolation of the largest section of diffusers does not Same as Class I Same as Class I
measurably impair oxygen transfer capability
Chemical flash At least two basins or a backup means of adding chemicals Backup not required Backup not required
mixer
Flocculation basins At least two basins Backup not required Backup not required
Disinfectant With largest unit out, remaining units shall have design flow of at least Same as Class I Same as Class I
contact basins 50 percent of the total design flow to that unit operation
Sludge handling Alternate methods of sludge disposal and/or treatment shall be Same as Class I Same as Class I
provided for each sludge treatment unit operation without installed
backup capability. No recycles permitted that will compromise liquid
treatment.
Sludge holding May be used to back up downstream tanks Same as Class I Same as Class I
tanks
Sludge pumps A backup pump shall be provided for each set of pumps that performs Same as Class I Same as Class I
the same function. The capacity of the pumps shall be such that with
any one pump out of service, the remaining pumps will have capacity
to handle the peak flow.
Anaerobic sludge At least two digestion tanks shall be provided. At least two of the Same as Class I Same as Class I
digestion digestion tanks provided shall be designed to permit processing all
types of sludge normally digested. Tanks shall have sufficient
flexibility or backup equipment to ensure that mixing is not lost when
any one piece of equipment is out of service. Uninstalled backup is
acceptable for mixing equipment
Aerobic sludge Backup aeration basin not required. At least two blowers shall be
digestion provided. Uninstalled backup is permissible. Largest section of
diffusers can be isolated.
Sludge holding May be used to back up downstream tanks Same as Class I Same as Class I
tanks
Vacuum filter There shall be sufficient number of vacuum filters to enable the design Same as Class I Same as Class I
flow to be dewatered with largest capacity unit out of service. Two
vacuum pumps and two filtrate pumps shall service each vacuum filter.
These may be uninstalled.
Centrifuges There shall be sufficient number of units to enable the design flow to Same as Class I Same as Class I
be dewatered with largest capacity unit out of service. The backup unit
may be uninstalled.
Incinerators A backup incinerator is not required. Auxiliary equipment shall be Same as Class I Same as Class I
provided with backup.
3-7
TABLE 3-3 (continued).

Electric power Two separate and independent sources of electric power shall be Same as Class I except Sufficient to operate
source provided to the works either from two separate utility substations or those vital the screening or
from a single substation and a works-based generator. Capacity of components to support comminution facilities,
backup power shall be sufficient to operate all vital components, during the secondary the main wastewater
peak wastewater flow conditions, together with critical lighting and processes need not be pumps, the primary
ventilation. included as long as sedimentation basins,
treatment equivalent and the disinfection
to sedimentation and facility during peak
disinfection is flow together with
provided. critical lighting and
ventilation.
Power distribution The independent sources of power shall be distributed to the works Same as Class I Same as Class I
external to the transformers in a way to minimize common mode failures from
works affecting both sources.
Power distribution See Referenced EPA document Same as Class I Same as Class I
within the works
Instrumentation Automatic control systems whose failures could result in a controlled Same as Class I Same as Class I
and control diversion or a violation of the effluent limitations shall be provided
systems with a manual override. Instrumentation whose failure could result in a
controlled diversion or a violation of the effluent limitations shall be
provided with an installed backup sensor and readout. Alarms shall be
provided to monitor the condition of equipment whose failure could
result in a controlled diversion or a violation of the effluent limitations.
Vital instrumentation and control equipment shall be designed to
permit alignment and calibration without requiring a controlled
diversion or a violation of the effluent limitations
Auxiliary systems If a malfunction of the system can result in controlled diversion or a Same as Class I Same as Class I
violation of the effluent limitations and the required function cannot be
done by any other means, then the system shall have backup capability.
Reference: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Design Criteria for Mechanical, Electric, and Fluid System and Component Reliability.
MCD-05, EPA-430-99-74-001. Office of Water Program Operations. Washington, D. C.,
The EPA’s requirements are very similar to Ecology’s reliability requirements, which are discussed later
in this chapter. The wastewater facilities proposed in this sewer plan and engineering report will comply
with the EPA and Ecology Class I reliability criteria.
Historical and Archaeological Sites

Both federal and state laws require agencies to assess the effects of their proposed projects on significant
archeological and historic properties. If facility improvement projects impact identified historical or
archaeological sites, a more detailed evaluation of the site and potential impact of the project on the site
will be required. The Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation recommended a
professional archaeological survey of the identified area of potential effect as well as consultation with
the concerned tribes’ cultural committees and staff regarding cultural resource issues. The County will
commence with an archaeological survey prior to construction of the proposed projects. If during
3-8
construction, archaeological resources are found, all work will be halted and the concerned tribe and State
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation will be contacted.
Floodplains, Wetlands, and Flood Insurance

The EPA restricts treatment projects on environmentally sensitive lands such as floodplains and wetlands.
Agricultural Lands
It is EPA policy under the Farmland Protection Policy Act (PL 97-98) to protect agricultural lands from
“irreversible loss as an environmental or essential food production resource.”
Coastal Zone Management

The Coastal Zone Management Act requires that all federal activities be consistent with approved state
coastal zone management programs to the maximum extent possible. This project is located in a coastal
zone county and is consistent with Washington's Coastal Zone Management Program and enforceable
regulatory policies (State Environmental Policy Act, Water Quality, Air Quality and the Shoreline Master
Program). Depending on the scope of the project, Jefferson County may be required to submit a Coastal
Zone Certification of Consistency to the Department of Ecology for approval as part of obtaining the
appropriate permits and approvals.
A shoreline development permit would be needed prior to construction if construction is planned within
200 feet of the ordinary high water mark.
Wild and Scenic Rivers

To comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, proposed projects should not directly and adversely
impact any wild, scenic, or recreational river area.
Fish and Wildlife Protection

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires that projects “controlling or modifying any natural
streams or other body of water” be done in a way that protects fish and wildlife resources and habitats.
Also, since wastewater treatment facilities can attract birds, coordination with federal wildlife and
aviation officials is recommended if treatment facilities are within 2 miles of any airports. The closest
airport to the Port Hadlock area is the Jefferson County International Airport approximately 3 miles to the
northwest.
Endangered Species Act

Projects with a federal “nexus,” including federal permits, approvals or funding, require compliance with
the Endangered Species Act. Listed fish species include the following:
• Chum salmon, Hood Canal summer-run—federally threatened
• Bull trout—federally threatened and a state species of concern
• Chinook salmon—federally threatened and a state species of concern
• Coho salmon—federal candidate species.
In addition, the Bald Eagle is considered threatened by the federal and state government.
3-9
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

In December 1998, the National Marine Fisheries Service (which has since been renamed as NOAA
Fisheries) issued interim final regulations to implement the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) requirements of
the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act. This act significantly amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act of 1976.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the following: for federal actions that may adversely affect EFH,
except activities covered by a General Concurrence, federal agencies, must provide a written assessment
of the effects of that action on EFH. EFH is defined as “waters and substrate necessary to fish for
spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” EFH must always include the critical habitat of
endangered and threatened species.
If a project affects an endangered species of plant or wildlife, it should include mitigating measures to
reduce the impact.
Public Participation
Jefferson County has adopted a comprehensive approach for public participation for this project. The
strategy includes stakeholder workshops, public meetings, a project website, and press releases.
Informational fliers have been mailed to all property owners within the Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area
(PHUGA) and to those who have included themselves on the project mailing list. Within this strategy,
several public meetings were held to comply with a federal requirement for facilities plans. The federal
requirement is for at least two public meetings.
The following public meetings were held during the development of this Facility Plan:
• March 16 2006 – Stakeholder Workshop: Collection System Alternatives and Evaluation
• May 25, 2006 – Stakeholder Workshop: Discharge and Treatment Alternatives Evaluation
• June 22, 2006 – Stakeholder Workshop: Alternatives for Collection, Treatment, and
Discharge/Reuse
• July 19, 2006 – Public Meeting: Alternatives for Collection, Treatment, and Discharge/Reuse
• October 10, 2006 – Stakeholder Workshop: Preliminary Design, Cost & Finance
• October 25, 2006 – Public Meeting: Preliminary Design, Cost & Finance
At each meeting, a technical presentation was given discussing the topic. Questions and answer sessions
occurred at the end of each meeting. Subsequent meetings began with a follow up on key topics and
questions from the previous meeting which required further research. All meetings were open to the
public and meeting summaries were posted on the project website (www.porthadlocksewer.org).
The project website at www.porthadlocksewer.org provided interested citizens and stakeholders with
meeting schedules, meeting summaries, maps, background information and meeting slide presentations.
The website also provided a comment section and a frequently asked question section. The website
information was duplicated in hard-copy form in the project folder at the Jefferson County Library.
Appendix B contains meeting summaries from the stakeholder workshops and public meetings.
3-10
STATE POLICIES
The Clean Water Act allows states to establish more stringent water quality requirements than are
required by federal law. Like most other states, Washington State has developed requirements pertaining
to surface water quality more stringent than those developed by the federal government. Ecology
administers the NPDES wastewater and stormwater permits and has requirements relating to protection of
ground and surface waters.
Agencies other than Ecology can also have involvement in construction and operation of facilities located
in critical areas. The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has involvement in
cases involving fish-bearing streams. In addition, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) has authority for facilities to be constructed on tidelands or along shorelines. To promote
efficiency and reduce overlap, state agencies and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers developed a Joint
Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA), which can be submitted for the following permits:
• WDFW’s Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA)
• Local agency shoreline management permits
• Department of Ecology Water Quality Certification and Approval for Exceedance of Water
Quality Standards
• Corps of Engineers Section 404 and Section 10 Permits
• Marine and aquatic lease.
Depending upon the final location of the wastewater treatment and reuse facilities proposed in this
Facility Plan, a JARPA may be needed for the shoreline management permit. Depending on final
alignment and design considerations relating to wetlands and streams, a Corps Permit and an HPA could
be required.
Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters

The applicable water quality standards for construction in or near streams or the shoreline are those
adopted by Ecology pursuant to Section 303 of the Federal Water Pollution Act Amendments. Water
Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington was promulgated by Ecology in 2006
(WAC 173-201A). These standards describe general water quality conditions and classifications for
specific surface waters and the water quality desired for each class. General conditions listed under the
water quality standards are as follows:
• Existing beneficial uses shall be maintained and protected and no further degradation that
could interfere with or become injurious to existing beneficial uses shall be allowed.
• Whenever the natural conditions of waters are of a lower quality than the criteria assigned,
the natural conditions shall constitute the water quality criteria.
• Water quality shall be maintained and protected in waters designated as outstanding resource
waters. These waters are the following:
– Waters in national parks, national monuments, national preserves, national wildlife
refuges, national wilderness areas, federal wild and scenic rivers, national seashores,
national marine sanctuaries, national recreation areas, national scenic areas, and national
estuarine research reserves.
– Waters in state parks, state natural areas, state wildlife management areas, and state
scenic rivers.
3-11
– Documented aquatic habitat of priority species as determined by the Department of Fish

and Wildlife.
– Documented critical habitat for populations of threatened or endangered species of native
anadromous fish.
– Waters of exceptional recreational or ecological significance.
• Whenever waters are of a higher quality than the criteria assigned for them, the existing water
quality shall be protected and pollution of said waters that will reduce the existing quality
shall not be allowed, except in instances where:
– It is clear, after satisfactory public participation and intergovernmental coordination, that
overriding considerations of the public interest will be served.
– All wastes and other materials and substances discharged into said waters shall be
provided with all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control, and
treatment by new and existing point sources before discharge. All activities that result in
the pollution of waters from nonpoint sources shall be provided with all known,
available, and reasonable best management practices.
– When the lowering of water quality in high quality waters is authorized, the lower water
quality shall still be of high enough quality to fully support all existing beneficial uses.
General classifications applying to various surface water bodies not specifically classified under
173-201A-130 & 140 are as follows (applicable items only):
1. All surface waters lying within national parks, national forests, and/or wilderness areas are
classified Class AA or Lake Class.
2. All lakes and their feeder streams within the state are classified Lake Class and Class AA
respectively, except for those feeder streams specifically classified otherwise.
6. (Items 3 through 5 not repeated herein) All unclassified surface waters that are tributaries to
Class AA waters are classified Class AA. All other unclassified surface waters in the state are
hereby classified Class A.
State Environmental Policy Act

A State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review will be required upon completion of this document. A
SEPA review is an environmental checklist completed to ensure the State that there are no adverse
environmental impacts from proposed projects. Jefferson County will issue a threshold determination
based on review of the environmental checklist. This determination will be sent to the Departments of
Ecology and Health as well as USDA Rural Development for their concurrence. A copy of the SEPA
checklist is included in Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility Plan - Environmental Report and SEPA
Checklist.
State Environmental Review Process; Department of Ecology

Documentation
To be eligible for financial assistance from the State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund, this plan
must comply with the State Environmental Review Process (SERP, WAC 173-98-100). The SERP was
established “to help ensure that environmentally sound alternatives are selected and to satisfy the state’s
responsibility to help ensure that recipients comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and other
applicable environmental laws, regulations, and executive orders.” This project included an extensive
public involvement program and environmental documentation, and these efforts fully satisfy SERP.
3-12
In addition, the Department of Ecology has adopted a new set of requirements for environmental
documentation in coordination with USDA Rural Development. Requirements include sending out a
project description and summary of the proposed action to applicable regulatory agencies and requesting
input and comments regarding the proposed action. The environmental report, which also serves as the
Environmental Assessment for NEPA requirements, is a separate companion volume to this Facility Plan.
Since the Department of Health also has regulatory responsibility for wastewater treatment and effluent
management per WAC 246-271, a copy of the environmental report will be sent to them as well.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit

Wastewater Effluent
The State of Washington administers the federal effluent limitations through the NPDES program. All
wastewater discharges into the waters of the state, including treated effluent from treatment plants, must
be permitted through the Department of Ecology with an NPDES Permit.
Stormwater Discharge
Construction projects that disturb more than 5 acres require a construction general permit for stormwater
discharge under NPDES requirements; mitigation measures are required, including preparation of a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan. During construction, temporary erosion and sediment control measures
are required.
State Waste Discharge Permit, Wastewater Effluent

All wastewater disposed of via land application must be permitted through the Department of Ecology
with a State Waste Discharge Permit. As will be discussed in Chapter 6, “disposal” via land application is
generally taken to mean that the land application process is relied on to provide further treatment. Effluent
to be “disposed” via land application is assumed not to meet reclaimed water standards before being land
applied (similar to septic tank drainfield systems).
In comparison, “water reclamation” via land application is taken to mean that the effluent is treated to a
high degree before being land applied, the land is not needed for further treatment, and the land
application is for a beneficial use, such as groundwater recharge. Refer to the “Standards for Water
Reclamation” section on the next page.
Washington State Standards for Use and Disposal of Sludge

WAC 173-308, Biosolids Management, establishes guidelines for treatment and land application of
biosolids generated by municipal wastewater treatment facilities. These mirror the federal guidelines in
40 CFR 503. The state Department of Ecology has authority to enforce these rules and may, if it chooses,
delegate some of the authority to local health departments.
Washington Department of Ecology Criteria for Sewage Works Design

The Ecology-developed Criteria for Sewage Works Design (Ecology 2006), also known as the Orange
Book, is a guide for design of sewage collection and treatment systems. The primary goals of the manual
are as follows:
• To ensure that the design of sewage collection and treatment systems is consistent with state
public health and water quality objectives
3-13
• To establish a basis for the design and review of plans and specifications for sewage
treatment works and sewerage systems
• To establish the minimum requirements and limiting factors for review of sewage treatment
work and sewerage system plans and specifications
• To assist the owner or the owner’s authorized engineer in the preparation of plans,
specifications, reports, and other data
• To guide departments in their determination of whether to issue approvals, permits, or
certificates for sewage treatment works or a sewer systems.
Ecology uses the Orange Book design guidelines to review and approve reports, plans, and specifications.
Design guidelines presented in this book will be used to evaluate the capacity of the proposed treatment
facility and to establish design criteria. The Orange Book also presents guidelines for wastewater
treatment component design, including the number of units required for operation during peak flows. In
general, state requirements follow the federal requirements outlined in Table 3-3. The state reliability
classification scheme is shown in Table 3-4.
TABLE 3-4.
RELIABILITY CLASS SYSTEM IN THE ORANGE BOOK
Reliability Class Applies to
I Works whose discharge, or potential discharge, (1) is into public water supply,
shellfish, or primary contact recreation waters, or (2) as a result of its volume and/or
character, could permanently or unacceptably damage or affect the receiving waters
or public health if normal operations were interrupted.
II Works whose discharge, or potential discharge, as a result of its volume and/or

character, would not permanently or unacceptably damage or affect the receiving
waters or public health during periods of short-term operations interruptions, but
could be damaging if continued interruption of normal operations were to occur (on
the order of several days).
III Works not otherwise classified as Reliability Class I or II.
Standards for Water Reclamation

The Washington State Departments of Health and Ecology jointly released a set of standards for
wastewater reclamation projects in September 1997. The Water Reclamation and Reuse Standards
describe the treatment and quality requirements for a variety of beneficial end uses. Four basic classes of
reuse quality are listed, along with their suitability for various end uses. The four classes vary from Class
A (highest quality) to Class D (lowest quality). For uses such as direct injection into a drinking water
aquifer, there are more stringent standards than any of these four classes. Landscape irrigation requires
Class A reclaimed water, which is defined as follows:
“Class A Reclaimed Water” means reclaimed water that, at a minimum, is at all times an
oxidized, coagulated, filtered, disinfected wastewater. The wastewater shall be considered
adequately disinfected if the median number of total coliform organisms in the wastewater
after disinfection does not exceed 2.2 per 100 milliliters, as determined from the
bacteriological results of the last 7 days for which analyses have been completed, and the
number of total coliform organisms does not exceed 23 per 100 milliliters in any sample.
3-14
If surface percolation is used for land application of reclaimed water, a nitrogen reduction step is required
in addition to other Class A requirements.
The Water Reclamation and Reuse Standards also list requirements for redundancy, including redundant
filtration and disinfection equipment. Storage requirements are also listed, including emergency storage
and wintertime storage.
Land application of reclaimed water is permitted under a single reclaimed water permit issued jointly by
the DOE and DOH. Since the reclaimed water is being beneficially reused instead of disposed of, a State
Waste Discharge Permit (described previously) is not required.
Washington Department of Natural Resources/Shellfish Closure Zone

For treatment plants that discharge to aquatic lands, the use of the aquatic lands for the outfall is granted
by the Washington Department of Natural Resources through an aquatic lands lease that must be
periodically renewed. DNR also has the authority to condition uses of state lands as needed to ensure the
well-being of lands and ecosystems, to deny uses not in compliance with applicable laws, codes, and
policies, and to seek prosecution of users trespassing on state lands.
Additionally, the Washington Departments of Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, Health, and Natural Resources
established a joint policy titled Inter-Agency Permit Streamlining Document, Shellfish and Domestic
Wastewater Discharge Outfall Projects dated October 10, 1995. The policy requires that wastewater
outfalls avoid impacts on shellfish altogether or, when that is not possible, do the following:
• Minimize shellfish impacts
• Rectify shellfish impacts
• Reduce or eliminate shellfish impacts over time
• Compensate for impacts to shellfish
• Monitor and take corrective measures over time.
The Department of Health establishes the closure zones for commercial and tribal shellfish harvesting
around all wastewater treatment plant outfalls.
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Approval

Cultural resources are addressed in over 100 federal laws, regulations, and guidelines, including the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
amended in 1992 (NHPA). Section 106 of the NHPA requires federally assisted undertakings to take into
account the effects of those undertakings on historic properties that are included in or may be eligible to
be included in the National Register of Historic Places. “Historic properties” refers to prehistoric
archaeological sites as well as buildings, structures, and other historic sites.
Applicable state laws include the Indian Graves and Records Act (RCW 27.44), which prohibits
knowingly disturbing a Native American or historic grave, and the Archaeological Sites and Resources
Act (RCW 27.53), which requires that anyone proposing to excavate into, disturb, or remove artifacts
from an archaeological site on public or private lands obtain a permit from the Office of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation.
Three elements are involved in cultural resources studies following Section 106 procedures:
1. The identification and evaluation of historic properties.
3-15
2. Assessment of effects of the proposed undertaking on historic properties.

3. Consultation among principal parties to consider ways to avoid, reduce, or mitigate adverse
effects.
The first element, identification and evaluation, is of most concern at the beginning stages of projects.
Methods for identification of historic properties consist of archival research, field survey, and
consultation.
Archival research, including a check of the Washington state site inventory and records at the Office of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP), is conducted prior to any field activity in order to
determine if sites are already recorded in the project area or its vicinity. Other information is collected
from ethnographic and historic accounts, previous regional cultural resource investigations, informants,
maps, photographs, and environmental information. Research to determine the age of landforms involved
and the extent of modern disturbance are especially important. Locations of archaeological sites may be
identified by this process. The potential for buried and hence undiscovered sites, or uplifted former
shorelines favorable for habitation, may also be determined. Field visits are made after completion of the
background research to verify field conditions, discuss construction locations and methods, and to
identify historic properties. The results of these investigations are presented in a report for submittal to
appropriate agencies, the OAHP, and, in this case, to the S’Klallam Tribe. The report includes
recommendations for dealing with any sites discovered, additional discovery measures, if necessary,
monitoring high-potential locations, and a Discovery Plan to be enacted in the event archaeological
material is encountered during construction.
Although not critical areas as defined in the County’s Critical Areas Ordinance, archaeology sites are
important and very sensitive areas. The County requires that best management practices be implemented
in these areas. The County maintains a current inventory of all known and suspected historical and
archaeological sites. The Department of Community Development should be contacted to determine
whether a project near a shoreline is located in a historical or archaeological site. For such sites, County
regulations require that a professional archaeologist evaluate the site to determine potential impacts and
recommend mitigation. The local tribal authority must be contacted if human remains or historical or
archaeological resources are encountered. The tribal address and telephone number is as follows:
Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe

31912 Little Boston Road NE
Kingston, Washington 98346
Phone: (360) 297-2646
LOCAL POLICIES
SEPA Review
An environmental checklist will be prepared to evaluate potential impacts of the work proposed in this
report. The Jefferson County Department of Community Development, as lead agency, will issue a
threshold determination based on its evaluation of the checklist.
If the responsible official determines there will be no probable significant adverse environmental impacts
from the projects proposed or that the impacts would be properly mitigated, the lead agency would
prepare and issue a “determination of nonsignificance” (DNS) or “mitigated determination of
nonsignificance” (MDNS). The responsible official would send the DNS and environmental checklist to
agencies with jurisdiction, Ecology and affected tribes. These entities may submit comments to the lead
3-16
agency within 15 days. An agency with jurisdiction may assume lead agency status within the 15-day
period if it disagrees with the threshold determination.
A “determination of significance” (DS), which acknowledges the potential for significant environmental
impacts, would require an environmental impact statement (EIS) that describes existing conditions,
addresses and evaluates alternatives, analyzes potential environmental impacts and addresses mitigation
measures. A scoping process would have to be conducted at the beginning of the EIS, in which the
County would inform agencies and the public of the proposed projects and solicit comments that would
have to be addressed in the EIS.
Critical Areas Review

In noting the importance of sensitive habitats and wildlife species, and in complying with the Washington
State Growth Management Act of 1990, Jefferson County has adopted a Critical Areas Section (17.02).
Critical areas addressed in the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) include:
• Wetlands
• Aquifer recharge areas
• Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, including streams and shorelines
• Floodplains
• Geologically hazardous areas
The Jefferson County Department of Community Development reviews projects as to their impact on
these critical areas and requires protection standards and buffers for their protection.
Shoreline Management Program

Jefferson County has adopted a Shoreline Master Program as required by the Shoreline Management Act
of 1971, (RCW 90.58). Shorelines covered by each Shoreline Management Program generally include all
water areas of the state, including marine and fresh waters and their associated wetlands together with the
underlying lands, except: (a) shorelines along streams and their associated wetlands where the mean
annual flow is less than 20 cubic feet per second; and (b) shorelines of lakes less than 20 acres in area.
Shoreline jurisdiction includes lands extending landward for 200 feet in all directions or measured on a
horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark.
The program is administered by the Jefferson County Department of Community Development.
International Fire Code / National Fire Protection Association

Local County fire officials have authority to enforce the national International Fire Code (IFC). The UFC
identifies required measures to prevent, control, and mitigate dangers related to the use and storage of
hazardous chemicals.
In addition, local officials have authority to enforce National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
standards. NFPA 820, “Fire Protection in Wastewater Treatment and Collection Facilities,” is of
particular interest.
3-17
International Building Code / International Building Code /

Washington State Energy Code
Local County building officials have authority to enforce the International Building Code (IBC) as well as
the Washington State Energy Code. These codes govern structural, architectural, and mechanical design
of buildings.
Olympic Region Clean Air Agency

The Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA) is a local agency of government having regulatory and
enforcement authority in and for Clallam, Grays Harbor, Jefferson, Mason, Pacific, and Thurston counties
of Washington state. It was established in 1968 after passage of the Clean Air Washington Act (RCW
70.94). The agency is responsible for enforcing federal, state and local air pollution standards and
governing air pollutant emissions from new and existing sources.
The agency’s primary concern with wastewater treatment facilities is from odor generation. The agency
has indicated that permits are not required for wastewater treatment plants on the basis of occasional
sewage odors. However, if a standby generator above 250 kW in capacity is used, a permit would be
required. Also, if sludge drying or sludge incineration is used, a permit might be required, depending on
the size of the facility.
Jefferson County Solid Waste Division

The Jefferson County Department of Public Works Solid Waste Division governs the handling of solid
waste in Jefferson County. Solid waste is centralized at the Jefferson County Solid Waste Complex near
Port Townsend. From there, it is compacted into shipping containers before being trucked and trained to
Roosevelt regional landfill in eastern Washington.
For this project, a particular concern is the potential need to dispose of screenings and grit from a
wastewater treatment plant. Some wastewater treatment plants require a headworks at the front of the
plant to remove rags, sticks, plastics, grit, and/or other non-organic objects before they reach the
treatment process. The organic content, dryness, and overall aesthetics of the screenings and grit can vary
considerably, depending on the type of collection system and the type of headworks equipment.
The Solid Waste Department may have concerns about accepting screenings and grit from a treatment
plant.
This consideration of screenings and grit may not apply. For example, treatment plants that have Septic
Tank Effluent Pumping (STEP) systems do not require headworks facilities. This will be discussed in
detail in Chapter 7.
The other consideration related to the Solid Waste Division is acceptance of solids generated as part of
the wastewater treatment process. This issue will also be discussed in detail in Chapter 7.
3-18
CHAPTER 4.
POPULATION, FLOW AND LOADS
This chapter presents an approach for distributing forecasted population within the Port Hadlock/Irondale
Sewer Planning Area which is coincident with the Port Hadlock UGA (PHUGA). This chapter also
projects future anticipated wastewater flows and loads based upon those forecasted population data. No
historical wastewater flow and load data were available since the PHUGA and Sewer Planning Area are
currently served by septic tanks. Future wastewater flows and loads were estimated using the County’s
growth projections for the proposed sewer service area, data from similar communities, engineering
experience, Department of Ecology Orange Book Design Criteria (Ecology 1998), and Jefferson County
PUD water meter data.
POPULATION FORECASTS
Background
A Geographic Information System (GIS) has been developed to assist in the planning process throughout
the development of the Facility Plan. This GIS consists of a variety of data provided by Jefferson County
and gathered from multiple sources. A data element not currently included in the available GIS data is
projected population growth within the Sewer Planning Area. While no spatially explicit population data
are available, enough data exists to perform a rudimentary population projection analysis. It should be
noted that this analysis relies upon numerous assumptions. These assumptions are noted throughout the
document. The analysis conducted within the scope of this project is based upon the residential
population within the Sewer Planning Area in the year 2000 and a residential population projection for the
year 2024 provided by Jefferson County. This analysis was not conducted by demographers. The County
may wish to follow up with a complete study by demographers to verify and refine the results presented
within this chapter.
Data Elements Used for Population Forecasting

GIS Data
Several key data sets were used in this analysis. These data were all provided by the Central Services
Department of Jefferson County and include:
• Port Hadlock 20 year planning boundary (PHUGA)
• Port Hadlock/Irondale sewer planning area boundary
• Port Hadlock 6 year planning boundary
• Zoning
• Parcels
• Critical Areas.
Population Planning Data

The basis for the population projection within the Sewer Planning Area comes from Jefferson County
Resolution No. 55-03 adopted on September 22, 2003 and a section of the County’s Comprehensive Plan
provided by Jefferson County.. The resolution adopts an update to Countywide Growth Management
Planning Population Projections. Table 2-2 in this Facility Plan summarizes the population projections
codified in Resolution No. 55-03. This table identifies a residential population within Irondale/Hadlock of
2,553 people in the year 2000 and a population of 4,906 people in the year 2024.
4-1
Planning Areas and Zoning

Figure 4-1 is a zoning map provided by Jefferson County Central Services for the Port Hadlock/Irondale
UGA.
Table 4-1 describes the zoning designation within the Sewer Planning Area.
From information provided by Jefferson County the following key areas were developed for land within
the Sewer Planning Area:
1. TOTAL ACRES BY ZONING – The total area in acres by planning zone within the
PHUGA.
2. CRITICAL AREAS (ACRES) - The area within each planning zone designated as critical
areas. These areas are considered un-buildable for the purposes of the analysis.
3. MARKET FACTOR (ACRES) – Private land that is assumed to remain undeveloped.
4. ROADS AND REDUCTION FACTOR (ACRE) – Land required for roads, buffers, and
setbacks, upon which no other development can take place.
5. TOTAL DEVELOPABLE ACRES – Net area upon which development can occur.
TABLE 4-1.
PLANNING ZONE DESIGNATIONS WITHIN THE PORT HADLOCK/IRONDALE UGA
Designation Description
P Public Land: Schools, Libraries, Sheriff’s Facility
C Commercial
VOC Visitor Oriented Commercial
LI Light Industrial
LDR Low Density Residential (4-6 housing units/acre)
MDR Moderate Density Residential (7-14 housing units/acre)
HDR High Density Residential (14-24 housing units/acre)
4-2
4-3
Figure 4-1. Pt. Hadlock Future Land Use and Zoning Map
4. POPULATION, FLOWS AND LOADS
Table 4-2 summarizes the land area by zone within the Sewer Planning Area/Port Hadlock/Irondale UGA.
TABLE 4-2.
LAND AREA BY PLANNING ZONE WITHIN THE
PORT HADLOCK/IRONDALE UGA
Roads and Total

Zoning Total Acres Critical Areas Market Factor Reduction Developable
Designation by Zoning (Acres) (Acres) Factor (Acres) Area (Acres)
LDR (4-6) 801 449
MDR (7-14) 66 238 102 47 49
HDR (14-24) 50 31
C 263 162
LI 25 78 22 16 15
VOC 14 8
P 72 0 71 0 1
Total 1290 317 195 63 715
Sewer Phasing Sub-Areas

For the purposes of planning and developing an implementation strategy for the sanitary sewer system,
the Sewer Planning Area was subdivided into several implementation areas or sub-areas. These sub-areas
were identified based upon how the planned sewer collection system could be constructed and
implemented over the planning period. The order in which sewers are constructed within these areas
provide a sequence by which a sewer plan and implementation strategy can be developed.
Figure 4-2 shows the proposed phasing areas within the Sewer Planning Area.
Table 4-3 describes the phasing sub-areas within the Sewer Planning Area.
The following sub-areas are included within the 20-year PHUGA:
• Core Area
• Alcohol Plant Area
• Rhody Drive Area
• Residential Area #1
It is important to keep in mind that the proposed phasing is for planning purposes only and that the actual
implementation may proceed in a manner different than what is shown in Table 4-3, especially for those
areas which will be implemented further out on the planning horizon. However, the planning analysis will
provide sewer service availability throughout the entire Sewer Planning Area within the County
Comprehensive Plan’s 20-year planning horizon.
4-4
4-5
Figure 4-2. Sewer Phasing and Implementation Sub-Areas
TABLE 4-3.
PHASING AREAS WITHIN THE PORT HADLOCK/IRONDALE UGA
Sub-Area Description Approx.

Acres
Core Area Initial Commercial Area within the 6-year planning boundary. This 298
will be the first area to be implemented.
Alcohol Plant Area Area east of the Core Area, area known as the Old Alcohol Plant. 53
Location of the Hadlock Inn. This area is included in the initial 6-year
boundary and would be part of the initial implementation.
Rhody Drive Area Area along SR-19 from Somerville Road to approximately the 187
intersection with Irondale Road. It is anticipated that this area would
implement sewers after the completion of the initial phase within the
6-year boundary.
Residential Area #1 This area is located northeast of the Core Area. It is anticipated sewers 109
would extend from the Core Area to these residential areas first. This
area is along Irondale Road from Matheson Street to Maple Street.
Residential Area #2 This area is located south of the Core Area. It is anticipated sewers 138
would extend from the core area into this residential area as it
developed and as the need for sewers increased due to existing septic
systems failing. This area is south of SR 116 from Hunt Road to
Christney Road.
Residential Area #3 This area is located north of the Core Area and extends to Chimacum 505
Creek. It is anticipated sewers would extend north from the Core Area
along Cedar Avenue and Mason Street. This area would develop as the
residential area continues to develop and existing septic systems fail.
Total 1290
Planning Horizons
There are two distinct planning horizons discussed within this wastewater facilities plan. Each addresses
and fulfills key planning requirements. Below is a discussion of the two planning horizons and the distinct
requirements they fulfill.
County Comprehensive Plan 20-Year Planning Horizon

Jefferson County is planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) to develop an Urban Growth
Area (UGA) in the Pt. Hadlock/Irondale Area.. The County’s current comprehensive planning horizon is
a 20-year period beginning in 2004 and ending in 2024.
This wastewater facility plan will present population, flow, and load estimates for the year 2004 to 2024
to coincide with the County’s Comprehensive plan’s 20-year planning horizon. Cost estimates will also
be presented throughout this 20-year planning horizon.
Wastewater Facilities Planning 20-Year Horizon

This document also presents a facilities plan 20-year forward-looking time horizon for the purposes of
fulfilling State and Federal sewer planning requirements as indicated in 40 CFR Part 35. This forward-
looking timeline - starts in the year 2010 and ends in the year 2030.
4-6
Population Projections
Residential Population Projections
The residential population projection within the Port Hadlock/Irondale UGA and the Sewer Planning
Area were estimated using planning forecasts from Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan provided by
Jefferson County. The key population numbers provided are as follows:
Sewer Planning Area Residential Population Year 2000 = 2,553

Sewer Planning Area Residential Population Year 2024 = 4,906
This results in an annual compounded growth rate of 2.76 percent over the 24-year period.
As described in the planning horizon discussion in the section above, the 2024 residential population will
be used for analysis and discussion as relates to the County Comprehensive Plan Planning horizon. The
County currently does not have population forecasts beyond the year 2024; population forecasts beyond
the current County planning horizon will be included in the next revision of the County’s Comprehensive
Plan. For the purposes of providing a 20-year forward looking sewer plan as required by Federal and State
requirements, an estimate of future population is presented assuming the same compounded annual
growth rate of 2.76 percent to the year 2030.
Using the same annual compounded growth rate projected to the year 2030 results in a projected Sewer
Planning Area residential population of 5,776 residents in the year 2030.
Commercial Population Projections

Commercial wastewater flows were estimated using a combination of recent commercial water meter data
provided by Jefferson County PUD No. 1 and typical residential-to-commercial usage ratios experienced
in other similar communities.
The average daily wet-weather water consumption for commercial accounts within the Core Area of the
PHUGA was estimated to be 47,082 gallons per day in 2003. Using average wet-weather water
consumption will indicate the amount of wastewater generated since irrigation does not typically occur
during wet-weather months.
The equivalent commercial population was back-calculated from the commercial consumption using a per
capita (or “per person”) flow factor. To estimate an equivalent residential population for commercial
consumption, this amount was divided by an average per capita flow factor of 60 gallons per person per
day. This results in an equivalent commercial equivalent population of 784.7 people in 2003. (47,082
gallons/day ÷ 60 gallons/day/person)
A projected equivalent commercial population for the year 2024 was identified for the Port Hadlock area
based upon similar communities and their experience. A projected commercial equivalent population
equaling approximately 60 percent of the projected residential population was identified for the year
2024. This assumption is supported by consumption ratios of similar developed communities such as the
City of Winslow on Bainbridge Island.
A projected equivalent commercial equivalent population of 2,944 people in the year 2024 was used
for the population projection analysis. This equates to exactly 60 percent of the projected residential
population of 4,906 people in 2024 (and is approximately 40 percent of the total flow generated). The
compounded annual growth rate of the commercial population is therefore calculated to be 6.5 percent
between the year 2003 and 2024.
4-7
Between the year 2024 and 2030, the commercial population is calculated at 60-percent of the residential
population estimated for each year. This results in a commercial equivalent population of 3,466 people
in the year 2030 (5,776 people x 0.60).
Sewered Population Projections

The sewered population projection (or the anticipated number of people within the sewer planning area
connected to sewer) was based upon an assumed startup equivalent population and growing that
population at a rate adequate to “catch up” with the residential population growth within the PHUGA over
the 20-year sewer planning period; between 2010 and 2030. However, the capital facilities at the
wastewater treatment plant and key infrastructure for the collection system will be implemented such that
sewer service will be available throughout the sewer planning area by the year 2024 (the end of the
County’s Comprehensive Plan 20-year planning horizon).
For the flow analysis, it was assumed that the initial sewered population within the Core and Alcohol
Area in the year 2010 would be 950 population equivalents. This population number represents an
estimate of the active commercial accounts within the Core and Alcohol area that would connect initially
to the sewer system. Once the sewer system is available within the Core and Alcohol area it is
acknowledged that some residential properties may indeed connect initially and some commercial
properties may not connect, but that the anticipated number of initial planned connections will equal
approximately 950 population equivalents.
The sewered population is then projected to grow at a compounded rate adequate to meet the projected
equivalent population of 9,242 for residential and commercial population in the year 2030. This
represents a compounded annual growth rate of 16.28 percent for the sewered population within the
PHUGA between the years 2010 and 2030.
Summary of Population Projections

Table 4-4 is a summary of the population projections estimated for the Pt. Hadlock/Irondale sewer service
area. The table summarizes projected population numbers and equivalent residential units per year
between 2003 and 2048 (buildout). An equivalent residential unit (ERU) is used in community planning
to represent an average residential home. An ERU is calculated as 2.2 people/home on average.
Figure 4-3 graphs the population projections discussed above and shows their interrelationship.
Table 4-5 shows the projected population equivalents distributed by phasing area for the years 2010,
2024, and 2030. These numbers are estimated based upon current land use designations within the
PHUGA and estimated rates of growth within the phasing areas.
PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS

Flow Generation Criteria
Residential
Residential flow is estimated based upon the forecasted residential population multiplied by an estimated
flow factor representing the average amount of wastewater generated per person per day. Based upon
review of the water meter data provided by Jefferson County PUD and referencing Department of
Ecology Criteria, a residential wastewater generation factor of 60 gallons/person/day was used to
estimate base residential wastewater flow.
Calculations for equivalent residential units use 60 gallons/person/day and assumes an average population
of 2.2 people/dwelling unit throughout the PHUGA.
4-8
TABLE 4-4.
SUMMARY OF POPULATION PROJECTIONS WITHIN THE PORT
HADLOCK/IRONDALE SEWER SERVICE AREA
Planning Population Residential Commercial Sewered Sewered
Year Population Equivalent ERU's ERU's Population ERU's
2000 2,553a 0 1,160 0 0 0
2001 2,623 0 1,192 0 0 0
2002 2,696 0 1,225 0 0 0
a b
2003 2,770 785 1,259 357 0 0
2004 2,847 836 1,294 380 0 0
2005 2,925 890 1,330 405 0 0
2006 3,006 948 1,366 431 0 0
2007 3,089 1,009 1,404 459 0 0
2008 3,174 1,075 1,443 489 0 0
2009 3,262 1,145 1,483 520 0 0
2010 3,352 1,219 1,523 554 950 432
2011 3,444 1,299 1,565 590 1,105 502
2012 3,539 1,383 1,609 629 1,285 584
2013 3,637 1,473 1,653 669 1,494 679
2014 3,737 1,569 1,699 713 1,737 789
2015 3,840 1,670 1,746 759 2,020 918
2016 3,946 1,779 1,794 809 2,348 1,067
2017 4,055 1,895 1,843 861 2,731 1,241
2018 4,167 2,018 1,894 917 3,175 1,443
2019 4,282 2,149 1,946 977 3,692 1,678
2020 4,400 2,289 2,000 1,040 4,294 1,952
2021 4,521 2,437 2,055 1,108 4,993 2,269
2022 4,646 2,596 2,112 1,180 5,806 2,639
2023 4,774 2,764 2,170 1,257 6,751 3,069
a
2024 4,906 2,944 2,230 1,338 7,850 3,568
2025 5,041 3,025 2,292 1,375 8,066 3,666
2026 5,180 3,108 2,355 1,413 8,289 3,768
2027 5,323 3,194 2,420 1,452 8,517 3,872
2028 5,470 3,282 2,486 1,492 8,752 3,978
2029 5,621 3,373 2,555 1,533 8,994 4,088
2030 5,776 3,466 2,626 1,575 9,242 4,201
a. Population Data from Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan

b. Equivalent Population Estimated from PUD meter data for existing commercial accounts
c. Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) = 2.2 people/household
4-9
4-10
Figure 4-3. Graph of Population Projections for the Pt. Hadlock/Irondale Sewer Service Area
TABLE 4-5.
SERVICE AREA AND ESTIMATED POPULATION EQUIVALENTS
Year 2010 Year 2024 Year 2030
Service Residential Commercial Total Residential Commercial Total Residential Commercial Total
Area Population Population Population Population Population Population Population Population Population
Planning Area (Acres) Equivalents Equivalents Equivalents Equivalents Equivalents Equivalents Equivalents Equivalents Equivalents
Core 298 0 875 875 1,337 1,573 2,910 1,574 1,822 3,396
Alcohol 53 0 75 75 186 133 319 219 154 373
Rhody 187 0 0 0 239 1,141 1,380 281 1,322 1,603
Residential Area #1 109 0 0 0 538 83 621 634 96 730
Residential Area #2 138 0 0 0 476 0 476 560 0 560
Residential Area #3 505 0 0 0 2,130 14 2,144 2,508 16 2,524
Total 2010 1,290 0 950 950 4,906 2,944 7,850 5,776 3,410 9,186
4-11
Commercial
Commercial flow is estimated based upon planned commercial acreage within the sewer boundary
multiplied by an estimated flow factor representing the average amount of wastewater generated per acre
of commercial property per day. Based upon water meter data from Jefferson County PUD and planning
experience for similar communities, a commercial wastewater generator factor of 1,100 gallons/acre/day
was used to estimate base commercial wastewater flow.
Infiltration & Inflow (I/I)

An allowance is included for additional wastewater flow volumes termed infiltration and inflow (I&I).
These flows represent groundwater entering the collection system through opening in joints (infiltration)
and through surface connections such as manhole lids or storm drains improperly connected to the sewer
(inflow).
Different I&I rates are used for gravity collection systems and pressurized sewer systems. This is
primarily due to the difference in the collection system infrastructure. Typically, more infiltration is
experienced in a gravity collection system than a pressurized sewer system due to the access for water
through manholes and gravity pipe joints as the system ages. I&I in a pressurized system is typically due
to inflow from illegal or unauthorized storm drain connections to the collection system and through septic
tank lids and risers if a septic tank effluent pump (STEP) system is used.
Gravity Sewers
Gravity systems are more susceptible to I&I. A base flow rate of 250 gallons/acre/day was used to
estimate I/I flows in gravity sewer systems. A peak-hour flow rate of 1,100 gallons/acre/day was used for
peak hour flow estimates.
Pressurized Sewers
A base flow rate of 125 gallons/acre/day was used for pressurized systems (50% of the I&I flow rate of
gravity systems). A peak-hour flow rate of 550 gallons/acre/day was used for peak hour flow estimates.
Peaking Factors
Table 4-6 summarizes the peaking factors used for estimating the design flow conditions for planning
wastewater facilities.
TABLE 4-6.
WASTEWATER PEAKING FACTORS
Base Flow I/I

Gravity & Pressurized Sewers
Annual Average 1.00 1.00
Maximum Month 1.25 1.80
Peak Day 1.50 3.00
Peak Hour 3.50 4.40
4-12
Wastewater Flow Projections

Initial Flow Projections – Year 2010
Table 4-7 summarizes the estimated wastewater flow projections for gravity and pressurized sewer
systems for the year 2010.
TABLE 4-7.
2010 WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
Projected Wastewater Flows

(million gallons per day)
Annual Maximum Peak
Condition Average Monthly Day Peak Hour
Gravity Collection System
Core + Alcohol 0.07 0.09 0.12 0.26
Rhody Drive 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Area #1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Area #2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Area #3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.07 0.09 0.12 0.26
STEP Collection System
Core + Alcohol 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.23
Rhody Drive 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Area #1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Area #2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Area #3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.23
Comprehensive Plan 20-Year Flow Projections – Year 2024

4-13
TABLE 4-8.

Annual Maximum Peak
Core + Alcohol 0.23 0.31 0.40 0.84
Rhody Drive 0.10 0.14 0.19 0.38
Area #1 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.18
Area #2 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.15
Area #3 0.18 0.25 0.34 0.66
Total 0.60 0.82 1.09 2.22
Core + Alcohol 0.21 0.28 0.35 0.76
Rhody Drive 0.09 0.12 0.16 0.34
Area #1 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.16
Area #2 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.12
Area #3 0.15 0.20 0.27 0.56
Total 0.54 0.70 0.90 1.93
Wastewater Facilities Plan 20-Year Flow Projections – Year 2030

4-14
TABLE 4-9.

Annual Maximum Peak
Core + Alcohol 0.27 0.36 0.47 0.98
Rhody Drive 0.12 0.16 0.22 0.44
Area #1 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.21
Area #2 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.17
Area #3 0.21 0.29 0.40 0.78
Total 0.70 0.96 1.28 2.59
Core + Alcohol 0.25 0.32 0.40 0.89
Rhody Drive 0.11 0.14 0.18 0.39
Area #1 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.18
Area #2 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.15
Area #3 0.18 0.24 0.31 0.65
Total 0.63 0.82 1.05 2.26
WASTEWATER LOADING PROJECTIONS

Load Generation Criteria
Residential Loads
Loads were calculated for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), suspended solids (SS), and total nitrogen
(TKN). A “unit load” approach was used to project future loads. Unit loads are typical values for loads
expected per capita or per acre. Unit loads were based on data from similar communities, engineering
experience, and Ecology’s Criteria for Sewage Works Design (Ecology, updated 2006)
As with flows, loads vary depending on the type of collection system used. Gravity collection systems
collect all wastewater, including solids, and convey it to the treatment plant. Solids in the septic tanks
must be pumped every few years and will require additional treatment after they are pumped out.
Gravity Sewers
For gravity sewers, BOD and SS loads are approximately equal. A unit loading factor of 0.2 pounds per
person per day was used for both BOD and TSS. These are typical unit loads; they are also referenced in
the Ecology’s Criteria for Sewage Works Design. TKN was assumed to be 18 percent of the BOD load.
This percentage is based on previous engineering experience.
STEP Sewers
For STEP systems, waste loads are lower than for conventional gravity sewers. A unit loading factor of
0.12 pounds per person per day was used for both BOD and SS. TKN was also assumed to be 18 percent
of the BOD load based upon engineering experience.
4-15
Commercial Loads
Commercial flows were assumed to be at a typical BOD strength of 400 milligrams per liter (mg/L) based
on data from similar communities. This value corresponds to the previously described unit flow and loads
of 60 gallons per capita per day and 0.2 pounds per capita per day. Peaking factors were the same as those
used for domestic loads. Estimates for SS and TKN used the same methodology as the approach for
estimating residential loads.
The analysis does not account for high-strength commercial wastes, such as wastes from large industrial
food processors. Such wastes generally have a significantly higher pollutant concentration than most
domestic or commercial connections. If high-strength wastes are later added as part of the
implementation, the flow and load analysis would need to be revised to account for these additional
pollutant loads.
Solids Loading Projections
Initial Loading Projections – Year 2010
Table 4-10 summarizes the initial solids loading projections for the year 2010 for biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD), suspended solids (SS), and total nitrogen (TKN). Loads were estimated for Annual
Average and Maximum Monthly conditions.
4-16
TABLE 4-10.
YEAR 2010 CONDITION
SOLIDS LOADING PROJECTIONS
Projected Solids Loads (pounds per day)

Annual Maximum Annual Maximum
Condition/Area Average Monthly Average Monthly
Gravity Collection STEP Collection
BOD System System
Core + Alcohol 190 261 114 157
Rhody Drive 0 0 0 0
Area #1 0 0 0 0
Area #2 0 0 0 0
Area #3 0 0 0 0
Total 190 261 114 157

SS System System
Core + Alcohol 190 261 114 157
Rhody Drive 0 0 0 0
Area #1 0 0 0 0
Area #2 0 0 0 0
Area #3 0 0 0 0
Total 190 261 114 157

TKN System System
Core + Alcohol 34 48 20 29
Rhody Drive 0 0 0 0
Area #1 0 0 0 0
Area #2 0 0 0 0
Area #3 0 0 0 0
Total 34 48 20 29
4-17
Comprehensive Plan 20-Year Loading Projections – Year 2024

Table 4-11 summarizes the initial solids loading projections for the year 2024 for biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD), suspended solids (SS), and total nitrogen (TKN). Loads were estimated for Annual
Average and Maximum Monthly conditions.
TABLE 4-11.
YEAR 2024 CONDITION

BOD System System
Core + Alcohol 646 889 388 533
Rhody Drive 276 380 166 228
Area #1 124 171 75 102
Area #2 95 131 57 79
Area #3 429 590 258 354
Total 1,571 2,160 943 1,296

SS System System
Core + Alcohol 646 889 388 533
Rhody Drive 276 380 166 228
Area #1 124 171 75 102
Area #2 95 131 57 79
Area #3 429 590 258 354
Total 1,571 2,160 943 1,296

TKN System System
Core + Alcohol 116 162 69 97
Rhody Drive 50 69 30 41
Area #1 22 31 13 19
Area #2 17 24 10 14
Area #3 77 107 46 64
Total 283 393 169 236
Wastewater Facilities Plan 20-Year Loading Projections – Year 2030

Table 4-12 summarizes the solids loading projections for the year 2030 for biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD), suspended solids (SS), and total nitrogen (TKN).
4-18
TABLE 4-12.
YEAR 2030 CONDITION

BOD System System
Core + Alcohol 755 1038 453 623
Rhody Drive 321 441 193 265
Area #1 146 201 88 120
Area #2 112 154 67 92
Area #3 505 695 303 417
Total 1,839 2,528 1,103 1,517

SS System System
Core + Alcohol 755 1038 453 623
Rhody Drive 321 441 193 265
Area #1 146 201 88 120
Area #2 112 154 67 92
Area #3 505 695 303 417
Total 1,839 2,528 1,103 1,517

TKN System System
Core + Alcohol 136 189 81 113
Rhody Drive 58 80 34 48
Area #1 26 36 16 22
Area #2 20 28 12 17
Area #3 91 126 54 76
Total 331 460 198 276
4-19
CHAPTER 5.
COLLECTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
This chapter evaluates alternative wastewater collection system technologies. Each technology is
described along with the relative advantages and drawbacks for each as they would apply to the Pt.
Hadlock sewer service area.
A technical evaluation comparing the alternative collection systems is presented in this chapter along with
a technical recommendation for a preferred collection system technology.
WASTEWATER COLLECTION ALTERNATIVES

Alternatives Considered
Five wastewater collection system technologies were considered for evaluation. These are described
below:
• Conventional gravity collection – Wastewater flows through a series of sloped pipes to pump
stations where it is pumped to the wastewater treatment plant.
• Septic tank effluent pump (STEP) collection – Wastewater flows from the building drain to a
septic tank on the property. Most of the wastewater solids remain in the septic tank. The
clarified effluent from the tank is pumped into a pressurized sewer main using a high-
pressure pump. The pressurized main conveys the clarified effluent to the wastewater
treatment plant.
• Grinder pumps – Wastewater flows from the building drain into a sump on the property.
When the sump fills a float activates a grinder pump within the sump. A grinding mechanism
on the pump grinds solids down and pumps the ground solids and wastewater into a
pressurized sewer main. The pressurized main conveys the wastewater to the wastewater
treatment plant.
• Small diameter gravity – A small diameter gravity collection system is a cross between a
conventional gravity collection system and a STEP system. Like a STEP system, there is a
septic tank on the private property. Most of the wastewater solids remain in the septic tank.
The clarified effluent from the tank flows by gravity through a series of sloped small diameter
pipes to pump stations where it is pumped to the wastewater treatment plant.
• Vacuum sewers – Vacuum sewers convey wastewater by use of vacuum stations and vacuum
collection lines located in each neighborhood. Wastewater flows from the building drain into
a sump (or vacuum pit) located on the property. When the sump fills, a valve opens and the
wastewater is sucked into the vacuum main. Once the pit is empty, the valve closes. The
wastewater is conveyed via small diameter vacuum pipes to the vacuum station where it is
pumped to the wastewater treatment plant.
Rejected Alternatives
Two alternatives were rejected early in the evaluation process. The rational for their rejection is as
follows:
5-1
Small Diameter Gravity Sewers

Small diameter gravity sewers were not recommended for further consideration. Small diameter gravity
was rejected because it did not provide enough advantage given the local terrain, would require deep pipe
excavations, and would not provide significant benefit over conventional gravity sewers principally
because septic tanks would be required on private properties.
Vacuum Sewers
Vacuum sewers were rejected because they are not suitable for the varied terrain found in the sewer
service area, they provide limited lift capability thereby requiring additional local pump stations, would
require vacuum pits at each property, and additional odor control facilities would be required at the
vacuum stations.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FOR FURTHER EVALUATION

After review of the service area and the key features of each evaluated technology; gravity collection,
STEP, and grinder pump systems were recommended for further evaluation.
Conventional Gravity Sewers

Description
Conventional gravity sewers use a series of sloped pipes between manholes to collect and convey raw
wastewater from the sewer connection to the wastewater treatment plant. The pipelines are a minimum of
8-inch diameter, are sloped at a minimum slope of 0.004 feet/foot, and are typically laid between 8 feet
and 20 feet deep. Wastewater is collected within sewer mains and slope towards the wastewater treatment
plant or to a local pump station.
Each service connection to the wastewater treatment plant is achieved through a sloped pipe (service
lateral) from the building’s drain to the gravity sewer main in the street. The construction of the service
lateral is typically the responsibility of the property owner from the property line to the building drain.
Within the street right-of-way, construction of the service connection from the sewer main to the property
line is the responsibility of the sewer agency. This type of collection system does not require any access
and maintenance easements since maintenance of the service lateral on private property is the
responsibility of the property owner.
Figure 5-1 shows a typical service connection to a gravity sewer system.
In some instances, parts of the service area are located in basins requiring the construction of a pump
station to locally collect the wastewater and pump it out of the basin towards to the wastewater treatment
plant. It is through a series of gravity collection lines and pump stations that wastewater within the service
area is collected and conveyed to the wastewater treatment plant.
A key strategy in the design of a gravity collection system is to use the contours of the existing terrain to
maximize efficiency in the construction of pipelines towards the wastewater treatment plant. An efficient
design strategy involves sewers excavated as shallow as possible while minimizing the number of pump
stations.
5-2
…5. COLLECTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
Figure 5-1. Conventional Gravity Sewer System and Service Connection
Maintenance for a gravity collection system involves pump station checks, routine maintenance of the
pump station equipment, and flushing of the gravity collection lines. Operational costs for a typical
gravity collection system involve electricity to operate the pump stations.
Design Criteria
The gravity collection system was developed using design criteria prescribed in the Washington State
Department of Ecology Criteria for Sewage Works Design, Water Quality Program, December 1998
(“Orange Book”) and flow generation criteria developed in Chapter 4 – Population, Flow and Loads.
The key design criteria used in the development of the gravity collection system are as follows:
• Average Daily Flow(Q) = 75 gallons/capita/day (for base flow of 60 gpcd and I/I allowances
of 250 gpad based upon flow assumptions in Chapter 4 – Population, Flow and Loads.
• Peak Flow – Ratio of Peak Hour flow to Average Daily flow based upon peaking factor
equation in Section C1-3.3.2 of the Orange Book. The equation is as follows:
Q peak hourly 18 + P
=
Q design average 4 + P
• Minimum pipeline diameter = 8-inch.
• Minimum Pipeline Depth = 8 feet.
• Maximum Pipeline Depth = 20 feet.
• Minimum Slope = 0.40 feet/100 feet. This is the minimum slope prescribed in DOE Criteria
for Sewage Works Design for an 8-inch diameter sewer. Shallower slopes are allowed for
larger diameter sewers. However, all pipes were laid out using the 0.40 slope to be
conservative and to account for inaccuracies in the base map contours (10-foot contour
intervals).
5-3
Proposed Layout
The preliminary design for a gravity collection system was developed throughout the service area
boundary. The sewer laterals were developed along existing right-of-way to serve the land area within the
service area boundary. A 20-foot contour map was used to develop an overall collection system strategy
which included planned flow direction, pipeline diameters, pump station locations, and a central
collection point from which to send flow to a wastewater treatment plant through an influent pump
station. The proposed gravity collection system layout is shown in Figure 5-2.
Advantages and Drawbacks

Several advantages and drawbacks of gravity collection systems were identified during the evaluation of
collection system alternatives. Below is a summary of the advantages and drawbacks of gravity collection
systems.
Advantages
• Proven Reliability—This is the most common type of wastewater collection system. This
type of technology has been in service longer than any other type of technology.
• Length of Service—This type of collection system will provide the longest reliable service
life compared to other types of collection system technologies. There are no individual on-
site mechanical installations required. The gravity collection lines can have a 50-year service
life provided they can convey the anticipated future design flows.
• Lowest Operation and Maintenance Costs—This type of collection system has the lowest
operation and maintenance costs compared to pressurized collection systems. This is because
there are no on-site pumps or equipment at each service connection.
• On-Site Equipment—This type of system does not require on-site equipment. A gravity
service lateral is required on the private property between the building drain and the service
connection in the right-of-way. On site connection costs are less than for other technologies
• No Maintenance Easements—Since the property owner is responsible for maintenance of the
service connection to the sewer, no maintenance easement is required.
• Lower Life Cycle Costs—Cost of gravity conveyance is less over the life cycle of a project
since the cost for on-site connections, operations, and maintenance are less than for
pressurized sewers. Cost savings become significant as the population density increases and
the on-site connection, operations, and maintenance costs per connection become a larger part
of the total life cycle cost.
Drawbacks
• Requires Constant Downward Slope – Deep sewers may have to be dug for flat terrain,
intermediate pump stations may be required for hilly areas.
• Higher Initial Costs – Construction of the sewer mains may be more expensive due to deeper
trench excavation.
• Infiltration & Inflow – Gravity collection systems are more susceptible to infiltration and
inflow through manholes and some joints in the pipeline system. Unlike a pressurized
collection system, there is no back pressure within the pipes to prevent water from entering
the collection system.
5-4
5-5
Figure 5.2 Proposed Gravity Collection System
Pressurized Wastewater Collection Systems (STEP & Grinder Pumps)

STEP (Septic Tank Effluent Pump) Description
A STEP system uses pressurized sewer mains to collect and convey wastewater to the wastewater
treatment plant. Typically, each service connection has an individual septic tank with pump which pumps
into the pressurized main.
For a STEP collection system, wastewater flows from the building drain to the septic tank where solids
settle. Inside the tank is a pump chamber which houses a high head pump and control floats. The clarified
effluent is pumped from the septic tank into the pressurized main. The effluent flows through the
pressurized mains to the wastewater treatment plant.
Figure 5-3 shows a typical service connection in a STEP collection system.
Figure 5-3. Septic Tank Effluent Pump (STEP) System Service Connection
Since the solids stay behind in the septic tanks, screening and/or primary treatment facilities are not
required at the wastewater treatment plant. This benefit, however, is off-set by the requirement for routine
and emergency maintenance and repair of each septic tank and pumping system in the service area. This
maintenance is generally provided by the wastewater authority since the septic tanks and pumps are
considered to be components of the wastewater infrastructure. This arrangement can be quite costly,
cumbersome and labor intensive. Service calls for pumping septic tanks, pump maintenance, pump and/or
control equipment malfunction and electrical supply malfunctions must be provided in a timely fashion,
often during off-hours, weekends and holidays. Additionally, each property owner must provide an
access-and-maintenance easement.
Grinder Pumps Description

Similar to a STEP collection system, a grinder pump collection system uses pressurized sewer mains to
collect and convey wastewater to the wastewater treatment plant. A grinder pump is located at each
service connection. Wastewater flows from the building drain to the grinder pump sump. Within the sump
is a grinder pump and pump control system (floats). Once the basin is full, the grinder pump turns on,
grinds any solids within the sump and pumps the liquids and ground solids into the pressurized sewer
main. The wastewater flows through the small diameter sewer piping to the wastewater treatment plant.
5-6
Since solids are conveyed with the wastewater to the treatment plant, facilities need to be included at the
plant to handle solids. Like a STEP system, the grinder pumps are typically considered part of the
wastewater infrastructure; maintenance and upkeep is generally provided by the wastewater authority.
Unlike the STEP system, the grinder pump system does not require a septic tank. Otherwise, maintenance
and access issues are quite similar.
Design Criteria
The pressurized sewer system was developed using design criteria prescribed in the Washington State
Department of Ecology Criteria for Sewage Works Design, Water Quality Program, December 1998
(“Orange Book”) and flow generation criteria developed in Chapter 4 – Population, Flow and Loads.
The key design criteria used in the development of the pressurized collection system are as follows:
• Average Daily Flow = 60 gpcd (no I/I allowance) based upon flow assumptions in Chapter 4
– Population, Flow and Loads.
• Peak Flow – Peak flow as described in Section C1-10.2.2A of the Orange Book. The equation
is as follows:
Q peak = 15 + .15 P; where P= population.
• Minimum Pipe Diameter = 2-inches.
• Headloss Calculation – Hazen Williams Formula.
• Hazen Williams Roughness Coefficient C = 150 (PVC Pipe).
• Pump Shutoff Head = 300 feet for STEP high-head pumps.
Proposed Layout
The proposed pressurized collection system is shown in Figure 5-4. The layout and pipe sizes are the
same for both STEP and grinder pump technologies. The pressurized sewer system was laid out to convey
flow to the same central collection point as identified for the gravity collection system. This was done for
consistency when comparing the two alternative collection system technologies.
Advantages and Drawbacks of STEP Collection Systems

Advantages
• Low initial cost for collection mainlines compared to gravity.
• Smaller pressurized sewers can follow the terrain reducing the depth of excavation.
Drawbacks
• Septic tank (and access to the tank) required.
• Must develop ownership agreements for equipment with property owner.
• Easements required for wastewater authority to access and maintain the equipment.
• Pumping of septic tank on regular schedule. High disposal costs of septic tank solids.
• Electrical connection, electrical panel, and control panel must be located on the property or
side of home.
5-7
5-8
Figure 5.4. Proposed Pressurized Collection System
Advantages and Drawbacks of Grinder Pump Collection Systems

Advantages
• Good when terrain does not work well with gravity sewers and septic tanks are not desired.
• Low initial cost for collection mainlines compared to gravity.
• Smaller pressurized sewers can follow the terrain reducing the depth of excavation.
Drawbacks
• Pump must pass solids (more difficult than passing liquids only, additional maintenance
required because of harder duty).
• Must develop ownership agreements for equipment with property owner.
• Easements required for wastewater authority to access and maintain the equipment.
• Electrical connection, electrical panel, and control panel must be located on the property or
side of home.
EVALUATION OF COLLECTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES

Collection System Alternatives
The shortlisted technologies were applied to the sewer service area to develop alternative collection
systems for evaluation. Three distinct alternatives were developed. These alternatives were a gravity
collection system, a pressurized sewer system (STEP or grinder pump), or a dual technology system
consisting of gravity collection in the 6-year planning area (or “core” area) and pressurized sewer in the
outlying 20-year planning area.
The proposed gravity collection system layout is shown in Figure 5-2. The proposed pressurized sewer
layout is shown in Figure 5-4. The dual technology system is shown in Figure 5-5.
Evaluation Criteria
The following evaluation criteria were used when comparing the collection system alternatives:
Phasing
Does the system lend itself to phasing? Does it provide flexibility for expansion in the future? Does the
collection system adapt well to population increases and in-filling?
Easement Requirements
Are easements on private property required?
Constructability
Are there constructability issues associated with the alternative technology that would be a concern for
the Port Hadlock Area? This could include issues such as pipe depth, depth to groundwater, significant
areas of bedrock, extensive utility conflicts, etc.
5-9
5-10
Figure 5.5. Proposed Dual Technology (Gravity/Pressurized) Collection System
Operation and Maintenance Requirements

What are the key operation and maintenance requirements which will be needed for the collection system
on an ongoing basis? This will have a significant impact on the long term life cycle costs for the system.
It also may affect the quality of service for the end user due to service calls and on-site pump
malfunctions, etc.
Odor and Corrosion Potential

What are the odor and corrosion potential issues typically associated with each collection system?
Life Cycle Costs

What are the life cycle cost differences between the alternatives which include capital costs for collection
and conveyance, on-site costs (on private property), and operation and maintenance costs (including
equipment replacement, electricity, and other incidentals)? Costs are compared on a 20-year life cycle
since most systems require significant equipment replacement in 20-years. Some consideration is given
for longer life cycles to see if systems costs compare differently over a longer term.
LIFE CYCLE COST ESTIMATING

Cost Assumptions
Total present worth and annualized costs were estimated for a 20-year period. The 20-year period is
consistent with an approach of designing mechanical equipment to its expected life. Structures, such as
buildings, were sized based on anticipated needs for a 50-year time span. A detailed breakdown of the
estimates is attached in Appendix C. Estimated costs were identified from the following sources:
• Price quotes from local equipment suppliers.
• Unit prices for construction based on industry standards (Means 2008 Building Construction
Cost Data).
• Bid tabulations from similar projects.
The capital cost represents the total project cost for implementation of each alternative. It includes
equipment costs, installation costs for piping, electrical, and controls, site work,
mobilization/demobilization/bonding, contractor overhead and profit, escalation to mid-point of
construction, planning-level contingency, engineering design and construction management, and
Washington state sales tax. These amounts are reflected in the attached cost estimates.
Annual O&M costs were estimated based on power requirements, chemicals, and labor (general
maintenance and cleaning). Additionally, replacement cost of equipment and structures are included in
the comparative life cycle costs. Replacement costs represent a dollar amount required each year to be set
aside in order to replace building, structures, and equipment. Replacement allowances of 2 percent for
buildings and structures (replace every 50-years), and 4 percent for equipment (replace every 20 to
25 years) were included in the life cycle cost estimates. These amounts are reflected in the attached cost
estimates.
Cost Assumptions for Pressurized Sewers: STEP and Grinder Pump

Systems
Throughout the evaluation, it was determined that STEP and grinder pump systems were comparative
equal on a life cycle cost basis. The on-site costs for equipment were similar (about $4,000 per
5-11
connection) and the costs for electrical connection and building drain connections were equivalent. Costs
for operation and maintenance were also deemed about equivalent. Equipment replacement costs may be
higher for grinder pumps due to wear and tear on grinder blades (this is dependent upon the individual
user). However, there are costs associated with septic tank pumping for a STEP system not associated
with a grinder pump system. When these factors are considered, both systems projected basically
equivalent life cycle costs.
Detailed cost estimates are included for a STEP collection system within Appendix C. These costs are
assumed equivalent to a grinder pump system for each alternative that includes a pressurized sewer
system.
Summary of Life Cycle Costs

Table 5-1 below summarizes the 20-year life cycle costs for each of the collection system alternatives.
TABLE 5-1.
SUMMARY OF 20-YEAR LIFE CYCLE COSTS
Alternative
Capital Costs Gravity Collection STEP Collection Dual Technology
On-Sitea $14,868,000 $42,275,000 $37,605,000
Sharedb $32,011,000 $6,454,000 $15,708,000
Subtotal Capital Costs $46,879,000 $48,729,000 $53,313,000
Annual Costs
O&M + Replacement $7,620 $17,400,000 $17,178,000
Total 20-year Life Cycle Cost $54,499,000 $66,137,000 $70,491,000
a. On-Site Costs include service connection from house and all other applicable equipment and appurtenances
on private property (STEP tank, grinder pump, control equipment, electrical connection, etc.)
b. Shared Costs include costs for over-sizing equipment which serves more than one neighborhood.. This
typically involves costs for sizing gravity conveyance lines larger than 8-inch diameter and pressurized
sewer lines larger than 2-inch diameter. It also includes costs for regional pump stations which collect and
transmit wastewater from several neighborhoods to the wastewater treatment plant.
Evaluation of Alternatives
Each of the alternatives was evaluated against the above described criteria. Table 5-2 is a summary of the
evaluation of the alternatives against the criteria.
5-12
TABLE 5-2.
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
Alternative
Pressurized Sewer Combination of Gravity
(STEP or Grinder Sewer and Pressurized
Evaluation Criteria Gravity Sewer Pumps) Sewer
Ease of Phasing Provides the highest degree Least flexible. If the Provides flexibility. Core
of flexibility. The system initial phase is pressure area can be developed to
can receive wastewater sewer, subsequent full density and
from subsequent phases phases would need to be pressurized sewers can
employing pressurized pressurized. Any initial be implemented in less
sewers. Well suited for savings is reduced when dense residential areas.
higher density in-filling in area develops and in-
the future (greater than 2.5 fills beyond 2.5
connections/acre) connections per acre.
Easement Requirements No private easements Private easements No easements required in
required. required to access on- core area with gravity
site pumping equipment. collection. Easements
required in outlaying
areas where pressurized
sewers are installed.
Constructability Sewers would be laid Sewers would be laid Considerations for
between 8 and 25 feet deep. between 6 to 15 feet gravity sewer would
Depths to groundwater are deep. Little groundwater apply to core area, and
between 20-30 feet deep so is anticipated. considerations to
some groundwater would Significant bedrock is pressurized sewers
be encountered. Soils are not anticipated. would apply to the
typically Vashon outlying areas.
Lodgement Till and Vashon
Recessional Outwash.
Significant bedrock is not
anticipated.
Operation and Fewest operation and Highest operation and High operation and
Maintenance maintenance requirements. maintenance costs. maintenance costs. This
Requirements Operations and Costs would involve system would have costs
maintenance would involve servicing of pumps at associated with the pump
operation and maintenance individual connections, stations for a gravity
of pumping stations, routine electricity to operate the collection system and for
servicing of the pump pumps, pump on-site pumps associated
station, flushing of lines, replacement, service with the pressurized
and replacement of calls for pump system. There would also
equipment in pump malfunctions, and be additional odor and
stations. pumping and disposal of corrosion facility
septic tank solids (for maintenance associated
STEP system). with sewage from the
pressurized system
connecting to the gravity
system.
5-13
TABLE 5-2 (CONTINUED).

Alternative
Pressurized Sewer Combination of Gravity
(STEP or Grinder Sewer and Pressurized
Evaluation Criteria Gravity Sewer Pumps) Sewer
Odor and Corrosion There would be odor Minimal odor potential High odor and corrosion
Potential potential at the pump along the collection potential at location
stations. Facilities would system since the sewer where pressurized sewer
have to include some mains are pressurized discharges into the
provisions for odor control and there is little gravity collection
at pump stations and at the opportunity for fugitive system. Septic tank
wastewater treatment plant odors. Additional odor effluent has high odor
depending upon location. control would be and corrosion potential
required at the treatment when exposed to air
plant since in the within gravity collection
influent is septic. system. Additional odor
and corrosion facilities
would be required along
the collection system.
Comparative 20-year $54,499,000 $66,137,000 $70,491,000
Life Cycle Costs
RECOMMENDED COLLECTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE

Stakeholder Workshop Process
The results of the alternative evaluation were presented to the Jefferson County of Board of County
Commissioners at a workshop on March 16, 2006. The workshop was open to the public and some key
stakeholders in the community were invited to attend. A presentation was given outlining the alternative
technologies, their relative advantages and drawbacks, and their respective life cycle costs.
The design team received feedback and questions from the Board of County Commissioners, County
staff, the stakeholders/public attending the workshop. This feedback was considered in the technical
recommendation.
Recommendation
It was recommended that a gravity collection system be selected as the preferred collection system
technology for the Port Hadlock sewer service area.
The gravity collection system was recommended based upon the following key reasons:
1. Lowest 20-year life cycle cost. The 20-year service area can be economically developed to
planned densities at a lower cost than for pressure sewers. This is because the individual on-
site costs and additional space requirements for a gravity collection system are less than for a
STEP or grinder pump system.
5-14
2. Provides the highest degree of flexibility for system expansion. The core area can be
implemented as a gravity system and the County then has the flexibility to implement
pressure sewers in the outlying areas in the future. If a pressure sewer is implemented in the
core area, gravity sewers cannot be installed in the outlying areas. This is because pressure
sewers can discharge into a gravity collection system, but gravity sewers cannot discharge
into a pressurized sewer system.
3. No maintenance-and-access easements are required.
4. Fewer operational and maintenance requirements.
POPULATION AND SYSTEM PHASING

The alternative collection systems were sized using population projections described in Chapter 4 –
Population, Flow and Loads.
The sewer service area boundary was divided into sub-areas which represent distinct phases that the
sewer system is anticipated to develop. Table 5-3 shows the anticipated number of equivalent residential
units (ERU’s) for each phase of the sewer system’s development. Refer to Figure 4-2 in Chapter 4 –
Population, Flow and Loads for a map showing the areas which represent each phase of the sewer
system’s development.
TABLE 5-3.
EXPECTED NUMBER OF SEWER SYSTEM CONNECTIONS BY PHASE
Anticipated Year Year 2024 Equivalent Year 2030 Equivalent Residential

of Sewer Service Residential Units Units (Residential & Commercial)
Phase Availability (Residential & Commercial)
Core 2010 1,323 1,544
Alcohol 2010 145 170
Rhody 2013 627 729
Area 1 2016 282 331
Area 2 2019 216 255
Area 3 2024 975 1,147
Total 3,568 4,176
5-15
CHAPTER 6.
EFFLUENT DISCHARGE/REUSE ALTERNATIVES
This chapter presents discharge and treatment alternatives for treatment plant effluent (effluent or final
effluent) within the Pt. Hadlock sewer service area. Advantages and drawbacks of each alternative are
presented along with a technical recommendation.
TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT – DISCHARGE VS. RE-USE

Wastewater treatment requirements vary significantly dependent upon the fate of the final effluent. This
evaluation considers both discharge and re-use of final effluent from the proposed wastewater treatment
plant. The distinction between use of the word “discharge” and “re-use” is significant in the eyes of the
regulations and the regulatory community.
Surface Water Discharge vs. Land Application

Final effluent must be discharged or reused in some manner. Typically, effluent is discharged into a large
receiving body of water, such as Puget Sound. For the Pt. Hadlock sewer service area, this approach,
termed surface water discharge, would include a pipeline outfall discharging into Pt. Townsend Bay.
Alternatively, final effluent can be land-applied for “disposal” or for beneficial “reuse.” Disposal
strategies generally aim solely to dispose of the effluent and provide minimal treatment. Disposal relies
on significant subsurface treatment of the effluent in the ground. This approach is typical of septic tank
and drainfield systems.
Reuse strategies accomplish the goal of beneficially using effluent in some advantageous manner. This
can be uses such as irrigating crops, supplying water for industrial processes, or supplementing
groundwater aquifers. Reuse strategies require the effluent to be of very high quality, having been
adequately and reliably treated before reaching the land application site. At this point, the treated effluent
is no longer considered wastewater and is now termed “reclaimed water”. The ground is no longer
required to provide significant treatment. In fact, Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-240
prohibits the use of subsurface treatment and disposal for domestic wastewater facilities above a certain
size (3,500 gallons per day for mechanical treatment plants and 14,500 gallons per day for septic tank-
based disposal systems) “except under those extraordinary circumstances where no other reasonable
alternative exists.”
Discharge and Reuse Systems – Treatment Requirements

Treatment plant effluent which is discharged to surface water, such as Puget Sound or a stream, needs to
be treated to secondary treatment standards or better. This typically involves primary treatment, a
secondary treatment process (such as extended aeration with secondary sedimentation), and disinfection.
Discharge of final effluent to a surface water of the United States is regulated by the US Environmental
Protection Agency and requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit.
Treatment plant effluent which is reused needs to be treated to standards defined by the Departments of
Health and Ecology in the Water Reclamation and Reuse Standards. The highest reuse standard, Class A,
usually involves advanced wastewater treatment. Advanced wastewater treatment can be an additional
filtration process after secondary treatment or an advanced wastewater treatment process such as a
membrane bioreactor plus additional disinfection as described in Table 6-1.
6-1
Reclaimed water standards vary depending on the type of end-use and the potential for human contact
with the reclaimed water. The requirements range from Class A (highest quality) to Class D (lowest
quality). Table 6-1 summarizes the basic requirements.
TABLE 6-1.
WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS FOR REUSE PROJECTS
Parameter Class A Class B Class C Class D

BOD 30 mg/L 30 mg/L 30 mg/L 30 mg/L
TSS 30 mg/L 30 mg/L 30 mg/L 30 mg/L
Total 2.2/100 ml (7 day); 2.2/100 ml (7 day); 23/100 ml (7 day); 240/100 ml
Coliforms 23/100 ml at any time 23/100 ml at any time 240/100 ml at any time (7 day)
Turbidity 2 NTU monthly; N/A N/A N/A
5 NTU at any time
Dissolved >0 mg/L >0 mg/L >0 mg/L >0 mg/L
Oxygen
Chlorine 0.5 mg/L in conveyance 0.5 mg/L in conveyance 0.5 mg/L in conveyance 0.5 mg/L in
residual piping piping piping conveyance piping
NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit

Additionally, the Washington State Department of Ecology’s Criteria for Sewage Works Design
stipulates reliability and redundancy requirements for the disposal system in Article 10 of the Water
Reclamation and Reuse Standards. This article addresses the requirements for emergency storage and
disposal of reclaimed water where no approved alternative disposal system exists. A copy of this Article
can be found in Appendix E.
DISCHARGE/RE-USE ALTERNATIVES
Seven alternatives were considered in the discharge/reuse evaluation. These alternatives are described
below:
• Marine Outfall: Discharge of treatment plant effluent to Port Townsend Bay through a
pipeline outfall.
• Irrigation at Agronomic Rates: Reuse of reclaimed water to irrigate a crop or timberland at
rates not to exceed the plants’ ability to absorb the water and nutrients.
• Natural Wetlands: Discharge of final effluent into a natural wetland. The wetland would
provide additional treatment, nutrient removal and water uptake through transpiration and
evapo-transpiration.
• Constructed Beneficial Use Wetlands: Reuse of reclaimed water using a Constructed
Beneficial Use Wetlands. Constructed wetlands provide wildlife habitat and associated
public benefits, water uptake through transpiration and evaporation and additional treatment
of the reclaimed water.
• Groundwater Recharge by Surface Percolation – Slow Rate Infiltration: Reuse of reclaimed
water by surface percolation into the groundwater by land application using a slow rate
infiltration gallery. The rate of application is controlled by the treatment plant operator.
6-2
…6. EFFLUENT DISCHARGE/REUSE ALTERNATIVES
• Groundwater Recharge by Surface Percolation – Rapid Rate Infiltration: Reuse of reclaimed

water by surface percolation into the groundwater by land application using a rapid rate
infiltration basin (often described as a leaky bottom pond). The rate of application is limited
only by the percolation rate of the pond bottom.
• Salinity Barrier: This is a form of reuse in which the reclaimed water is injected into the
groundwater to provide an intrusion barrier between a potable water aquifer and a saltwater
body such as Puget Sound or the Port Townsend Bay.
Three alternatives were rejected early in the evaluation process. The rationale for their rejection is as
follows:
Marine Outfall
The marine outfall alternative was not considered for further evaluation following a discussion with DOE
Staff in which an inter-agency agreement involving the Washington State Department of Ecology,
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State Department of Health, and
Washington State Department of Natural Resources was discussed. This agreement titled Inter-Agency
Permit Streamlining Document, Shellfish and Domestic Wastewater Discharge Outfall Projects, Dated
October 10, 1995 addresses the permitting of new marine outfalls for wastewater treatment plant effluent
discharge into Puget Sound. Section III(3) states:
“In exercising existing regulatory authority, state agencies with jurisdiction will
authorize domestic wastewater discharge outfall projects proposed in, near, or upon
shellfish harvesting areas only upon a demonstration of compelling reasons for approval
of the domestic wastewater discharge outfall project in question. Compelling reasons for
approval include: No other reasonable, feasible, or practical siting alternative exists.”
A marine outfall serving the proposed Port Hadlock sewer system would necessarily be adjacent to
existing harvestable shellfish beds. There are other reasonable and feasible alternatives to a marine
outfall. Therefore, a marine outfall was removed from consideration.
Natural Wetlands
The natural wetlands alternative was not considered for further evaluation since the regulatory
requirements for discharge of treatment plant effluent to a natural wetlands are quite extensive. There is a
natural wetland within the study area boundary. However, there is question as to whether the size of the
wetland would be adequate and whether the regulatory community would approve such use for a natural
wetland.
Salinity Barrier
The salinity barrier alternative was not considered for further evaluation since there are not any local salt
water intrusion issues identified for the local aquifer and water wells. Additionally, the costs associated
with treatment to the standard for direct groundwater recharge, usually requiring reverse osmosis, are very
prohibitive.
6-3

Irrigation at Agronomic Rates
Technology Description
Irrigation at agronomic rates involves applying reclaimed water to forested land or a crop. The reclaimed
water is applied only to the rate that the plants can accept water and nutrients. This reuse method does not
rely on infiltration of the reclaimed water through the ground and into the groundwater. The level of
treatment required for irrigation at agronomic rates is dependent upon the use of the application site, the
crops, and how the crops will be used. Table 6-2 summarizes treatment and quality requirements for
reclaimed water used for irrigating crops.
TABLE 6-2.
TREATMENT AND QUALITY REQUIREMENTS FOR RECLAIMED WATER USED FOR
IRRIGATING CROPS
Type of Reclaimed Water Allowed

Use Class A Class B Class C Class D
Irrigation of Nonfood Crops
Trees and Fodder, Fiber, and Seed Crops YES YES YES YES
Sod, Ornamental Plants for Commercial Use, and Pasture YES YES YES NO
to which Milking Cows or Goats Have Access
Irrigation of Food Crops
Spray Irrigation:
All Food Crops YES NO NO NO
Food Crops Which Undergo Physical or Chemical YES YES YES YES
Processing Sufficient to Destroy All Pathogenic
Agents
Surface Irrigation:
Food Crops Where There is No Reclaimed Water YES YES NO NO
Contact with Edible Portion of Crop
Root Crops YES NO NO NO
Orchards and Vineyards YES YES YES YES
Food Crops Which Undergo Physical or Chemical YES YES YES YES
Processing Sufficient to Destroy All Pathogenic
Agents
Landscape Irrigation
Restricted Access Areas (e.g., Cemeteries and Freeway YES YES YES NO
Landscapes
Open Access Areas (e.g., Golf Courses, Parks, Playgrounds, YES NO NO NO
School Yards and Residential Landscapes)
6-4
Irrigation Design Criteria

The key criteria for design of an irrigation system for application of reclaimed water involves the rate at
which it can be applied to the land, and the requirements for storage during the wet season when the
plants cannot accept additional moisture. For the purposes of comparing alternatives a representative rate
at which plants can use water and nutrients from the reclaimed water was used. Additionally, a
representative amount of storage was used. Actual rates for application of reclaimed water and storage
would be verified depending upon the type of crop used and its actual water and nutrient requirements.
The key design criteria used for estimating land area requirements for irrigation at agronomic rates are as
follows:
Application rate: 0.1 gpd/square foot
Storage Requirements: 7 months of storage for treated effluent
Advantages and Drawbacks of Irrigation at Agronomic Rates

Several advantages and drawbacks of irrigation at agronomic rates were identified during the evaluation
process. Below is a summary of the advantages and drawbacks of irrigation:
Advantages
• Fewest regulatory issues – This system, when implemented correctly, is subject to the fewest
regulatory requirements. This is because this method does not involve disposal of treatment
plant effluent to surface water bodies or to the groundwater.
• Range of uses – Can be applied for forest lands, grasses, or non-food crops.
• Has been implemented in Western Washington.
Drawbacks
• Largest land area required of all the land based reuse options.
• Largest standby storage area required of all the land based reuse options.
• Potential for public contact.
Groundwater Recharge by Surface Percolation – Slow Rate Infiltration

Groundwater recharge by surface percolation using slow rate infiltration involves applying reclaimed
water to the land using a series of pipes and diffuser such that the reclaimed water is applied to the land at
a slow and controlled rate. The reclaimed water infiltrates through the ground to the groundwater.
Since the end fate of the treatment plant effluent is to the groundwater, it must be treated to Class A water
reuse standards plus appropriate treatment to reduce the nitrogen content to the level required by the
groundwater recharge criteria (RCW 90.46.080 and 1997 DOE Water Reclamation and Reuse Standards).
Design Criteria for Groundwater Recharge by Surface Percolation - Slow Rate

Infiltration
The key criteria for the design of a slow rate infiltration system is the rate at which reclaimed water is
applied to the land and the amount of storage required for severe wet weather during winter months when
the land is too wet to accept any water. For the purposes of comparing alternatives a representative rate at
which soil can accept the reclaimed water was used. Additionally, a representative amount of storage was
6-5
used. Actual rates for application of reclaimed water and storage would be verified depending upon the
hydrogeologic conditions at the site.
Typical design criteria used for estimating land requirements for groundwater recharge by surface
percolation – slow rate infiltration are as follows:
Application rate: 0.1 – 2.0 gpd/sf (dependent upon the local geology)
Storage Required: 3 days of storage for treated effluent
A preliminary geologic investigation of the area indicates that the soils in the Pt. Hadlock area have a
comparatively high acceptance rate. Soils acceptance rates may be approximately 30 – 150 gpd/sf (2 -10
inches per hour).
Advantages and Drawbacks of Groundwater Recharge by Surface Percolation –

Slow Rate Infiltration
Advantages
• Minimizes potential for public contact.
• Provides groundwater recharge.
Drawbacks
• Relatively high land area required.
• Regulatory considerations (sub-surface vs. surface application critical to regulatory
requirements), aquifer protection.
Groundwater Recharge by Surface Percolation – Rapid Rate

Infiltration
Groundwater recharge by surface percolation using rapid rate infiltration involves applying reclaimed
water to the land at a rate which is not necessarily controlled. The reclaimed water infiltrates into the
earth as fast as the soils can accept it. Reclaimed water infiltrates through the soil to the groundwater
below. Typically and simply stated, treatment plant effluent is introduced into a “leaky bottom” pond
where it infiltrates into the earth.
The level of wastewater treatment required for rapid rate infiltration is the same as for surface percolation
– slow rate infiltration, both requiring Class A reclaimed water.
Design Criteria for Groundwater Recharge by Surface Percolation – Rapid Rate

Infiltration
The key criteria for the design of a rapid rate infiltration system is the rate at which reclaimed water is
applied to the land and the amount of storage required for severe wet weather during winter months when
the land is too wet to accept any water. For the purposes of comparing alternatives a representative rate at
which soil can accept the reclaimed water was used. Additionally, a representative amount of storage was
used. Actual rates for application of reclaimed water and storage would be verified depending upon the
hydrogeologic conditions at the site.
6-6
Typical design criteria used for estimating the land requirements for groundwater recharge by surface
percolation – rapid rate infiltration are as follows:
Application rate: 1.5 – 8.0 gpd/sf (dependent upon the local geology)
A preliminary geologic investigation (see Appendix A) of the area indicates that the soils in the Pt.
Hadlock area have a comparatively high acceptance rate. Soils acceptance rates may be approximately 30
– 135 gpd/sf (2 -9 inches per hour). These high acceptance rates make rapid rate infiltration a viable
alternative. These values will be confirmed with a more extensive geological study during design. A
conservative application rate of 8.0 gpd/sf will be used for the purposes of estimating at this facilities
planning stage.
Advantages and Drawbacks of Groundwater Recharge by Surface Percolation –

Rapid Rate Infiltration
Advantages
• Least land area required.
• Least expensive approach due to less capital and land expenditures, low O&M costs.
• Provides groundwater recharge.
Drawbacks
• Regulatory considerations regarding aquifer protection.
Constructed Wetlands
Constructed wetlands can be employed for either beneficial reuse of Class A reclaimed water or for
additional treatment of Class B reclaimed water. Constructed wetlands are an artificial, man-made
wetland into which reclaimed water is introduced. Resident plants, animals and microorganisms utilize
any available nutrients and moisture for growth, metabolism and reproduction. These activities result in
improved water quality, wildlife habitat (and associated public benefits), and water uptake through
transpiration and evaporation. The wetland is often constructed by installing a liner in an excavated
depression and bringing in topsoil and plants to create the wetland habitat. The reclaimed water is then
discharged at the opposite end where it can infiltrate into the groundwater, or in some cases, discharge to
surface water (such as a stream or a bay).
Constructed Wetlands Design Criteria

For the purposes of comparing alternatives a representative rate at which a constructed beneficial use
wetland can use water and nutrients from the reclaimed water was used. Additionally, a representative
amount of storage was used. Actual rates for application of reclaimed water and storage would be verified
depending upon the type of wetland plants used, their actual water and nutrient requirements, and the
wetland design.
Typical design criteria used for estimating land area requirements for constructed wetlands are as follows:
Application rate: 0.5 – 1.2 gpd/sf
6-7
Advantages and Drawbacks of Constructed Wetlands

Advantages
• Provides wildlife habitat and associated public benefit.
• Works in association with groundwater recharge.
• Provides additional treatment of plant effluent.
Drawbacks
• Requires more land than other land base options including, in most cases, an infiltration basin
• Creates mosquito habitat.
• Regulatory considerations (wetlands and aquifer protection).
EVALUATION OF DISCHARGE/REUSE ALTERNATIVES

Evaluation Criteria
The following evaluation criteria were used when comparing the discharge/reuse alternatives:
Land Required
How much land is required to implement the proposed method? The higher the land requirement, the less
desirable the alternative. Both land costs and future use potential were considered.
Storage Required
How much storage is required based upon the storage criteria for the proposed method? The higher the
land requirement, the less desirable the alternative. Both land costs and future use potential were
considered
Treatment Requirements
What is the treatment requirement associated with the proposed method? Methods requiring a higher level
of treatment to protect groundwater, the environment, and/or the public are less desirable than methods
which require a lower level of treatment.
Opportunities for Beneficial Reuse

Does the proposed method provide opportunities for one or more means of beneficial reuse for the
treatment plant effluent? Methods which provide more opportunities for beneficial reuse are preferable.
Life Cycle Costs

What is the life cycle cost of the proposed method? These include costs for land purchase, equipment
design and installation, operation and maintenance, and equipment replacement costs. Alternatives with
lower life cycle costs are preferable.

Cost Assumptions
Total present worth and annualized costs were estimated for a 20-year period assuming 4 percent interest.
The 20-year period is consistent with an approach of designing mechanical equipment to its expected life.
6-8
Structures, such as buildings, were sized based on anticipated needs for a 50-year time span. A detailed
breakdown of the estimates is in Appendix C. Estimated costs were identified from the following sources:
• Land value per acre estimated from Jefferson County Assessor’s parcel database. Per acre
estimates were calculated using representative parcels adjacent to the service area for slow
rate and rapid rate infiltration ($28,000/acre) and remote to the service area for irrigation and
constructed wetlands ($25,000/acre). These values were estimated by multiplying
representative assessed values for properties by a factor of 50 percent.
Cost Data).
• Bid tabulations from recent, similar projects.
Table 6-3 summarizes factors used when estimating quantities for the comparative life cycles costs.
TABLE 6-3.
CRITERIA USED FOR ESTIMATING COST QUANTITIES
Criteria Value/Factor
Flow Condition 2030 Maximum Monthly Flow
Storage Ponds (for constructed wetlands) 4 feet deep, 2.5 acres
Land Area Contingency 100% (estimated twice the land needed for
100% reliability)
Land Buffers Added 25% of the total land area
Acceptance Rate/Days Storage: Rapid Rate Infiltration 8 gpd/square foot/3 days
Acceptance Rate/Days Storage: Slow Rate Infiltration 2 gpd/square foot/3 days
Acceptance Rate/Days Storage: Wetlands 1.2 gpd/square foot/3 days
Acceptance Rate/Days Storage: Irrigation 0.1 gpd/square foot/210 days
Land Value –Infiltration $28,000/acre
Land Value – Irrigation & Wetlands $25,000/acre
The capital cost represents the total project cost for implementation of each disposal/reuse alternative.
The life cycle costs include land cost, equipment costs, installation costs for piping, electrical, and
controls, site work, mobilization/demobilization/bonding, contractor overhead and profit, escalation to
mid-point of construction, planning-level contingency, engineering design and construction management,
and Washington state sales tax. These amounts are reflected in the attached cost estimates.
Annual O&M costs for each disposal/reuse alternative were estimated based on power requirements,
chemicals, and labor (general operation, maintenance and cleaning). Additionally, replacement cost of
equipment and structures are included in the comparative life cycle costs. Replacement costs represent a
dollar amount required each year to be set aside in order to replace buildings, structures, and equipment.
Replacement allowances of 2 percent for buildings and structures (replace every 50-years), and 4 percent
for equipment (replace every 20 to 25 years) were included in the life cycle cost estimates. These amounts
are reflected in the attached cost estimates.
6-9

Summaries of the 20-year life cycle costs for each of the disposal/reuse alternatives are located at the
bottom of Table 6-4 in the next section.
Structural costs include costs for site work, process piping, valving and electrical. Equipment costs
include pump stations and force main/distribution piping associated with the pump station. The operation
and maintenance costs represent a net present value of the annual operations and maintenance costs over
the next 20 years for each alternative.
The life cycle costs do not include costs for associated treatment processes. An evaluation of the costs for
treatment alternatives is presented in Chapter 7 – Wastewater Treatment Alternatives.
SUMMARY OF EVALUATION OF DISPOSAL/REUSE ALTERNATIVES

Each of the alternatives was evaluated against the above described criteria. Table 6-4 is a summary of the
evaluation of the alternatives against the criteria. The Land Application areas shown in Table 6-4 include
the necessary area for a 100% redundant disposal field.
6-10
TABLE 6-4.
Alternative
Evaluation Criteria Irrigation Slow Rate Infiltration Rapid Rate Infiltration Constructed Wetlands
Land Required Land Application: 460 acres Land Application: 23 acres Land Application: 5.7 acres Land Application: 29 acres
Storage: 81 acres Storage: Included in land Storage: Included in land Storage: 2.5 acres
Buffers (25% of total): 135 acres application area application area Buffers (25% of total: 9
Buffers (25% of total): 8 acres Buffers (25% of total): 3 acres acres)
Storage Required Estimated that effluent will need Effluent will be stored for 3 Effluent will be stored for 3 Effluent will be stored for 3
to be stored for 7 months during days during severe wet days during severe wet days during severe wet
the year when the soil will be too conditions when soils cannot conditions when soils cannot conditions when soils cannot
wet for irrigating. At 1 mgd infiltrate any additional water. infiltrate any additional water. infiltrate any additional
maximum monthly flow, 210 At 1 mgd maximum monthly At 1 mgd maximum monthly water. At 1 mgd maximum
million gallons of storage will be flow, 3 million gallons of flow, 3 million gallons of monthly flow, 3 million
required storage will be required. storage will be required. gallons of storage will be
required.
Treatment Effluent can be treated to Must treat to Class A Reuse Must treat to Class A Reuse Complicated regulatory
Requirement secondary treatment standards. standards with nitrogen standards with nitrogen requirements specify level of
Plants will provide additional removal to meet groundwater removal to meet groundwater treatment to Class A through
treatment. Water will be applied recharge criteria since effluent recharge criteria since effluent Class C standards depending
at a rate which plants will use. will reach groundwater after will reach groundwater after on potential for human
No infiltration through the soil to infiltration through soil. infiltration through soil. contact, type and use of
groundwater. constructed wetland,
hydrologic conditions.
6-11

Alternative
Evaluation Criteria Irrigation Slow Rate Infiltration Rapid Rate Infiltration Constructed Wetlands
Opportunities for This method does not lend itself This method lends itself to Same as for slow rate Constructed Beneficial Use
Beneficial Reuse to many opportunities for several opportunities for infiltration. Wetlands provide maximum
beneficial reuse because of the beneficial reuse since the opportunity for reuse
level of treatment. The effluent must be treated to excluding only groundwater
secondary effluent must be Class A reuse standards. The recharge. Constructed
reused at the designated level of treatment and Treatment Wetlands provide
irrigation site since the effluent disinfection result in effluent more limited opportunities,
is not adequately treated for which is suitable for reuse and depending on the ultimate
unrestricted reuse and/or human public contact. The effluent level of treatment obtained
contact. This method may can be used to recharge by the system.
produce the additional benefit of groundwater and some or all
a harvestable product such as of it can be used for other uses
timber, or some other non-food such as irrigation in parks/golf
crop. courses,
industrial/commercial use,
sewer line flushing, etc.
Comparative 20-year
Life Cycle Costs
Storage $3,357,500 -- -- $104,200
Land Application $19,134,400 $1,136,450 $268,250 $1,594,800
Structural/Equipment $16,539,700 $2,673,550 $1,410,750 $46,998,500
Subtotal Capital $39,031,600 $3,810,000 $1,679,000 $48,697,500
NPV O&M $2,821,000 $629,000 $728,000 $8,200,000
Total 20-Year Life $41,852,600 $4,439,000 $2,407,000 $56,987,500
Cycle Costs
6-12
RECOMMENDED RE-USE ALTERNATIVE

The results of the alternative evaluation were presented to the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners at a workshop on May 25, 2006. The workshop was open to the public and some key
disposal/reuse options, their relative advantages and drawbacks, and their respective life cycle costs.
The design team presented its technical perspective on each of the alternatives and received feedback and
questions from the Board of County Commissioners, County staff, the stakeholders/public attending the
workshop. This feedback was considered in the technical recommendation.
Recommendation
It was recommended that treatment plant effluent reuse through rapid rate infiltration be selected as the
preferred alternative for the proposed wastewater treatment facility.
Reuse through rapid rate infiltration was recommended based upon the following key reasons:
• Lowest 20-year life cycle cost. This alternative has the lowest 20-year life cycle costs because
the amount of land required is less than any of the other land based reuse or disposal
alternatives considered. Additionally, rapid rate infiltration requires the least amount of
piping and associated equipment further reducing the capital cost and the operation and
maintenance requirements.
• Provides opportunities for beneficial reuse. This alternative provides good opportunities for
beneficial reuse. Stakeholders and the community have expressed interest in beneficial reuse
opportunities for treatment plant effluent. A specific reuse strategy mentioned by members of
the public was water recharge for Chimacum Creek. The use of rapid rate infiltration at a site
located in the vicinity of Chimacum Creek would provide recharge through local
groundwater. Determination of an advantageous site would be part of a hydrogeologic survey
of potential reuse sites.
6-13
CHAPTER 7.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
This chapter summarizes wastewater treatment (including liquid process, disinfection, and solids
handling), provides a technical evaluation of the alternative options, and presents a technical
recommendation for preferred wastewater treatment, disinfection, and solids handling methods.
LIQUID PROCESS TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS

Discharge/Reuse Method Determines Treatment
The level of treatment is dependent upon the selected method of effluent disposal or reuse. The
regulations dictate the requirements for treatment depending upon the end use of the final effluent.
Table 7-1 summarizes the general level of treatment required depending upon the disposal or reuse option
for the final effluent. The following sections describe the treatment requirements in greater detail.
Levels of Treatment
Water reuse systems must meet treatment standards, as defined by the Departments of Health and
Ecology in the Water Reclamation and Reuse Standards. Reclaimed water standards vary depending on
the type of end-use and the potential for human contact with the reclaimed water. The requirements vary
from Class A (highest quality) to Class D (lowest quality). Reclaimed water of each quality level can be
achieved through appropriate levels of secondary or advanced treatment and disinfection. Table 7-2
summarizes the treatment criteria for various reuse applications.
TABLE 7-1.
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIOUS DISPOSAL/REUSE OPTIONS
Disposal/Reuse Option Secondary Treatment Advanced Treatment

Irrigation/Land Application Certain Types of Fodder & Fiber Most Applications (food, public
Crops access)
Groundwater Recharge by Surface No Yes
Percolation – Slow Rate
Infiltration
Groundwater Recharge by Surface No Yes
Percolation – Rapid Rate
Infiltration
Marine Outfall Unlikely Likely
Constructed Wetlands Possible Likely
Groundwater Injection No Yes (with reverse osmosis)
7-1
TABLE 7-2.
WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS FOR REUSE PROJECTS
Parameter Class A Class B Class C Class D

BOD 30 mg/L 30 mg/L 30 mg/L 30 mg/L
TSS 30 mg/L 30 mg/L 30 mg/L 30 mg/L
Total 2.2/100 ml (7 day); 2.2/100 ml (7 day); 23/100 ml (7 day); 240/100 ml
Coliforms 23/100 ml at any time 23/100 ml at any time 240/100 ml at any time (7 day)
Turbidity 2 NTU monthly; N/A N/A N/A
5 NTU at any time
Dissolved >0 mg/L >0 mg/L >0 mg/L >0 mg/L
Oxygen
Chlorine 0.5 mg/L in conveyance 0.5 mg/L in conveyance 0.5 mg/L in conveyance 0.5 mg/L in
residual piping piping piping conveyance piping
NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit
Secondary Treatment
Secondary treatment typically involves a biological oxidation process which produces a biological
“sludge” which can be separated from the liquid process. The liquid is then disinfected by one of a
variety of methods prior to disposal or reuse. Wastewater treatment processes which achieve secondary
levels of treatment include activated sludge, sequencing batch reactors (SBR), rotating biological
contactors, trickling filters, lagoons and oxidation ditches. All are followed by secondary clarification.
Wastewater treated to the secondary level can meet Class B, C, or D reclaimed water standards if specific
design and operational standards are met. These standards and processes are discussed in further detail in
subsequent sections of this chapter.
Advanced Wastewater Treatment

Some type of advanced wastewater treatment is needed to achieve Class A level final effluent. Advanced
wastewater treatment processes include membrane bioreactors (MBR’s), reverse osmosis or one of a
variety or mechanical filtration systems following an appropriate secondary treatment process.
Supplemental filtration is typically provided by media filters using sand and/or anthracite coal or cloth
filters.
Advanced wastewater treatment can also provide ammonia removal (nitrification) and nitrate removal
(denitrification) which are required for beneficial-reuse land-application in excess of agronomic uptake
rates. For surface percolation facilities, nitrate levels must be reduced to 10 mg/L and nitrite levels
reduced to 1 mg/L. These levels are based on the federal primary standards for drinking water.
Reliability and Redundancy Requirements

Washington State Department of Ecology’s Criteria for Sewage Works Design stipulates reliability and
redundancy requirements for the treatment system in Article 11 of the Water Reclamation and Reuse
Standards. This article addresses the requirements for emergency storage and disposal of untreated or
partially treated wastewater. A copy of this Article can be found in Appendix E.
7-2
…7. WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES

Eight wastewater treatment processes were considered for evaluation. These alternatives are described
below:
• Recirculating filters – This process uses a filtration media to treat the wastewater. Typically,
a septic tank is provide upstream of the filter to remove settleable solids. Effluent from the
septic tank is passed through a coarse media filter. A portion of the filter effluent is
recirculated back through the filter combining with the incoming septic tank effluent. The
remaining final effluent is discharged to disposal or reuse.
• Lagoons – Facultative lagoons, stabilization ponds and aerated lagoons use large, open,
earthen lagoons to store wastewater, provide aeration, and settle solids.
• Constructed Treatment Wetlands – Constructed Treatment Wetlands are an artificial, man-
made wetland into which wastewater is introduced. Resident plants, animals and
microorganisms utilize any available nutrients and moisture for growth, metabolism and
reproduction. These activities result in improved water quality, wildlife habitat (and
associated public benefits), and water uptake through transpiration and evaporation.
• Fixed Film Processes – Fixed film or attached growth processes use an inert media as
attachment sites for growth of microorganisms that convert organic material in wastewater
into biological cell matter. Examples of fixed processes include trickling filters and rotating
biological contactors.
• Oxidation Ditch – An oxidation ditch uses a long, continuous channel, typically oval or
circular to provide an aerobic environment where oxidation of carbonaceous and nitrogenous
wastes (BOD) occurs. This aerobic environment is typically created by low-speed surface
aerators that also serve as mixers.
• Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) – SBR’s are a variation of the activated sludge process that
operate in a batch mode instead of a continuous-flow mode. Aeration and secondary
clarification occur in the same tank. Two or more parallel basins are required so that influent
flows can be treated continuously by this batch process. Control valves, mixers, aerators, and
decanters cycle the wastewater flow through different operational modes within the tanks.
Aeration can be in the form of diffused air or jet aeration. The sequential operating modes,
which take place in the same basin, include filling, reacting, settling, decanting, and sludge
wasting. If designed and operated properly, this type of system can remove nutrients such as
nitrogen and phosphorus through proper programming of the batch process.
• Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) – The MBR process combines the extended aeration activated
sludge process with a physical separation process using membranes immersed in the aeration
basins. The membranes replace separate downstream clarifiers. By providing a positive
barrier to virtually all particulate, colloidal and dissolved solids above the 0.1 micron range,
the membranes produce an exceptional effluent quality, superior to that of extended aeration
activated sludge followed by conventional filters. Chemical coagulation is likely not required
for MBRs to meet Class A reclaimed water standards. Because the membranes provide a
positive barrier to solids, the activated sludge system can operate at very high mixed-liquor
suspended solids (MLSS) concentrations, significantly reducing the size of the aeration basin
compared to typical extended aeration activated sludge plants.
• Reverse Osmosis (RO) – Reverse osmosis systems produce an ultra-high quality, purified
Class A reclaimed water. RO systems are typically used to “polish” the effluent from an
7-3
advanced wastewater treatment system when direct discharge to ground water is employed as
the preferred reuse option. Reverse Osmosis involves forcing the process water through a
semi-permeable membrane at high pressure. Pollutant removal is achieved through diffusion
and electrostatic charge exclusion as well as size exclusion, thereby providing significant
virus, dissolved salt and metal ion removal.
Six alternatives were rejected early in the evaluation process. The rationale for their rejection is as
follows:
Recirculating Filters + Filter

Recirculating filters can meet secondary effluent quality standards for biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS). However, using this technology, it is difficult to producer an
effluent which can be reliably filtered to meet advanced treatment requirements for Class A turbidity.
Additionally, this process does not provide sufficient nitrogen removal without supplemental treatment.
This process is generally not used for treatment plants over 0.5 mgd because it has high capital costs and
requires a large area for the filters.
Lagoons + Filter
Lagoons were rejected because it is difficult to producer an effluent which can be reliably filtered to meet
advanced treatment requirements for Class A TSS due to high levels of algae generated in the lagoon.
Additionally, lagoons cannot provide consistent nitrogen removal, require significant land area, can be
quite odorous and do not lend themselves to odor control.
Constructed wetlands require a large land area in order to meet anticipated regulatory standards. Past
experience indicates wetlands can meet BOD, TSS, and nitrogen reduction requirements when operated at
relatively low wastewater loading rates. However, constructed wetlands can provide polishing treatment
after all standards have been met.
Fixed Film Processes + Filter

Fixed film processes can meet BOD and TSS requirements. However, using this technology, it is difficult
to produce an effluent which can be reliably filtered to meet advanced treatment requirements for Class A
turbidity. Additionally, fixed film processes are not able to meet nitrogen removal requirements without
supplemental treatment. Finally, these processes are prone to high odor potential requiring expensive and
complex odor control systems.
Reverse Osmosis
Reverse osmosis was rejected due to high capital and operating costs. The energy cost to provide high
pressure feed water is prohibitive. Maintenance of the semi-permeable membranes is also expensive and
time consuming. Since direct injection to the groundwater is not being considered, this alternative is not
justifiable.
Oxidation Ditch + Filter

Oxidation ditch plus filtration was rejected due to the difficulty in implementing the system in phases
adequate to provide redundancy and reliability. These systems are not modular and thus, result in
oversizing of initial phases. This leads to higher initial costs and could prove to be difficult to operate at
7-4
the subsequent low wastewater loading rates. Initial estimates suggest that the higher costs of phasing
would not be sufficiently off-set by lower O&M costs.

Sequencing Batch Reactor + Filter
SBRs are a variation of the activated sludge process that operate in a batch mode instead of a continuous-
flow mode. Aeration and secondary clarification occur in the same tank. Two or more parallel basins are
required so that influent flows can be treated continuously by this batch process.
Control valves, mixers, aerators, and decanters cycle the wastewater flow through different operational
modes within the tanks. Aeration can be in the form of diffused air or jet aeration. The sequential
operating modes, which take place in the same basin, include filling, reacting, settling, drawing or
decanting, and idle mode when sludge is wasted from the wastewater treatment process to the solids
handling processes. During the fill phase, the basin is filled with wastewater and aeration begins. Aeration
continues through the react phase. The aerators are then turned off and the biomass is settled. During the
draw phase, treated effluent is removed from the basin by a decanter. Finally, settled sludge is pumped
from the basin for final treatment during the idle mode while the basin waits to receive the next batch of
wastewater flow and repeat the cycle of phases. If designed and operated properly, this type of system can
remove nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus through proper programming of the batch process.
Figure 7-1 shows a simple process diagram and a photo of a typical SBR facility.
Screened and
Degritted Raw
Wastewater
Decant To Filter
Figure 7-1. Sequencing Batch Reactor Process Schematic and Example Facility in Waldport, Oregon
Because mixed liquor is retained in the reactor during all cycles, separate secondary clarifiers are not
required. However, batch treatment operation leads to peaking flows downstream, and these flows would
have to be equalized to minimize the size of downstream facilities. Flow equalization would be sized to
process decant flows. Tanks would not be allowed to fill and decant simultaneously at high flows.
The control system allows for control over a range of flows; a batch-proportional program is used for
low-flow conditions and a flow-proportional program is used for average and peak-flow conditions. SBR
systems are computer-controlled and tend to be more complex and mechanically intensive than other
activated sludge treatment processes. Variation of the cycles and their timing results in greater operational
flexibility to meet different effluent requirements. The reliance on automated equipment and
computerized control demands a higher level of operational and maintenance sophistication than
conventional activated sludge systems. Maintenance of these systems can be expensive and demanding.
7-5
Design Criteria: Sizing & Phasing

A sizing and phasing plan for an SBR with filter treatment system was developed for use in comparing
alternatives. The system was sized and phased to meet population, flow, and loading estimates described
in Chapter 4 – Population, Flow and Loads.
The system was planned in four distinct phases. These phases are described as follows:
• Phase I: Two 0.125 mgd Reactors - Construct two 0.125 mgd reactors with a third 0.125 mgd
reactor for standby. The two 0.125 mgd reactors to be constructed as a single 0.25 mgd
reactor cell which can be combined to function as one cell in the future. A filter building
would be constructed and filter equipment needed for initial flows through Phase II installed.
• Phase II: Two 0.25 mgd Reactors with Storage – Expand the 0.125 mgd standby reactor cell
to 0.25 mgd by constructing a 0.125 mgd expansion. Combine the two working cells from
Phase I by demolishing the wall between them or opening a sluice gate between the two cells
so they can operate as a single volume. This results in two working 0.25 mgd cells. Construct
a 0.75 mgd storage basin for equalization and emergency storage. This emergency storage is
in addition to the emergency storage provided at the disposal site. This would provide backup
in conjunction with storage should one 0.25 mgd cell need to go offline.
• Phase III: Three 0.25 mgd Reactors – Construct a third 0.25 mgd reactor to accommodate
increasing flows. The 0.75 mgd storage pond constructed in Phase II would still be used for
equalization storage and to provide storage should one or more reactors need to go offline.
Additional filter equipment would be installed to meet increased wastewater flow.
• Phase IV: Four 0.25 mgd Reactors – Construct a fourth 0.25 mgd reactor to accommodate
increasing flows. The storage pond would still be used for flow equalization and backup
should part of the system need to go offline. This would provide a firm treatment capacity of
1 mgd to meet the anticipated 2030 maximum monthly flow of 0.98 mgd.

Several advantages and drawbacks of sequencing batch reactors with filtration for processing wastewater
were identified during the evaluation. Below is a summary of the advantages and drawbacks:
Advantages
• Provides good effluent quality – Can meet Class B, C, D reclaimed water standards.
• Can achieve Class A reclaimed water standards and nitrogen reduction with filtration.
• Proven technology – experience within Washington State.
• Modular – The system can be constructed in smaller phases to accommodate population
growth.
• Operational Flexibility – Through variation of the cycles and their timing, greater operational
flexibility can be achieved to meet different regulatory requirements.
Drawbacks
• Treats wastewater in batches making system timing and sequencing critical. This can present
challenges when responding to significant variations from peak flow events. However, SBR’s
can address peaks by equalizing fill cycles. But equalizing fill cycles also can result in
operational issues and problems with batch consistency.
7-6
• System requires more computer control and mechanical valving than other extended aeration
treatment processes.
• Equipment maintenance – Prompt repairs are essential because SBR’s usually have less
redundancy than other activated sludge systems.
Membrane Bioreactor
The membrane bioreactor (MBR) process combines the extended aeration activated sludge process with a
physical separation process using membranes immersed in the aeration basins. The membranes replace
separate downstream clarifiers. By providing a positive barrier to virtually all particulate, colloidal and
dissolved solids above the 0.1 micron range, the membranes produce an exceptional effluent quality,
superior to that of extended aeration activated sludge followed by conventional filters. Chemical
coagulation is likely not required for MBRs to meet Class A reclaimed water standards since sludge
settleability is not a consideration. Figure 7-2 shows a membrane bioreactor system.
In addition to aeration air, coarse bubble diffused air is used to scour the membranes and prevent
excessive fouling. Significant quantities of air are required for membrane scouring, usually equaling or
exceeding the requirement for aeration air. This can result in significant operating costs, since aeration air
production is often the most energy intensive component of wastewater treatment plant operation. Back-
pulsing with chemical cleansing agents may be required to remove accumulated solids, depending on the
type of membranes.
Because the membranes provide a positive barrier to solids, the activated sludge system can operate at
very high mixed-liquor suspended solids (MLSS) concentrations, on the order of 10,000 to 15,000 mg/L.
Typical extended aeration activated sludge plants operate at MLSS concentrations between 2,000 and
4,000 mg/L. The high MLSS concentrations mean that the plant can run at a low hydraulic retention time
and a high solids retention time, significantly reducing the size of the aeration basin compared to typical
extended aeration activated sludge plants.
Two types of membranes are available: hollow fiber units composed of a membrane wrapped around a
reinforced hollow fiber tube; and flat membrane sheets on top of plastic panels for reinforcement. In
either case, wastewater is filtered through the membrane, and filtered effluent passes through the
membrane onto the next step of the treatment plant.
Settleability is not a consideration with this process due to the membranes’ being a barrier to solids. This
is a significant advantage over typical activated sludge plants, where the activated sludge biology must be
monitored to encourage development of microorganisms that settle quickly in a clarifier basin.
A disadvantage of the MBR process is that the membranes are not well-suited to treating peak flows.
Because membrane capacity must be designed for treating peak flows, much of the capacity will not be
used until infrequent peak flows occur. In many cases, pre-MBR equalization basins are recommended to
equalize peak flows to the MBRs. Alternatively, equalization can be achieved by providing additional
freeboard in the membrane basins.
Another disadvantage is the requirement to replace membranes every five to ten years, depending on the
manufacturer. The membranes make up a significant portion of the cost of the facilities, so frequent
replacement can translate into high present worth costs.
7-7
Addition of an anoxic selector tank upstream of the aeration basins with internal recycle allows for
nitrogen reduction.

A significant advantage of the MBR process is its ability to be implemented in phases. It can be
constructed in many small increments by adding basins and membrane cassettes as needed.
A sizing and phasing plan for an MBR system was developed for use in comparing alternatives. The
system was sized and phased to meet population, flow, and loading estimates described in Chapter 4 –
Population, Flow and Loads.
Figure 7-2: Membrane Bioreactor Process Schematic and Example Facility in Bandon Dunes, Oregon
The system was planned in four distinct phases. These phases are described as follows:
• Phase I: Two 0.25 mgd MBR Treatment Trains - Construct two 0.25 mgd reactors. One
reactor will provide capacity for treatment of the initial flows, the other reactor will be
standby to provide redundancy.
• Phase II: Add Storage – Once flows exceed 0.25 mgd, both reactor trains will be used for
processing of wastewater. At this point, a storage basin sized for 3 days’ of flow from a single
treatment train will be added to provide emergency storage should one of the trains be taken
7-8
offline for maintenance or repair. Additionally, the storage can be utilized for flow
equalization in the future when peak flows might temporarily exceed the capacity of the
existing systems. This emergency storage is in addition to the storage provided at the disposal
site.
• Phase III: Add MBR Treatment Capacity – Construct tankage for an additional 0.50 mgd of
capacity. However, membranes will be installed in this phase for an additional 0.25 mgd of
treatment capacity. This will result in a total treatment capacity of 0.75 mgd. The Phase II
storage facility will still be used for equalization and for redundancy should any of the
treatment process need to be taken offline.
• Phase IV: Add Membranes for 1.0 mgd Total Capacity – Install the remaining membranes in
the Phase III tankage. This will provide 1.0 mgd total capacity and the storage will provide
equalization and capacity should part of the treatment process need to be taken offline.

Several advantages and drawbacks of membrane bioreactors for processing wastewater were identified
during the evaluation. Below is a summary of the advantages and drawbacks:
Advantages
• Continuous treatment of wastewater making controlling and monitoring the treatment process
easier. This can result in more consistent and reliable effluent quality.
• Produces Class A reclaimed water without a separate filtration process.
• No separate secondary clarifiers or coagulation process required.
• State-of-the-art wastewater treatment process which is best suited to address future potential
wastewater treatment requirements such as removal of pharmaceuticals and personal care
products and endocrine disruptors (hormones) in wastewater.
• Modular and scalable process making expanding the treatment process easy throughout the
development phases of the wastewater system.
Drawbacks
• Potentially higher cost – Membrane bioreactors have historically been a more cost intensive
process due to the capital investment in the membranes and operations costs associated with
additional aeration and pumping. However, these costs have been coming down significantly
in recent years making MBR processes more competitive with other advanced waste
treatment systems.
• Membrane Maintenance – The membranes must be maintained and kept clean so they do not
foul. This increases the requirement for system air in order to “shake off” accumulated solids
and keep the membranes clean.
EVALUATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES

Evaluation Criteria
The following evaluation criteria were used when comparing the wastewater treatment alternatives:
Effluent Quality
Can the proposed process reliably and consistently provide effluent to an acceptable level of treatment?
Are there any additional design provisions, operational considerations, and/or redundancies that need to
be included in order to reliably and consistently perform?
7-9
Phasing
Does the technology lend itself to developing the treatment system in discreet phases? Are the
components of the process modular and have some flexibility regarding size (i.e.) are they scalable?
Operational Characteristics
Are there any operational advantages or drawbacks associated with the proposed treatment technology?
Life Cycle Costs

What is the life cycle cost of the proposed method? These include costs for land purchase, equipment,
design and installation, operation and maintenance, and equipment replacement costs. A lower life cycle
cost is preferable.

Cost Assumptions
Total present worth and annualized costs were estimated for a 20-year period assuming 2008 dollars. The
20-year period is consistent with an approach of designing mechanical equipment to its expected life.
Structures, such as buildings, were sized based on anticipated 20-year needs. Replacement of buildings
and structures were estimated based upon a 50-year life span. A detailed breakdown of the estimates is in
Appendix C. Estimated costs were identified from the following sources:
• Land value per acre estimated from Jefferson County Assessor’s parcel database. A per acre
estimate was calculated using representative parcels adjacent to the service area of
$28,000/acre.
Cost Data).
• Bid tabulations from recent, similar projects.
Table 7-3 summarizes factors used when estimating quantities for the comparative life cycles costs.
TABLE 7-3.
CRITERIA USED FOR ESTIMATING TREATMENT PLANT COST QUANTITIES
Criteria Value/Factor
Flow Condition 2030 Maximum Monthly Flow
Storage Ponds 8 feet deep
Land Area Contingency Twice the land area needed for 2030 year facilities
were estimated so the plant could be expanded in
the future to buildout
Land Buffers Added 25% of the total land area
Land Value $28,000/acre
The capital cost represents the total project cost for implementation of each treatment alternative.
The life cycle costs include land cost, equipment costs, installation costs for piping, electrical, and
controls, site work, mobilization/demobilization/bonding, contractor overhead and profit, escalation to
7-10
mid-point of construction, planning-level contingency, engineering design and construction management,

and Washington state sales tax. These amounts are reflected in the attached cost estimates.
Annual O&M costs for each wastewater alternative were estimated based on power requirements,
chemicals, and labor (general operation, maintenance and cleaning). Additionally, replacement cost of
equipment and structures are included in the comparative life cycle costs. Replacement costs represent a
dollar amount required each year to be set aside in order to replace buildings, structures, and equipment.
Replacement allowances of 2 percent for buildings and structures (replace every 50-years), and 4 percent
for equipment (replace every 20 to 25 years) were included in the life cycle cost estimates. These amounts
are reflected in the attached cost estimates.

Summaries of the 20-year life cycle costs for each of the wastewater treatment alternatives are located at
the bottom of Table 7-4.
The life cycle costs do not include costs for associated effluent disposal/reuse. An evaluation of the costs
for effluent disposal/reuse alternatives is presented in Chapter 6 – Effluent Discharge/Reuse Alternatives.
Summary of Wastewater Treatment Evaluation

The SBR and MBR treatment alternatives were evaluated against the above described criteria. Table 7-4
is a summary of the evaluation of the alternatives against the criteria.
RECOMMENDED WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE
Commissioners at a workshop on August 8, 2006. The workshop was open to the public and some key
wastewater treatment options, their relative advantages and drawbacks, and their respective life cycle
costs.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the results of the alternative evaluation and feedback from the stakeholder workshop, a
membrane bioreactor system (MBR) is recommended. This system is recommended primarily because of
the reliable level of Class A effluent it can provide. Additionally, it is the most advance treatment
technology available and is best suited to address existing and future regulatory requirements regarding
treatment. The 20-year life cycle costs are slightly higher than anticipated for SBR. The additional cost
does not outweigh the benefits provided through reliability and superior effluent quality offered by an
MBR system.
7-11
TABLE 7-4.
SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
Alternative
Evaluation Criteria Sequencing Batch (SBR) Reactor + Filter Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)
Effluent Quality - Can provide Class A effluent with filtration. SBR - Provides Class A reclaimed
without filtration can meet Class B, C, or D effluent water without a separate filtration
quality standards. process.
- Must monitor filters and system batches closely to - State-of-the-Art Wastewater

ensure reliable Class A effluent quality. treatment process which is best
suited to address future potential
wastewater treatment
requirements such as
pharmaceuticals and personal care
products and endocrine disruptors
(hormones) in wastewater.
Phasing - The system is modular. Treatment cells can be - The system is modular.
added or enlarged to increase treatment capacity. Treatment capacity can be
increased through addition of
membranes and treatment cells.
Operational - Treats wastewater in batches making system - Continuous Treatment of
Characteristics timing and sequencing critical. Wastewater making controlling
and monitoring the treatment
- Requires more computer control and mechanical process easier. This can result in
valving than other extended aeration treatment more consistent and reliable
processes. effluent quality.
- Operational Flexibility: Through variation of the - Requires more computer control

cycles and their timing, greater operational and mechanical valving than other
flexibility can be achieved to meet different effluent extended aeration treatment
requirements. processes.
- No separate secondary clarifiers

or coagulation process required.
- Membrane maintenance: the

membranes must be maintained
and kept clean so they do not foul.
Comparative 20-year
Life Cycle Costs
Capital $21,860,000 $26,242,000
O&M $6,932,000 $9,005,000
Total 20-year Life Cycle $28,792,000 $35,247,000
Cost
DISINFECTION ALTERNATIVES
Effluent disinfection prevents the spread of waterborne diseases. The intent of the Class A reclaimed
water standards are to produce reclaimed water that is essentially pathogen-free. This entire treatment
process is geared towards this goal, with the disinfection step being the final means of achieving this goal.
7-12
Four disinfection processes were considered for evaluation. These alternatives are described below:
• Liquid Sodium Hypochlorite – Disinfect the treatment plant effluent with 12.5 percent liquid
sodium hypochlorite (bleach).
• Ultraviolet (UV) Disinfection – Disinfect the treatment plant effluent with ultraviolet light.
• Chlorine Gas – Disinfect the treatment plant effluent using chlorine gas.
• On-Site Generation of Sodium Hypochlorite – Disinfect the treatment plant effluent using
<1.0 percent liquid sodium hypochlorite (bleach) generated on site using salt and
hypochlorite generation equipment.
Two alternatives were rejected early in the evaluation process. The rational for their rejection is as
follows:
Chlorine Gas
This alternative was rejected due to safety and transportation concerns. Chlorine gas is very toxic and a
leak can cause harm or death. Due to the dangerous nature of chlorine gas, handling and transportation is
a significant concern. Due to these concerns, chlorine gas is seldom considered in the design of small
wastewater treatment facilities.
On-Site Generation of Sodium Hypochlorite

On-site generation of sodium hypochlorite uses complex, electrically powered mechanical equipment to
generate low concentration (<1.0 percent) liquid sodium hypochlorite from salt water. The comparatively
small amount of liquid sodium hypochlorite needed to disinfect the required effluent flows do not justify
the costs for equipment, operation, maintenance and electricity when compared to purchasing liquid
sodium hypochlorite from a bulk supplier.

Liquid Sodium Hypochlorite
This alternative involves disinfecting the treatment plant effluent with liquid sodium hypochlorite
(bleach). The chlorine in liquid sodium hypochlorite directly kills the microorganisms through its strong
oxidizing power. Sodium hypochlorite (12-percent to 15-percent by weight) would be purchased and
delivered by a vendor to the wastewater treatment plant site and stored within a chemical holding tank.
Chemical metering pumps, control equipment, and associated piping would be used to inject the sodium
hypochlorite into the chlorine contact tank (CCT) influent. The CCT is designed to provide gentle mixing
and sufficient hydraulic residence time to kill pathogens to the required disinfection level prior to delivery
of the reclaimed water to the point of reuse. Figure 7-3 shows typical equipment for disinfection using
12.5-percent sodium hypochlorite.
7-13
Figure 7-3. Sodium Hypochlorite Feed Pumps at Vashon Island, Washington (left) and Chlorine Contact
Tank at Marysville, Washington
Design Criteria: Sizing and Phasing

The liquid sodium hypochlorite system would be designed for storage of at least 14 days of bleach at
peak-month flows at a peak design dosage of approximately 2 mg/L (Department of Ecology criteria
requires a minimum dose of 1 mg/L).
Building facilities will be designed to meet the anticipated 20-year maximum month flows. The storage
area would initially house 3-55 gallon drums of liquid sodium hypochlorite to accommodate initial flows.
The enclosed building is sized at 100 square feet to adequately house additional drums or a larger storage
tank for bulk shipment of sodium hypochlorite to accommodate future flows.

Several advantages and drawbacks of using liquid sodium hypochlorite were identified during the
evaluation process. Below is a summary of the identified advantages and drawbacks:
Advantages
• Low initial capital investment – The initial capital investment associated with this alternative
is relatively low considering that no complicated mechanical equipment is required. The
system involves chemical metering pumps, flow controls, piping, and chemical storage.
Operation and maintenance costs involve purchase of liquid sodium hypochlorite, and
operation and maintenance of the pumping equipment.
• Safety – This process is relatively safe. Liquid sodium hypochlorite is not as hazardous as
chlorine gas, but provides excellent effluent disinfection.
Drawbacks
• Cost of Liquid Sodium Hypochlorite – Liquid sodium hypochlorite is relatively cheap to
purchase. However, the relative advantages of this alternative could change in the future if
the market price of liquid sodium hypochlorite should rise significantly.
• Chemical Storage – This alternative requires the handling and storage of a hazardous
chemical (bleach) which will require worker safety training. Chemical containment around
the storage tank area will be required in the event of a spill or a leak.
7-14
• Chemical Degradation – Liquid sodium hypochlorite tends to degrade over time due to
temperature and exposure to sunlight. This decreases the effective concentration of chlorine
and the ability of the chemical to oxidize microorganisms. This drawback can be easily
mitigated with proper design and good operating practices.
• Corrosive Damage – Liquid sodium hypochlorite tends to be corrosive to piping and pumping
systems. Although modern materials and equipment have mitigated many of these problems,
some maintenance and replacement of piping, valves, and pump parts will be required.
UV Disinfection
This technology involves disinfecting the wastewater treatment plant effluent by exposing the wastewater
to high levels of ultraviolet light. Ultraviolet light mutates microorganism DNA, preventing cell
reproduction, which effectively kills the microorganism population since the organisms’ life expectancies
are short.
Ultraviolet disinfection systems use several types of technology: low-pressure open-channel systems,
medium-pressure systems, and low-pressure, high-intensity systems.
One consideration of using UV disinfection in reuse applications is the requirement by Department of

Ecology to have a chlorine residual at the point of use. This would require the use of chlorine after UV
disinfection resulting in the need to provide chlorination equipment and facilities or equipment to provide
contact time.

The disinfection system was designed initially to handle 0.5 mgd of treated effluent and then doubled to
handle 1.0 mgd for the 20-year maximum monthly flow. The UV and chlorine system sizing criteria for
these flows were as follows:
UV System: 40 gpm/lamp, 200 watts/lamp, 24 hrs/day.
Chlorination System: 0.5 mg/L dose.

Several advantages and drawbacks of UV disinfection of treatment plant effluent were identified during
the evaluation process. Below is a summary of the advantages and drawbacks:
Advantages
• UV disinfection systems are relatively safe and do not expose the operator to chemicals.
• Less contact time with UV light is required to achieve disinfection due to high germicidal
efficiency.
Drawbacks
• Bulbs are prone to deposits and require routine wiping to prevent fouling.
• Bulbs loose their efficiency and require regular monitoring and replacement in order to
ensure adequate disinfection.
• Supplemental chlorine-based disinfection would be required to provide chlorine residual in
the distribution system in order to meet Class A effluent requirements. This requires a
7-15
chlorine system be installed and negates some of the benefits of not having to handle
chemicals. This also will increase capital and O&M costs since two systems need to be
constructed, operated, and maintained.
EVALUATION OF DISINFECTION ALTERNATIVES

Evaluation Criteria
The following criteria were used when comparing disinfection alternatives:
Effluent Quality
Does the system reliably provide the required level of disinfection?
Phasing
Does the proposed system lend itself to phasing? Can the system be designed to effectively accommodate
increases in flow as the wastewater system develops?
Safety
What is the relative safety of the proposed system?
Life Cycle Costs

What are the comparative 20- year life cycle costs for the proposed system? These include costs for
equipment, design and installation, operation and maintenance, and equipment replacement costs. A lower
life cycle cost is preferable.
Summary of Disinfection Evaluation

Each of the alternatives was evaluated against the above criteria. Table 7-5 is a summary of the evaluation
of the alternatives against the criteria.
7-16
TABLE 7-5.
SUMMARY OF DISINFECTION ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
Alternative
Evaluation Criteria Liquid Sodium Hypochlorite UV Disinfection
Effluent Quality - Provides effective disinfection of microorganisms - Provides effective disinfection
through oxidation with chlorine. of microorganisms through
- Well suited to provide the required chlorine mutating microorganisms’ DNA
residual of 0.50 mg/L for Class A reclaimed water. using UV radiation.
- Supplemental chlorination
required to provide residual of
0.50 mg/L for Class A reclaimed
water.
Phasing - The system is scalable. Additional storage capacity - The system is scalable.
for liquid sodium hypochlorite can be installed. Additional lamps and chambers
Chemical feed pumps and chemical feed piping can can be installed to provide
be enlarged or expanded to accommodate increased additional disinfection capacity
dosage requirements as effluent flow rates increase as effluent flow rates increase in
in the future. the future.
Safety - System is safer than gaseous chlorine. However, - UV system does not involve the
stringent safety measures must be employed during use of chemicals. However, since
chemical handling and equipment operation and supplemental chlorination is
maintenance. required (sodium hypochlorite),
stringent safety measures must be
employed during chemical
handling and equipment
operation and maintenance.
Comparative 20-year
Life Cycle Costs
Capital $512,000 $1,466,000
O&M $179,000 $473,000
Total 20-Year Life $691,000 $1,939,000
Cycle Costs
RECOMMENDED DISINFECTION ALTERNATIVE

Commissioners at a workshop on August 8, 2006. The workshop was open to the public and some key
disinfection options, their relative advantages and drawbacks, and their respective life cycle costs.
7-17
RECOMMENDATION
Liquid sodium hypochlorite is the recommended disinfection system. This system has a lower 20-year life
cycle cost and provides acceptable and proven disinfection. It is suited to provide the required chlorine
residual for Class A reuse and is easily scalable as the system grows. UV disinfection does not provide
enough additional benefits and features to warrant the higher 20-year life cycle cost.
SOLIDS HANDLING/REUSE ALTERNATIVES

When evaluating alternatives for handling treatment plant solids, two distinct components were
considered; solids handling and treatment/reuse. Solids handling involves removal of some of the water
and storage at the treatment plant site prior to the treatment/reuse phase. Treatment/reuse involves
treatment through digestion, composting, or chemical treatment and reuse through land application or
land filling. Combinations of solids handling and treatment/reuse alternatives will be combined and
evaluated.
Three solids handling alternatives and five treatment and reuse alternatives were considered for
evaluation. These alternatives are described below:
Solids Handling
The following processes were considered for solids handling prior to treatment/reuse:
• Decanting: Decanting involves allowing solids to settle by gravity either within a holding
tank or within a treatment basin in the wastewater treatment plant. The clarified supernatant
is then separated from the heavier subnatent.
• Thickening: Thickening involves some equipment dedicated to removing some water from
the wastewater solids to about 4 percent solids. This is done in an effort to reduce
transportation costs.
• Dewatering: Dewatering involves removing enough water from the wastewater solids to
make it semi-solid (about 16 percent solids). This is done to further reduce transportation
costs by reducing the amount of the water that needs to be hauled and or to concentrate the
solids for use in composting or other reuse operations.
Solids Treatment and Reuse

The following processes were considered for treatment and reuse of treatment plant solids:
• Haul Locally to Port Townsend Composting: This involves hauling the treatment plant solids
to a composting facility at the City of Port Townsend Solid Waste Facility for treatment and
reuse.
• Haul Remote to Port Angeles WWTP: This involves hauling solids to another wastewater
treatment plant which has facilities to digest and reuse solids.
• Contracted Haul & Reuse: A hired contractor would provide hauling, treatment and reuse of
solids.
• On-Site Digestion: On-site digestion involves constructing facilities at the WWTP site to
treat, and handle treatment plant solids. Treatment plant solids would be thickened and then
sent to an aerobic digester where the solids would be stabilized aerobically (in the presence of
oxygen). The resulting solids would be Class A or Class B depending upon the holding
7-18
temperature and solids retention time during the digestion process. Solids would then be
hauled for reuse by a contract hauler.
• Forest Application: Forest application would involve sending thickened or dewatered solids
to a forest application site. The solids would be aerobically digested to Class B standards.
This alternative would require an agreement with a forest management company or the
purchase of forest land for the application of solids.
Two alternatives were rejected early in the evaluation process. The rationale for their rejection is as
follows:
On-Site Digestion
On-site digestion was rejected due to the extensive capital costs associated constructing, operating, and
maintaining digesters and associated solids handling equipment. It is estimated that approximately
2,000 gallons per day of thickened 4 percent solids on average will be generated between 2010 and 2030.
This would not justify the costs associated with constructing a digester system which could cost on the
order of several million dollars.
Forest Application
Forest application was not considered for further evaluation due to the land costs associated with
operating and maintaining a forest application site. Additionally, there are significant permitting and
forest management practices which need to be implemented for this alternative which are dependent upon
the treatment level (Class A or B) of the solids and the use of the land and crops. The associated costs and
permitting requirements rendered this alternative unappealing compared to other alternatives being
considered.

Storage and Decanting
Solids are removed from the wastewater treatment system by removing a calculated volume of mixed
liquor or waste activated sludge from the biological treatment process. This waste activated sludge is
then stored on site in a storage tank or basin where the heavier solids are allowed to settle to the bottom.
The heavier solids, or subnatant are then separated from the lighter supernatant by decanting.
Providing a decanting system is optional for an MBR process since the system operates at high mixed-
liquor-suspended-solids concentrations. Solids can be pulled off the process and be at 1 – 1.5 percent
solids without decanting. However, solids storage is essential during periods of inclement weather.
The decanting process requires only minimal equipment, labor and energy costs and can result in a
remarkably improved subnatant with perhaps as high as a 50 percent volume reduction. The reduction in
hauling and handling costs can be significant. Decanting and storage typically involves a holding tank for
decanted solids, minor piping and pumps, and some provisions for odor control. Decanting and storage
are accomplished in the same tank.
At a future date, the decanting process can be enhanced with polymer addition at minimal cost. Improved
solids separation by use of polymer will essentially increase the emergency on-site solids storage capacity
during periods of inclement weather when hauling and/or land application is curtailed.
7-19
Design Criteria
The following key design criteria were used when evaluating decanting:
• Decant to 1.2 percent solids by weight.
• No polymer or chemical addition initially.
• Provide 20,000 gallons of storage on site for decanted solids.
• Provide odor control for storage tank.

The following advantages and drawbacks were identified for decanting solids:
Advantages
• Low Capital Costs – This alternative does not involve expensive or complicated equipment
for handling solids. No chemical addition is involved to flocculate solids.
• Operation and Maintenance – Since there is minimal equipment associated with this process,
the system is easy and inexpensive to operate and maintain.
Drawbacks
• Solids Content – This system results in the lowest concentration of solids. The low solids
content (high water content) will result in additional hauling and handling costs.
Thickening
Thickening involves some equipment dedicated to removing water from the wastewater solids. Enough
water is removed to thicken the solids to about 4 percent. This results in reduced transportation costs.
Several thickening processes were considered in this evaluation including gravity belt thickeners,
dissolved air flotation thickeners, and rotary screen thickeners. Polymers can be added prior to the
thickener to aid in the thickening process by coagulating and wetting the wastewater solids.
Ancillary equipment would include chemical storage systems, storage tanks, day tanks, mixers, metering
pumps, piping, valving, safety equipment and odor control equipment.
Design Criteria
The following key design criteria were used when evaluating thickening:
• Thickening equipment assumed for this analysis is a rotary screen thickener.
• Polymer addition will be used to coagulate solids and aid in water removal.
• Provide 10,000 gallons of storage on site for thickened solids.
• Provide odor control scrubbers and blower equipment.

The following advantages and drawbacks were identified for thickening solids:
7-20
Advantages
• Solids Content – This system results in a higher solids content resulting in lower hauling
costs than decanted solids.
Drawbacks
• Capital Costs – This system involves investment in equipment to thicken solids. Additional
odor control is required since thickened solids have greater odor potential than decanted
solids.
• Operation and Maintenance –This equipment will result in higher operation and maintenance
costs. This will be in the form of labor, equipment maintenance, chemical costs, and power.
Dewatering
Dewatering involves removing enough water from the wastewater solids to make it a semi-solid. This is
done to further reduce transportation costs by reducing the amount of the water that needs to be hauled.
Dewatering is often accomplished employing the same equipment used for thickening sludge except the
equipment is designed to remove more water from the solids. Typical equipment includes centrifuges, belt
filter presses, and screw presses. Solids from activated sludge processes are typically dewatered to about
16 percent solids.
Ancillary equipment would include solids holding facilities, solids handling/conveyance systems,
chemical storage systems, storage tanks, day tanks, mixers, metering pumps, piping, valving, safety
equipment and HVAC systems, buildings, and odor control equipment
Design Criteria:
• Dewatering equipment assumed for this analysis is a belt filter press.
• Polymer addition will be used to coagulate solids and aid in water removal.
• Dewatered sludge to be conveyed to truck using belt conveyors.
• Provide odor control scrubbers and blower equipment.

The following advantages and drawbacks were identified for dewatering solids:
Advantages
• Solids Content – This system results in a higher solids content resulting in lower hauling
costs than decanted or thickened solids.
Drawbacks
• Capital Costs – This system involves investment in more expensive equipment to remove
additional water to achieve higher solids content. Belt conveyors will be needed to transport
dewatered sludge to trucks so they can be hauled away for treatment and reuse. Additional
odor control is required since thickened solids have greater odor potential than decanted
solids.
• Operation and Maintenance –This equipment will result in higher operation and maintenance
costs than for thickening. These higher costs will be in the form of labor, equipment
maintenance, chemical costs, and power.
7-21
Haul Locally to Port Townsend

This alternative involves hauling the treatment plant solids to a composting facility at the City of Port
Townsend Solid Waste Facility. The City operates a composting facility where it receives “clean green”
yard waste, anarobically digested/dewatered class “B” biosolids from the Port Townsend WWTP and
septage from septic tank pumping contractors. The septage is thickened using polymer and a gravity belt
thickener and mixed with the shredded green material and biosolids prior to composting. Decant water
from the thickening process is treated in a single sequencing batch reactor at the site. The treated effluent
is then reused in a constructed wetland at the site.
Design Criteria:
• The distance to haul solids from the treatment plant to the composting facility is
approximately 8 miles.
• The contractor would haul decanted sludge (unthickened) initially. Thickening equipment
may be installed in the future to reduce the number of truck trips should it be economically
feasible.
• Cost to treat unthickened sludge at the composting facility is estimated at $0.36/gallon
(including haul costs).

The following advantages and drawbacks were identified when evaluating hauling solids to Port
Townsend composting:
Advantages
• Short distance to haul. Reduced hauling expense.
• Beneficial reuse of solids.
• No need to install digesters at the treatment plant site which are a significant capital expense.
Drawbacks
• Costs for treatment are relatively high compared to other treatment providers.
• There is limited capacity at the composting facility to accept solids. The facility currently
provides treatment services for local septic tank haulers and has spare solids handling
capacity. However, the SBR treatment system at the compost facility is not designed, or
permitted, to handle the anticipated liquid volume of unthickened sludge from the Port
Hadlock system.
Haul Remote to Port Angeles WWTP

This alternative involves hauling solids to another wastewater treatment plant which has facilities to
digest and transport the solids for reuse. The nearest facility identified which could receive solids was the
City of Port Angeles WWTP.
Design Criteria:
• The distance to haul solids from the treatment plant to Port Angeles is approximately 43
miles.
7-22
feasible.
• The cost to treat unthickened sludge at Port Angeles is estimated at $0.22/gallon.

The following advantages and drawbacks were identified when evaluating hauling solids to the Port
Angeles WWTP:
Advantages
• No need to install digesters at the treatment plant site which are a significant capital expense.
Drawbacks
• Higher costs associated with hauling solids to Port Angeles. This method is dependent upon
fuel costs and can change the economic viability of the alternative.
• Costs associated with treatment – This method is dependent upon treatment costs and can
change the economic viability of the alternative.
Contracted Haul and Reuse

This alternative involves hiring a contractor to provide transportation, treatment and reuse of the
wastewater solids. The contractor would load solids into a tanker truck and haul the material off site for
treatment and reuse. Kitsap Bio-Recycle in Belfair Washington was identified as a contractor which could
provide this service.
Design Criteria:
• The process for treatment and reuse is stabilization using lime, land application, and plowing
under to reduce potential vectors and odors.
feasible.
• Costs for haul and reuse of decanted solids to Kitsap Bio-Recycle is estimated at $0.12/gallon

The following advantages and drawbacks were identified when evaluating contracted haul and reuse:
Advantages
• Minimal capital costs – Facilities for storage and decanting and transferring solids to the
contractor’s truck are minimal compared to other alternatives. Costs for thickening equipment
would be deferred until the future.
• If using decanted solids – No equipment for removing water or chemical treatment.
• Flexibility – This alternative involves the lowest initial capital cost and allows for flexibility
to implement a different method of solids handling should the economics of hiring a
contractor change in the future.
7-23
Drawbacks
• Costs associated with hauling, treatment, and reuse – This method is dependent upon
contractor costs and can change the economic viability of the alternative.
EVALUATION OF SOLIDS HANDLING/TREATMENT/REUSE

ALTERNATIVES
Evaluation Criteria
The following criteria were used when comparing the solids handling and treatment/reuse alternatives:
Phasing
Does the proposed combination of processes lend itself to phasing? Is there opportunity to change or alter
the process in the future if the economics change?
Life Cycle Costs

What are the comparative 20-year life cycle costs for the proposed system? These include costs for
equipment, design and installation, operation and maintenance, and equipment replacement costs. A lower
life cycle cost is preferable.
Summary of Solids Handling/Treatment/Reuse Evaluation

Each of the solids handling and treatment/reuse alternatives were evaluated against the above described
criteria. Table 7-6 is a summary of the evaluation.
7-24
TABLE 7-6.
SUMMARY OF SOLIDS HANDLING/TREATMENT/REUSE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
Solids Handling Alternatives Treatment/Reuse Alternatives

Decanting Thickening Dewatering Haul Locally to Haul to Pt.
Evaluation Criteria Pt. Townsend Angeles WWTP Contracted Haul & Reuse
Phasing - Easy to phase. - System can be - System can be - Limited ability - Ability to - Ability to expand. Can
Minimal initial phased. However, phased. However, to expand. expand. Can send send more solids to the
capital cost. additional capital additional capital Existing system solids to one or contractor as the system
Minor increases investment will be investment will be would be near or more plants as grows.
in holding tank required for required for above capacity system grows. - Desirability of
as system thickening dewatering with projected - Desirability of alternative is sensitive to
develops equipment and equipment, and solids at startup. alternative is changes in per gallon cost
holding tanks.. conveying equipment - Desirability of sensitive to to haul and treat.
alternative is changes in per
sensitive to gallon cost to
changes in per treat. Also
gallon cost to dependent upon
treat. Also hauling costs.
dependent upon
hauling costs.
Comparative 20-year
Life Cycle Costs
Capital $109,000 $1,388,000 $2,671,000 $148,000 $148,000 $148,000
NPV O&M $4,418,000 $3,501,000 $2,012,000 $3,006,000 $1,837,000 $1,002,000
Total 20-Year Life $4,527,000 $4,889,000 $4,683,000 $3,154,000 $1,985,000 $1,150,000
Cycle Costs
7-25
RECOMMENDED SOLIDS HANDLING AND TREATMENT/REUSE

SYSTEM
Based upon the results of the alternative evaluation, the Storage and Decanting alternative for Solids
Handling is recommended and the Contract Haul/Reuse alternative for Treatment/Reuse is recommended.
These recommendations are based upon the simplicity of the processes, the lowest initial capital cost, and
the flexibility to switch to another system for handling and/or reuse in the future.
Each of the two recommendations has the lowest 20-year life cycle cost based upon today’s available cost
data. This is a “pay-as-you-go” system. If the economics of these options change in the future, the County
will have very little capital investment in solids handling/reuse equipment and can comfortably explore
other options.
7-26
CHAPTER 8.
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE AND IMPLEMENTATION
This chapter summarizes the recommendations presented in the previous chapters for collection, liquid
treatment process, disinfection, solids handling, and effluent reuse. A proposed treatment plant layout,
process schematic, and hydraulic profile is also provided. Also presented in this chapter is an evaluation
of the alternative options for treatment plant location and a summary of the estimate costs. Finally an
implementation schedule is presented.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The sections below present a summary of the recommended systems and key sizing and phasing criteria
to be considered in the system implementation. Detailed discussion of each system, sizing criteria, and
alternative evaluations can be found in the respective chapters of this plan.

Recommendation
The recommended collection system technology is a gravity collection system. The alternatives analysis
of the evaluated collection system technologies is found in Chapter 5 – Collection System Alternatives
Evaluation.
The gravity collection system was recommended for the following key reasons:
• Lowest 20-year life cycle cost.
• Provides the highest degree of flexibility for future system expansion. Outlying areas can be
installed as gravity collection systems or pressurized sewer systems.
• No private property maintenance and access easements required.
• Fewer operational and maintenance requirements than pressurized sewer systems.
Sizing and Phasing

The gravity collection system and pump stations will be sized and designed according to Washington
State Department of Ecology Criteria for Sewage Works Design (updated 2006). The collection system is
conceptualized to be implemented in phases according to sub-areas as shown in Figure 4-2.
Effluent Reuse: Ground Water Recharge by Rapid-Rate Surface

Percolation
Recommendation
It is recommended that treated wastewater effluent be reused by recharging the groundwater by rapid -
rate surface percolation. The alternatives analysis of the evaluated discharge and reuse alternatives is
found in Chapter 6 – Wastewater Discharge and Reuse Alternatives.
Groundwater Recharge by rapid rate infiltration through surface percolation was recommended for the
following key reasons:
8-1
• Provides opportunities for beneficial reuse. Recharged groundwater can benefit Chimacum
Creek flows and associated salmon habitat.
Sizing and Phasing

It is recommended the system be sized to provide enough space and capacity for the 20-year projected
effluent flows with enough room to provide 3-days’ storage during severe wet conditions when soils may
have difficulty infiltrating water. The total recommended area includes 9 acres (see Table 6-3 and 6-4).
The percolation basins can be developed in phases as the wastewater system grows.
Wastewater Treatment – Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)

Recommendation
The recommended process for treating wastewater is the membrane bioreactor (MBR). The alternatives
analysis of the evaluated treatment alternatives is found in Chapter 7 – Wastewater Treatment
Alternatives Evaluation.
An MBR system is recommended for the following key reasons:

• Reliably provides Class A level of reclaimed water.
• Modular and scalable process facilitating future expansion needs.
• No separate secondary clarifiers or coagulation process required.
• Best suited to address existing and future regulatory requirements treatment.
Sizing and Phasing

It is recommended the wastewater treatment process be implemented in four phases as described in
Chapter 7. These are briefly described as follows:
• Phase I – Install two 0.25 mgd MBR treatment trains; one working and one standby.
• Phase II – Add 3 days for one treatment train storage once flows exceed 0.25 mgd and use
both treatment trains simultaneously.
• Phase III – Add an additional 0.5 mgd of treatment tankage; phase in membranes as needed.
• Phase IV – Install remaining membranes to provide 1.0 mgd of capacity.
Effluent Disinfection – Sodium Hypochlorite

Recommendation
The recommended process for disinfecting treated effluent is liquid sodium hypochlorite. The alternatives
analysis of the evaluated disinfection alternatives is found in Chapter 7 – Wastewater Treatment
Alternatives Evaluation.
A liquid sodium hypochlorite system is recommended for the following key reasons:
• Suited to provide the required chlorine residual for Class A effluent reuse.
• Is easily scalable to address future growth of the wastewater system.
8-2
8. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE AND IMPLEMENTATION
Sizing and Phasing

The sizing and phasing of the sodium hypochlorite system is based upon the following criteria detailed in
Chapter 7:
• Provide 14 days storage at peak monthly flow and 2 mg/L dose.
• Building and facilities will be constructed to meet the capacity needs for 20-year maximum
monthly flow.
Solids Handling – Decanting and Contracted Haul and Reuse

Recommendation
The recommended process for solids handling is to decant solids directly from the MBR process and use
contracted haul and reuse. The alternatives analysis of the evaluated solids handling alternatives is found
in Chapter 7 – Wastewater Treatment Alternatives Evaluation.
Decanting solids and contracted haul and reuse is recommended for the following key reasons:
• Least amount of equipment required resulting is the lowest initial capital cost.
• The process is simple.
• The system provides flexibility to switch to another system for handling and/or disposal in
the future.
Sizing and Phasing

The sizing and phasing of the solids handling system is based upon the following criteria detailed in
Chapter 7:
• Provide 20,000 gallons of storage on-site for solids wasted from the MBR process.
• Evaluate viability of thickening in the future as the wastewater system develops, quantity of
solids increase, and/or the economics of contracted haul and reuse change. Budget has been
included in the cost summary for thickening equipment to be installed in the year 2013. The cost
has been included to account for the possibility that thickening equipment may be incorporated
into the solids handling process in the future.
Table 8-1 summarizes the design criteria for the recommended wastewater treatment alternative.
8-3
TABLE 8-1.
DESIGN DATA FOR MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR ALTERNATIVE
Phase 1 (2010) Phase 2 (2013)a Phase 3 (2018)a Phase 4 (2024)a

Design Flow (maximum monthly) 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Headworks
Fine Screen 1 duty + 1 stby 1 duty + 1 stby 2 duty + 1 stby 2 duty + 1 stby
Membrane Bioreactors
Anoxic Basins
Number of Basins 1 1 2 2
Design Side Water Depth (ft) 9 - 13 9 - 13 9 - 13 9 - 13
Freeboard at Design Depth (ft) 4-8 4-8 4-8 4-8
Volume (gallons) 140,000 to 140,000 to 140,000 to 140,000 to
200,000 ea 200,000 ea 200,000 ea 200,000 ea
Mixer 1 @ 5hp 1 @ 5hp 2 @ 5hp 2 @ 5hp
Feed Forward Pumps
Number of Pumps 1 duty + 1 stby 1 duty + 1 stby 2 duty + 2 stby 2 duty + 2 stby
Capacity (gpm) 2,480 ea 2,480 ea 2,480 ea 2,480 ea
Horsepower 10 ea 10 ea 10 ea 10 ea
Aerobic Basins
Design Side Water Depth (ft) 15 15 15 15
Freeboard at Design Depth (ft) 2 2 2 2
Volume (gal) 59,000 ea 59,000 ea 59,000 ea 59,000 ea
Aeration System Fine bubble Fine bubble Fine bubble Fine bubble
diffusers diffusers diffusers diffusers
Blowers 1 duty + 1 stby 1 duty + 1 stby 2 duty + 1 stby 2 duty + 1 stby
@ 20 hp ea @ 20 hp ea @ 20 hp ea @ 20 hp ea
Mixer 1 @ 2.3 hp 1 @ 2.3 hp 2 @ 2.3 hp 2 @ 2.3 hp
Membrane Basin
Volume (gal) 40,000 ea 40,000 ea 40,000 ea 40,000 ea
Number of Membrane Racks 2 2 3 4
per Basin b
Blowers 1 duty + 1 stby 1 duty + 1 stby 2 duty + 1 stby 2 duty + 1 stby
@ 100 hp ea @ 100 hp ea @ 100 hp ea @ 100 hp ea
8-4

DESIGN DATA FOR MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR ALTERNATIVE
Phase 1 (2010) Phase 2 (2013)a Phase 3 (2018)a Phase 4 (2024)a

Permeate Pumps
Number of Pumps 2 duty + 1 stby 2 duty + 1 stby 4 duty + 2 stby 4 duty + 2 stby
Capacity (gpm) 394 ea 394 ea 394 ea 394 ea
Horsepower 7.5 ea 7.5 ea 7.5 ea 7.5 ea
Chlorine Contact Tanks
Volume (gal) 45000 45000 45000 45000
Storage Tank
Design Side Water Depth (ft) NA 12 12 12
Freeboard at Design Depth (ft) NA 3 3 3
Volume (gal) NA 800,000 800,000 800,000
Reuse Field
Number of Basins 1 1 1 duty + 1 stby 1 duty + 1 stby
Infiltration rate (gpd / sf) 8 8 8 8
Area (acres) 2.85 2.85 5.7 5.7
a. Quantities for subsequent phases are total numbers for the plant at each phase.
b. One membrane rack has a design capacity of 0.25 mgd.
c. Design data for ancillary systems such as the chemical feed system, sludge wasting, stormwater system, etc., are
determined in later phases of design as the details of the main processes are developed.
EVALUATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT LOCATIONS

Locations Considered
Several general locations were considered for the proposed wastewater treatment plant and effluent reuse
area. These candidate locations were presented to the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
on June 22, 2006 along with the alternatives for collection, treatment and discharge/reuse. Figure 8-1
shows the candidate locations in relation to the wastewater service area.
The candidate locations presented are as follows:

• South of Service Area/Adjacent to Sheriff’s Facilities – This location is south of the service
area near the intersection of Chimacum Road and Pomwell Road. There are several parcels
which would be suitable for development as a wastewater treatment plant.
8-5
8-6
Figure 8-1. Alternative Treatment Plant & Effluent Reuse Locations
• H.J. Carroll Park Vicinity – This location would be in the vicinity east and north of H.J.
Carroll Park. These properties would likely be accessed from Chimacum Road.
• Central Service Area – This location would be situated centrally within the service area near
the intersection of Mason Street and Cedar Street. This would be at the Pt. Hadlock Airstrip
site or immediately west.
• Airport – This location would be adjacent to the Jefferson County International Airport north
of the service area approximate 3 miles. The site would be acquired from a property owner or
from the Port of Port Townsend through a purchase or lease.
• Chimacum High School Vicinity – This location would be south of the service area
approximately 1.5 miles south of the service area in the vicinity of Chimacum High School
(South of Wades Loop Road and West Valley Road). This would be land purchased from the
school district or an adjacent property owner.
Evaluation Criteria
The following criteria were used when comparing the candidate locations.
Adjacent Land Use

What is the adjacent land use to the candidate site? Are there factors which may make siting wastewater
treatment facilities less desirable?
Opportunities for Reuse

Does the candidate location lend itself to opportunities for reuse of the reclaimed water? Is the candidate
treatment site adjacent to the candidate reuse site? Does the location of the candidate reuse site present
one or more potential beneficial opportunities for reuse of the reclaimed water?
Life Cycle Costs

What are the 20-year life cycle costs for the alternative location? This includes consideration for land
cost, pumping costs, capital costs, and operation and maintenance costs. In all alternatives, it was assumed
the wastewater would be collected at a central influent pump station at the intersection of Ness’ Corner
Road and Shotwell Road. The wastewater would then be pumped to the selected wastewater treatment
plant site. Since the cost for treatment facilities would be equivalent in all alternatives, they are not
included in the comparative lifecycle costs. The lifecycle costs will include pumping, pipeline, land cost,
and operation and maintenance costs since these costs will vary between the location alternatives.
Summary of Treatment Plant Location Evaluation

The alternative treatment plants locations were evaluated against the above-described criteria. Table 8-2 is
a summary of the evaluation of the alternatives against the criteria.
Recommended Treatment Plant Location

Based upon the results of the alternative analysis and feedback from the stakeholder workshop, a
treatment plant located in the south service area is recommended. A specific parcel has not been identified
at this time, but a parcel in the vicinity of the Sheriff’s facility or the adjacent gravel pit/cement plant is
recommended.
8-7
TABLE 8-2.
SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SITE EVALUATION
Alternative
Evaluation Criteria So. of Service Area H.J. Carroll Park Central Service Area Airport Chimacum Highschool
Adjacent Land Use - Sheriff’s facility, - Undeveloped land and - Air field, residential - Airport, and low - High school buildings
ball park, gravel pit, low density residential trailer park, single density residential and athletic fields,
and low density land. family residential, land. agricultural land, and
residential land. library, grade school, single family residential
and commercial. land.
Opportunities for - Irrigation for ball - Irrigation for park - Irrigation for school - Possible future - Irrigation for school
Beneficial Reuse fields, possible flow fields, and possible fields, and possible commercial/industrial fields and irrigation for
augmentation for flow augmentation for flow augmentation for customers. agricultural lands.
Chimacum Creek, Chimacum Creek. Chimacum Creek.
Possible future
commercial/industrial
customers.
Comparative 20-year
Life Cycle Costs
Capital $2,684,300 $3,880,400 $1,961,500 $4,161,400 $3,543,100
20-Yr. O&M $1,228,000 $1,679,000 $1,062,000 $1,744,000 $1,602,000
Total 20-year Life $3,912,000 $5,559,000 $3,023,500 $5,905,400 $5,145,100
Cycle Cost
8-8
…8. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
The key reasons for this recommended location are as follows:

• Life Cycle Costs – This alternative has a low 20-year life cycle cost compared to three of the
other alternatives. The distance to pump is low resulting in lower capital and operations and
maintenance costs. Siting the facility in the central area may have a lower initial cost, but this
area will become prime commercial property as a result of sewers being available.
Stakeholders from the Irondale/Port Hadlock area have voiced their opinion that the area will
be better served by locating the treatment and reuse facility outside of central service area in
order to maximize its commercial and high density residential potential. Life cycle cost
estimates for each alternative are presented in Appendix C.
• Opportunities for Reuse – This alternative has more varied reuse opportunities than the other
alternatives. This alternative has three potential opportunities identified whereas the other
alternatives have two opportunities.
• Adjacent Land Use – The adjacent land use is primarily public and commercial. A
wastewater treatment plant is a compatible use.
• Availability of Parcels – There are parcels available south of the service area. The county has
made some initial contacts. Hydrogeological testing has been conducted on one parcel.
Candidate Treatment Plant Sites

Several candidate sites south of the service area have been identified as possible locations for a
wastewater treatment plant and effluent reuse area. Figure 8-2 shows these sites. None of these sites have
been selected or identified as the preferred location. It is recommended the County continue to work to
determine a preferred site and negotiate a land purchase agreement and/or procure a site prior to the
beginning of final design.
PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT

Process Diagram and Site Layout
A preliminary process diagram and site layout was created. The process diagram represents the
recommended wastewater treatment processes and the relative process flows through the treatment
system. The process diagram is shown in Figure 8-3.
The proposed site layout plan (Figure 8-4) shows a representation of the unit processes, their relative
locations, and estimated space requirements. Locations for initial phases and future expansions are
represented. Several parcels in the vicinity of the Sheriff’s facilities could provide the space
accommodations needed for the treatment facility. Once a specific site is selected and the exact property
boundaries known, an exact site plan will be developed during preliminary design.
Hydraulic Profile
Figure 8-5 shows the wastewater treatment plant hydraulic profile. This figure represents the relative
elevations of the different wastewater treatment processes. The topography of several properties located
in the vicinity of the Sheriff’s facilities would accommodate the hydraulic profile required for the
treatment processes. Some site grading would be required. The ground elevation in this vicinity is
between 90 feet and 110 feet. The 100-year flood elevation according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) for the area is approximately 87 feet. A detailed hydraulic profile representing exact elevations of
all unit processes will be created in preliminary design once a specific property has been identified for the
wastewater treatment facility and a topographic survey is conducted.
8-9
8-10
Figure 8-2. Candidate Sites for Wastewater Treatment Plant
8-11
Figure 8-3. Process Flow Diagram
Figure 8-4. Site Development Plan.
8-12
Figure 8-5. Hydraulic Profile
8-13
Land Need Estimates for Recommended Treatment & Reuse System

Table 8-2 provides a summary breakdown of the land needs estimated for reclamation plant, reuse area,
and influent pump station site.
TABLE 8-2.
ESTIMATED LAND AREAS FOR WASTEWATER FACILITIES
Description Estimated Land Area (acres)

Wastewater Treatment Plant:
2030 Treatment Plant Footprint 3 acres
Area for Future Expansion 2 acres
Buffer/Setback 1 acre
Total, Wastewater Treatment Plant 6 acres
Effluent Reuse Area:
Infiltration Basin (Sized for 2030 Flow) 3 acres
Reserve/Redundancy 3 acres
Buffers 3 acres
Total, Effluent Reuse Area 9 acres
Influent Pump Station:
Pump Station Site 1 acre
Total Estimated Land Need 16 acres
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS

Planning Level Costs vs. Life Cycle Costs
This section presents the planning level costs for the recommended wastewater collection and treatment
system. These are estimated planning level costs which are different than life cycle costs used for
comparison of alternatives. Key differences between the planning level costs presented in this section and
life cycle costs used for comparison of alternatives are as follows:
• The planning level costs do not include full replacement of all equipment and capital.
Replacement is scheduled as needed.
• The planning level costs represent forecasted cash flow to pay for capital and operations and
maintenance on a year by year basis from 2010 to 2030. The forecasts include consideration
for system expansion and opportunities to shift costs into the future when advantageous.
• The 20-year life cycle costs are a summation of all capital costs over the 20-year period plus
an equivalent net-present worth for 20 years of estimated operation and maintenance costs.
This method is convenient for comparing alternatives but does not necessarily provide a
planning level cash flow forecast for a selected alternative.
Planning Level Cost Summary

Table 8-3 (at end of chapter) shows the forecasted costs estimated for the recommended wastewater
system. These costs are presented in 2009 dollars which represent the planned midpoint of construction.
8-14
These costs, and the forecasted years in which they occur, are the basis for the analysis presented in
Chapter 9 – Cost and Financing.
The costs are presented as capital costs which will be spent for constructing facilities, annual costs which
include operation and maintenance, and replacement costs which is a set-aside allowance to build up a
cash reserve for full replacement of all structures, capital and equipment. Replacement of membranes, for
example, is included as a maintenance item.
A detailed breakdown of the estimated costs is presented in Appendix D.
Staff Requirements
Estimated staffing requirements for the initial phase of the project are approximately one and one-half full
time equivalent (1.5 FTE). This includes operations and maintenance activities at the plant, pump station
checks, lines flushing, and laboratory work. In the year 2030, 2.5 FTE would be required. Initially, some
part-time staff may be hired from other local utility agencies to defray costs.
Operators must have experience with operation of a water reclamation facility, which requires another
level of expertise over and above that required for wastewater treatment facilities not designed for
beneficial reuse.
Table 8-4 shows the estimated schedule for the wastewater facilities implementation. Phasing of
implementation is the most significant driver for the schedule. The schedule is subject to change and will
be revised throughout the course of the project.
TABLE 8-4.
Item/Activity Estimated Date of Completion

Wastewater Facility Plan Approval (Dept. of Ecology & Dept. October 2008
of Health)
Complete Site Procurement Finalize Environmental Review July 2009
Agency Planning for Implementation September 2009
Wastewater Facilities Implementation
Permitting September 2009
Detailed Hydrogeological Analysis June 2009
DOE Approval of Plans and Specs; Application for DOE October 2009
grant/loan fundinga
Phase I Construction October 2009 - December 2010
a. Plans and Specs must be approved by DOE by October 31 in order to apply for DOE funding at the same
time, with funds to be available the following June or later in the year.
8-15
TABLE 8-3.
SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER SYSTEM COSTS
Project: Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility Plan
Subject: Treatment System Analysis
By : Tt/KCM
Date : 11-Aug-08
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
ERUs 432 502 584 679 789 918 1067 1241 1443 1678 1952 2269 2639 3069 3568 3666 3768 3872 3978 4088 4201
Flow 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.19 0.22 0.25 0.30 0.34 0.40 0.46 0.54 0.63 0.73 0.85 0.87 0.90 0.92 0.95 0.97 1.00
Item Description Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $
COLLECTION - GRAVITY SYSTEM
Capital Cost Estimate CORE AND ALCOHOL RHODY AREA #1 AREA #2 AREA #3
Total Estimated Capital Cost $10,210,000 $247,000 $282,000 $3,461,000 $367,000 $490,000 $2,006,000 $1,979,000 $706,000 $1,802,000 $1,240,000 $1,401,000 $1,202,000 $1,406,000 $6,149,000 $2,169,000 $2,239,000 $2,248,000 $2,346,000 $2,505,000 $2,424,000
Total Estimated Capital Cost - Onsite $1,412,000 $247,000 $282,000 $321,000 $367,000 $490,000 $608,000 $622,000 $706,000 $806,000 $879,000 $1,048,000 $1,202,000 $1,406,000 $1,614,000 $354,000 $423,000 $432,000 $440,000 $600,000 $609,000
Total Estimated Capital Cost - Shared $8,798,000 $0 $0 $3,140,000 $0 $0 $1,398,000 $1,357,000 $0 $996,000 $361,000 $353,000 $0 $0 $4,535,000 $1,815,000 $1,816,000 $1,816,000 $1,906,000 $1,905,000 $1,815,000
Total Annual Cost $16,774 $16,938 $17,128 $23,512 $23,769 $24,069 $29,299 $29,704 $30,174 $36,884 $37,520 $38,260 $35,037 $40,120 $53,608 $53,837 $54,072 $54,314 $54,563 $54,818 $55,081
Total Annual Cost with Replacement Costs $145,366 $148,923 $152,974 $206,244 $211,536 $218,548 $248,188 $272,238 $282,390 $316,249 $332,961 $352,005 $365,258 $389,621 $488,272 $513,581 $539,855 $566,251 $593,771 $623,482 $652,323
TREATMENT - MBR
Capital Cost Estimate PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III PHASE IV
Total Estimated Capital Cost $13,907,000 $0 $1,337,000 $774,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,887,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,337,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
LIQUID SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE DISINFECTION

Capital Cost Estimate
Total Estimated Capital Cost $512,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
SLUDGE HANDLING
Total Estimated Capital Cost $84,701 $0 $0 $1,432,013 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
DISPOSAL
Total Estimated Capital Cost $2,583,682 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $558,454 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
SYSTEM TOTAL - GRAVITY SYSTEM WITH MBR

Rolled up Capital Cost $27,297,383 $247,000 $1,619,000 $5,667,013 $367,000 $490,000 $2,006,000 $1,979,000 $10,151,454 $1,802,000 $1,240,000 $1,401,000 $1,202,000 $1,406,000 $7,486,000 $2,169,000 $2,239,000 $2,248,000 $2,346,000 $2,505,000 $2,424,000
Rolled up Annual Cost $281,495 $298,260 $323,357 $238,773 $253,687 $270,922 $325,883 $421,294 $486,020 $520,241 $557,000 $569,612 $615,182 $646,932 $763,208 $776,438 $820,037 $834,011 $848,372 $833,128 $886,613
Rolled Up Annual Cost with Replacement Costs $574,761 $594,919 $623,877 $600,109 $620,057 $644,006 $723,377 $842,433 $1,010,218 $1,071,590 $1,124,424 $1,155,340 $1,217,385 $1,268,416 $1,483,931 $1,522,242 $1,591,879 $1,632,007 $1,673,638 $1,687,851 $1,769,914
8-16
CHAPTER 9.
COST AND FINANCING
FINANCIAL PROGRAM
This financial program was developed to provide options on sources of funding for the construction of the
sewer system, develop strategies for repayment by users, and indicate what the resulting impact would be
on customers. In addition, a series of policies are noted for discussion as the County moves forward
toward implementation. These policies relate to funding decisions and the financing package.
SOURCES OF CAPITAL FUNDING

There are a variety of funding sources that are available to finance the construction of the sewer system.
These include federal, state and local programs of grants, loans or some type of bonds.
In the past, it has been possible to receive a federal grant for a new sewer system that would provide the
majority of the funds and would not need to be repaid. In current times, this is no longer possible.
Instead, it is common to attempt to receive grants for the largest amount possible, matched with
companion loans at low-interest rates, and the remainder put together from another low-interest loan or by
selling bonds.
Each funding program was developed to provide assistance for different reasons and as such, each
program comes with a series of requirements that can be technical, financial, policy-related or
programmatic. It is understood that this sewer system will require substantial investment to construct the
treatment facilities, the collection system and the on-site improvements required to connect the users to
the public system. In order to be successful, new customers must join the system and help with the debt
repayment and the on-going operations and maintenance. Funding agencies will not provide the necessary
capital without assurance that they will be repaid and will also set requirements to help ensure that the
sewer system will be successful for years to come.
TYPES OF CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES

The primary types of capital funding sources include grants, loans, bonds, other sources, and users.
Grants
Grants do not require repayment and are very popular. Unfortunately, grants are quite limited and are
typically targeted to making sewer systems more affordable for residential customers. The programs are
competitive and a thoughtful application that addresses the program’s target is important. Often, grants
are matched with companion loans.
In addition to the programs that are targeted to making the residential sewer costs more affordable, there
are a variety of programs that are geared toward economic development, business and job development.
Typically, the economic development-type programs require a commitment of specific jobs that will
result from the investment.
Department of Ecology (DOE) (grant/loan)

The Washington State Department of Ecology has several water quality grant and loan programs available
for wastewater treatment systems. Typical DOE programs have a combined annual application cycle with
9-1
applications due in October of each year. The draft offer list is published in January, with the final offer
list being published the following June. Successful recipients must have signed agreements within six
months. Actual work must begin within 16 months of the final offer list and be completed within five
years. The key for DOE is to identify which water quality problems are being addressed. Recently, DOE
redefined hardship to include systems where the sewer rate (capital and O&M) is greater than 2 percent of
median household income (MHI), up from 1.5 percent. In hardship cases, grants may be available along
with reduced interest rates on loans to help make sewer more affordable for residential customers. Any
grant would likely be matched with a companion loan at a low interest rate – currently 2.9 percent for a
20-year repayment, but could be as low as 0.0 percent for severe hardship. The maximum grant would be
$5 million according to this year’s program.
Appendix H of the DOE application package includes the MHI table. For use with Fiscal Year 2010-
2011, the MHI for the Port Hadlock/Irondale Census Designated Place (CDP) was $32,202 for the 2000
census. DOE estimated the 2009 MHI to be $41,664. To qualify for hardship, 2.0 percent of the MHI
would be $833, or $69.44 per month. Sewer rates between 3 and 5 percent of the MHI would qualify as
Elevated Hardship and result in potential 75 percent grant and/or a loan at 20 percent of the market
interest rate. The Port Hadlock sewer project would clearly qualify for hardship and likely fall into the
Elevated Hardship category.
DOE Reclaimed Water Program (grant/loan)

DOE had a one-time round of Reclaimed Water grants that was authorized by the legislature. Jefferson
County submitted an application and was successful in securing grant funding for this project in the
amount of $197,000 in 2008. This Pt. Hadlock UGA sewer project was on the funding cut-off line and
additional funding may be available if not used by other projects. Jefferson County will be working
through appropriate channels to request that the legislature continue funding this program.
US Department of Agriculture-Rural Development (USDA-RD) (grant/loan)

The United States Department of Agriculture has several programs under the Rural Development section.
One is available to assist communities make the cost of a new sewer system more affordable to residential
customers. This program has an open-cycle where applications can be accepted year-round. Up to a
maximum of 45 percent grant would be available and it would be matched with a low-interest loan,
currently about 4 percent interest. The national program is targeting 75 percent loans and 25 percent
grants as an overall goal and will consider each project on its own merits and the economics of the
community being served. The terms of the loan could be stretched up to 40 years to bring down the
annual debt service. This program requires assurance that the funds would be benefiting residential
customers and this often means requiring mandatory connection in order to satisfy. Another Rural
Development – Housing program is available to individuals to assist in paying the connection charges.
This would be applied for by individuals based on income levels.
US Economic Development Administration (USEDA)

The United States Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration has a Public Works
and Economic Development Program to help support public infrastructure that is necessary to generate or
retain private sector jobs and investments, attract private sector capital and promote regional
competitiveness.
State of Washington Community Trade & Economic Development (CTED)

State of Washington Community Trade & Economic Development manages several programs targeted
toward infrastructure along with community, economic and job development. These include the
Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) programs to assist in attracting and retaining private
9-2
…9. COST AND FINANCING
investment and resulting in jobs and increased tax revenue to the community. These may be a portion
grant combined with a loan.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) involves federal funds that have been allotted to the State
of Washington. This program is housed within the Community Trade & Economic Development
Division at the State. Smaller grants may be available on an annual cycle for a planning study, income
survey and other tasks that may be required to apply or comply with funding assistance from other
programs.
Low-Interest Loans
Most grant programs mentioned above will combine funding packages with a low-interest loan. This
ensures that the funds repaid will be available to loan out to future projects. In addition, there are three
key programs that are focused on loans.
State of Washington Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF) Construction Program

State of Washington Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF) Construction Program is operated by the Public
Works Board within Community Trade and Economic Development. The PWTF includes several loan
programs: planning, emergency, pre-construction and construction. The construction loans are offered on
an annual competitive cycle with applications due in May and the funds available the following year. The
maximum for a jurisdiction is $10 million per biennium (two-year period), and the interest rates currently
range from 0.5 percent for a 15 percent local match, up to 2 percent for a 5 percent local match to be
repaid over 20 years. The first year of each biennium is the largest construction cycle, with 2009
applications being the next large cycle.
PWTF Pre-Construction Program

PWTF Pre-Construction Program is also operated by the Public Works Board. The Pre-Construction
program accepts applications year-round for a maximum of $1 million per jurisdiction per biennium. The
interest rates are the same as the construction program and the loans are to be repaid over five years, and
extended to 20 years with construction financing. These funds are available for activities prior to
construction including engineering, design, permitting, etc.
State of Washington Department of Ecology Clean Water State Revolving Fund

(SRF)
This competitive loan program shares the application cycle with DOE’s grant program mentioned above.
If a grant is awarded due to hardship, it will be matched with a low-interest loan from this program.
Stand-alone loans are also possible with this source.
Bonds
Bonds are a financing mechanism that allows a jurisdiction to obtain construction financing in exchange
for promises of repayment backed by a variety of sources. The sale of bonds typically requires
preparation of an official statement and participation of bond counsel and an underwriter. However,
bonds can be sold at any time of year to meet the project schedule with funds obtained at a certain date
instead of the following year.
9-3
General Obligation Bonds (GO Bonds)

Jefferson County has the authority to sell general obligation bonds that are backed by taxes and general
revenue. “Backed” means that the County promises taxes and general revenue to repay the debt, although
other sources can be used such as connection charges from new sewer connections.
Revenue Bonds – Future

It is common to use Revenue Bonds to support sewer improvements, however this requires a specific
stream of rate revenue to “back” the bonds. Because this is a new sewer system, there are no sewer
customers with history to “back” the bonds. This type of bond can perhaps be used in later years after the
sewer rate history can be documented. While revenue bonds are a traditional funding source for sewer
improvements, it is typically less costly to borrow from subsidized state loan programs.
Other Sources
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
Assistance from this grant program is requested directly from the federal congressperson representing the
area of the project. Applications or requests are due by April of each year. This requires communicating
with your congressperson prior to submitting a request. They have to balance all requests from their
district and sponsor the request to go forward. Successful STAG grants are administered by DOE.
Congressional or State Budget Line Items

This alternative refers to discussing the project with both state and federal representatives and
congresspersons to gain their support and perhaps have them submit a line item budget request specific to
your project. This is expected to be an important element in funding the Port Hadlock Sewer project.
Jefferson County Health Septic Tank Replacement Program

Jefferson County Health Department has been successful in receiving a grant from Washington State
Department of Ecology to provide financial assistance to residents to encourage the replacement of failing
septic tanks. This program operates like a revolving loan fund where the residents make repayment over
a period of time and it is available to loan out to the next round. These funds are intended to be used
county-wide and are not specified for the Port Hadlock Sewer project. It is likely that this program could
be coordinated with the sewer project to provide an additional source of funding. Additional funds could
also be applied for to assist with conversion from septic to sewer for owners of property within this
project.
Jefferson County Public Infrastructure Fund (PIF)

The County has a Public Infrastructure Fund that is used for priority infrastructure projects that encourage
new jobs by stimulating private investment around the County. The PIF Advisory Board includes
representatives from the county, city, PUD, port and two citizens. This Advisory Board reviews
applications and makes recommendations to the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners. The use of
the PIF is ultimately determined by the Board of Commissioners. Currently, 50 percent of the PIF funds
are set aside for this priority Pt. Hadlock Sewer project. Each year, jurisdictions can apply for use of the
fund. The total is a couple of hundred thousand dollars so it will not pay for this project. A specific
program would have to be designed and submitted for consideration. One example would be to develop a
sewer incentive revolving loan program where small business owners or perhaps low to moderate income
homeowners could borrow the funds for connection to the sewer (connection charges only, or, could
include on-site costs). The loans would be repaid over a specific number of years back into the fund that
could be loaned out for more sewer connections. It should be noted that public funds can be used for on-
9-4
site costs but require repayment from the property owner. Jefferson County established this PIF in 2005
in order to retain a portion of sales and use tax to increase their rural economy.
Local Infrastructure Financing Tool (LIFT)

A pilot program was established in 2006 by the State legislature with a competitive process through 2008.
Applicants would apply to the State to retain a portion of the increased sales tax. Jefferson County was
not eligible in 2008, the last year of the pilot program. There may be some legislative activity to extend
or enhance the program in coming legislative sessions.
Jefferson County Housing Authority

It is unclear whether the Housing Authority could be helpful in obtaining other funds to assist low-income
housing in connecting to the sewer system. This would likely be some kind of loan and would require
promises to ensure that the property remained serving low-income residents for a specific period of time.
Users
Utility Local Improvement Districts (ULID/LID)
Local or Utility Local Improvement Districts are authorized by State statute. These mechanisms allow
properties within a specific boundary to finance the cost of sewer facilities that benefit the properties.
This is a fairly common method of financing the extension or expansion of collection system. A
boundary would be set by Jefferson County Commissioners, either by petition of the property owners or
by resolution. An appropriate share of the cost of the facilities would be assessed to each property, not to
exceed the benefit received. Bonds are sold to finance the construction and the properties repay their
assessment over a number of years (10 to 20) plus interest. These bonds are “backed” by the property and
improvements.
Connection Charges
Connection charges are one-time fees paid by new connections to the sewer system that represent their
fair-share of the cost of the facilities in place to serve them. Connection charges are typically paid upon
connection to the system. The use of connection charges is very common. As costs of sewer systems
have increased, some jurisdictions allow customers to pay the connection charges over several years by
signing an installment agreement. Payment over time is more practical for a utility that already has
customers in place with a healthy financial condition (stable stream of revenue sufficient to meet the
utilities needs and commitments).
Developer Extensions
Some jurisdictions use developer extensions as a method of expanding the collection system. This means
that a developer finances and installs the system necessary to serve his/her property. Upon completion,
the facilities are transferred to utility ownership. If, in the future, another property connects to that stretch
of sewer line, a latecomer’s agreement allows the utility to collect the fair-share (defined in the
agreement) and send it to the original developer that financed and installed the line. This method would
not be practical for the initial core sewer system but may be available in the future as developers may
wish to connect prior to the phased implementation schedule.
Debt Repayment with Monthly Rates

It is common for monthly sewer rates to include debt repayment for construction of major facilities. This
works well when you have a customer base to support the debt, along with operation and maintenance
9-5
costs. However this method is not as practical when beginning a new utility and building a customer
base. There are other ways to handle debt for a new system.
FUNDING INITIAL CAPITAL COSTS

The financial plan focuses on funding the initial capital costs of constructing the sewer system through the
year 2015. A financing plan is required for the first six years, and this includes sufficient treatment
capacity to serve the Core, Alcohol Plant, Rhody Drive and a portion of Residential Area #1. Phase III of
the treatment plant would be added in 2018, with Phase IV in 2024. Table 9-1 summarizes the initial
capital costs through 2015. These costs estimates were made in 2008 and escalated to reflect 2009
dollars, the anticipated midpoint of construction. These costs were summarized from estimates presented
in Appendix D.
TABLE 9-1.
INITIAL CAPITAL COSTS THROUGH 2015 (IN THOUSANDS)
Est. Capital (2008

estimates escalated to
$2009) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
General 19,467 - 1,337 2,206 - -
Local 6,418 - - 3,140 - -
On-site Conn. 1,412 247 282 321 367 490
Total Capital By Year 27,297 247 1,619 5,667 367 490
Cumulative Capital 27,297 27,544 29,163 34,830 35,197 35,687
No. of ERU's: 432 502 584 679 789 918
• General Costs: General costs include the treatment, disinfection, effluent discharge/reuse,
solids handling/reuse, influent pump station and oversizing of the collection system to
accommodate future flows, totaling $23,010,000. Oversizing of capital facilities is described
as the amount of additional capacity needed to accommodate flows from upstream areas
which is beyond the minimum capacity that would be needed to provide service to the local
area. The influent pump station is the main pump station that will pump all sewage to the
treatment plant.
• Local Costs: Local costs include the gravity collection system with sewer lines up to 8-inch
and any local pump stations that may be required to serve a particular area. Local costs for
the period total $9,558,000. Together, these “common/shared” costs total an estimated
$32,568,000.
• On-Site Costs: In addition, private/on-site connections include the costs to connect a home or
building to the sewer system on private property, totaling $3,119,000. The estimated capital
cost through 2015 is $35,687,000.
The number of equivalent residential units (ERU’s) anticipated to connect is shown at the bottom of
Table 9-1. Residential connections are assumed to be one ERU per dwelling unit. Commercial
connections are assumed to be one ERU per 4,000 gallons of water usage per month. This schedule
anticipates that 918 ERU’s will have connected to the sewer system by 2015. To be conservative on the
9-6
financing side, this schedule assumes that connection of existing homes/businesses will not be mandatory.
New construction would be required to connect to the sewer system when it is available.
Table 9-2 summarizes the costs by category. The general and local costs (collectively called
“common/shared costs”) total an estimated $32.6 million. The on-site connection costs (also called
“private/on-site costs”) total $3.1 million. The total estimated capital cost through 2015 is $35.7 million.
This cost estimate is current as of July 2008.
TABLE 9-2.
INITIAL CAPITAL COST THROUGH 2015
GENERAL 23,010,196
LOCAL 9,558,200
Subtotal 32,568,396
PRIVATE/ON-SITE 3,119,000
Total Estimated Cost 35,687,396
General costs are treatment-related that should be shared by all sewer customers. Table 9-3 shows the
elements and the timing of the improvements anticipated. The improvements in 2010 will provide
treatment capacity of 1,000 ERU’s. Additional membranes will be added in 2012 and storage will be
added in 2013 as the Phase II expansion increases the capacity by another 1,000 ERU’s. Solids handling
is assumed to begin with contract haul/reuse to delay capital expenditure on this aspect until more
customers are connected to the sewer system. This is currently shown in 2013 and may be delayed
depending on the economics at the time. This analysis also includes oversizing of collection lines in the
general costs. An estimated 10 percent of collection lines will be sized over the standard 8-inch line.
The local collection system is assumed to be installed in the Core and Alcohol Plant areas in 2010 and
presumed to be in place in the Rhody Drive area within a few years after system startup. This would
include any local pump stations. Expansion of sewer service into the 20-year residential areas is
anticipated to begin in the year 2016 and continue to expand as shown in the capital facilities plan through
the year 2024 when sewer service will be available through the entire sewer service area. The capital
facilities plan shows development of the collection system to continue within the sewer service area and
be completed by the year 2030..
A review of the common/shared costs indicates that financing in 2010 will require $26 million. An
additional $1.3 million will be needed in 2012, and $5.3 million in 2013. This financing plan focuses on
the general and local costs and assumes that the new connections would pay the private/on-site costs on
their own property as they connect.
9-7
TABLE 9-3.
FINANCING COMMON/SHARED COSTS
(GENERAL AND LOCAL) THROUGH 2015
Common/Shared Costs 2010 2012 2013

General Costs
Treatment – MBR 13,907,000 1,337,000 774,000
Disinfection 512,000 -
Solids Handling 84,701 - 1,432,013
Disposal 2,583,682 -
Oversizing Collection - 10% 879,800
Influent Pump Station 1,500,000
Subtotal General 19,467,183 1,337,000 2,206,013
Local Collection Costs
Core + Alcohol Plant 6,418,200
Rhody Drive 3,140,000
Total General & Local 25,885,383 1,337,000 5,346,013
Capacity ERU's 1,000 Add membranes Phase 2, 2,000
Note: There are no additional general or local costs planned for 2014-2015.
Depending on the final financing package, it may be possible to include financing for the private/on-site
costs of those connecting when the sewer is available in their neighborhood. If so, these costs would have
to be repaid by the property owners but it could be a method of encouraging early connection to the sewer
system.
FUNDING EXAMPLE – SHARED CAPITAL COSTS

With common/shared capital costs of $26 million to initiate the sewer system, a common approach is to
attempt to receive grants for the largest amount possible. These grants are often matched with companion
loans at low-interest rates. The remainder would be generated from another low-interest loan or by
selling bonds. Jefferson County would be the jurisdiction making application and promising repayment.
The sewer utility would be the department within the County to account for, manage and repay any debt.
If sufficient funds were not available, a loan or contribution would be required from the County to the
sewer utility to make the payment.
Combination grant/loan packages are possible with both the Department of Ecology (DOE) and US
Department of Agriculture-Rural Development (USDA-RD). DOE has an annual application cycle in
October of each year, with funds available the following July. The Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility
Plan must be approved by DOE prior to application and plans/specs must be approved by DOE prior to
application for construction funding. There is new state focus on the clean-up of Puget Sound that may
result in increased funding or higher prioritization for projects of this type. With Jefferson County being
one of the Puget Sound counties, the legislative activity and DOE programs should be monitored closely
with this in mind.
9-8
The USDA-RD program has an open application cycle. USDA Program Specialists work with the
jurisdictions to ensure all criteria are being met and accept applications throughout the year. USDA Area
Directors attempt to spread the available funding for the known projects so it is important to work closely
with the Program Specialists to remain on the radar screen. It is possible for the Area Directors to request
additional assistance from the national program for certain hardship projects. The current interest rate for
the loan portion is approximately 4.5 percent and is adjusted quarterly.
For additional loans to complete the 2010 capital funding package, both Public Works Trust Fund
(PWTF) and DOE State Revolving Fund (SRF) have low-interest loan programs. Both programs have
annual application cycles with PWTF in May and SRF in October of each year. Both programs would
have funds available the following year – PWTF around May and SRF after June. The maximum PWTF
loan per biennium per jurisdiction is currently $10 million, with interest rates varying from 0.5 percent to
2.0 percent depending on the amount of local match. The current interest rate for the SRF program is
3 percent. For this funding example, an interest rate of 2.5 percent was used for the additional loan.
Table 9-4 provides an example of mixing funding sources as described above. It is assumed that
60 percent of the customers are residential, as reflected in the PUD water account summary (see Chapter
4, Population, Flows and Loads, Commercial Population Projection). It is further assumed that USDA-
RD awards the maximum grant of 45 percent for hardship in this project and matches with a companion
loan for the rest of the residential amount. The remainder would come from a low-interest loan from
either PWTF or DOE SRF. The annual debt service on this package is shown to be approximately
$1.3 million for 20 years. Jefferson County would have to guarantee to the funding agencies that this
would be met.
The funding amounts shown in Table 9-4 are large compared to the resources currently available within
the funding programs. While the $10.3 million is just over the current PWTF limit, the other programs
may be pressed to commit such large amounts to a single project. Three other potential sources would
increase the viability of the project – a federal State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) toward the
USDA-RD portion shown would help ensure the full project could be funded, potential additional funds
or new programs within the State focused on the cleanup of Puget Sound, or possibly a state or federal
legislative line item appropriation would leverage the project to viability.
Another approach would be to separate the funding of the treatment portion from the collection system by
forming Local Improvement Districts or Utility Local Improvement Districts (LID/ULID) for the
collection system. In this method, the County would apply for funds to complete the general treatment
portion and LID/ULIDs would be formed by area to finance the local collection systems. This is
discussed in more detail later.
Another approach would be for the County to sell general obligation bonds for the portion of the project
that is not funded with grants and low-interest loans.
Table 9-5 tests an estimated stream of revenue that would be generated from connection charges to make
the annual debt payments on the above example. The annual debt service would begin at $1,322,000.
The test is to ensure that the sewer capital investment would be self-supporting and the ending balance
does not drop below zero. In each year, the debt payments and future capital improvements are deducted
from the connection charge revenue. Additional borrowing is necessary to keep the balance above zero
for future capital improvements with $2 million in 2013 and $8 million in 2018 as shown in Table 9-5
Part 1 below.
9-9
TABLE 9-4.
EXAMPLE OF MIXING FUNDING SOURCES
Grant/Loan from USDA-RD + Loan

from PWTF or DOE 2010 Capital
PROJECT COST
General / Treatment 19,467,183
Collection Core + Al 6,418,200
Subtotal Project 25,885,383
FUNDING SOURCES
Grant: USDA-RDa 6,990,000
Loan: USDA-RDb 8,540,000
Loan: PWTF / DOEc 10,360,000
Annual Debt (4.5%, 20 yrs) 657,000
Annual Debt (2.5%, 20 yrs) 665,000
Est. Annual Debt 1,322,000
a. Grant assumes 60% of customers are residential and maximum

45% grant is offered.
b. USDA-RD loan assumes companion to grant for rest of residential
at 4.5% interest for 20 years. These loans may be spread up to 40
years.
c. Remainder of project funded by a low-interest loan from either
PWTF or DOE at an assumed interest rate of 2.5% for 20 years.
TABLE 9-5 PART 1.

ESTIMATED REPAYMENT STREAM THROUGH 2018
Est. Repayment
Stream 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
New Connection
ERU's 432 70 82 95 111 129 149 174 202
Connection Charge
Revenue 6,519,428 1,061,457 1,234,278 1,435,236 1,668,914 1,940,637 2,256,601 2,624,008 3,051,234
Additional
Borrowing 2,000,000 8,000,000
Annual Debt
Payments:
USDA-RD 20 yrs 657,000

PWTF/DOE 20 yrs 665,000 $128,294 $513,177
Total Debt
Payments 1,322,000 1,322,000 1,322,000 1,322,000 1,450,294 1,450,294 1,450,294 1,450,294 1,450,294
Future Capital
Improvements - 1,337,000 5,346,013 - - 1,398,000 1,357,000 9,445,454
Ending Balance 5,197,428 4,936,885 3,512,163 279,386 498,006 988,348 396,655 213,368 368,854
9-10
Table 9-5 Part 2 continues the test results through 2024, with a column for 2025-2030.
This test was carried out for the 20-year sewer planning period and showed that the debt service payments
could be met, and future capital improvements made with additional borrowing of $500,000 in the final
year, 2030., The ending balance in 2030 is estimated to be approximately $300,000 that would be
programmed to buy down outstanding debt, make annual debt payments or set aside for capital reserves.
TABLE 9-5 PART 2.

ESTIMATED REPAYMENT STREAM THROUGH 2024 AND 2025-2030
Est. Repayment
Stream 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025-2030
New Connection
ERU's 235 273 318 369 430 500 633
Connection Charge
Revenue 3,548,019 4,125,688 4,797,410 5,578,498 6,486,758 7,542,897 9,552,787
Additional
Borrowing 500,000
Annual Debt
Payments: -
USDA-RD 20 yrs -
PWTF/DOE 20 yrs 32,074

Total Debt
Payments 1,963,471 1,963,471 1,963,471 1,963,471 1,963,471 1,963,471 11,780,828
Future Capital
Improvements 996,000 361,000 353,000 - - 5,872,000 11,073,000
13,377,87 13,085,29
Ending Balance 957,402 2,758,619 5,239,558 8,854,585 2 7 284,256
STRATEGIES FOR RECOVERING CAPITAL COST FROM USERS

The next piece of the financing puzzle is to develop a strategy for recovering the capital costs from the
users of the new sewer system. Three strategies for repayment are described below and include
connection charges per connection and usage of the system, formation of a ULID to spread the costs
based on benefit, and Assessed Value of property to spread the costs based on property value.
Strategy 1. Connection Charges for General and Local

Connection charges are paid one time by the property owner in exchange for permission to connect to the
sewer system. Under this method, the general and local share would be paid when the customer connects
to the sewer system. Property owners can select their own method of payment; for example, home equity
loan, second mortgage, savings, or credit card.
As is shown in Table 9-5, it appears that, as long as connections come in at the anticipated pace, the sewer
utility would have sufficient funds to make the debt payments. The risk would be seen if connections did
not keep pace as anticipated and the County would need to loan funds to make the debt payment.
9-11
Strategy 2. Utility Local Improvement District (ULID) for Local + Connection

Charges for General
ULID assessments are paid over a number of years when sewer lines come to your neighborhood +
connection charges are paid for general costs when connecting to the sewer system. This method spreads
the local collection system costs among the properties to be served and the general treatment-related costs
will be paid upon connection to the sewer system. This recognizes that the ULID method allows the
property owners to finance the cost of neighborhood sewer lines over a number of years and still pay the
general treatment portion only when connecting. This strategy shares the financial risk between the
County, the properties served by the sewer system and those connecting to the system.
A ULID would be formed with a boundary drawn around the properties to be served by the local
collection system. All properties would participate and receive an assessment which would be paid over a
set period (typically between 10 to 20 years). The assessments cannot exceed the benefit. Bonds can be
sold for the ULID costs, or could possibly be funded by grants or loans, and the assessments would be
strictly designated for repayment of the bonds.
Strategy 3. Assessed Value (AV) for General and Local

This third method spreads the general and local costs of constructing the sewer system over the value of
the property to be served. The property owners would pay annually based on the property value assigned
by the Jefferson County Assessor for real estate tax purposes. Undeveloped property would pay much
less than developed property. This method would allow the County to sell bonds backed by the property
assessments collected specifically to fund the debt repayment.
Jefferson County used this method when establishing the Port Ludlow Drainage District. It is not as
common to use for sewer systems but could be used to spread the costs across the entire 20-year area if
desired. The assessment would be set as a rate per $1,000 of assessed value per year.
COST IMPLICATIONS OF USER RECOVERY STRATEGIES

All three strategies are possibilities for the Irondale/Port Hadlock sewer system. The first two are more
typical for sewer applications. These are compared and described more fully in Table 9-6.
TABLE 9-6.
COMPARE USER RECOVERY STRATEGIES
Without With Grant
Pay Upon Connection Grant (Residential)
1. CONN CHG for GENERAL & LOCAL
Connection Charge per ERU $17,400 $9,570
+ Average On-Site $3,500 $3,500
Pay Local thru ULID & General thru Without With Grant
Connection charge Grant (Residential)
2. ULID FOR LOCAL + CONN CHG FOR GENERAL
Connection Charge per ERU $9,300 $5,115
+ ULID Assessment per ERU $8,100 $4,455
+ Average On-Site $3,500 $3,500
9-12
The examples show the anticipated costs without and with a potential grant. The potential grant is
described earlier in the funding example where a maximum 45 percent grant would apply to residential
customers. There is no guarantee that this level of grant would be achieved, however USDA-RD will
want to be assured that the grant is benefiting residential customers to make the cost more affordable.
Residential customers are assumed to be 1 ERU per dwelling unit. For commercial customers, the
number of ERU’s is determined by the monthly water usage, where one ERU is equal to 4,000 gallons of
water per month.
The first example above with connection charges for general and local results in a connection charge of
$17,400 per ERU + average on-site cost of $3,500 for a total estimate of $20,900 without any grant
assistance. The $17,400 is calculated to reflect the 20-year general and local costs divided by
4,201 ERU’s (the total number of ERU’s forecasted to be connected to the sewer system at the end of the
20-year period). Approximately 15 percent was added to reflect the potential cost of financing and
rounded to the nearest thousand dollars.
If the maximum grant were received from USDA-RD, it is assumed it would apply to the connection fee
and likely not to the average on-site cost. The average on-site cost is estimated to be $3,500 per
connection for the gravity system. This will be higher for properties where the house is set farther back
from the street, have mature landscaping or paving/walkways that must be disturbed and replaced. While
a commercial customer may be equal to 3 ERU’s for water and sewer, the on-site cost will not necessarily
be 3 times the average cost.
In the second example above, the general and local costs are separated and spread in different manners,
either by connection charge or by ULID assessment. The average on-site cost also applies. The totals are
the same but the timing of payment is very different for the two examples.
WHEN TO PAY FOR SEWER

A major difference between the two strategies has to do with when the customers pay for sewer. The
connection charges are paid only when connecting to sewer. ULID assessments are filed on all properties
served when the sewer lines come to the neighborhood and can be paid annually over a number of years.
Table 9-7 illustrates the differences.
Residents or businesses that have recently installed a septic system may prefer the first option of paying
only when connecting to the sewer system. Others may prefer the second alternative because it allows the
property owner to finance a good portion of their obligation over 10-20 years. The ULID assessment will
be paid in annual installments and filed as a lien on the property, to be paid off when the property is sold.
Customers will also have an opportunity to pre-pay the assessment to avoid any interest or financing
costs. The County and community will have detailed discussions of the policy implications of the
financing alternatives and sewer ordinance prior to making application for grants and loans.
9-13
TABLE 9-7.
COMPARE ALTERNATIVES – WHEN TO PAY FOR SEWER
Assessed When Assessed When
ULID Comes to + Pay When ULID Comes to + Pay When
When To Pay For Sewer Neighborhood Connect Neighborhood Connect
1. Conn. Chg. for GENERAL & LOCAL

Pay GENERAL & LOCAL When Connect $9,570 $17,400
2. ULID for LOCAL + Conn. Chg. for GENERAL
Pay LOCAL When ULID Comes to Neighborhood $4,455 $8,100
+ Pay GENERAL upon connection $5,115 $9,300
Est. New Connection $4,455 $8,615 $8,100 $12,800
* Assumes 45% Grant for Residential
CURRENT SEWER EXPANSION EXAMPLES

For those new to sewer systems, these costs likely feel high. For those of us working in the industry, the
costs per connection are reasonable compared to other current examples. Table 9-8 shows three other
current examples. As costs for sewer have risen, and as a tool to encourage early connection, some
jurisdictions have invited customers to jointly finance on-site costs if connecting early. Thus, in
Table 9-8, there are two columns to the right – comparing General and Local costs or also including on-
site costs.
TABLE 9-8.
CURRENT SEWER EXPANSION EXAMPLES
General + General + Local

Est. Cost to Connect to Sewer Local + On-Site
Pt. Hadlock/Irondale
With Grant (Residential) $9,350 $12,850
Without Grant $17,000 $20,500
Langley $15,558
Ronald WW District $33,000
Bainbridge Island $30,000
9-14
The City of Langley recently decided to fund expansion of the collection system to encourage homes to
connect to the sewer system and increase the ratepayer base supporting the treatment plant. Previously,
the collection lines were expanded only by developer extension without sufficient activity. The
connection charges were increased substantially to reflect this change in policy.
Ronald Wastewater District in King County recently constructed sewer lines for several neighborhoods
with existing homes. An established district, Ronald allows customers to sign installment agreements to
finance their connection fees over time. The District obtained a PWTF low-interest loan and allowed the
customers to include the on-site costs in the financing if connecting right away.
Bainbridge Island recently filed the final assessments for the South Island Sewer LID. The funding
source was PWTF low-interest loans. The treatment plant is operated by another jurisdiction that
developed a latecomer agreement to allow the new customers to connect and fund the necessary
improvements. The assessments ranged from a low of $8,000 for customers not connecting at this time,
up to $30,000 for one neighborhood.
As you can see, each project is unique in the details of who owns and operates the treatment plant,
collection lines and how the new customers participate and finance the construction. The Port
Hadlock/Irondale sewer project, with its own arrangement of details, will hopefully be able to attract the
necessary financing. These estimates have attempted to average and spread the costs over the 20-year
planning horizon and anticipated number of connections.
Some may ask why the Port Hadlock/Irondale estimates are so much lower than the other examples? Is
this because we have selected the highest examples? The answer is no, we have selected current
examples that we have been involved with in a variety of capacities over the past year.
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST – MONTHLY RATES

The engineering cost estimates included ongoing operations and maintenance costs by year to match the
phasing of the treatment plant and collection system, and anticipated usage. These estimates were made
on an annual basis. Additional costs were added in this financing portion to reflect the costs of billing
and collection, state tax and administration of the sewer utility. Table 9-9 shows the estimated O&M
Costs per ERU.
TABLE 9-9.
ESTIMATED MONTHLY SEWER RATE
Estimated Monthly Rate For O&M/Admin Costs

O&M per ERU per Mo $50.00
Add Billing/Collection/State Tax/ Administration $10.00
= Estimated Monthly Sewer Rate $60.00
This is the estimated beginning monthly rate for the first several years, to be evaluated for customer
growth, meeting the O&M needs and building a replacement reserve. It is difficult to recommend a sewer
rate including full depreciation or full replacement funding on a new system with only a few customers.
It is more practical to set the beginning rate to ensure that operating costs can be met with the anticipated
customers. As more connections come in those first years, a replacement reserve will begin building.
9-15
After five years, a review of the financial plan and rates should be done to ensure the rate is sufficient.
This review should include further developing the replacement funding strategy.
DOE’s measure of hardship at 2.0 percent of median household income is $69.44 per month. The test of
hardship, however, also includes the capital costs that would be in addition to the monthly rate. The Port
Hadlock Sewer project would clearly exceed the measure of hardship and make it eligible for potential
grant funding and lower interest rates on loans for the Department of Ecology programs.
WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

This sewer system will be expensive and financial assistance will be required to help bring the costs down
to a more affordable level for the low to moderate income residents of the area, as well as the small local
businesses. Overall the sewer system should benefit the area by enhancing the local commercial
environment and protecting the water quality in Chimacum Creek and the shellfish beds in Port
Townsend Bay. Additionally, the community has voiced its interest in replacing and potentially
augmenting any flows to Chimacum Creek with a high quality reclaimed water source as the area’s septic
tanks are replaced with sewer pipes.
The “art” of financing will be an important element of implementation of the sewer system. This refers to
the ability to attract financial assistance in a manner that will further the system on behalf of the citizens
of the area. The current capital cost estimate is $20,900 per ERU without any grants. This would be
reduced to an estimated $13,070 if the maximum 45 percent grant were achieved for residential
customers through the USDA-RD grant program. With additional financial assistance, it is hoped that
this could be further reduced, or certainly for low to moderate income residents and small businesses.
There are no guarantees with the “art” of financing.
This capital cost would be in addition to the $60.00 per month per ERU for operations and maintenance.
HOW TO CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD AND REDUCE COSTS

The current cost estimates are not set in stone. As the engineering side moves toward design, further
refinement will result in adjustment to the costs. It is the intention of the estimators in this Sewer Facility
Plan to be reasonably conservative to help ensure that the project can be implemented within the costs
outlined. Upon completion of the Sewer Facility Plan, the County can begin the process of applying for
financial assistance. Toward this goal, County staff and consultants will:
• Continue to meet with funding program administrators about this project. This work needs to
continue to ensure that the hoops and trade-offs of the funding programs are recognized.
• Become more familiar with programs and develop alternatives for low-income assistance
through the USDA-Housing program, the Health Department septic replacement loan
program and seek to create specific assistance with grant funding.
• Find out more about legislators and opportunities to meet and discuss projects and progress.
Let your federal and state legislators know about the project and how much additional grant
assistance would mean to implementing the sewer system.
• Pay attention to the state legislature and DOE programs related to the clean up of Puget
Sound. Specifically let state legislators know about the timing of this project as an example
for future funding.
• Discuss and finalize financial policies and methods of distributing costs. Explore
opportunities for O&M savings.
9-16
• Continue to seek ways to provide incentive and maximize initial participation in the sewer
system.
The implementation phase of the Irondale/Port Hadlock Sewer Project begins with DOE approval of the
Sewer Facility Plan. Financial assistance and County implementation policies will be significant
components of the implementation phase.
POLICY ISSUES FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION

Following are a number of key policy decisions that must be made in the implementation phase of
developing the sewer system and ensuring its financial viability. The policies should be discussed and
decisions made prior to applying for funding. These will consider the impact on customers, financial
risks involved for the County and the funding agencies as well.
• Will connection be mandatory when sewer lines come to the neighborhood? This policy is
important to ensure financial viability of the long-term sewer system and is often preferred by
USDA-RD and potentially other funding agencies.
• Can on-site costs be included in the financing package for those connecting in the first several
months? Depending on the funding scenario, this may or may not be allowable or practical
but the approach would be to encourage more connections early by allowing the costs to be
financed over time.
• Will customers be allowed to pay connection fees over time? Perhaps this option is held for
low to moderate income property owners that cannot qualify for connection charge assistance
with the USDA-housing program. This would encourage and assist property owners to
connect that may have trouble raising the necessary funds. This is a good example of
developing a program to be funded by the Jefferson County Infrastructure Fund.
• How will future capital cost escalation be reflected in the connection charges? There are a
variety of ways this can be achieved. One method would be to increase the amount by the
interest rate paid for each year after the loan or bonds are obtained. This policy is another
method of encouraging early connection to the system.
• Will multi-family connections be treated any different than single family connections where
each dwelling unit is equal to 1 ERU? This can be different for connection fees and for
monthly rates. Any reductions in one class of customer would be spread among the other
users.
• Will there be reductions for the monthly rates of senior low-income customers? Any
reductions in one class of customer would be spread among the other users unless there were
to be a contribution from other County funds.
9-17
CHAPTER 10.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND OUTREACH
The goal of public involvement and outreach is to inform interested citizens about the project and to
provide opportunities for meaningful involvement in the sewer planning process.
STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP PROCESS

To facilitate local input, four focused stakeholder workshops were held to advise the development of the
sewer facility plan. Jefferson County Commissioners, County staff, local agency staff, and several
community leaders and other interested parties were invited to the workshops. The County identified
local agencies whose facilities might be sewered and/or whose activities might be affected by the
installation or operation of a sewer. The County also identified representatives of business and
community organizations and citizens who had been active previously in the process to establish a UGA.
These parties were contacted by mail. A notice of each workshop was available on the project website,
on Jefferson County’s website, and in the County’s paper of record, the Port Townsend & Jefferson
County Leader. The workshops were open to the public.
Over the course of the first three stakeholder workshops on March 16, May 25, and June 22, 2006,
workshop participants and the consultant team reviewed and evaluated a comprehensive array of sewer
system alternatives. The workshop participants identified their preferences for each component of the
sewer system, including wastewater collection, treatment, effluent disinfection, effluent discharge/reuse,
and solids handling/reuse. The consultant team used those preferences to help develop the technical
recommendation.
At the fourth workshop on October 10, 2006, the consultant team presented the project cost estimate,
potential financing strategies, and developments and design refinements to the preferred sewer system
alternative. The consultant team took questions and comments and used stakeholder input to identify
concerns to be addressed as development of the sewer facility plan moved forward.
Jefferson County anticipates hosting a fifth stakeholder workshop in Fall 2008 to present the completed
sewer facility plan and to discuss next steps in the sewer planning process.
Written summaries of each stakeholder workshop, including questions, comments, and responses, were
made available on the project website and in a project notebook at the Jefferson County Library in Port
Hadlock. Copies of these summaries are included in Appendix B.
PUBLIC MEETINGS
Jefferson County hosted two public meetings (and plans to host a third public meeting in Fall 2008) to
provide information about the development of the sewer facility plan and to facilitate active public
participation in the sewer planning process. Informational meeting notices were mailed to property
owners in the sewer planning area, people who had joined the project mailing list, and representatives of
business and community organizations and citizens who had been active previously in the process to
establish a UGA. Notices of public meetings were posted at community locations in the project area
(QFC, Hadlock Building Supply, the Grange, Tri Area Community Center, WSU Extension, and
Jefferson County Library). Notices of public meetings were available on the project website, the
County’s website, and in the County’s paper of record, the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader.
10-1
Each public meeting began with an informal open house period. Large boards were posted around the
room with information about the sewer planning process. Public meeting attendees were encouraged to
view the information and talk with members of the consultant team and County representatives. The open
house period was followed by a presentation by the consultant team and a question and answer period.
Input from the public was used to identify concerns to be addressed as sewer planning moved forward.
At the first public meeting on July 19, 2006, the consultant team presented and responded to questions
about the alternatives for sewer system components and the rationale, from a technical standpoint, for the
recommended alternative. The consultant team described next steps in the decision-making process and
opportunities for public involvement.
At the second public meeting on October 25, 2006, the consultant team presented information on and
responded to questions about the cost estimate, potential financing strategies, and progress on preliminary
design for the preferred sewer system alternative. The consultant team described next steps in the
decision-making process and opportunities for public involvement.
At a third public meeting to be held in Fall 2008, the consultant team will provide an overview of the final
sewer facility plan and present information about next steps in the sewer planning process. The
consultant team and County representatives will respond to questions and comments from the public.
Written summaries of each public meeting and of public comment and response were made available on
the project website and in a project notebook at the Jefferson County Public Library. Copies of these
summaries are included in Appendix B.
At the request of the Port Hadlock – Tri Area Chamber of Commerce, County representatives and
members of the consultant team provided informational briefings to the Chamber during its regular
meetings on September 26, 2007 and June 25, 2008.
PROJECT WEBSITE
A project website, www.porthadlocksewer.org, was established to make information on the development
of the sewer facility plan available to the public. The website was announced in a June 2006 mailing to
people who had joined the project mailing list and representatives of business and community
organizations and citizens who had been active previously in the process to establish a UGA. The website
was announced in public meeting notices and stakeholder workshop invitations. A link to the project
website was available on the home page and the Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA page of Jefferson
County’s website.
Notices of all public meetings and stakeholder workshops were posted on the website. Written
summaries of each public meeting and stakeholder workshop were available on the project website, as
were PowerPoint presentations used at those meetings. Interested parties were able to sign up for the
project mailing list and submit comments via the website.
A hard copy notebook reflecting current information on the website was available for public review at the
Jefferson County Library in Port Hadlock.
PROJECT MAILINGS
In addition to the June 2006 mailing that announced the sewer facility plan project and the July 2006 and
October 2006 mailings that announced public meetings, notices were sent in March 2007, June 2007, and
June 2008 to all Irondale/Port Hadlock mailing addresses and other interested parties to report on the
10-2
…10. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND OUTREACH
status of sewer facility plan development and on next steps in the sewer planning process. E-mail notices
were sent to interested parties who had provided e-mail addresses.
Additional notices will be sent to announce the third public meeting and approval of the final sewer
facility plan.
COMMENT TRACKING AND RESPONSE PROCESS

Members of the public submitted comments in a variety of ways. Stakeholders and members of the
public were invited to ask questions and provide comments at all of the stakeholder workshops and public
meetings. The consultant team and representatives of Jefferson County responded to comments and
questions during those meetings. A summary of public comment and response from each public meeting
was posted on the Frequently Asked Questions page of the project website. Summaries of stakeholder
comment and response were included in the stakeholder workshop summaries, which were available on
the project website.
The consultant team received the comments that were submitted via the website. The consultant team
saved all comments for reference and forwarded the comments to County staff for their records. Some
comments were intended to inform the sewer planning process and did not require a response. For
questions and comments that did require a response, the consultant team responded by e-mail to simple,
logistical questions. For more substantive comments, members of the project team typically discussed
and agreed upon a response before a County staff member responded by e-mail.
All comments and questions from the public were referenced during sewer facility plan development and
were used to help develop public presentations that were responsive to community concerns.
10-3
Jefferson County Department of Public Works
APPENDIX A.
HYDROGEOLOGICAL EVALUATION REPORT
September 2008
APPENDIX B.
PUBLIC OUTREACH – MEETING SUMMARIES
September 2008
Port Hadlock UGA – Sewer Facility Plan
SUMMARY
Stakeholder Workshop on Collection System Alternatives
(Stakeholder Workshop #1)
March 16, 2006, 10 AM – 12 PM

1820 Jefferson Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368-0920
In response to the 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA), Jefferson County pursued the
designation of an Urban Growth Area (UGA) in the Irondale/Port Hadlock area. As part of the
requirements for establishing a UGA, Jefferson County is conducting a study of alternatives for
developing a sewer system. There are currently no sewer facilities in the area, and existing
residences and businesses are served by on-site treatment and disposal (septic) systems.
The sewer study will enable the County to identify 1) the final preferred alternative or method of
collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater, 2) the service area, 3) the phasing of
implementation of sewers throughout the service area, 4) the cost for individual connections to
sewer, and 5) revenue sources. The goal of the study is to produce a comprehensive sewer plan
that will help the County plan for growth in the area over the next 20 years; that will satisfy
RCW 36.94 concerning County’s sewerage, water, and drainage system responsibilities; and that
will be approved by the Department of Ecology.
Workshop Summary
A stakeholder workshop was held at the Jefferson County Courthouse on Thursday, March 16
from 10:00 am to 12:00 pm. The workshop was open to the public.
The purpose of the workshop was to:

• Present collection system alternatives
• Review advantages and drawbacks of each alternative
• Take questions and comments
• Identify preferences for a collection system
Jefferson County Commissioners, County staff, local agency staff, and several key members of
the public were invited to the workshop. The County had identified local agencies whose
facilities might be sewered and/or whose activities might be affected by the installation or
operation of a sewer. The County also identified representatives of business and community
organizations and citizens who had been active previously in the process to establish a UGA.
These parties were contacted by telephone. A notice of the workshop was available on the
County’s website and in the Port Townsend Leader.
County Commissioner David Sullivan (District 2) and County Commissioner Pat Rodgers
(District 3) attended the workshop. The consultants to the County were represented by Kevin
Dour and Jim Santroch of TetraTech/KCM and Bob Wheeler and Ellen Blair of Triangle
Associates. A complete list of workshop participants is attached to this summary.
Introductions & Workshop Overview

Mr. Wheeler, workshop facilitator, opened the meeting at 10:10 am. He led introductions and
explained the purpose of the workshop. He noted that the sewer study had just begun and that it
was typical to start by identifying a collection system, because the collection system would help
determine the appropriate treatment approach. He explained that sewer planning is a step-wise
process, stressing that the project team understands that the cost component, which will be
developed over the next few months, will be crucial to the community. He noted that the
presentation on collection system alternatives would show general cost figures, but that detailed
costs for each Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) had not yet been developed.
Mr. Wheeler reviewed the agenda and requested that the County Commissioner have the first
opportunity to ask questions or comment during the discussion portion of the workshop. He
reviewed the steps that will lead to the selection of a complete sewer system, including public
involvement opportunities, technical work, and the development of costs and funding options.
Mr. Wheeler explained that the project team had recently interviewed several local citizens and
representatives of local agencies and community organizations to better understand what kind of
public involvement was needed and what kind of information people wanted. He noted that a
key theme that had been repeated in the interviews was that people did not want to participate in
a lot of public process until new, substantive information, especially cost information, was
available. People were interested in getting involved once the technical and financial
information started to come together and they could tell how they might be impacted personally.
Mr. Wheeler said that this message led the project team to plan to hold public open houses later
in the sewer study process, but he noted that the stakeholder workshops were intended as a way
to get early input from the community to ensure that the resulting sewer plan would meet the
community’s needs.
Collection System Alternatives

Mr. Dour, consultant team project manager, presented the collection system alternatives,
reviewed the advantages and drawbacks of each alternative, and identified the short-list of
alternatives still under consideration. His PowerPoint presentation is attached to this summary.
Key points of the presentation are summarized below.
Mr. Dour began by reviewing the purpose of sewer planning for the Irondale and Port Hadlock
area. The two main reasons are 1) to plan for expected growth in the area, and 2) to support
economic vitality in the area. Mr. Dour explained that the County is preparing a sewer Facility
Plan, as opposed to any other type of plan, for the following reasons:
• It is required by WAC 173-240 for constructing or modifying wastewater facilities,
2
• It is a prescribed, methodical approach for planning sewer facilities,

• It meets federal funding requirements, and
• It involves the Department of Ecology, which must approve the plan, early in the process.
Mr. Dour used maps in the PowerPoint presentation (and posted on the wall) to show the 6-year
and 20-year sewer planning boundaries that were established according to the Growth
Management Act (GMA). He explained that the sewer would be constructed in phases during
the 6-year and 20-year planning periods, beginning with the business core. He said that, since it
seemed unreasonable to assume that the outlying areas would get built out all at once, the 20-
year planning boundary had been divided into sub-planning areas for planning purposes. He
noted that new developments would need to connect to the sewer.
Mr. Dour described the wastewater collection technologies that had been considered and noted
the advantages and drawbacks of each one. He said the technologies had been analyzed and
narrowed to a short-list. The short-list included:
1. Conventional gravity sewers
2. Pressure sewers
a. Septic tank effluent pumping (STEP) method in which solids settle out into an on-
site septic tank and liquid is conveyed using a high-pressure pump for treatment
(please note: existing septic tanks, which are not designed for use under these
conditions, would most likely be replaced since they often cannot be retrofitted).
b. Grinder pump method in which solids in the raw wastewater are ground within a
small pump chamber by a grinder pump so that the liquids and solids can be
conveyed under pressure to a wastewater treatment plant.
3. A third collection system alternative was also proposed, a combined gravity/pressurized
system, with gravity in the central, core portion of the system and pressure (STEP or
grinder) in the outer reaches of the system.
Advantages and Drawbacks of Short-Listed Technologies
Advantages Drawbacks
Conventional Gravity
• Proven reliability • Requires constant downward slope
o Deep sewers for flat terrain
o Intermediate pump stations for hilly
areas
• Lowest operations & maintenance (O&M) • Highest initial cost (deeper sewers)
costs
• No need for septic tanks or pumps for
individual connections
3
Pressure – STEP
• Low initial cost • Septic tank O&M (ownership agreements
• Smaller sewers that can follow terrain • Pump requirements (electrical connection)
Pressure - Grinder
• Used when terrain doesn’t allow gravity • Pump requirements (electrical connection,
sewers and septic tanks aren’t desired O&M)
• Pump must pass solids
o More difficult than passing liquid only
o Additional maintenance required
Mr. Dour presented qualitative comparisons of the short-listed collection system technologies.
Qualitative Comparisons of Collection System Technologies
Conventional Gravity Pressure (STEP or Grinder)

Well-suited for high density housing (> 3 Well-suited for low density housing ( ≤ 3
houses per acre) houses per acre)
Higher up-front cost Lower up-front cost
Lower O&M cost and lower cost for future Higher O&M cost and higher cost for future
connections connections
More convenient: No tank or pump on private Less convenient: Septic tank and pump on
property private property
• Requires dedicated space
• O&M, access for pumping
Greater flexibility: if install gravity in Less flexibility: if install pressure sewer in
commercial core, later can install either gravity commercial core, later must install pressure
or pressure sewer in outer areas sewer in outer areas
Higher total cost over 20-year planning period Lower total cost over 20-year planning period
System tends to last longer, up to 50 years Systems tend to last for less time; some major
system components would likely be replaced
after 20 years
Higher percentage of total cost would be Lower percentage of total cost would be
eligible for grant funding. Gravity has higher eligible for grant funding. Pressure involves
up-front capital costs, which are often eligible costs for septic tanks and pumps on private
for grants. property, which are generally not eligible for
grants.
4
Mr. Dour concluded by presenting planning level estimates for the implementation costs, both by
total cost and by cost per ERU, for a gravity sewer collection system, a pressure sewer collection
system, and a combined sewer system. The costs were broken down by sub-planning area.
Questions & Comments

Workshop participants commented and asked questions during the presentation and during the
discussion period at the end of the workshop. Their comments and questions, as well as the
project team’s responses, are grouped by topic.
Conventional Gravity Sewer Details
Question: What is the actual slope for a gravity sewer?

Response (Dour): The slope depends on the diameter of pipe, but a typical minimum slope for
an 8 inch sewer is 0.004 feet per foot. When larger pipes are used, the slope can be a little less,
but there is a substantial drop if the pipeline is very long. Of course, it is rare to have a natural
downward slope for the whole course of the sewer.
Question: Generally, what is the topography of the service area?

Response (Dour): Coming south through Irondale, it goes from a high point to a low point with
a change of about 30 or 40 feet. But way at the north end there are low points, although we
probably wouldn’t develop a sewer right by Chimacum Creek, where there is a 100 foot drop.
Pressure Sewer Details
Question: I assume at high densities, where it looks like a gravity sewer makes more sense than
a pressure sewer, in part because of the number of septic tanks or grinder pumps that would be
required, that you would explore catching the wastewater for multiple homes in one tank or
pump.
Response (Dour): Yes, perhaps.
Question: Maximizing the use of available land is an important part of expanding. Compared
to current septic systems, could more land be used with a pressure system that has a septic tank
or a grinder pump? What would be the impact on a commercial parking lot?
Response (Dour): If there is a septic tank in place now, the new septic tank or the grinder pump
could be placed in the same space. The drainage field would no longer need to be protected, so
that land could be used. Also, a parking lot could go over top of an extra strong septic tank
(designed for vehicle loading) or grinder pump system (if installed in a vault).
5
Pressure Sewer, Grinder Details
Question: Would each home have to have its own grinder pump system? Is the grinder pump a
new technology?
Response (Dour): Grinder systems are not particularly new. There would be no solids in a tank
on the property, but, yes, each home would have a grinder pump and electrical connection.
Question: Would existing septic tanks have to be replaced with a grinder pump?
Response (Dour): Yes, existing septic tanks would be replaced.
Question: What happens if the power goes out?

Response (Dour): Usually you would get a high level alarm, which underscores the differing
levels of convenience among the sewer technologies. You would have to call the responsible
agency to come and fix the problem, and you’d have to minimize your water usage in the
interim. And nine times out of ten, it seems these problems happen late at night.
Response (Santroch): There is some storage capacity in the grinder and STEP systems. More
storage capacity could be built in, but that would be more expensive.
Pressure Sewer, STEP Details
Question: Could existing septic tanks be used with a STEP system? Most of them already have
pumps.
Response (Dour): The presumption is that existing septic tanks would need to be replaced.
STEP systems involve the use of specialized tanks with integral pump vaults and electrical
connections. It would cost more to retrofit an existing septic tank to make it work according to
electrical codes and design requirements than it would to replace it. Another problem with
existing tanks is that most of them are not watertight. They experience groundwater infiltration,
which is a problem in a pressure system. In our evaluation of collection system alternatives, we
assumed that all septic tanks would need to be replaced for a pressure sewer.
Question: You use concrete tanks don’t you?

Response (Dour): The tanks are concrete, but they have a specialized chamber for the pump.
Question: Assuming you have a working septic tank, could the effluent go into the sewer?
Response (Dour): Theoretically, yes. It’s something that would have to be decided during final
design and negotiated with the sewer agency. Experience shows that only ten percent of current
septic tanks are usable. STEP tanks are higher quality tanks that are created with a monolithic
pour; they are designed to be watertight so the treatment system doesn’t end up treating
groundwater inflow.
Question: Can multiple buildings be connected to one septic tank?

Response (Dour): For a standard, single family lot, it is normal to plan for each home to have
its own tank and pump. For houses that are relatively far apart, it doesn’t work to connect to the
same tank. For denser development, such as apartments and multi-family housing, one large
tank may be able to serve multiple residences. The main issue is to not overload the tank.
6
If a STEP pressure sewer were implemented, we would look in detail at how buildings would be
connected. Looking at existing STEP pressure sewers, for example in Yelm and Montesano, the
rule of thumb is that single family homes have their own tank.
Sewer System Costs & Funding
Comment: From a property owner standpoint, once the sewer system is in, the value of your
home goes up significantly when you’re ready to sell.
Question: Are your cost projections just for collection or do they include treatment also?
Would there be a cost savings for treatment when using a STEP system?
Response (Dour): The cost projections are for collection only. Whether or not there is a cost
savings for treatment when using a STEP system depends on the situation. STEP involves less
solids handling at the treatment plant, but there is decentralized solids handling. I can’t say what
the answer is in a general sense. An answer to this question will be discovered further into the
study once we have developed an integrated collection, treatment, and disposal system.
Comment: Let people be aware that with a pressure system, property owners have to pay for the
electricity for the pump.
Comment: As a homeowner, I think that whatever system is put in, if people find out that it will
cost them several thousand dollars, they will fear that that the money has to be paid all up front.
I assume the costs will actually be amortized over time.
Response (Wheeler): Correct, and we will analyze what rates would actually be over time.
Question: I assume there may be some grant money available to build a sewer system. Are
there different funding levels based on the different sewer system alternatives?
Response (Wheeler): There are a number of grant sources that we’ll investigate. The member
of our team who will research funding options is on the Washington State Public Works Board,
which is a source of low-interest loans. Each different grant source, such as the Centennial
Clean Water Fund, has different criteria. However, usually grants can be applied to public
portions of the sewer, but not for components on private property, such as septic tanks or grinder
pumps. So in that regard, there may be some preference for a gravity sewer, which has more of
its costs tied up in public portions of the sewer. However, we still have to do more investigation.
Question: Are the costs of responding to maintenance calls borne by the whole system or by the
individual?
Response (Dour): The Department of Ecology says that it’s all part of the system, so those
costs go into the rates.
Question: You broke implementation costs down by ERU. For those of us who are businesses
or agencies that use high volumes of water, are there other ways to do the breakdown so we can
get a general idea of our potential costs?
7
Response (Dour & Santroch): It is hard to do because you would have to break down the whole
design system. However, one way to look at it is to consider that an ERU is equivalent to X
gallons per day of sewer, which works out to around 85-100 gallons per person per day. If you
estimate how many people you’re dealing with, you can estimate your costs based on the ERU
costs.
Question: Can you estimate your usage by your water usage and find out if you’re a big user or
a little user?
Response (Dour): Yes, absolutely. You can look at your water records, based on your business
meter usage, to see your current water usage and forecast future usage.
Response (Santroch): You would need to look at your winter water usage, because people use
potable water in the summer for irrigation.
Sewer Study Methodology
Question: Are the six sub-planning areas that you defined for the sewer study topographical or
political?
Response (Dour): There is nothing political about the sub-planning areas. At the onset of the
study, we knew we needed to work within a 20-year and a 6-year boundary. Because the service
area is so large, we did not want to assume that the whole area would get built out at once.
That’s why we made step-wise chunks broken out by how we thought the progression of
development might occur. We looked at which areas within the 20-year boundary would be
closest to sewers completed in the 6-year boundary. The sub-planning areas were estimated
based upon where we thought areas would connect independently to the 6-year sewers. These
were planning assumptions and they are not set it stone.
Question: One of your major assumptions in planning is that everybody hooks up to the sewer.
Did you know that six weeks ago the County adopted new development regulations that referred
to optional sewer areas in the 20-year boundary?
Response (Dour): I had not heard that, but for planning purposes and comparing alternatives,
the main thing is to use the same assumptions for all alternatives, so it would not affect our
analysis.
Comment: The sewer system is being studied in stages, first the collection system, then
treatment and disposal. But if you studied the system as a whole sooner, you might find some
opportunities. For example, you might find that for disposal you’re going to pipe reuse water
back in the same ditch the collection system is in.
Response (Dour): Once the collection, treatment, and disposal components are determined, we
think we may identify efficiencies in the system.
Response (Santroch): Regarding your example, code requirements prohibit putting sewer pipe
in the same ditch as treated water. They have to be 10 to 12 feet apart.
Question: Isn’t that requirement changing?
Response (Santroch): It actually just changed to the numbers I mentioned.
8
Cost Methodology
Comment: If you find the total cost, and then use the discount rate to come up with a
discounted number, you’ll have the absolute present value.
Response (Dour): Yes, that’s what we did.
Comment: Earlier you identified that the gravity sewer system is a lot longer-lived than a
pressure system. In comparing the implementation costs of the three alternatives, it appears you
are assuming the same overall service life of each of the three alternatives. It bothers me in a
way, that it will mislead people into thinking that these systems will last only 20 years.
Response (Dour): That is a good point. Gravity could probably last 50 years. This analysis
looks at a 20 year time span for comparison purposes, because of the 20-year planning boundary
and because septics and pumps have to be replaced after about 20 years.
Pressure sewers can be viewed as a “starter kit” for a sewer system: after 20 years when the area
is more densely populated and there are more people to pay, the system can be replaced with a
gravity sewer. It is good to be aware that gravity lasts longer, but pressure may be all that a
community can afford today. Pressure will work, but people must be aware that it’s a pay-as-
you-go system and it is less convenient because of ongoing maintenance.
Question: If you did a 30- or 40-year timeline, would the STEP lines (implementation costs) be
a lot taller?
Response (Dour): Basically yes. It still comes down to an ability to launch or not.
Environmental Considerations
Comment: I’d like to remind everyone that much effort has gone into caring for Chimacum
Creek over the years. There is a lot of groundwater recharge from septic systems that seems to
be somewhat indicative of a high return flow to the creek. If we are looking at a sewer system
that will, in effect, take groundwater recharge away, there will be consequences for the creek.
In this vicinity, there seem to be at least two stacked aquifers. The PUD’s belief from testing
over time and working two wells is that very little, if any, of the recharge from septic reaches the
lower aquifer, but it’s highly likely, although I’m not a hydrogeologist, that some of the recharge
gets to the upper aquifer. I’m not saying we should use one system over another, but it tells you
that there is an ecological advantage to having septic systems here.
Response (Dour): We do have a geologist on the consultant team, and we are looking at how to
dispose of treated wastewater. Disposal will probably not be an outfall into the bay, and it may
be some kind of distribution system, so the sewer system may not necessarily remove the
recharge to groundwater. However, our analysis of disposal options is very preliminary and our
options may change.
9
Water Reuse
Question: Have you thought about separating gray water and wastewater? The state PUD
association is working on that.
Response (Dour): It’s a big topic at the Washington Association of Water and Sewer Districts.
This is not something we have considered at this point in the analysis. We will take a preliminary
look at this option to see if there is any viability.
Question: Does either pressure or gravity have an advantage in separating gray water and
wastewater?
Response (Dour): You would have to replumb the house to separate black and gray water. For
pressure, black water would go into the septic tank or grinder, so a pump vault and control panel
would still be necessary. It might mean a smaller septic tank on the property, but in the grand
scheme, with all of the components involved, I don’t see a major cost shift.
For gravity, it could change the ability to convey solids, so it may affect the level of
infrastructure needed. If you were just doing gray water recharge, and there were no cost
considerations, a pressure system would be better.
Question: Is it easier to separate black water from gray water in new construction?
Response (Dour): Yes.
Comment: We need to consider that at this stage, we have the chance to do things from scratch.
In 50 years, plain water will be a precious thing. If we don’t plan to reuse water now, our
descendants will wonder why we didn’t do it right the first time, when the ecological cost of
doing things over is high.
Comment: I don’t think gray water is that clean to begin with: we can’t guarantee what’s going
down the gray water system. If we’re doing treatment, we might as well treat gray water, too,
and then let it infiltrate.
Comment: I agree, but reclamation has to be part of the plan from the beginning.
Response (Santroch): To be honest, disposal via an outfall seems unlikely, so we will be
looking at alternative methods of disposing of treated water, such as infiltration.
Implementation of Sewer Plan
Question: I have a 25-year old septic system, and many other people are similar. What is its
life expectancy?
Response (Dour): It is probably in its golden years.
Question: If you live in an outlying area and your septic fails next year, what should you do?
Response (Dour): You would need to replace the septic system. But this is getting ahead of
where we are, down to how a sewer system would be implemented. There are policies that
would need to be in place. For example, maybe if the sewer line is adjacent to your home, you
10
don’t need to hook up until your septic system fails. That is a possibility. Sometimes a
developer pays to put in a sewer line, but you don’t pay until you connect to it. There are many
options.
Response (Wheeler): We are certainly taking into account the fact that some people in the area
have recently put in new septics or will be doing so soon.
Comment: People should be aware that they will have to pay for pump maintenance on their
property. The PUD is not going to do plumbing.
Response (Dour): We assume that the sewer agency will maintain pumps.
Comment: But a property owner could put a “no trespassing” sign up and the agency couldn’t
enter. Besides if a property owner isn’t responsible for, say, grinder maintenance, they will be
less careful about letting things like spoons go down the drain.
Response (Dour): In order for a sewer agency to do pump maintenance, it would be necessary
to negotiate a maintenance agreement with property owners. In terms of being careful about
letting objects down the drain, property owners are inconvenienced when the pump or grinder
needs repair. But all things being equal, you’re right on that point.
Response (Wheeler): Central authorities elsewhere are doing the maintenance work for
pressure sewers, and the Department of Ecology would probably push for central authority here,
too.
Response (Dour): That is definitely a possibility, but at this point it’s not certain how
maintenance would be done here.
Comment: The point is that it is doesn’t operate as smoothly as advertised.
Question: If you look at your experience with what actually gets built, isn’t it always a
combined system?
Response (Dour): Yelm, Montesano, and perhaps others are STEP only. Olympia is a
combined system, which is an interesting example. The less dense outlying area went to STEP,
but the density increased faster than expected, so they put a moratorium on STEP in that area.
They are at the point where they are considering how to implement a conversion of the STEP
system to gravity because of the increased density.
Preferences for Collection System
Comment: As we start talking about a possible preferred collection system alternative, I know
you have to create a plan, and a 20-year planning horizon makes sense at this stage. But think
about a 50-year timeline: gravity would be a big upfront cost, but it could conceivably be
mitigated by outside funding, and it might be more politically feasible because the costs of
individual hook-ups are lower. Gravity seems like a good way to go.
Comment: I think a combined system of gravity and pressure is preferable.
Response (Wheeler): Let me mention again that if you start with a gravity sewer in the core of
the service area, you can decide later whether to do pressure or gravity in the outer areas. It
gives you some options.
11
Comment: The Olympia example demonstrates that gravity provides more flexibility than
STEP. STEP is affecting Olympia’s ability to grow.
Comment: I, Mike Regan, representing Irondale Community Action Neighbors, would like to
say that the gravity system seems preferable by far, even without seeing the 50-year cost
projection. This discussion seems to say for many reasons that gravity has more advantages.
One important thing is that with gravity the cost to the individual of putting in tanks, pumps, etc.
is smaller, especially since those are costs that grants won’t cover.
Comment: I would like to courteously disagree that a combined system is best. It is a case of
pay me now for gravity, or pay me twice for pressure, and the next time comes soon. I would
also reinforce the comments about reuse or gray water reuse. I would hope a good part of the
consultants’ analysis is on reuse. There seems to be a growing consensus for ecology and health
that we need reuse. There is a big, untapped Saudi Arabia of water in once-used water. Now
may not be the best time, because the consensus may not be strong enough yet, but the
consultants need to keep alert to that movement.
Comment: Since the PUD may very well operate the sewer system, we need to try to think hard
about the total out-of-pocket cost each month, including power costs, considering our public.
The locality doesn’t have control over outside power coming in.
Action Item
Several workshop participants urged the consultant to prepare a 50-year cost estimate for the
three collection system alternatives, noting that it would show that gravity was a better value in
the long term. The consultant agreed to do so.
ACTION ITEM: The consultant will prepare a 50-year cost projection to compare
the three collection system alternatives.
Next Steps and Wrap Up

Mr. Wheeler encouraged all of the workshop participants to sign the sign-in sheet and to indicate
whether they wanted to receive periodic project updates. He noted that another stakeholder
workshop would be held in about two months. In response to a request, Mr. Dour agreed to send
the PowerPoint presentation to Frank Gifford, the Jefferson County Director of Public Works,
who would distribute it to interested parties. Commissioner David Sullivan thanked the
participants for attending, noting that their perspectives were helpful.
Mr. Wheeler adjourned the workshop at 12:10 pm.
12
Workshop Attendance
The stakeholder workshop was attended by County Commissioner David Sullivan (District 2)
and County Commissioner Pat Rodgers (District 3). Additional attendees are listed below.
Name Affiliation
Kyle Alm Citizen
Mike Blair Chimacum School District
Evan Cael Peninsula Daily News
Larry Crockett Port of Port Townsend
Nancy Dorgan Appellant in Irondale Community Action Neighbors and
Nancy Dorgan v. Jefferson County, Western Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board
Craig Durgan Citizen
John Fischbach Jefferson County, County Administrator
Frank Gifford Jefferson County, Public Works
Sandy Hershelman Jefferson County Home Builders Association
Tim Hockett Olycap
Wayne King Jefferson County PUD #1
Mike Regan Irondale Community Action Neighbors; Appellant in
Irondale Community Action Neighbors and Nancy Dorgan
v. Jefferson County, Western Washington Growth
Management Hearings Board
Dana Roberts Jefferson County PUD #1
Allen Sartin Jefferson County, Central Services
Al Scalf Jefferson County, Department of Community Development
Ray Serebrin Jefferson County Library
Duke Shold Shold Excavating
Jim Strong Hadlock Building Supply
Troy Summerill Inn at Port Hadlock
Pete Wright Citizen
Consultant Team Staff in Attendance
TetraTech/KCM
Kevin Dour, Project Manager; Jim Santroch, Senior Project Engineer – Treatment

Bob Wheeler, Facilitator; Ellen Blair, Public Involvement Support
13
SUMMARY
Stakeholder Workshop on Treatment and Discharge
May 25, 2006, 1 PM – 3 PM

collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater, 2) the service area, 3) the phasing of
implementation of sewers throughout the service area, 4) the cost for individual connections to
sewer, and 5) revenue sources. The goal of the study is to produce a comprehensive sewer plan
that will help the County plan for growth in the area over the next 20 years; that will satisfy
RCW 36.94 concerning County’s sewerage, water, and drainage system responsibilities; and that
will be approved by the Department of Ecology.
Workshop Summary
A stakeholder workshop was held at the Jefferson County Courthouse on Thursday, May 25
from 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm. The workshop was open to the public.

• Present discharge and treatment alternatives
• Identify preferences for a discharge system and a treatment system
Jefferson County Commissioners, County staff, local agency staff, and several community
leaders were invited to the workshop. The County had identified local agencies whose facilities
might be sewered and/or whose activities might be affected by the installation or operation of a
sewer. The County also identified representatives of business and community organizations and
citizens who had been active previously in the process to establish a UGA. These parties were
contacted by mail. A notice of the workshop was available on the project website
(www.porthadlocksewer.org), the County’s website, and in the Port Townsend Leader.
County Commissioner David Sullivan (District 2) attended the workshop. The consultants to the
County were represented by Kevin Dour, P.E. and Jim Santroch, P.E. of TetraTech/KCM and
Bob Wheeler and Ellen Blair of Triangle Associates. A complete list of workshop participants is
attached to this summary.

Mr. Wheeler, workshop facilitator, opened the meeting at 1:00 pm. He led introductions and
explained the purpose of the workshop. He reviewed the workshop agenda and the steps that
would lead to the selection of a complete sewer system, including public involvement
opportunities, technical work, and the development of cost estimates and funding options.
Mr. Wheeler emphasized the complexity of planning a new sewer system, noting the number of
components involved, such as the collection system, interceptor lines, treatment system, disposal
system, and treatment and disposal of biosolids. He noted that cost was also a major factor to
consider. He explained that each component affected the others, such that sewer planning was a
stepwise process of matching up components that worked together.
Mr. Wheeler explained that this workshop presentation would address discharge alternatives
before treatment alternatives because the method of discharge determines the level of treatment
that is required. He said that, during the workshop, the project team hoped to narrow the
discharge and treatment alternatives under consideration with the stakeholders help.
Mr. Wheeler reported that a project website had been created where information and
announcements could be found and comments could be submitted: www.porthadlocksewer.org.
Review of Stakeholder Workshop on Collection System Alternatives

Mr. Dour, consultant team project manager, provided a brief review of the first Stakeholder
Workshop on Collection System Alternatives, which took place March 16, 2006. His
PowerPoint presentation is attached to this summary. Mr. Dour said that the first workshop had
focused on three collection system alternatives: a gravity collection system, a pressurized STEP
or grinder collection system, and a combination of the gravity and pressurized systems. He
noted that the workshop participants had discussed their preferences for a collection system, but
system selection was pending.
Mr. Dour provided an update on action items from the collection system workshop. Attendees
had requested a calculation of the life cycle costs of the collection system alternatives over a 50-
year period. Mr. Dour explained that the 50-year life cycle cost analysis had shown the
following:
• Gravity has higher start-up costs

• Pressure is about 15% ($8.3 million) more expensive than gravity over 50 years
• Pressure and a combined pressure and gravity system cost about the same
• Operations and maintenance are more expensive for STEP than for gravity
2
Attendees had asked about the feasibility of separating gray water out before it entered the sewer
system. Mr. Dour reported that key points on gray water separation included:
• Less water in the sewer system impacts system design parameters. For example, most
gravity collection systems are designed for a certain amount of water to wash solids down
the pipes. Removing gray water might generate a need to build steeper gravity collection
pipes in order to keep solids moving, which would need to be constructed deeper and thus
cost more.
• Plumbing retrofits would be required in existing homes in order to separate gray water from
black water systems (water from toilets).
• Sending gray water to a wastewater treatment plant for treatment could help prevent gray
water from possibly degrading groundwater supplies.
• A septic tank and drainfield would need to be maintained for gray water separation.
• Gray water separation as a means to recharge groundwater may be redundant if land-based
disposal is selected for the treated plant effluent.
Discharge Alternatives
Mr. Dour presented the discharge alternatives for the Port Hadlock UGA sewer system, reviewed
the advantages and drawbacks of each alternative, and identified the short-list of alternatives that
were still under consideration. Key points of the presentation are summarized below.
Mr. Dour explained that there were two basic types of discharge: marine outfall and land-based
application. He reiterated that the discharge method would determine the level of wastewater
treatment required. He said that for a marine outfall, secondary wastewater treatment was
sometimes acceptable, although regulators could require advanced (tertiary) treatment depending
on the circumstances. He said advanced treatment was almost always required for land-based
disposal.
Mr. Dour described the discharge alternatives that had been considered and noted the advantages
and drawbacks of each one. He said the alternatives had been reviewed and narrowed to an
initial short-list for further evaluation. He noted that a key consideration for land-based disposal
options was the rate at which effluent could be applied, and therefore the amount of land
required. He also explained that each option may require a certain amount of wastewater storage
capacity as a precaution for wet weather storage, depending upon the acceptance rate of the soil.
The short-list of alternatives included:
1. Marine outfall
2. Irrigation at agronomic rates
a. Irrigation at agronomic rates entails applying a level of effluent such that the plant
cover can use all of the water and metabolize all of the nutrients.
3. Groundwater recharge: slow-rate infiltration
a. Not an agronomic rate – the ground is used as a means of disposal
b. Effluent is applied at a rate that allows it to percolate through the soil lens before
entering groundwater
3
c. Effluent can be applied at the surface or subsurface. Subsurface application may

be considered due to site considerations such as ponding potential, thereby
minimizing potential for human contact. If effluent is applied subsurface, for
example six inches underground, a higher level of treatment is required.
4. Groundwater recharge: rapid-rate infiltration
a. Effluent disposal in leaky bottom ponds similar to stormwater ponds.
b. Effluent is applied at a rate that allows it to percolate through the soil lens before
entering groundwater
5. Constructed wetlands
a. Plants use nitrogen as effluent moves through wetland
b. Water used for habitat
c. Outflow can go into rapid infiltration ponds or straight into a stream or other
water body
d. This method often used for polishing rather than treatment
Advantages and Drawbacks of Short-Listed Discharge Alternatives
Marine Outfall
• Less storage required • Creates shellfish closure zone/might
• Reliability during wet season impact use of public beaches
• Less land required • Habitat impacts to marine environment
• Additional studies would be required
• Regulatory requirements may become
stricter over time/getting permit is
uncertain
• Public acceptance
Irrigation at Agronomic Rates
• Fewest regulatory issues • Largest land area required
• Range of uses (forests, grasses, crops) • Effluent must be stored during wet months
• Can be implemented in or near sewer • Largest storage area required
planning area • Potential for human contact with effluent
Slow-Rate Infiltration
• Minimizes potential for human contact • Relatively large land area required
with effluent • Regulatory considerations (sub-surface
• Provides groundwater recharge spreading vs. surface spreading, aquifer
protection)
Rapid Infiltration
• Least land area required for land-based • Regulatory considerations (aquifer
4
disposal protection)
• Least expensive approach
• Provides groundwater recharge
• Wildlife habitat/public benefit • Moderate amount of land required
• Works in association with recharge • Creates mosquito habitat
• Provides additional treatment of treatment • Regulatory considerations (wetlands,
plant effluent aquifer protection)
Mr. Dour reviewed a table of estimated hydraulic application rates in gallons per day per square
foot (gpd/sf), land required in acres, and storage required in millions of gallons (mgal) for each
land application alternative. He explained that irrigation at agronomic rates was probably not
feasible in the project area because it required an estimated 230 acres for discharge and 210 mgal
of storage. Mr. Dour showed the potential land-based disposal sites on a map. He observed that
irrigating HJ Carroll Park would use only a fraction (about one quarter) of the expected volume
of effluent, which illustrated that the irrigation alternative would have to be used in conjunction
with another method of disposal.
Mr. Dour then reviewed a chart of estimated, planning level costs for each disposal alternative.
The estimated costs were broken down to show cumulative cost at each phase.
Mr. Dour summed up the following technical perspectives about the discharge options:
• Marine outfall: The estimated cost of a marine outfall is relatively low, but technical and
shellfish issues could make it difficult to get approved
• Irrigation: The high cost of the irrigation alternative is driven by the need for a lot of land
• Slow-rate infiltration: Cost-effective and approvable with appropriate level of treatment
• Rapid-rate infiltration: Lowest cost and most likely approvable
• Constructed wetlands: High initial costs and expensive ongoing maintenance over time
Mr. Dour explained that, from a technical perspective, the engineering team viewed slow-rate
infiltration and rapid-rate infiltration as the two best discharge options to continue to explore. He
noted that rapid-rate infiltration was currently the most popular discharge method in Western
Washington.
Treatment Alternatives
Referring to a diagram in the PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Santroch provided a brief overview
of the wastewater treatment process, including secondary and advanced treatment and classes of
disinfection (Classes A, B, and C). His PowerPoint presentation is attached to this summary. He
5
noted that advanced treatment did not produce effluent of drinking water quality. He said that
where water shortages existed, such as in California and Arizona, treatment plant effluent from
advanced processes was stored for a year and then applied to groundwater before it was pulled
out for consumption. He said that advanced effluent with Class A disinfection was, however,
designated as public contact water and could be used on golf courses and in swimming lakes.
Mr. Santroch reiterated the point that the discharge method selected would determine the level of
treatment required. He reviewed a table that correlated the discharge options that had been
presented with the level of treatment that each required, either secondary or advanced.
Advanced treatment was required for both of the discharge alternatives that the engineering team
thought were viable, slow-rate infiltration and rapid-rate infiltration. Mr. Santroch noted that
advanced treatment would likely be required by the permitting agencies for a marine outfall as
well, because of shellfish issues.
Mr. Santroch described the treatment alternatives that had been considered and noted the
advantages and drawbacks of each one. He said a key consideration was the ability to build the
treatment system in phases, since the system would be expanded as demand grew over time. He
said the alternatives had been reviewed and narrowed to an initial short-list for further
evaluation. The short-list consisted of advanced treatment options and included:
1. Oxidation ditch & filter

2. Sequencing batch reactor & filter (SBR)
3. Membrane treatment (the newest technology)
Advantages and Drawbacks of Short-Listed Discharge Alternatives
Oxidation Ditch & Filter
• Tried and true • More difficult to phase
• Moderate cost • High initial costs
• Good, but not best, effluent quality
Sequencing Batch Reactor & Filter

• Moderate cost • Good, but not best, effluent quality
• Relatively easy to phase
Membrane Treatment
• Best effluent quality • Higher cost
o Removes trace organic material
o Thought to be best at removing
pharmaceuticals
• Easiest to phase
6
• More regulatory certainty – regulators
likely to favor this technology into the
future
He described the planning parameters that had been used to project population and wastewater
flows and how they translated into treatment system size and cost. He explained that Jefferson
County had provided population numbers for 2005 and population projections through 2025,
which were then used to develop projections of wastewater flow. The flow projections were
extended to 2030, the planning horizon for this project.
He said that the treatment plant would open in 2010 at the earliest, so “start-up” flows had been
based on population projections for 2010. The start-up flow estimates assumed that all
commercial properties and no residential properties would be sewered in the core planning area.
For the year 2030, a low end estimate of flows assumed that all commercial properties and post-
2010 residences would discharge to sewer. A high end estimate of flows for the year 2030
assumed that all commercial properties and all residences would discharge to sewer. The flow
estimates also assumed certain levels of groundwater seepage, or infiltration, into the sewer pipes
and that gravity sewers would be more susceptible to infiltration than pressure sewers.
Treatment Plant Phasing
Mr. Santroch pointed out that the projected start-up flows in 2010 were roughly 10% of the
projected flows in 2030, meaning a smaller treatment system would be needed in 2010 than in
2030. He said the launching costs would be extremely expensive if a treatment system were
built initially with capacity for 2030 flows. He explained that it would be necessary to build a
smaller system first and expand it as needed. He then described the relative ease of phasing each
of the treatment options:
Oxidation ditch & filter

• There is a regulatory requirement to initially build parallel systems
o It is necessary to build a redundant ditch and filter at the start
o Must build 2/3 of 2030 capacity at start
• Consists of specialized structures that cannot be used for other purposes
• Many small towns who start with this technology abandon it after 15 years
• Does not lend itself to phasing
Sequencing batch reactor & filter

• Can start smaller than oxidation ditch & filter, build 1/4 or even 1/8 of 2030 capacity
• System is composed of basic boxes that are always useful at a treatment plant
• Question is how small to build the initial modules so that it makes sense to add on later
7
Membrane treatment
• Comparable to SBR – can build 1/4 or 1/8 of 2030 capacity at start
• System is composed of basic boxes that are always useful at a treatment plant
• Question is how small to build the initial modules so that it makes sense to add on later
Cost Estimates
Mr. Santroch reviewed a chart of estimated costs for the three treatment technologies. The costs
were broken down to show cumulative cost at each phase. He pointed out that the oxidation
ditch and filter technology could be cost effective if much of the long-term capacity needed were
built upfront. However, he said it could be difficult to launch when starting with no sewer
system in place because of the high upfront costs.
The estimated costs for the membrane system were the highest. Mr. Santroch noted that since
the technology was new, the industry had not settled out yet, so the actual costs could be a bit
higher than shown. He explained that the membranes have to be replaced every 7-10 years and
that the technology uses 50% more energy than the other options because of the energy to clean
the membranes.
Technical Perspectives
Mr. Santroch reviewed a table of criteria including qualitative and cost differences used to
compare the three wastewater treatment technologies. He highlighted the inherent uncertainty
about whether regulators would require effluent quality studies for any of the technologies and
about which technologies could win regulatory approval. He said that one challenge of sewer
planning was to balance effluent quality, regulatory requirements, and costs. He said that the
project team would meet with a representative of the Department of Ecology in June to learn
more about the treatment technologies considered appropriate for the Port Hadlock area.
Mr. Santroch summed up the following technical perspectives about the treatment options:
• Oxidation ditch & filter: Good effluent quality but difficult to phase and high initial costs
• Sequencing batch reactor & filter: Good effluent quality and easy to phase
• Membrane treatment: Best effluent quality, easy to phase, but potentially high cost
Mr. Santroch explained that, from a technical perspective, the engineering team viewed
membrane treatment as the most viable alternative based on its excellent effluent quality and
ease of phasing. He said that the less costly sequencing batch reaction & filter alternative was
considered potentially viable, but that the team would need to investigate whether its effluent
quality was acceptable to regulators and the community. He said that the oxidation ditch & filter
alternative would be very difficult to launch unless a source of funding could be found for the
upfront cost.
8
Disinfection
Mr. Santroch briefly described the alternative methods for disinfecting wastewater effluent, a
required element of the advanced treatment process. The two short-listed alternatives under
consideration were:
• Liquid sodium hypochlorite (chlorine)

• Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection
Mr. Santroch said that UV disinfection was required for marine outfall disposal but not for land
application. He said that the engineering team favored the less costly liquid sodium hypochlorite
alternative. Additionally, a chlorine residual would be required should treatment plant effluent
be used for beneficial reuse such as irrigation.
Solids Disposal
Mr. Santroch provided a brief overview of the options for solids disposal and said the topic
would be addressed in more detail at the next workshop. He said that the Port Townsend
Biosolids/Composting Facility seemed to be a good candidate site for disposing of solids. Other
options included hauling solids to sites in Mason County, Kitsap County, or King County, or
applying the solids to forestland.
Treatment Plant Siting Considerations
Mr. Santroch described the considerations that went into siting a treatment plant. These included
odors, aesthetics, costs, and space for buffer zones. He said that siting was sometimes a
contentious process and that the project team was carefully considering ways to minimize the
impact of a treatment system to the community. He explained that odors and noise could be
controlled and the facility’s appearance could be integrated with the surrounding area, but that
odor and aesthetic mitigation could add 20% to 100% to the cost of the treatment plant. He
noted that sites closer to developed areas required more mitigation. He explained that the
ultimate decision about odor and aesthetic mitigation would be determined by community
preference and cost.

project team’s responses, are grouped by topic below.
Disposal Alternatives
Question: Did you consider using the Indian Island marine outfall for disposal?
9
Response (Dour): We did not look closely at that option because of the extremely high cost to
pump effluent to Indian Island. Also, the Indian Island outfall is permitted for a certain volume
of effluent, and it might need to be re-permitted to accommodate additional flow from Port
Hadlock. Alternatively, the permit might limit the amount of effluent that the Port Hadlock
UGA sewer facility would be able to produce.
Question: Did you consider the impact of the Indian Island outfall on the ability to site a new
marine outfall?
Response (Dour): It would be necessary to conduct many studies to determine the potential
impact of the Indian Island outfall. In particular, the existing fecal coliform count in Port
Townsend bay attributable to the Indian Island outfall might impact the size of the shellfish
closure zone required for a new Port Hadlock outfall.
Question: Are these fecal coliform exposure levels a problem for the shellfish or for the people
who consume the shellfish?
Response (Dour): My understanding is that the risk is to humans who consume shellfish. If the
contaminant is removed from the environment, the shellfish will eventually metabolize the
contaminants that remain in their bodies.
Question: How recently has an outfall been permitted in Puget Sound?

Response (Santroch): I’m not certain, but the regulatory community has been raising the bar
for approval of small systems like this one. It was very difficult for Vashon Island to get
permission to extend an existing outfall, and Island County chose not to explore a marine outfall
for its new treatment plant because it considered approval extremely unlikely. However, the
regulatory community has been less strict about siting new marine outfalls in south Puget Sound.
Question: If tertiary treatment were used, would a marine outfall still cause shellfish issues?
Response (Dour): Yes, although as shown on the map, the shellfish closure zone would
presumably be smaller with tertiary rather than secondary treatment. Permitting could still be a
challenge even with tertiary treatment.
Question: Will tertiary treatment be necessary regardless of the disposal option selected?
Response (Dour): We believe that is the case.
Comment: I would like to see further consideration of the marine outfall disposal option. It
seems like a potentially viable, lower cost alternative.
Response (Dour): If there is interest, we will look into it further.
Response (Santroch): I would caution that, although a marine outfall is the traditional
discharge method, the engineering team thinks it is an unlikely option for this project because of
the need for a shellfish closure zone. A Department of Health official indicated to us that a
marine outfall could potentially be permitted, but that with the most advanced membrane
treatment plant a shellfish closure zone with a minimum radius of 900 feet would be required and
that extensive studies would be required to determine the impacts.
10
Question: Have you looked at combinations of disposal options, such as slow-rate infiltration
combined with constructed wetlands? Wetlands are of strategic importance to the EPA, so
including wetlands may open up some federal funding.
Response (Dour): We have not considered that, although it might be possible. We will have
our financial specialist look into that kind of funding.
Disposal – Recharge/Reuse Issues
Question: Have you looked at the direction of groundwater flow?

Response (Santroch): We will look at that more closely as we move forward.
Comment: If disposal were at the site near the elementary school and airstrip, the effluent
would flow away from Chimacum Creek rather than providing recharge.
Response (Wheeler): As we understand it, discharge from that site would flow in the direction
of the creek. If that site were selected, we would investigate the issue further.
Comment: Recharge is very important. We need to put as much clean water back in the ground
as possible. A study by the U.S. Geological Survey showed groundwater flow from the east side
of Chimacum Creek towards the bay, so I am very concerned that discharge east of the creek
would not recharge the creek.
Response (Dour): We will investigate that further.
Comment: The potential disposal site near Cotton Redi-Mix is only a few feet higher than the
creek and the wetlands adjacent to the creek. The selection of a disposal site will depend on the
results of specific hydrogeological studies.
Question: How do areas with gravel lenses that accept water very quickly influence the level of
treatment that is required? Do some areas accept water so quickly that they cannot be used for
discharge?
Response (Dour): Either those areas cannot be used or the effluent must be treated to a very
advanced degree.
Response (Santroch): The question of how quickly to allow effluent into the ground is
important. It will be addressed at our meeting with the Department of Ecology in June. Water
reuse is still relatively new in Washington. It was approved in 1997 and there have been roughly
6-10 projects in the state. The regulations are still evolving, so there is a lot of room for
negotiation with regulators. We recently did a disposal study for Island County where the soil is
tight, glacial till that accepts water slowly. In that instance, rapid-rate infiltration was not
feasible, but slow-rate infiltration was a good option. Here in the Irondale/Port Hadlock area,
rapid-rate infiltration is being considered because of the high acceptance rate of the soil, but the
regulatory community will ultimately determine what is acceptable.
Question: Can you discharge membrane-treated effluent to a lake?

Response (Santroch): Discharging to a lake is possible with very advanced treatment
requirements, but such an approach is unlikely due to environmental, regulatory, and cost
concerns.
11
Question: Could the County buy a lake, like Peterson Lake at the headwaters of Chimacum
Creek, and discharge to the lake to recharge the creek?
Response (Santroch): Peterson Lake is uphill and far from the sewer planning area, so the cost
of the sewer system would increase. Discharging effluent would promote eutrophication of the
lake, because some amount of nitrogen and phosphorous will be present. It is possible to remove
all of those nutrients, but it is expensive.
Comment: For disposal siting, it may be important to take existing and potential future wells
into account.
Comment: If there are levels of toxics that are not detectable, but can still be harmful, maybe its
best to move discharge away from drinking water sources. Perhaps a marine outfall is a better
option.
Response (Dour): Right now, the septic tanks in the area discharging out of drainfields to
groundwater. The treatment technologies proposed here would remove more toxics than are
removed now.
Comment: Even if more toxics are removed, the speed at which infiltration would occur is an
important factor to consider.
Comment: John Cambalik at the Puget Sound Action Team has some data about the effect of
septage on water quality in Port Hadlock.
Response (Dour): That kind of information could improve our ability to get funding. We will
try to get it from him.
Question: Does membrane treatment technology produce drinking water?

Response (Santroch): The kind of membrane technology used for sewage treatment does not
produce drinking water-quality effluent. Membrane technology is used in drinking water
treatment, but nobody goes straight from wastewater treatment to drinking water, as far as I
know.
Question: What kind of treatment removes pharmaceuticals from wastewater?

Response (Santroch): That is a cutting edge question. There are no definitive answers yet, but
membrane technology is thought to do a better job of removing pharmaceuticals than other
technologies. Membrane technology is very much in favor with regulatory agencies because it
removes trace organic material and pathogenic bacteria.
Question: You said that the oxidation ditch & filter alternative worked well for small treatment
systems. Can you quantify small?
Response (Santroch): That technology can handle an upper limit of about 5 million gallons per
day (MGD).
Question: Where has phased construction of a treatment plant been done successfully? Where
has a treatment plant started small and expanded to a target size?
12
Response (Santroch): The engineer has to design the system to be easy to expand. Existing
treatment plants that can be expanded are between 10 and 15 years old, so they haven’t had to
expand yet. Kingston has a system that is similar to the kind proposed here. Also, in a UGA
similar to the one here, Thurston County put in a single oxidation ditch and two clarifiers. The
County fronted the cost for the excess capacity, which is being paid off by latecomers. In
another location, two ditches and two clarifiers were installed, but the regulatory community
paid for the redundant set because they were nervous about the risks of having only one
treatment path. I don’t know of any SBR systems that have had to expand yet.
Question: If we started with SBR, and the membrane technology became preferred over time,
could we mix and match the technologies?
Response (Santroch): Yes. The deep square tanks that are used with SBR and membrane
technologies are always useful in a treatment plant setting.
Question: Would it be feasible to start with a small membrane system with a cost of $5-6
million?
Response (Santroch): Yes, absolutely. It’s just a matter of how large the tanks are and how
many you will need in the end. The largest standard membrane tank size handles 100,000
gallons per day. Some tanks are steel, and the bigger ones are concrete. If you wanted, you
could build a treatment facility over time with many small steel tanks that would need to be
replaced in 20 years.
Question: Is ozone an option for disinfection?

Response (Santroch): Ozone was used around 1980, but it did not work well. The energy costs
are high, and ozone is an unstable, reactive, and dangerous substance.
Response (Wheeler): Ozone disinfection is used in potable water systems and fish hatcheries.
The costs and practicalities simply have not worked well with sewage treatment.
Question: Does membrane treatment control odor better?

Response (Santroch): The risk of odor is equivalent for all three technologies.
Population & Flow Rate Projections
Question: What percentage rate did the County use for its population projections?
Response (Santroch): I’m not sure exactly, but it’s a couple of percent. It’s the County’s GMA
projection figure.
Question: Why do you expect groundwater to leak into the sewer pipes?
Response (Santroch): Infiltration is a common phenomenon. Pipe joints, manhole lids, and
other components leak. Pipes underneath people’s houses leak.
Response (Wheeler): We have assumed some level of infiltration and inflow. Inflow can be
from illegal hook-ups from roof drains, for example, or from a maintenance hole that is too low.
As good as the engineering standards are these days, infiltration and inflow still happens.
Question: What happens in an area that doesn’t have a stormwater system?
13
Response (Wheeler): Inspectors don’t know what happens on private property sometimes.
Some people will have stormwater problems, and they may dump in the sewer.
Response (Santroch): The good news is that current water use in the core planning area is
approximately 50,000 gallons per day and we wouldn’t expect to see 95,000 gallons per day
because of infiltration and inflow during the first rainy season. Sewers deteriorate over time. If
your system is tight, you might need a smaller treatment facility. In addition, our numbers are
based on the assumption that the sewer lines are in the groundwater area. But our hydrogeologist
said that the water table here is relatively low, so our flow estimates may be too conservative.
There is a fair chance that the flow would not reach the high end of our estimates, but if we make
that assumption, there is a risk of building the treatment plant too small. It is also uncertain how
quickly this community will grow.
Question: Who is your hydrogeologist?

Response (Santroch): Arnie Sugar with HWA is on our team.
Question: Many municipalities have problems with combined sewer overflows. How will that
be dealt with here?
Response (Santroch): This is not a combined system; it does not include stormwater.
Question: What about the influence of infiltration and inflow?
Response (Santroch): We have increased our estimates of treatment plant capacity by a factor
of about two to account for infiltration and inflow. In a combined system, that could be a factor
of four or five. This will be a sanitary system in Port Hadlock.
Response (Wheeler): Although a few people will probably put stormwater into the sewer
illegally, it will not happen throughout the whole system. Usually this kind of a system does not
experience combined system overflows. Over time, however, infiltration and inflow problems
might develop.
Comment: The Port Hadlock UGA stormwater plan is based on a minimal need to manage
stormwater because the soils absorb so well. That is not to say that problem areas don’t exist or
that they won’t increase as impervious surface area increases.
Comment: I’m concerned about creating a surface water problem because water is being lost to
the sewer pipes.
Response (Santroch): The amount of water that infiltrates is a tiny fraction; it’s to about the
fourth decimal place.
Question: Is there a risk of wastewater leaking out of pressurized pipes into the ground?
Response (Santroch): Yes, that is a risk. It should be noted that public pipes tend to leak much
less than pipes on private property.

Mr. Wheeler stated that the attendees seemed to prefer the two infiltration options for disposal,
with some interest in a marine outfall. He said that the attendees also seemed to agree that the
membrane technology was of interest for treatment, but that the sequencing batch reactor & filter
14
alternative should be further explored. The attendees agreed that these were their preferences.
One participant said that the oxidation ditch & filter treatment alternative would be of interest if
someone would front the cost.
Mr. Wheeler noted that the next stakeholder workshop that would focus on combined
alternatives of wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal would be held on June 22.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:10 pm.
Workshop Attendance
The stakeholder workshop was attended by County Commissioner David Sullivan (District 2).
Additional attendees are listed below.
Name Affiliation
Nancy Dorgan Citizen
Craig Durgan Citizen
Alan Goodwin Citizens for the UGA/Community United Methodist Church
Elaine Goodwin Citizens for the UGA/Community United Methodist Church
Paula Mackrow North Olympic Salmon Coalition
Jim Parker Jefferson PUD #1
Jim Pivarnik Port of Port Townsend
Mike Regan Irondale Community Action Neighbors
Jim Strong Hadlock Building Supply
TetraTech/KCM

15
SUMMARY
Public Workshop on Alternatives Review
(Public Workshop #3)
June 22, 2006, 1 PM – 3 PM

Port Townsend Fire Station
701 Harrison Street
collection, treatment, and disposal/reuse of wastewater, 2) the service area, 3) the phasing and
implementation of sewers throughout the service area, 4) the anticipated cost for individual
connections to sewer, and 5) revenue sources. The goal of the study is to produce a sewer
facilities plan that will help the County plan for growth in the area over the next 20 years; that
will satisfy RCW 36.94 concerning County’s sewerage, water, and drainage system
responsibilities; and that will be approved by the Department of Ecology.
Workshop Summary
A public workshop was held at the Port Townsend Fire Station on Thursday, June 22 from 1:00
pm to 3:00 pm. The workshop was open to the public.

• Present combined system alternatives
• Present technical recommendations
• Decide preferred alternative
leaders and other interested parties were invited to the workshop. The County had identified
community organizations and citizens who had been active previously in the process to establish
a UGA. These parties were contacted by mail. A notice of the workshop was available on the
project website (www.porthadlocksewer.org), the County’s website, and in the Port Townsend
Leader.
County Commissioner David Sullivan (District 2) and County Commissioner Pat Rodgers
(District 3) attended the workshop. The consultants to the County were represented by Kevin
Dour, P.E. and Jim Santroch, P.E. of TetraTech/KCM and Bob Wheeler and Ellen Blair of
Triangle Associates. A complete list of workshop participants is attached to this summary.

explained the purpose of the workshop. He reviewed the workshop agenda and the steps that
would lead to selection of a complete sewer system, including public involvement opportunities,
technical work, and the development of cost estimates and funding options.
Mr. Wheeler announced that project information could be found and comments could be
submitted at the project website, www.porthadlocksewer.org.
Overview of Recent Developments

Mr. Dour, consultant team project manager, indicated the sewer service area boundaries on a
map, including the 6-year planning area, or core area, and the 20-year planning area. His
PowerPoint presentation is attached to this summary. He then reported on new developments for
issues that were raised at the previous public workshop on May 25.
• Hydrogeology – Groundwater & Creek Flows

Mr. Dour reviewed a question about the potential contribution of land-based effluent
disposal/reuse to the recharge of Chimacum Creek. The consultant team had done a rough
calculation with available data to estimate the order of magnitude of creek recharge. The
team found that with the estimated number of initial sewer participants in 2010, land-based
disposal/reuse might contribute 0.5% of the creek’s flow on average, and up to 1% during
low flows. In 2030, assuming full participating in the sewer system, land-based
disposal/reuse could contribute 10% of creek flow on average, and up to 20% during the
lowest flows.
• Ecology Meeting – Marine Outfall & Project Teaming

As announced at the previous public workshop on May 25, the project team met with a
representative of the Department of Ecology on June 13. Mr. Dour reported that the project
team had learned that Department of Ecology policy stipulates that no marine outfall may be
permitted if a reasonably viable alternative exists for disposal of treated effluent. Mr. Dour
said that since viable land-based disposal/reuse methods existed, a marine outfall was no
longer under consideration. He said the project team and the Department of Ecology
representative had identified methods of coordination to ensure the most efficient and
successful development of the sewer facilities plan.
• Phasing – Initial Treatment Systems
2
Mr. Dour said that in response to stakeholder interest in using small, skid-mounted starter
treatment plants to minimize sewer start-up costs, further investigation had been done and it
had shown that such starter treatment plants would provide adequate capacity for only two or
three years. The consultant team thought it more prudent to build a permanent facility of
adequate size at the outset that would be of service longer and can be expanded to
accommodate future phases of sewer system development.
• Treatment Cost – Refinements

Mr. Dour said that further investigation, research, and detailed cost estimating had shown
that membrane bioreactor (MBR) treatment likely would be no more than 20% more costly
that sequencing batch reactor & filter (SBR) treatment, in contrast to the 20 – 100% range
that had been reported at the May 25 workshop.
• Solids Disposal Costs – Contract Disposal

Mr. Dour reported that the Port Townsend composting facility had been posited as the most
promising option for solids disposal at the May 25 workshop. He said that further
investigation had shown that contract disposal with a company called Biorecycle appeared to
be the most economical option, and, at least at the onset, substantially less costly than the
Port Townsend composting facility option.
Development of Recommended Alternative from Technical Perspective

Mr. Dour reviewed the technical perspectives on collection and discharge that had been
presented at the previous public workshop. He explained that, from a technical perspective, the
consultant team now preferred the gravity collection system to the pressure collection system, at
least at the outset in the core area. He said that while gravity entailed somewhat higher start-up
costs, the total cost of a pressure system would be more after eight to ten years (including capital
costs, on-site costs, and operations & maintenance costs). He noted that by starting with gravity,
the community would have flexibility in choosing between gravity and pressure in the outlying
areas.
Mr. Dour said that the consultant team now recommended rapid-rate infiltration for effluent
discharge, as opposed to a marine outfall or slow-rate infiltration. He reiterated the Department
of Ecology’s policy restricting the approval of marine outfalls, and he noted that rapid-rate
infiltration would require a smaller footprint on the land and cost less than slow-rate infiltration.
Mr. Santroch reviewed the technical perspectives on wastewater treatment that had been
presented at the May 25 workshop. He said that these perspectives had remained unchanged. He
said that MBR was still the recommended treatment alternative because of its superior effluent
quality, but that SBR remained a viable alternative that had a lower estimated cost. Mr. Santroch
explained that chemical compounds from pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs)
were being detected in effluent from wastewater treatment plants, and that stories of these
compounds causing water quality problems in streams, despite concentrations almost too low to
detect, were on the rise. He noted that MBR was the most effective treatment technology for
removing PPCPs and that the consultant team thought MBR was worth pursuing since the treated
3
effluent for the Irondale/Port Hadlock sewer system would eventually reach groundwater that
would likely make its way to Chimacum Creek.
Mr. Santroch reviewed the technical perspectives on solids handling that had been presented at
the May 25 workshop. He reiterated the point that private, contract disposal appeared to be a
better, more economical alternative than hauling to the Port Townsend composting facility. He
explained that hauling to another public treatment facility, such as Poulsbo, Bremerton, or
Renton, would be more costly. He said forest application would also be costly as additional
solids treatment would be required. Mr. Santroch showed a chart comparing the estimated,
planning-level costs of each solids handling alternative. He noted that the solids handling costs
constituted just a fraction of the estimated costs for treatment and other sewer system
components, and thus would have less influence on the total sewer system cost.
Mr. Dour reviewed the components of the technical recommendation and the main advantages of
each:
• Collection
o Gravity Collection in core area
o Gravity in outlying areas
o Have flexibility to use STEP or grinder pumps in outlying areas
o More reliable, convenient, and economical in the long term
• Treatment
o MBR for treatment technology
o Provides best effluent quality on a consistent basis, easily expandable
o Appropriate odor control & aesthetics
• Effluent Disposal/Reuse
o Rapid Rate Infiltration
o Least costly and easy to implement, has smallest footprint
• Solids Handling
o Contracted haul and disposal to Biorecycle Co. in South Kitsap County
o Least costly, can change strategy as system develops
Sewer System Implementation

Mr. Dour described the planning assumptions that were made to project how the sewer system
would be implemented. He showed a map with six color-coded planning subareas and explained
that the core area was expected to develop first, followed by the Rhody Drive area, and
subsequently the outlying residential areas. He emphasized that these were planning
assumptions, which would not dictate how development actually occurred.
Mr. Dour reviewed a table that showed the estimated year that each planning subarea would be
sewered, along with the assumed sewered acreage, the assumed number of sewered equivalent
residential units (ERUs), and the estimated maximum monthly flow for each planning subarea.
He explained that adding up the planning subareas resulted in a total maximum average daily
flow estimated at about one million gallons per day (gpd) by 2030. Mr. Dour noted that the
4
estimated schedule might be more aggressive than actual development, but that the GMA
required the sewer facilities plan to show how sewer system would be implemented over 20
years.
Mr. Dour used a graph to illustrate the rates at which the project team anticipated the local
population would connect to the sewer system. This graph was developed using population
forecast data provided by the Jefferson County Planning Department. The graph showed several
lines representing different data in support of the team’s assumptions and analysis. The graph
showed a line representing the residential population forecast in the Port Hadlock area from the
County planning numbers. The graph also showed a line representing an anticipated equivalent
population from commercial growth in the area in relation to the residential population forecast.
Finally, the graph showed a line representing the population anticipated to be connected to
sewers starting in the year 2010, through 2030 (the 20-year planning horizon), and on to area
buildout. The line representing the population anticipated to be connected to sewers was
developed using a compound rate of growth, rather than a linear rate, which was standard for
most planning efforts and was in agreement with the method used by Jefferson County Planning
to forecast the residential population in the area.
Sewer System Costs

Mr. Dour presented a series of charts that showed estimated, planning level, 20-year life cycle
costs for each collection alternative, treatment alternative, and disposal/reuse alternative. The
estimated costs were broken down to show cumulative cost at each phase of implementation.
Mr. Santroch explained that the plan was to build two treatment trains at Phase 1, 20-day storage
at Phase 2, and two additional treatment trains at Phase 3. He said that with further research he
expected to be able to reduce the estimated, planning level cost for wastewater treatment.
Mr. Santroch pointed out the relative magnitude of the total estimated costs, noting that the
collection technology was on the order of $100 million for all phases over 20 years, treatment
was on the order of $30 million for all phases over 20 years, and the disposal/reuse options were
on the order of less than $5 million for all phases over 20 years. He explained that choosing
different alternatives for collection or treatment would have far more impact on total system cost
than choosing different disposal/reuse options.
Mr. Santroch then showed a chart that compared the total estimated, planning level, 20-year life
cycle costs for the following four sewer system alternatives (all systems were assumed to use
rapid infiltration disposal/reuse, sodium hypochlorite disinfection, and private contract solids
handling):
• Gravity system/MBR treatment

• STEP system/MBR treatment
• Gravity system/SBR treatment
• STEP system/MBR treatment
5
The costs were broken down by sewer system component: collection, treatment, disinfection,
effluent disposal/reuse, and solids handling. Mr. Santroch pointed out that the estimated,
planning level, Phase 1 20-year life cycle cost of the least expensive alternative, STEP
system/SBR treatment, was $26 million, while the estimated, planning level, Phase 1 20-year life
cycle cost of the recommended and most costly alternative, gravity system/MBR treatment, was
$34 million.
For the gravity collection/MBR treatment alternative, Mr. Dour used a chart to show the
cumulative system-wide cost at different points over 20 years. A second chart showed the cost
per ERU at different points over 20 years. Mr. Dour demonstrated that as more users were
connected to the sewer system, the lower the estimated cost per ERU was. He explained that a
goal for the financing plan was to make the cost per ERU for the early sewer customers
equivalent to what the cost per ERU would be after 20 years when many more customers would
be connected.
Sewer Facility Siting

Mr. Dour showed a map of potential sites for wastewater treatment facilities and/or effluent
disposal/reuse facilities. He said that the treatment facility and the disposal/reuse facility could
be sited at the same or separate locations. The five potential sites were at or near the following
locations:
• Sheriff’s Facility
• H.J. Carroll Park Vicinity
• Central Port Hadlock (near Mason St. and Cedar Ave.)
• Jefferson County Airport
• Chimacum High School
Mr. Dour reviewed a slide of the advantages and drawbacks of each potential location. He said
that based on cost considerations, the suitability based on surrounding land uses, and mitigation
requirements, the consultant team was currently focused on the Sheriff’s facility as the best
alternative, with the H.J. Carroll Park vicinity as a potential back-up. He said that more analysis
would be done to better understand the sites’ suitability for treatment and/or disposal/reuse
facilities. Mr. Wheeler noted that an area near H.J. Carroll Park, not the park itself, was being
considered as a treatment facility site. He said the project team was aware that wetlands in the
area could potentially impact facility siting.

project team’s responses, are grouped by topic below.
6
Sewer System Costs
Comment: Although a gravity collection system would cost less than pressure in the long-run, it
would mean higher initial costs.
Question: Would homeowners be responsible for onsite operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs associated with STEP systems?
Response (Dour): We assumed that homeowners would not be individually responsible for
those costs, and we included those O&M costs in our sewer system cost estimates. My
experience has been that STEP tanks are considered part of the treatment system that is
maintained by the sewer authority.
Comment: While certain sewer system components may be less expensive in the long run or
they may be technologically superior, we have to face what can be financed up front. That
hurdle may dictate some of the components that we choose in the end.
Question: On the graph of treatment cost estimates, do you add the bars together to get the total
cost, or are the bars cumulative over time?
Response (Santroch): These are cumulative, present-worth costs, not additive costs.
Collection System Considerations
Question: Don’t STEP and gravity systems both require pump stations?
Response (Dour): With a STEP system, there is actually a little pump on every customer’s
property. With STEP, those pumps could probably generate enough pressure so that a large
influent pump station would be unnecessary. That might be the case for a grinder system as
well, but we would have to look at the hydraulics. With gravity, all of the wastewater flows
downhill to a low point and is then pumped uphill at a pump station, so a gravity system would
probably require a few larger pump stations.
Comment: It can be difficult to access private property. It would be a problem if the sewer
authority were responsible for maintenance of STEP or grinder equipment on private property.
Also, if property owners are not responsible for the equipment on their own property, they will
be less vigilant about preventing problems. Maybe there is space in the street right of way so
equipment wouldn’t have to be on private property.
Wastewater Treatment Considerations
Question: Is there any difference in reliability between the MBR and SBR treatment systems?
For example, does one perform better during power outages?
Response (Santroch): Both federal and state regulatory agencies have standards and guidelines
to ensure reliable service. Treatment plants are required to have a back-up generator to ensure
that plant operation is continuous. The treatment system for the Irondale/Port Hadlock area will
be subject to other requirements as well, since the effluent will be discharged to land and
therefore to groundwater. To build redundancy into the treatment system, it is necessary to
7
construct either a storage pond to hold untreated wastewater or an additional treatment train
beyond the facility’s intended capacity to be used in the event of a treatment system malfunction.
Whether to use “n plus one” treatment trains or storage is a design judgment.
That said, past experience has shown that during treatment process disruptions, such as power
outages, MBR systems may provide greater protection of effluent quality than SBR systems
provide. At this point in the planning process, the consultant team has not looked in detail at
potential differences in reliability. As system design moves forward, I will further investigate
the factors involved in keeping the treatment system running smoothly.
Question: Have you considered using a biomembrane system? In this system, there is a
biological film on the surface of the membrane, so a biological reaction and the straining action
happen simultaneously.
Response (Santroch): I am not familiar with that technology, but I would be interested in
talking with you about it after the workshop.
Question: Is there a significant difference in energy costs between SBR and MBR?
Response (Santroch): Vendors currently tell us that MBR has 50% higher energy costs. A few
years ago they said it was 100% higher.
Question: When biosolids are shipped out, do they still have germs or are they clean?
Response (Santroch): The biosolids would be partially stabilized before they are shipped away,
but they would not be dewatered or disinfected at that point. We have found that there would be
a tremendous initial capital investment required to do additional dewatering and stabilization.
The design team has made a strategic call that it makes financial sense to contract out the hauling
and reuse of the facility’s biosolids. One identified contractor, Kitsap Biorecycle, mixes the
biosolids with lime to produce an “artificial soil.” This soil is then applied to fields and
immediately plowed under to minimize the potential for odors and pests.
Question: The location of the treatment facility has not been determined yet, but wouldn’t the
site affect the phasing plan?
Response (Dour): Not necessarily. Wastewater will be collected to a given point, and then the
question will just be whether it has to be pumped a short distance or a long distance. I would
note that it takes a lot of energy to pump water.
Question: Why did you assume that the ratio of residential to commercial development would
be 60:40?
Response (Dour): That is the current breakdown in the Irondale/Port Hadlock area. We also
looked at the current zoning of the sewer planning area and the water usage trends for those land
uses and came up with an estimated 60:40 ratio for future growth. We also looked at Winslow,
which is a UGA similar in size and character to the UGA proposed in the Irondale/Port Hadlock
area, and the ratio there is 60:40.
Question: Why are you planning a single treatment plant? Why not multiple smaller treatment
facilities?
8
Response (Santroch): There are some regulations that relate to that question. If a system
handles more than 15,000 gallons per day, it is regulated by the Department of Ecology, and the
Department of Ecology tends to avoid having multiple facilities. There is also some economy of
scale to building a single, large facility versus several smaller facilities. A treatment facility is
very expensive relative to each connection when there are only a few customers, but it gets
relatively cheaper per connection when there are more customers. For example, a single
treatment facility can be quadrupled in size over time for double the original price.
Comment: Some other states have started to use multiple smaller treatment facilities and it has
worked well for them.
Response (Santroch): I have read about such facilities at Cape Cod, although the authority that
managed them had mixed results. If the Irondale/Port Hadlock community wants to go that
route, the regulatory community would probably approve it since it’s the community’s money. If
Jefferson County is interested in multiple, smaller treatment facilities, we would certainly
investigate them.
Question: Is there an advantage to building an extra treatment train instead of a storage pond, in
that you can shut down one train for maintenance and use the extra train in the interim?
Response (Santroch): Yes, absolutely.
Question: The treatment facility in Bremerton smelled very bad. How would this treatment
facility be different?
Response (Santroch): The Bremerton facility had a “trickling filter” through which air was
blown. That is a system prone to odor problems. The technology we are recommending would
not have the same level of air/water contact which causes odor. Although the treatment
technologies would be different, we are using the Port Townsend wastewater treatment facility as
a model for aesthetic and odor mitigation planning.
Solids Handling Considerations
Question: Are there multiple providers for contract hauling? You have to go out to bid, and
there should be competitors. Also, the provider being considered now might go out of business.
Response (Santroch): Yes there are five other independent providers. Olympus Terrace Sewer
District went out to bid they received five bids.
Effluent Disposal/Reuse Considerations
Question: Are there any health risks associated with rapid rate infiltration?
Response (Dour): The effluent will be disinfected prior to being discharged.
Siting Considerations
Question: Are the potential locations you’re showing for treatment or discharge?
Response (Dour): The potential locations could be for treatment or discharge or both. Nothing
has been decided at this point. Treatment and discharge can happen at the same site or at
separate sites, it’s just a matter of moving wastewater from place to place.
9
Question: How big a footprint is required at the treatment and/or disposal/reuse site?
Response (Santroch): If you decide to build storage, which can take up to about 8 acres, the
total acreage could be about 16 acres. Without storage, the footprint would be smaller.
Comment: We have a dearth of developable land inside of the proposed urban growth area. My
concern is that the “Central Site,” one of the potential locations for treatment and/or
disposal/reuse, is an area that needs to be available for development. Development would bring
in more sewer users who would help pay for the sewer system. It would not be a good location
for sewer facilities.
Comment: A good thing about the Sheriff’s facility site is that the nearby ballfields provide an
opportunity for water reuse. The ballfields use a lot of water. It would be important to let people
know that the treated water is clean enough for reuse.
Question: Are you looking at public land for the potential site near the Sheriff’s facility?
Response (Dour): That is the ideal.
Comment: There are some private properties there, too.
Comment: Kivley Well is near the Sheriff’s facility. You would have to careful to not impact
the well.
Response (Dour): Yes, we would look carefully at the hydrology of the area. Also, there are
regulations and required setbacks to protect wells.
Question: Have buffers for wetlands been considered already for the potential sites?
Response (Santroch): Yes.
Comment: I know the focus is currently on the Sheriff’s facility alternative with the H.J. Carroll
Park vicinity as a potential back-up. Since it’s hard to ensure that a proposed site will actually be
acquired, maybe we should rank our priorities for the rest of the potential sites.
Comment: I think the Jefferson County Airport is a good alternative. There may be some
advantage to working out an arrangement with the Port of Port Townsend. The Port is interested
in getting sewer service and they might be willing to host the wastewater facilities in exchange.
Comment: I have experience working with the Port, and I would be very concerned about FAA
and waterfowl issues at the Jefferson County Airport.
Comment: Perhaps a storage pond would not be allowed at the airport site, but the tanks could
be covered.
Comment: Think carefully about whether to use the airport site, because that site could be
beneficial for development in the county in the long run.
Comment: I oppose the Central Port Hadlock site, because the community has expressed
interest through visioning processes in commercial and multi-family development in that area.
10
Comment: If either the Chimacum High School site or Jefferson County Airport site were used,
there would be very strong community concern about development expanding down Rhody
Drive.
Comment: At the Chimacum High School Site, there’s a setback for the creek that may limit
the amount of space available for a wastewater facility.
Question: Some time ago there was a discussion about the mill tying into the sewer system and
sharing its treatment and marine outfall capacity. Is that still under consideration?
Response (Wheeler): The mill is between five and eight miles away and over a hill from the
sewer planning area. Pumping wastewater that far and over a hill is a huge cost. It would likely
be a challenge to permit additional discharge via the marine outfall, especially because the mill
does not currently process wastewater so sharing facilities would introduce shellfish protection
issues.
Comment: Jefferson PUD #1 is planning to conduct a groundwater study, including modeling

and field observations, for the Chimacum Creek Basin. The sewer project team should contact
Bill Graham to coordinate on what information is need.
Sewer System Planning
Comment: Looking at your graph of growth of residential and non-residential ERUs, I think the
commercial areas would be sewered faster than you show because there is a lot of pent up
demand. However, I think the residential areas would be sewered more slowly than you show,
since people will not be required to connect to sewer if they have a functioning septic system.
Growth in sewer system connections could be more of a step function.
Response (Dour): Yes, we have made many assumptions in estimating how the sewer system
will grow. We have made certain assumptions about how quickly people will hook up to the
sewer system, but it may be that one or more of the treatment system expansions create adequate
capacity for longer than we show here.
Comment: I think commercial and multi-family residential development will grow faster than
shown here.
Response (Dour): That is certainly possible. The way we developed the 12.4% growth curve of
the number of sewered ERUs was to look at the estimated number of initial users and the
estimated number of users at the end of the 20-year planning period and basically connect those
two dots. We assumed a compound growth rate to get the curve you see here.

Mr. Wheeler thanked the attendees for their input and said that it would help the consultant team
to refine the recommended sewer system alternative to present at a public open house in July.
Mr. Wheeler asked if, based on the regulations governing marine outfall, it was appropriate to
drop marine outfall from consideration for effluent disposal and focus on rapid-rate infiltration.
The attendees agreed that it was. The attendees also agreed that it was appropriate to focus on
11
gravity as the recommended collection technology in the core area, with a focus on gravity in the
outlying areas but the possibility of using a pressure system instead
The meeting was adjourned at 3:20 pm.
Workshop Attendance
The public workshop was attended by County Commissioner David Sullivan (District 2) and
County Commissioner Pat Rodgers (District 3). Additional attendees are listed below.
Name Affiliation
Vanessa Brower Citizens for the UGA
Linda Germeau Kitsap Bank
Syd Lipton Citizen
Dana Roberts Jefferson PUD #1
Allen Sartin Jefferson County, Central Services
TetraTech/KCM

12
SUMMARY
Stakeholder Workshop on Cost and Financing
October 10, 2006, 1 PM – 3 PM

Jefferson County Courthouse
collection, treatment, and disposal/reuse of wastewater, 2) the sewer service area, 3) the phasing
and implementation of sewers throughout the service area, 4) the anticipated cost for individual
connections to sewer, and 5) potential revenue and funding sources. The goal of the study is to
produce a sewer facility plan that will help the County plan for growth in the area over the next
20 years; that will satisfy RCW 36.94 concerning Counties’ sewerage, water, and drainage
system responsibilities; and that will be approved by the Department of Ecology.
Workshop Summary
A public workshop was held at the Jefferson County Courthouse on Tuesday, October 10 from
1:00 pm to 3:00 pm. The workshop was open to the public.

• Present developments & design refinements to the preferred sewer system alternative
• Present the cost estimate
• Provide information on financing strategies
leaders and other interested parties were invited to the workshop. The County had identified
community organizations and citizens who had been active previously in the process to establish
a UGA. These parties were contacted by mail. A notice of the workshop was available on the
project website (www.porthadlocksewer.org), the County’s website, and in the Port Townsend
Leader.
County Commissioner Phil Johnson (District 1), County Commissioner David Sullivan (District
2), and County Commissioner Pat Rodgers (District 3) attended the workshop. The consultants
to the County were represented by Kevin Dour, P.E. and Jim Santroch, P.E. of TetraTech/KCM,
Katy Isaksen of Katy Isaksen & Associates, and Bob Wheeler, P.E. and Ellen Blair of Triangle
Associates. A complete list of workshop participants is attached to this summary.

explained the purpose of the workshop. He reviewed the workshop agenda and outlined the
steps that would lead to the completed sewer facility plan, including public involvement
opportunities, technical work, and the development of cost estimates and funding options. He
distributed a handout that defined acronyms and abbreviations used in the presentation.
Mr. Wheeler announced that project information could be found and comments could be
submitted at the project website, www.porthadlocksewer.org.
Mr. Wheeler thanked the participants for their on-going participation in the sewer facility plan
process. He said that the valuable input the County and the consultant team had received had
helped them to identify and refine the preferred sewer system alternative.
Mr. Wheeler summarized the purpose of planning a sewer system for the Port Hadlock UGA.
He highlighted the following reasons:
• Responsible, proactive planning for population growth under the auspices of the Growth
Management Act
• Environmental protection
o Chimacum Creek
o Shellfish beds
• Allows denser development in designated areas
o Development to planned densities
To preface the cost estimate and financing strategy presentation, Mr. Wheeler said it was
important to recognize that brand new sewer systems were inherently expensive. He noted that
the substantial capital cost of building a whole new sewer system was incurred in the beginning
when the fewest customers were participating and sharing the cost, which made it challenging to
start a new system.
Mr. Wheeler explained that sewer planning to date had produced some of the “facts” about what
a sewer system might cost and what financing strategies would be available. He emphasized that
the critical next step after developing the “facts” would be to investigate innovative financing
strategies and to apply for funding, in other words to do the “artwork.” He explained that an
approved sewer facility plan would make the project eligible for a variety of funding programs.
He mentioned the following four types of funding assistance as examples:
• Grants
• Congressional/legislative line items
2
• Low interest loans

• Low income assistance
Mr. Wheeler noted that the cost estimates to be presented could change in the future as the work
of detailed final design, obtaining funding, and deciding on financing strategies proceeded.
Recent Developments & Design Refinements to Preferred Alternative

Mr. Dour, consultant team project manager, briefly described the components of the preferred
sewer system alternative and the reasons for their selection. The PowerPoint workshop
presentation is attached to this summary. Mr. Dour reported that potential locations for the
wastewater treatment plant had been narrowed to the southern portion of the UGA, in the vicinity
of the Sheriff’s Facility. He said that a site for the influent pump station, the station that would
pump the wastewater collected from the entire system to the treatment plant, had been identified
near Ness’ Corner Road and Shotwell Rd. Mr. Dour displayed two maps that showed the area of
the potential treatment plant locations and the approximate site of the influent pump station.
To optimize financing and development of the sewer system, Mr. Dour said that the consultant
team had estimated the wastewater treatment plant costs year by year and had shifted the timing
of costs further into the future whenever possible. This strategy was to attempt to lower the
initial cost of the system in the earlier years when fewer participants would be connected. He
said that the consultant team’s hydrogeologist was continuing to work to ensure that the selected
disposal method would direct the treated, Class A treatment plant effluent to a beneficial use. He
said that the intent was to recharge groundwater that flowed to Chimacum Creek, thus
augmenting creek flow.
System Financing & Planning Process

Mr. Dour gave an overview of the plan to phase implementation of sewer service into the UGA,
with the initial service area to be centered around the Port Hadlock commercial core. He
described the requirement that sewer facility plan contain identified funding sources and
financing strategies.
Mr. Dour said that the County and the community would have the opportunity to decide whether
or not to move forward with implementation once the sewer facility plan was approved.
Updated Capital Cost through 2018

Mr. Dour presented the updated estimate for the capital cost of sewer facilities through 2018.
The facilities would serve the core commercial area and Rhody Drive during this initial phase.
There would be some additional treatment facility capacity available for future residential areas.
The estimate was approximately $33.5 million.
3
Funding Strategies
Ms. Isaksen, financial analyst, said her intent was to identify a mix of funding that would
minimize the cost of the sewer system.
Ms. Isaksen explained that sewer costs were divided into two basic types, with implications as to
how they are funded:
• Capital costs
o One-time costs to build the physical facilities
o Mix of capital funding sources typically used to pay for capital costs
• Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs
o On-going costs to operate and maintain the facilities
o Distributed to users by monthly sewer rates
Ms. Isaksen said that capital costs must be paid up front, with funding typically obtained from a
mix of grants, loans, bond proceeds, and/or other methods. She noted that grants were the best
source of funding because they did not require repayment. Later in the presentation, Ms. Isaksen
detailed the ways that sewer customers could repay funding from the other sources.
Ms. Isaksen listed several types of funding opportunities and indicated whether each one was
available to pay for capital costs, O&M costs, or both. She showed that many more sources of
funding were available to pay for capital costs than for on-going O&M costs. She described
specific examples of capital funding sources, such as Department of Ecology and USDA Rural
Development grants and low-interest loans.
Considerations for Funding Initial Capital Costs through 2018

Ms. Isaksen then explained in more detail the options for funding the estimated capital cost
through 2018 of a sewer system in the Port Hadlock UGA. She said that, from a financial
perspective, capital costs were divided into the following two categories:
• Common/shared costs
o Costs for facilities that benefit multiple sewer customers
o Typically eligible for grants, loans, bonds, and other outside funding sources
• Private/on-site costs
o Costs for the sewer line and other equipment on private property that connect the
property to the sewer system
o Typically paid by property owner
Ms. Isaksen said that common/shared costs were further broken down into General costs and
Local costs. General costs are for facilities that benefit all of the sewer system’s customers. For
example, the wastewater treatment facility serves all of the sewer system’s customers. Local
costs are for facilities that benefit a subset of the sewer system’s customers. For example, a
sewer line through a neighborhood street serves only the customers in that neighborhood.
4
Common/Shared Capital Costs

General Local
• Wastewater treatment facility • Gravity collection pipelines up to 8” in
• Disinfection system diameter
• Solids handling
• Disposal
• Influent pump station
• Oversizing collection pipelines (greater
than 8” in diameter)
Ms. Isaksen said that General costs were higher because they included the relatively costly
wastewater treatment facility. The estimate for each component of capital cost through 2018 was
as follows:
• Common/Shared Cost
o General: $21,074,114
o Local: $8,934,800
• Private/On-Site Cost
o On-Site: $3,455,000
Ms. Isaksen presented a timeline (2010 to 2018) that illustrated that the majority of the
common/shared costs would be incurred in 2010, with relatively smaller costs incurred in 2012,
2015, and 2018 to expand the collection and treatment systems.
Ms. Isaksen said that she had focused her analysis on how to fund the upfront costs in 2010,
because new customers connecting to the sewer system could help to defray the smaller costs in
2012, 2015, and 2018.
She gave an example (see PowerPoint presentation) of a mix of funding sources that could be
used for the 2010 shared/common costs. She said that while multiple funding sources were
usually necessary to amass enough money, it was important to recognize the level of effort as
well as the administrative and other requirements in selecting which and how many funding
programs to pursue.
Strategies for Recovering Capital Costs from Users

Ms. Isaksen presented three methods for sewer customers to repay the upfront capital costs:
connection charges, a Utility Local Improvement District (ULID), and assessments based upon
property value.
She explained that ULIDs were defined in statute, and that to form a ULID, essentially a
boundary was drawn around the properties benefiting from a project, and all of the properties
5
within the boundary were assessed a share of the capital costs based on the benefits they
received. She pointed out that a sewer ULID assessment against a property was prohibited by
law from exceeding the benefit received from the availability of sewer service, in other words the
dollar value of the assessment could not exceed the increase in value to the property. She said
customers were typically allowed to pay off the assessment on an annual basis over 10 to 20
years.
Ms. Isaksen said that a single ULID could be formed to encompass the entire sewer service area
but that it was more likely that multiple ULIDs would be established for individual
neighborhoods within the service area. These ULIDs could be established over time as the
collection system developed and expanded. Ms. Isaksen said that a ULID could be formed one
of two ways: either the property owners within a proposed ULID boundary would petition the
responsible governing entity (county) or the County Commissioners would adopt a resolution.
Ms. Isaksen presented three scenarios which would likely be used to recover capital costs. These
are summarized below.
Strategy Description
Connection Charges for General and Local Customer pays a fee when connects to sewer
Costs
Connection Charges for General Costs and a ULID Assessment is paid off annually once
ULID for Local Costs sewer lines come to the neighborhood,
customer pays connection charge when
connects to sewer
Assessed Value for General and Local Costs When sewer lines come to the neighborhood,
property owners pay annually based on value
of their property; undeveloped property pays
much less than developed property
Ms. Isaksen noted that it is typical for monthly rates to be used to pay off long-term debt, but that
this was not a likely option for a new sewer system because there are no existing sewer
customers to pay monthly rates.
Ms. Isaksen said that some jurisdictions allowed sewer customers to pay connection charges off
over time. Thus, both connection charges and/or Utility Local Improvement District (ULID)
assessments are mechanisms available that may enable customers to spread their payments over
time, rather than pay a single, large, lump sum. Ms. Isaksen said that if customers were
permitted to spread their connection charges over time, some entity, for example the County,
would need to guarantee that the debt service would be paid and may need to bridge the
difference for a period of time before the customers can provide full repayment.
Ms. Isaksen noted that the assessed value method is used much less commonly than connection
charges or ULIDs. Each property’s assessment under this method would be based on that
6
property’s assessed value for real estate tax purposes. Thus an undeveloped property would pay
less than a developed property of the same size.
Estimates of Capital Costs per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU)*

Ms. Isaksen presented the estimated capital cost per ERU for commercial property and for
residential property. For the residential property estimate, she assumed that a grant would cover
45% of the shared/common costs. She based her assumption on the maximum grant available
from the USDA Rural Development program.
Ms. Isaksen displayed two tables that illustrated how customer payments for common/shared
costs could be concentrated or spread over time, depending on the financing strategy used.
Using a connection charge method, the customer would pay common/shared costs as well as the
private/on-site cost at the time of connection. Using a combination strategy of a connection
charge plus a ULID, the customer could begin paying Local costs when the ULID comes to the
neighborhood, and could pay the General and private costs at the time of sewer hook-up.
Ms. Isaksen explained that the consultant team had tried to develop realistic, but conservative,
cost estimates to ensure that the actual costs would be within the estimates and to enable the
County and community to make realistic plans. Ms. Isaksen said the cost estimates had been
based on recent bid results on other projects and that standard estimating procedures had been
used. To be conservative, a 30% contingency was included in the capital costs, which Ms.
Isaksen said was customary for planning level estimates. Ms. Isaksen said she had also included
a 15% financing cost and had applied a conservative interest rate when calculating the estimated
debt service payments for low interest loans.
Ms. Isaksen stressed that funding agencies looked favorably on projects with realistic cost
estimates. She compared the capital cost estimates for a Port Hadlock UGA sewer system to
three recent sewer system expansions in Western Washington to demonstrate the Port Hadlock
UGA cost estimates were comparable with actual projects.
Operations & Maintenance Cost Estimate

Ms. Isaksen presented a planning level estimate of $60/month per residence for on-going O&M
costs, which included billing, administration, and state taxes. Some assistance may be available
for low income customers. Commercial properties would be charged according to their water
usage where one equivalent residential unit (ERU) would be equal to 4,500 gallons per month.
How to Continue to Reduce Costs
*
One ERU is 4,500 gallons of wastewater produced per month for the purposes of this analysis. A business may
represent multiple ERUs depending on the amount of wastewater produced. A single-family residence is typically
considered one ERU, regardless of the amount of wastewater produced.
7
Ms. Isaksen concluded by stressing that the “art” of reducing the cost to sewer customers was
only beginning. She encouraged the County and the community to prepare for approval of the
sewer facility plan by exploring funding and financing options as soon as possible. She
recommended approaching Congressional and legislative representatives, observing that
Jefferson County had successfully obtained a federal line item to renovate the clock tower at the
County Courthouse. Ms. Isaksen said that Jefferson County staff would be meeting with several
funding program administrators at the IACC (Infrastructure Assistance Coordinating Council)
Conference in Wenatchee at the end of October to get advice on how best to position the Port
Hadlock UGA sewer project with funding agencies.
Ms. Isaksen highlighted the importance of seeking low-income assistance, such as USDA Rural
Development and/or health department loans. She said that one option was to use grant funding
to create a low-income assistance program.
Ms. Isaksen also encouraged the County and the community to explore opportunities for O&M
cost savings during the implementation phase.
Finally, Ms. Isaksen said that maximizing the number of customers who participated in the first
phase of sewer implementation would make it easier to distribute sewer system start-up costs.

Workshop participants commented and asked questions during the discussion period at the end
of the workshop. Their comments and questions, as well as the project team’s responses, are
summarized and grouped by topic below.
Cost Estimates
Comment: Although a business might constitute more than one ERU, the total capital cost to
the business may not equal the estimated capital cost per ERU multiplied by the number of
ERUs. This is because the estimated capital cost per ERU includes the private, on-site cost of
connecting to sewer. If a business constitutes multiple ERUs, there would still be only one hook-
up on the property. While that hook-up may be more expensive than a hook-up to a residence
because of the size of the equipment, it may still be less than multiplying the estimated private,
on-site cost per ERU by the number of ERUs.
Response (Isaksen): That is true.
Question: Is the 30% contingency factor built into the on-site, Local, and General costs? Is that
typical? Do the actual costs usually come in that high?
Response (Dour): The contingency factor is built into the on-site, Local, and General costs.
This is standard planning procedure. It is good planning, in part, to include a contingency factor
in the estimate capital costs because, at the current planning level, the preliminary design does
not account for details which will be discovered in final design. For example, the collection
system was developed using an aerial contour map with 10 foot contour intervals, which is
8
acceptable for planning but is a coarse scale for final design. At the planning level, we made
best guesses as to where maintenance holes would be located, but perhaps in the final design
phase it will turn out that there need to be 10% more maintenance holes than we have
anticipated. Also, we cannot predict how prices for materials like steel, concrete, or petroleum
will change by the time construction could begin.
Question: Can you tell us more about why you included a 15% financing cost in the cost
estimates?
Response (Isaksen): This is a conservative estimate of the cost of financing. Say you had to
borrow money during construction and you had to pay interim interest on the construction funds
until the permanent financing was complete. I have assumed this may be up to 2.5% of the
amount financed. If you went to the open bond market, it might be another 2.5% for the
underwriter and bond counsel, along with another 10% to borrow the required reserve.
However, if you are organized and well-prepared, it is typically less expensive to obtain funding
through grants and low-interest loan programs.
Question: Is the 15% financing cost included in the common/shared capital cost estimates,
which are about $21 million for General costs and about $9 million for Local costs?
Response (Isaksen): I tried not to mix the calculation of the estimated costs per ERU with the
total capital cost estimates that the engineers developed. The engineers provided cost estimates
that included a 30% contingency factor. None of their total capital cost estimates included the
15% financing cost. In my financing work, I added the 15% financing cost only to the estimated
cost per ERU.
Question: Did you break the estimated capital costs down as monthly costs per ERU?
Response (Isaksen): I avoid presenting capital costs on a monthly basis because I don’t want to
set the County up to have to accept payments on a monthly basis. However, if you assume a
capital cost of $12,850 for a residence, and that you would be paying it back over 20 years with
an interest rate of 3.5 %, this would be approximately $75 per month for the capital portion.
Added to the estimated $60 per month for on-going O&M and administration, it could be $135
per month.
Question: You’ve presented a variety of financial approaches, but are you recommending the
most expensive sewer system technology?
Response (Isaksen): The preferred alternative has the highest initial capital costs among the
technologies that the engineers evaluated. However, the life cycle costs of the preferred
alternative are lower because on-site and operation and maintenance costs of the other
technologies tend to increase the life cycle costs over time.
When the preferred alternative type of system is built, you don’t have to redo it, and you get a
higher level of treatment that anticipates future regulations. From a financial perspective, the
average cost per ERU over 20 years is about $1,500 more than the least expensive technologies
of a STEP collection system with an SBR treatment plant.
Question: Are the cost estimates per ERU based on the 20-year planning boundary or the six-
year planning boundary?
9
Response (Isaksen): The cost estimates per ERU were based on the average of the 20-year
planning area. If the estimates were calculated only up to the year 2018, the cost per ERU would
be about $5,000 higher because there would be fewer connections to share in the cost of
treatment plant. There are cost savings associated with bringing residential customers on to the
system in the latter decade of the 20-year planning period.
Question: You assumed that solids handling would be contracted to a private hauler. Are there
multiple companies doing this work: is there competition? We don’t want to be stuck with one
company if their prices rise.
Response (Santroch): There are multiple private haulers, and there are also public haulers like
the City of Port Angeles. We based our cost estimates on one, stable private hauler. Also, if
prices for hauling rise, the cost-effectiveness of investing in solids handling facilities in Port
Hadlock could be revisited.
Question: Did you build expected growth into your per ERU cost estimates for the core area?
Response (Dour): Yes, we made planning level assumptions about growth. We used
population forecasts from the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, and we used the land use
map for the Irondale/Port Hadlock area, which defines densities for residential and commercial
development. We checked the ratio of commercial to residential development against the ratio
of commercial to residential water usage and against the ratio of development in similar
communities to backcheck the ratio used in our projections.
If the sewer system is built, a comprehensive sewer plan will be developed, which must be
regularly updated. The comprehensive sewer plan would contain updates to the growth
projections as the area develops and the County’s Comprehensive Plan changes.
Financing Strategies
Question: What political entity will pursue financing strategies, such as establishing a ULID,
for the sewer system?
Response (John Fischbach, Jefferson County Administrator): It is ultimately the County’s
responsibility to pursue these strategies.
Question: How many years in advance of sewer availability may a ULID be established?
Response (Wheeler): That is a legal question, and we don’t know for sure.
Funding Availability
Question: Why did you assume a 45% grant for residences? Would we get that grant?
Response (Isaksen): I assumed a 45% grant for residential ERUs from the USDA Rural
Development, which is the maximum amount available from that program. These grants are
available for hardship situations, which are defined as cases where sewer services cost more than
1.5% of monthly income. Based on the median household income of the Irondale/Port Hadlock
census area, this project would clearly qualify for the maximum grant funding from the USDA
Rural Development program. Grant funding is available up to a maximum of 45% of capital
costs to help bring the sewer service costs down towards 1.5% of monthly income.
10
Please note that being qualified does not guarantee a grant or an amount; it is necessary to apply
for the grant.
Question: Are there other grant sources for connection fees if the Housing Authority owns a
residential property that is connected to the sewer system? Is there a waiver for such properties?
Response (Isaksen): A representative of the USDA Rural Development sewer system grants
program mentioned to me other housing grants that are available from other administrators. As I
understand it, there are other funding sources for low income residences. I don’t know if only
residents are eligible, or if non-resident property owners are eligible.
Question: Is there enough sewer grant funding in the current federal budget for all of the
qualified applicants?
Response (Isaksen): There almost certainly is not. It is important to have a good application to
get to the top of the list.
Preliminary Design
Question: Are there any land uses that are incompatible with being adjacent to a wastewater
treatment plant? Are there innovative land uses adjacent to wastewater treatment plants?
Response (Santroch): People often oppose having a wastewater treatment plant nearby, but we
are including provisions in the cost estimates to make this wastewater treatment plant a good
neighbor. We are using the Port Townsend wastewater treatment facility, which is adjacent to
homes, as a comparable model of how to be a good neighbor.
Question: You’ve talked about doing odor control and visual screening at the wastewater
treatment facility. Are there noise issues as well?
Response (Santroch): Treatment plants can be noisy. However, noise control methods are
typically used to limit the noise levels to 40 decibels, which is quieter than my speaking voice
right now.
Response (Wheeler): An acceptable level of noise for a Port Hadlock treatment plant would be
determined through the State Environmental Policy Act, but it is fairly easy to mitigate noise for
the type of treatment facility being proposed. I would encourage anyone to visit the Port
Townsend wastewater treatment plan for reference.
Question: You are proposing a pump station in the vicinity of the library. Would there also be
one to pump wastewater up from the alcohol plant?
Response (Dour): Yes, there would be a few local pump stations. In terms of estimating the
General costs, we planned for one large, influent pump station in the vicinity of the library
because the overall collection system as laid out in this plan tends to drain towards this area.
Smaller, local pump stations were included in the Local cost estimates.
Question: Do the trucks pick sludge up from the treatment facility or from the pump station?
Response (Dour): Sludge is picked up at the treatment facility.
11
Question: With contract hauling for solids handling, how many trucks would be traveling to and
from the wastewater treatment facility?
Response (Santroch): In the early years, probably one truck a week. If contract disposal were
continued as the sewer system expanded, you could get up to one truck per day.
Question: There have been several sewage spill accidents in the news recently. While the
proposed wastewater treatment facility would be cleaner than other options, the potential sites for
the facility are very close to drinking water sources. Why are you suggesting sites so close to
drinking water? Is it just cheaper?
Response (Santroch): It is important to note that, by law, wastewater treatment and disposal
facilities must be located a prescribed distance away from drinking water wells. One of the main
drivers of the evaluation of potential disposal sites was local interest in recharging Chimacum
Creek. We pursued options that would recharge the creek further upstream to be more
beneficial.
Response (Wheeler): The consultant team is also studying the hydrology of the area to ensure
that disposed effluent would flow towards the creek and not towards a well. That is part of our
job.

Mr. Wheeler thanked the attendees for their input. He outlined the next steps in the development
of the sewer facility plan, which included a public meeting on October 25, the completion of the
draft sewer facility plan by the end of 2006, a public meeting to be scheduled in February 2007,
and Department of Ecology approval of the sewer facility plan in March of 2007.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
Workshop Attendance
The public workshop was attended by County Commissioner Phil Johnson (District 1), County
Commissioner David Sullivan (District 2) and County Commissioner Pat Rodgers (District 3).
Additional attendees are listed below.
Name Affiliation
Robert Bates Citizen
Mike Blair Chimacum School District
Bill Brock Northwest School of Wooden Boatbuilding
Brent Butler Jefferson County
Evan Cael Peninsula Daily News
Phil Flynn Citizen
Alan Goodwin Community United Methodist Church
Elaine Goodwin Community United Methodist Church
Laurie Gore Citizen
Sandy Hershelman Jefferson County Home Builders Association
12
Name Affiliation
Sandra Hill Citizen
Douglas Joyce Citizen
Maureen Joyce Citizen
Elizabeth Lammers Citizen
Garrett Larsen Citizen
Rebecca Lopeman Citizen
Kimberly Macintosh Citizen
Bill Mahler Northwest School of Wooden Boatbuilding
Bob Matheson Citizen
Margaret Matheson Citizen
Kathy McKenna Jefferson County Housing Authority
William Miller Jefferson County Planning Commission
Frances Rawski Citizens for the UGA
Dana Roberts Jefferson PUD #1
H.C. Rogers Citizen
Chuck Russell Valley Tavern
Craig C. Smith Peninsula Video
Bonnetta Starlin Citizen
TetraTech/KCM
Katy Isaksen & Associates

Katy Isaksen, Financial Analyst

13
Public Meeting, October 25, 2006
Citizens & Project Team Discuss Preliminary Design, Cost Estimate &
On Wednesday, October 25, 2006, Jefferson County hosted a public meeting at the
WSU Extension to provide information and take public comment on a sewer study
being conducted in the Irondale/Port Hadlock area. The goal of the sewer study is to
prepare a comprehensive sewer facility plan that will help the County plan for growth
in the Irondale/Port Hadlock area through the year 2030. Approximately 50 members
of the community attended the public meeting.
During an informal open house period from 5:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., there were large
boards posted around the room with information about the sewer planning process,
the preferred sewer system alternative, and potential locations for wastewater
facilities. Public meeting attendees were encouraged to view the information and talk
with members of the project team.
The consultant team that the County hired to conduct the Irondale/Port Hadlock
sewer study gave a presentation and responded to questions about the cost
estimate, potential financing strategies, and progress on preliminary design for the
preferred sewer system alternative. The consultant team described next steps in the
decision-making process and opportunities for public involvement. Members of the
consultant team included project manager Kevin Dour, TetraTech/KCM; Jim
Santroch, TetraTech/KCM; Katy Isaksen, Katy Isaksen and Associates; and Bob
Wheeler, Triangle Associates. The PowerPoint presentation is attached.
Mr. Wheeler said that having a sewer facility plan approved by the Department of
Ecology would make the sewer project eligible for a variety of state and federal
funding programs. Ms. Isaksen explained that while developing realistic cost
estimates and financing strategies was a required component of the sewer facility
plan, it was also important as a way to identify the best financing sources available
to launch the sewer system. She said that the consultant team had used
conservative assumptions to develop the cost estimates to make sure that the
project could be done within the estimated budgets.
During the meeting, many questions from the public related to the decision-making
process for the sewer, the results of preliminary design, and the cost estimate and
financing strategies. The consultant team, County staff, and County Commissioner
David Sullivan (District 2) provided responses based on available information.
Ms. Isaksen emphasized that more work would be done during the implementation
phase, after the sewer facility plan was approved, to reduce project costs, secure
funding assistance, and finalize the method of distributing costs. Mr. Wheeler
reviewed the schedule for completing the sewer facility plan and noted that another
public meeting would be scheduled before the plan was finalized.
Public Meeting, July 19, 2006
Citizens & Project Team Discuss Recommended Sewer System

Alternative
On Wednesday, July 19, 2006, Jefferson County hosted a public meeting at the
Jefferson County Library to provide information and take public comment on a sewer
study being conducted in the Irondale/Port Hadlock area. The goal of the sewer
study is to prepare a comprehensive sewer facility plan that will help the County plan
for growth in the Irondale/Port Hadlock area through the year 2030. Approximately
50 members of the community attended the public meeting.
During an informal open house period from 5:00 p.m. to 6:15 p.m., information was
posted on large boards about the sewer planning process, the sewer system
alternatives that were considered, potential locations for wastewater facilities, and
preliminary cost estimates. Public meeting attendees were encouraged to view the
information and talk with members of the project team.
Kevin Dour and Jim Santroch of TetraTech/KCM, the consultant team hired by the
County to conduct the sewer study, presented and responded to questions about the
alternatives for the sewer system and the rationale, from a technical standpoint, for
the recommended alternative. The consultant described next steps in the decision-
making process and opportunities for public involvement.
Many questions from the public related to the cost of a sewer system, how effluent
disposal/reuse would affect groundwater, and where wastewater facilities would be
located. The consultant provided responses based on the preliminary information
that was available.
The consultant explained that more detailed information about siting, impacts on
hydrology, and cost estimates and financing options would be developed after the
selection of a preferred sewer system alternative. They said the focus of the
financing options would be on community affordability. They explained that the
Board of Jefferson County Commissioners would review the consultant team's
technical recommendation at an August 8 workshop and would then make a decision
on the preferred alternative.
The consultant team's recommendation is based on engineering feasibility,

responsiveness to community concerns, compliance with regulatory requirements,
preliminary cost estimates, and environmental considerations.
To provide local input, public workshops were held to advise the sewer study
process. Workshop participants included County Commissioners, local agency
representatives, community leaders, and other interested parties. Over the course of
three workshops, workshop participants and the consultant team reviewed and
evaluated a comprehensive array of sewer system alternatives. The workshop
participants identified their preferences for each component of the sewer system,
including wastewater collection, treatment, effluent disinfection, effluent
disposal/reuse, and solids handling. The consultant team used those preferences to
help develop the technical recommendation that was presented at the public
meeting. The workshops were advertised in advance and were open to the public.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Public Meeting on Preliminary Design, Cost Estimate &

The following is a summary of public comment that the project team received at the
October 25, 2006 public meeting. Brief responses to each topic are presented.
Preliminary Design
How much property is needed for wastewater treatment and effluent

disposal facilities?
• The minimum footprint for the treatment facility is three acres. The
assumption is that rapid infiltration would require about three acres as well.
For purposes of the sewer facility plan, it was assumed that six acres would
be needed for the treatment facility and six acres for the rapid infiltration
facility, in case buffers are needed, solids handling facilities are built, and/or
redundant facilities are needed.
There have been recent sewage spills in Poulsbo, Bremerton, and Port
Angeles. The damage and cost of a sewage spill here should be considered.
• This system would be more advanced than the systems where spills have
occurred.
• Federal and state regulatory agencies have standards and guidelines to
ensure reliable wastewater treatment service. Treatment plants are required
to have a back-up generator to ensure that plant operation is continuous. The
treatment system for the Irondale/Port Hadlock area will be subject to
additional requirements as well, since the treated effluent will be discharged
to land, and thus to groundwater.
• To build the required redundancy into the treatment system, it is necessary to
construct either a storage pond to hold untreated wastewater or an additional
treatment train beyond the facility's intended capacity, to be used in the
event of a treatment system malfunction.
• Whether to use storage or "n plus one" treatment trains is a design judgment.
The preferred sewer system alternative includes a more conservative
approach than what is required. The level of redundancy in the preferred
alternative could be scaled back if necessary.
• Pump stations are built with a duplicate pumping system and a back-up
electrical system. They are also designed so that a portable pump can be
used if needed.
Are there membrane bioreactor (MBR) treatment facilities in other rural

areas in Washington?
• Indian tribes have done it the most in Washington State. They have built ten
MBR facilities. Alderwood Water & Wastewater District is building an MBR
facility. The oldest MBR facility in Washington is about three years old.
• MBR systems have been used in Japan for over 15 years to treat toilet water.
• The Department of Ecology has become interested in MBR facilities and has
offered encouragement for their use. MBR systems are becoming more
common.
• King County is building a 30 million gallon per day MBR facility at Brightwater.
The County has done a lot of research into the best type of treatment system.
Can a septic system clean to the level of Class A effluent?
• There are advanced septic systems that will treat individual home wastes to a
similar level. However, for a UGA, a proliferation of individual septic systems
is not considered an urban service.
• Septic systems that clean to this level are very expensive.
Will biosolids be processed by a digester before they are hauled away from
the wastewater treatment plant?
• The proposed method is to collect the solids in a tank and pay for a private
entity or city to process and dispose of the solids in compliance with
regulations. The consultant team considered the option of building a digester
at the Port Hadlock wastewater treatment facility, but found it would cost less
to pay someone else to handle the solids.
• This is also a way to delay the capital investment decision about building a
solids handling facility until more ratepayers are connected.
• It is recommended that the solids handling method be revisited after five
years to reevaluate the cost comparisons when there are more customers to
share costs.
Some companies buy solid waste for chemical or fertilizer use. Has revenue
generation for processing biosolids been considered?
• Revenue generation would require a huge initial investment to process the

solid waste. The economy of scale does not appear to work here, although it
does work elsewhere.
• The goal was to propose something more affordable to launch the
Irondale/Port Hadlock sewer system.
• The type of system currently proposed would not preclude the community
from later pursuing revenue generation or other options.
Decision-Making Process
Who decides whether sewer customers pay a connection fee or join a Utility
Local Improvement District (ULID)?
• This would be a decision for the County Commissioners. The Commissioners

have the ability to put the decision to a public vote, but ultimately the
Commissioners would decide.
Have Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the North
Olympic Salmon Coalition (NOSC) been consulted?
• The Executive Director of NOSC has been involved in the stakeholder
workshops.
• There will be an environmental assessment and probably a State
Environmental Policy Act review of the preferred alternative.
• The proposed wastewater treatment system would produce clean, Class A
effluent, removing nutrients to a greater extent than septic systems do. As far
as the project team is aware, WDFW would prefer a sewer system to septic
systems.
Are there communities that have made people connect to sewer?
• The proposed sewer project is still at the planning level. There are many
policies still to be determined, such as who will connect and when, with many
opportunities for public input.
• Major investments have to be made in septic systems from time to time. In
some communities, people wait until they need to make a major investment
in their septic system and then connect to sewer instead.
• There are communities that have required people to connect to sewer to
increase the financial viability of the system.
At what point does the community get to vote on the project?
• That has not been decided.
Is there a mechanism to rescind the UGA designation?
• It could turn out that a sewer system is too expensive. The sewer facility plan
will help provide that answer.
• It is important to remember that the population in the area will grow, and the
County's job is to manage that growth in a way that the community finds
desirable.
Cost & Financing
At what point will we find out about grants and get hard financial facts to
help with decision-making?
• The County is beginning to explore the "art" of securing funding for the
project. A completed sewer facility plan will make the project eligible for
financial assistance, and the County will be able to apply for grants and low-
interest loans. Talking to legislators about ways to support the project is also
a good idea.
• In terms of certainty, it could take from six months to two years to know how
the financing will come together.
• As with any capital project, the actual cost will not be known until the project
is completed.
Is the cost of the property needed for the treatment and disposal facilities
included in the cost estimate for 2010 capital costs?
• Yes.
Who are the competitors for grants?
• The competitors for available state and federal grants are other jurisdictions
in the State of Washington.
How can a project best be positioned to get grant funding?
• There are different qualifications for each funding program. Richard Johnson,
Jefferson County's Wastewater Manager, and members of the consultant team
will meet with several funding program administrators at the IACC
(Infrastructure Assistance Coordinating Council) Conference in Wenatchee at
the end of October to get advice on how best to position the Port Hadlock
UGA sewer project with the funding agencies.
How can repayment of financing, other than grants, be guaranteed if not

with compulsory participation in the sewer system?
• Specific financing policies will be determined during the implementation

phase, after the sewer facility plan is approved.
• The implementation phase will proceed step-by-step, as the sewer study has,
with many opportunities for public comment and questions.
Does the cost estimate assume that the sewer system will be built now?
What will it cost if we take another ten years to come to agreement?
• The cost was estimated assuming construction in 2009 and 2010. Beyond
that, the cost would probably increase, since the price of land and other
construction costs will probably continue to rise.
Sewer Study Assumptions
The cost estimate for an Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) includes an

assumption about the number of ERUs that would exist. Where did the
assumption come from and was built-out assumed?
• The Jefferson County Planning Department provided current population

numbers as well as population estimates for 2024. Using that estimated rate
of growth, the consultant team extrapolated the estimated population to the
year 2030, which is the sewer planning horizon. There will be an estimated
3900 ERUs by 2030.
• Build-out is projected to occur some time after 2050, although depending on
land use decisions, it may never actually occur on the ground.
Did the County's population estimates, especially for commercial growth,

look right?
• Although the consultant team was not asked to do a full population analysis,
they did use multiple methods to backcheck the 60:40 ratio of residential to
commercial development that was used in their projections. They looked at
the current zoning of the sewer planning area, checked the ratio of
commercial to residential water usage, and checked the ratio of development
in similar communities.
Public Meeting on Combined System Alternatives
The following is a summary of public comment that the project team received at the
July 19, 2006 public meeting. Brief responses to each topic are presented.
Collection System
Whether or not it makes sense to pay a higher initial investment for gravity
collection
• Gravity collection systems can last up to 50 years. Pressure sewer systems

have a shorter service life because key components (septic tanks and pumps)
have to be replaced after about 20 years. This analysis looks at a 20-year
time span for comparison purposes, because of the 20-year planning period
required by the Growth Management Act and because pressure sewers have a
shorter service life. Pressure sewers are often thought of as an inexpensive
"starter kit" for a sewer system with planned replacement after 20 years with
a gravity sewer when the area is more densely populated and there are more
people to pay. Although this approach is more expensive in the long run, it
may be the only way a community can afford to get started. Pressure systems
will work, but people must be aware that it's a "pay-as-you-go" system and it
is less convenient because of ongoing maintenance.
• After 20 years, the total estimated system cost for gravity is lower than the
total estimated system cost for a pressure system.
Separating gray water from the wastewater stream
• A separate gray water system would likely have greater costs because of the
need for two separate systems on each property - gray water and "black"
(toilet) water systems.
• Plumbing retrofits would be required within existing homes in order to
separate gray water from black water.
• Separating gray water at the home would reduce the total amount of water
conveyed within the wastewater collection system. Less water in the sewer
system would impact pipeline design parameters. For example, most gravity
collection systems are designed for a certain amount of water to wash solids
down the pipes. Removing gray water might generate a need to build steeper
gravity collection pipes in order to keep solids moving, which would need to
be constructed deeper and thus cost more. Also, more frequent line flushing
may be required in order to dislodge solids deposited in pipelines.
• Sending gray water to a wastewater treatment plant for treatment could help
prevent gray water from possibly degrading groundwater supplies.
• A septic tank and drainfield would need to be maintained for gray water
separation. A second tank and pump would be needed if a pressurized sewer
system were installed.
• The design team acknowledges the Port Hadlock community's mandate to
pursue reuse options for the communities treated wastewater. Although gray
water separation can be a viable reuse option, it is viewed by the design team
as less effective, more costly and less reliable than the proposed land-based
disposal/reuse option using a rapid rate infiltration system.
How costs compare between the membrane bioreactor (MBR) and the
sequencing batch reactor & filter (SBR)
• The total cost for MBR over 20 years could be up to 20% more than the total
cost for SBR. Since the 20 year costs associated with a MBR system account
for approximately 37% of the total costs of the sewer system, this would
result in an overall cost increase of around 7%.
How odor management compares among the treatment alternatives
• Although the project team has used the Port Townsend wastewater treatment
facility as a reference for appropriate odor control and aesthetics, the City of
Port Townsend uses an oxidation ditch treatment technology and the
proposed treatment technology for Port Hadlock is an MBR. Some comments
from the public have indicated that a higher level of odor control may be
necessary. The County is budgeting for a wastewater treatment facility that is
a good neighbor.
• There is some difference in the effort necessary to provide odor control
among the three treatment technologies. Since SBR and MBR have smaller
areas of exposed water surface than oxidation ditches, it is less expensive to
cover them and control odor for them. MBR or SBR treatment systems would
provide a better level of odor control as compared to the oxidation ditch
system at the Port Townsend facility.
Building a storage pond vs. an additional treatment train
• There are Ecology requirement for providing redundancy so that the

treatment process has a certain level of reliability. There are two options for
including redundancy: one is to build a single treatment train and a storage
pond, and the other is to build two treatment trains. The assumption in our
phasing plans is that two treatment trains will be built initially, storage will be
built at the first expansion, and two more treatment trains will be built at the
second expansion
Effluent Disposal/Reuse Alternatives
Health impacts of effluent disposal
• We are planning to treat wastewater to Class A effluent levels, which is safe

for reuse. It is the best quality of effluent. For Class A treatment, solids and
dissolved organics are removed, and the effluent it denitrified to a level of 1
part per million and disinfected. Drinking water is allowed to have up to 10
parts per million of nitrogen.
Possibility of water reuse

• The wastewater will be treated to reuse standards allowing the Port Hadlock
sewer facility to explore future reuse opportunities. For example, treated
effluent may be used to irrigate ballfields.
Solids Handling Alternatives
Whether to dewater biosolids before they are hauled away
• The biosolids would be partially stabilized before they are shipped away, but
they would not be dewatered or disinfected at that point. We have found that
there would be a tremendous initial capital investment required to do
additional dewatering and stabilization. The design team has made a strategic
call that it makes financial sense to contract out the hauling and reuse of the
facility's biosolids. This would allow the County flexibility to continue with a
contractor in the future if it remains financially viable or to later invest in
solids handling equipment when more users are connected to the wastewater
system.
Health impacts of biosolids disposal
• One identified contractor, Kitsap Biorecycle, mixes the biosolids with lime to
produce an "artificial soil." This soil is then applied to fields and immediately
plowed under to minimize the potential for odors and pests.
Facility Siting
Potential locations of treatment and disposal/reuse facilities
• The project team will take into consideration public concern about using the
"Central Site" for wastewater treatment and/or disposal/reuse. There has
been interest expressed in keeping that property, which is near the
commercial core of Port Hadlock, available for development.
• The location of the treatment and/or effluent disposal/reuse facilities will
influence the total cost of the sewer system. Cost considerations will also be
taken into account.
Effluent disposal/reuse being used to recharge Chimacum Creek
• The project team will look carefully at the hydrology of the area to determine,
among other things, whether effluent disposal/reuse would provide recharge
to Chimacum Creek
Proximity of potential disposal/reuse sites to wells
• and whether effluent disposal/reuse would impact any wells, such as Kivley
Well or other private wells. Also, there are regulations and required setbacks
to protect wells.
Cost & Financing

The schedule for developing cost estimates and financing options.
What the sewer system might cost?
How financing might work?
• Jefferson County has emphasized that constructing a sewer system in the

Irondale/Port Hadlock area must be affordable for the community. As part of
the sewer study, preliminary 20-year life cycle cost estimates have been
prepared as a way to compare sewer system alternatives. Once the County
has identified a preferred sewer system alternative, the consultant team will
use the preferred alternative to develop a detailed cost estimate as well as
financing options. A preferred sewer system alternative will be selected after
the Board of County Commissioners workshop on August 8. The status of the
cost estimate and financing options will be presented at a public workshop on
preliminary design, cost, and financing options and at a public meeting in
October.
The length of time available for financing the sewer system
• The Growth Management Act requires a plan to implement the sewer system
with a near term (6-year) and long term (20 year) plan.
What is included in the 20-year life cycle cost estimates
• The 20-year life cycle cost estimates for the sewer system include capital cost
for sewers, on-site costs for connection to the sewers, wastewater treatment
(including treatment plant, disinfection, effluent disposal, and solids
handling), and the present value costs for operations and maintenance of all
facilities over 20 years.
How costs would be divided among sewer customers
• Although the cost of the sewer system per user decreases the more users
there are, the idea is to work out a financing plan whereby all users end up
paying the lower cost that would be attained with all forecasted customers
hooked up at the end of the 20-year planning period.
Sewer Planning Process
Whether the sewer planning boundary can be changed
• Making any changes to the 20-year sewer planning boundary would be a

policy decision for the community and the County. From a technical
standpoint, it is possible to alter the area that would be served by the sewer
system.
• The 6-year planning boundary is useful for planning purposes, but the actual
order in which properties connect to the sewer will be determined during
implementation.
Whether the sewer planning boundary will become the urban growth area
boundary
• It is presumed that the sewer planning boundary will coincide with the urban
growth area boundary. This is because urban services must be provided
within an urban growth boundary and sanitary sewers are considered a key
urban service.
How long a sewer system is anticipated to last
• Although individual components of the sewer system may have a longer or

shorter lifetime, the entire sewer system is assumed to have a 20-year life for
this comparison.
Whether everyone will have to connect to the sewer
• The Sewer Facility Plan must demonstrate that it will be possible for everyone
to connect to the sewer system by the end of the 20-year planning period.
However, the way in which customers would be required to connect to the
sewer system will be a policy decision for the community and the County.
APPENDIX C.
COMPARATIVE LIFE CYCLE COST ESTIMATES
September 2008
By : Tt
Date : 11-Aug-08 Updated Unit Costs
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
CORE PLUS ALCOHOL RHODY DRIVE
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
ERUs 432 ERUs 502 ERUs 584 ERUs 679 ERUs 789 ERUs 918
Flow (mgd) 0.10 Flow (mgd) 0.12 Flow (mgd) 0.14 Flow (mgd) 0.16 Flow (mgd) 0.19 Flow (mgd) 0.22
Item Description Unit cost, $ Unit Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $
COLLECTION - STEP SYSTEM
Structural
2" PVC Pressure Mains $15 LF 15,450 $231,750 0 0 11,475 $ 172,125 0 0 $0
3" PVC Pressure Mains $16 LF 3,450 $55,200 0 0 2,650 $ 42,400 0 0 $0
4" PVC Pressure Mains $18 LF 1,575 $28,350 0 0 0 $ - 0 0 $0
6" PVC Pressure Mains $22 LF 5,250 $115,500 0 0 0 $ - 0 0 $0
1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - STEP $1,500 EA 432 $647,727 70 $105,459 82 $122,630 95 $ 142,596 111 $165,812 129 $192,809
1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - extra for existing houses $500 EA 15 $7,500 15 $7,500 15 $7,500 15 $ 7,500 15 $7,500 42 $21,000
Lateral Kits $250 EA 432 $107,955 70 $17,577 82 $20,438 95 $ 23,766 111 $27,635 129 $32,135
Clean Out Installation $1,500 EA 222 $333,000 0 0 111 $ 166,500 0 0 $0
Air Release Valve Installation $2,000 EA 5 $10,000 0 0 1 $ 2,000 0 0 $0
Dewatering $5,000 LS 2 $10,000 0 0 1 $ 5,000 0 0 $0
AC Surface Restoration $12 SY 6,800 $81,600 0 0 3,800 $ 45,600 0 0 $0
Native Surface Restoration $1 SY 17,300 $17,300 0 0 5,500 $ 5,500 0 0 $0
Abandon Septic Tank $750 EA 15 $11,250 0 0 15 $ 11,250 0 0 $0
Subtotal Structural $1,657,132 $130,536 $150,568 $624,237 $200,948 $245,944
Septic Tank w/ Pump (Installed) $4,000 EA 432 $1,727,273 70 $281,225 82 $327,013 95 $380,255 111 $442,166 129 $514,157
Septic Tank w/ Pump - extra for existing houses $1,500 EA 15 $22,500 15 $22,500 15 $22,500 15 $22,500 15 $22,500 42 $63,000
Site Electrical Connections - STEP $250 EA 432 $107,955 70 $17,577 82 $20,438 95 $23,766 111 $27,635 129 $32,135
Site Electrical Connections - STEP, extra for existing houses $1,000 EA 15 $15,000 15 $15,000 15 $15,000 15 $15,000 15 $15,000 42 $42,000
Main Pump Station $500,000 EA 1 $500,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Odor Control $50,000 LS 2 $100,000 0 $0 0 $0 1 $50,000 0 $0 0 $0
Subtotal Equipment $2,472,727 $336,302 $384,951 $491,521 $507,301 $651,292
Installation, Miscellaneous Mechanical of Equip 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0
Electrical of Equip 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0
Instrumentation and Control of Equip 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0
Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $4,129,859 $466,838 $535,519 $1,115,757 $708,249 $897,235
Contractor O&P of Sub Cost 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0
Mobilization, demobilization, bond of Sub cost 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0
Total estimated current construction cost $4,129,859 $466,838 $535,519 $1,115,757 $708,249 $897,235
Escalation to time of construction 3.50% $144,545 3.50% $16,339 3.50% $18,743 3.50% $39,052 3.50% $24,789 3.50% $31,403
Total estimated construction cost $4,274,404 $483,177 $554,262 $1,154,809 $733,038 $928,639
Contingency 30% $1,282,321 30% $144,953 30% $166,279 30% $346,443 30% $219,911 30% $278,592
Engineering Design (not included for onsite costs) 15% $234,309 15% $0 15% $0 15% $67,384 15% $0 15% $0
Construction Management (not included for onsite costs) 10% $156,206 10% $0 10% $0 10% $44,923 10% $0 10% $0
Sales Tax 8.4% $466,765 8.4% $52,763 8.4% $60,525 8.4% $126,105 8.4% $80,048 8.4% $101,407
Total Estimated Capital Cost $6,414,000 $681,000 $781,000 $1,740,000 $1,033,000 $1,309,000
Total Estimated Onsite Capital Cost $4,330,000 $681,000 $781,000 $1,140,000 $1,033,000 $1,309,000
Tetra Tech Seattle, WA

By : Tt
Date : 11-Aug-08
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
RESIDENTIAL #1 RESIDENTIAL AREA #2
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
ERUs 1067 ERUs 1241 ERUs 1443 ERUs 1678 ERUs 1952 ERUs 2269 ERUs 2639
Flow (mgd) 0.25 Flow (mgd) 0.30 Flow (mgd) 0.34 Flow (mgd) 0.40 Flow (mgd) 0.46 Flow (mgd) 0.54 Flow (mgd) 0.63
Item Description Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $
Structural
2" PVC Pressure Mains 5,738 $86,063 5,738 $86,063 0 1,342 $20,125 1,342 $20,125 1,342 $20,125 0 $0
3" PVC Pressure Mains 1,325 $21,200 1,325 $21,200 0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
4" PVC Pressure Mains 0 $0 0 $0 0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
6" PVC Pressure Mains 0 $0 0 $0 0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - STEP 149 $224,201 174 $260,704 202 $303,150 235 $352,508 273 $409,901 318 $476,639 369 $554,243
1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - extra for existing houses 42 $21,000 41 $20,500 41 $20,500 42 $21,000 26 $13,000 40 $20,000 40 $20,000
Lateral Kits 149 $37,367 174 $43,451 202 $50,525 235 $58,751 273 $68,317 318 $79,440 369 $92,374
Clean Out Installation 111 $166,500 0 $0 0 111 $ 166,500 0 $ - 0 $0 0 $0
Air Release Valve Installation 1 $2,000 0 $0 0 1 $ 2,000 0 $ - 1 $2,000 0 $0
Dewatering 1 $5,000 0 $0 0 1 $ 5,000 0 $ - 1 $5,000 0 $0
AC Surface Restoration 2,350 $28,200 2,350 $28,200 0 433 $ 5,200 433 $ 5,200 433 $5,200 0 $0
Native Surface Restoration 6,850 $6,850 6,850 $6,850 0 3,400 $ 3,400 3,400 $ 3,400 3,400 $3,400 0 $0
Abandon Septic Tank 42 $31,500 0 $0 0 42 $ 31,500 0 $ - 40 $30,000 0 $0
Subtotal Structural $629,880 $466,967 $374,176 $665,984 $519,943 $641,804 $666,616
Septic Tank w/ Pump (Installed) 149 $597,869 174 $695,211 202 $808,401 235 $940,021 273 $1,093,070 318 $1,271,037 369 $1,477,981
Septic Tank w/ Pump - extra for existing houses 42 $63,000 41 $61,500 41 $61,500 42 $63,000 26 $39,000 40 $60,000 40 $60,000
Site Electrical Connections - STEP 149 $37,367 174 $43,451 202 $50,525 235 $58,751 273 $68,317 318 $79,440 369 $92,374
Site Electrical Connections - STEP, extra for existing houses 42 $42,000 41 $41,000 41 $41,000 42 $42,000 26 $26,000 40 $40,000 40 $40,000
Main Pump Station 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Odor Control 1 $50,000 0 $0 0 $0 1 $50,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Subtotal Equipment $790,236 $841,162 $961,426 $1,153,772 $1,226,387 $1,450,477 $1,670,354
Installation, Miscellaneous Mechanical 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0
Electrical 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0
Instrumentation and Control 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0
Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $1,420,116 $1,308,129 $1,335,602 $1,819,756 $1,746,329 $2,092,281 $2,336,971
Contractor O&P 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0
Mobilization, demobilization, bond 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0
Total estimated current construction cost $1,420,116 $1,308,129 $1,335,602 $1,819,756 $1,746,329 $2,092,281 $2,336,971
Escalation to time of construction 3.50% $49,704 3.50% $45,785 3.50% $46,746 3.50% $63,691 3.50% $61,122 3.50% $73,230 3.50% $81,794
Total estimated construction cost $1,469,820 $1,353,913 $1,382,348 $1,883,447 $1,807,451 $2,165,511 $2,418,765
Contingency 30% $440,946 30% $406,174 30% $414,704 30% $565,034 30% $542,235 30% $649,653 30% $725,629
Engineering Design (not included for onsite costs) 15% $46,584 15% $28,722 15% $0 15% $23,659 15% $5,797 15% $13,265 15% $0
Construction Management (not included for onsite costs) 10% $31,056 10% $19,148 10% $0 10% $15,773 10% $3,865 10% $8,843 10% $0
Sales Tax 8.4% $160,504 8.4% $147,847 8.4% $150,952 8.4% $205,672 8.4% $197,374 8.4% $236,474 8.4% $264,129
Total Estimated Capital Cost $2,149,000 $1,956,000 $1,948,000 $2,694,000 $2,557,000 $3,074,000 $3,409,000
Total Estimated Onsite Capital Cost $1,735,000 $1,700,000 $1,948,000 $2,483,000 $2,505,000 $2,956,000 $3,409,000

By : Tt
Date : 11-Aug-08
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
RESIDENTIAL AREA #3
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
ERUs 3069 ERUs 3568 ERUs 3666 ERUs 3768 ERUs 3872 ERUs 3978 ERUs 4088 ERUs 4201
Flow (mgd) 0.73 Flow (mgd) 0.85 Flow (mgd) 0.87 Flow (mgd) 0.90 Flow (mgd) 0.92 Flow (mgd) 0.95 Flow (mgd) 0.97 Flow (mgd) 1.00
Item Description Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Unit Cost, $ Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $
Structural
2" PVC Pressure Mains 0 $0 7,636 $114,536 7,636 $114,536 7,636 $114,536 7,636 $114,536 7,636 $114,536 7,636 $114,536 7,636 $114,536
3" PVC Pressure Mains 0 $0 486 $7,771 486 $7,771 486 $7,771 486 $7,771 486 $7,771 486 $7,771 486 $7,771
1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - STEP 430 $644,481 500 $749,412 98 $147,389 101 $151,736 104 $155,922 107 $160,224 110 $164,644 113 $169,187
1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - extra for existing houses 50 $25,000 50 $25,000 24 $12,000 48 $24,000 48 $24,000 48 $24,000 107 $53,500 107 $53,500
Lateral Kits 430 $107,414 500 $124,902 98 $24,565 101 $25,289 104 $25,987 107 $26,704 110 $27,441 113 $28,198
Clean Out Installation 0 $0 111 $166,500 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 111 $166,500 0 $0 0 $0
Air Release Valve Installation 0 $0 1 $2,000 0 $0 1 $2,000 0 $0 1 $2,000 0 $0 0 $0
Dewatering 0 $0 1 $5,000 0 $0 1 $5,000 0 $0 1 $5,000 0 $0 0 $0
AC Surface Restoration 0 $0 933 $11,200 0 $0 933 $11,200 933 $11,200 933 $11,200 1,400 $16,800 1,400 $16,800
Native Surface Restoration 0 $0 6,667 $6,667 0 $0 1,333 $1,333 1,400 $1,400 1,433 $1,433 2,200 $2,200 2,250 $2,250
Abandon Septic Tank 0 $0 50 $37,500 0 $0 48 $36,000 48 $36,000 48 $36,000 107 $80,250 107 $80,250
Subtotal Structural $776,895 $1,277,474 $333,247 $405,851 $403,802 $582,354 $494,128 $499,478
Septic Tank w/ Pump (Installed) 430 $1,718,617 500 $1,998,433 98 $393,037 101 $404,628 104 $415,792 107 $427,264 110 $439,052 113 $451,165
Septic Tank w/ Pump - extra for existing houses 50 $75,000 50 $75,000 24 $36,000 48 $72,000 48 $72,000 48 $72,000 107 $160,500 107 $160,500
Site Electrical Connections - STEP 430 $107,414 500 $124,902 98 $24,565 101 $25,289 104 $25,987 107 $26,704 110 $27,441 113 $28,198
Site Electrical Connections - STEP, extra for existing houses 50 $50,000 50 $50,000 24 $24,000 48 $48,000 48 $48,000 48 $48,000 107 $107,000 107 $107,000
Main Pump Station 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Odor Control 0 $0 1 $50,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Subtotal Equipment $1,951,031 $2,298,335 $477,602 $549,918 $561,779 $573,968 $733,993 $746,863
Installation, Miscellaneous Mechanical 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0
Electrical 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0
Instrumentation and Control 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0
Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $2,727,926 $3,575,809 $810,848 $955,769 $965,581 $1,156,322 $1,228,121 $1,246,341
Contractor O&P 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0
Mobilization, demobilization, bond 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0
Total estimated current construction cost $2,727,926 $3,575,809 $810,848 $955,769 $965,581 $1,156,322 $1,228,121 $1,246,341
Escalation to time of construction 3.50% $95,477 3.50% $125,153 3.50% $28,380 3.50% $33,452 3.50% $33,795 3.50% $40,471 3.50% $42,984 3.50% $43,622
Total estimated construction cost $2,823,403 $3,700,962 $839,228 $989,220 $999,376 $1,196,793 $1,271,105 $1,289,963
Contingency 30% $847,021 30% $1,110,289 30% $251,768 30% $296,766 30% $299,813 30% $359,038 30% $381,331 30% $386,989
Engineering Design (not included for onsite costs) 15% ($0) 15% $52,809 15% $30,131 15% $41,339 15% $39,940 15% $41,359 15% $50,162 15% $50,172
Construction Management (not included for onsite costs) 10% ($0) 10% $35,206 10% $20,087 10% $27,559 10% $26,626 10% $27,573 10% $33,441 10% $33,448
Sales Tax 8.4% $308,316 8.4% $404,145 8.4% $91,644 8.4% $108,023 8.4% $109,132 8.4% $130,690 8.4% $138,805 8.4% $140,864
Total Estimated Capital Cost $3,979,000 $5,303,000 $1,233,000 $1,463,000 $1,475,000 $1,755,000 $1,875,000 $1,901,000
Total Estimated Onsite Capital Cost $3,979,000 $4,834,000 $965,000 $1,095,000 $1,120,000 $1,388,000 $1,429,000 $1,455,000

By : Tt
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate (per year)
Item Description
Labor $40 hr 483.8181818 $19,353 554.1244358 $22,165 635.8775661 $25,435 730.94129 $29,238 841.482765 $33,659 970.021993 $38,801
Septic tank pumping $300 ea 86 $25,909 100 $30,127 117 diesel 136 $40,736 158 $47,369 184 $55,081
Diesel oil $4.50 gal 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Power $0.08 kWh 117532 $8,815 136668 $10,250 158920 $11,919 184795 $13,860 214882 $16,116 249868 $18,740
Chemicals $0.00 ls 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Hypochlorite $0.60 lb 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Sodium Bisulfite $0.20 gal 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Polymer $3.00 lb 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Misc expenses allowance 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Total Annual Cost $54,077 $62,543 $37,354 $83,834 $97,144 $112,622
Structural Maintenance 2% $33,143 2% $35,753 2% $38,765 2% $51,249 2% $55,268 2% $60,187
Equipment replacement 4% $98,909 4% $112,361 4% $127,759 4% $147,420 4% $167,712 4% $193,764
Total Annual Cost with Replacement Costs $186,128 $210,657 $203,878 $282,503 $320,125 $366,573
= on site costs

By : Tt
Date : 11-Aug-08
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Item Description
Labor 1119.489269 $44,780 1293.291982 $51,732 1495.392294 $59,816 1730.397464 $69,216 2003.664879 $80,147 2321.424187 $92,857 2690.919313 $107,637
Septic tank pumping 213 $64,049 248 $74,478 289 $86,604 336 $100,704 390 $117,100 454 $136,165 528 $158,335
Diesel oil 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Power 290550 $21,791 337855 $25,339 392863 $29,465 456827 $34,262 531205 $39,840 617693 $46,327 718262 $53,870
Chemicals 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Hypochlorite 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Sodium Bisulfite 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Polymer 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Misc expenses 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Total Annual Cost $130,620 $151,548 $175,884 $204,182 $237,087 $275,349 $319,842
Structural Maintenance 2% $72,785 2% $82,124 2% $89,608 2% $102,927 2% $113,326 2% $126,162 2% $139,495
Equipment replacement 4% $225,373 4% $259,020 4% $297,477 4% $343,628 4% $392,683 4% $450,702 4% $517,516
Total Annual Cost with Replacement Costs $428,778 $492,692 $562,968 $650,737 $743,096 $852,214 $976,853

By : Tt
Date : 11-Aug-08
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
RESIDENTIAL AREA #3
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Item Description
Labor 3120.573596 $124,823 3620.181819 $144,807 3718.441072 $148,738 3819.598133 $152,784 3923.546116 $156,942 4030.362023 $161,214 4140.124978 $165,605 4252.916293 $170,117
Septic tank pumping 614 $184,114 714 $214,091 733 $219,986 754 $226,056 774 $232,293 796 $238,702 818 $245,287 840 $252,055
Diesel oil 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Power 835206 $62,640 971190 $72,839 997934 $74,845 1025467 $76,910 1053759 $79,032 1082833 $81,212 1112708 $83,453 1143407 $85,756
Chemicals 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Hypochlorite 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Sodium Bisulfite 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Polymer 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Misc expenses 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Total Annual Cost $371,578 $431,737 $443,569 $455,750 $468,267 $481,129 $494,346 $507,927
Structural Maintenance 2% $155,033 2% $180,582 2% $187,247 2% $195,364 2% $203,440 2% $215,087 2% $224,970 2% $234,959
Equipment replacement 4% $595,558 4% $687,491 4% $706,595 4% $728,592 4% $751,063 4% $774,022 4% $803,381 4% $833,256
Total Annual Cost with Replacement Costs $1,122,168 $1,299,810 $1,337,411 $1,379,706 $1,422,769 $1,470,237 $1,522,697 $1,576,142

By : Tt
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
COLLECTION - GRAVITY SYSTEM 116 204
Structural
8" PVC Gravity Main (8' to 10' deep) $80 LF 5,307 $424,560 0 $0 0 $0 4119 $329,520 0 $0 0 $0
8" PVC Gravity Main (16'-20' deep) $126 LF 2,760 $347,760 0 $0 0 $0 2803 $353,178 0 $0 0 $0
8" PVC Gravity Main (20' to 25' deep) $180 LF 837 $150,660 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
10" PVC Gravity Main (20' to 25' deep) $190 LF 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
12" PVC Gravity Main (8' to 10' deep) $96 LF 1,040 $99,840 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
12" PVC Gravity Main (16'-20' deep) $151 LF 500 $75,600 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
4" PVC Force Main $32 LF 8,176 $261,632 0 $0 0 $0 1827 $58,464 0 $0 0 $0
12" PVC Force Main $65 LF 7,323 $475,995 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
4" PVC Gravity Laterals (Side Sewers) $2,000 EA 432 $863,636 70 $140,613 82 $163,506 95 $190,127 111 $221,083 129 $257,078
4" PVC Gravity Laterals - extra for existing houses $1,000 EA 15 $15,000 15 $15,000 15 $15,000 15 $15,000 15 $15,000 42 $42,000
1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - Grinder $2,400 EA 8 $19,200 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Lateral Kits $250 EA 8 $2,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
48" MH (8' to 10' deep) $ 3,225 EA 12 $38,701 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
48" MH (8' to 12' deep) $ 3,925 EA 4 $15,701 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
48" MH (12' to 14' deep) $ 4,626 EA 4 $18,502 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
48" MH (14' to 16' deep) $ 5,326 EA 4 $21,303 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
48" MH (16' to 20' deep) $ 6,376 EA 2 $12,752 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
48" MH (20' to 25' deep) $ 7,952 EA 2 $15,903 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
48" MH (25' to 30' deep) $ 9,702 EA 5 $48,512 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Dewatering $50,000 LS 1 $50,000 0 $0 0 $0 1 $50,000 0 $0 0 $0
AC Surface Restoration $30 SY 6,512 $195,350 0 $0 0 $0 3,752 $112,550 0 $0 0 $0
Native Surface Restoration $1 SY 17,300 $17,300 2,800 $2,800 3,300 $3,300 3,800 $3,800 4,400 $4,400 5,100 $5,100
Abandon Septic Tank $750 EA 15 $11,250 15 $11,250 15 $11,250 15 $11,250 15 $11,250 42 $31,500
Subtotal Structural $4,349,584 $169,663 $193,056 $1,594,269 $251,733 $335,678
Grinder Pump (Installed) $4,500 EA 8 $36,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Site Electrical Connections - Grinder $500 EA 8 $4,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Main Pump Station (2.1 mgd) $500,000 EA 1 $500,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Medium Pump Station $375,000 EA 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1 $375,000 0 $0 0 $0
Small Pump Station (0.036 mgd) $250,000 EA 2 $500,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Subtotal Equipment $1,040,000 $0 $0 $375,000 $0 $0
Installation, Miscellaneous Mechanical of Equip 40% $200,000 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0
Electrical of Equip 20% $100,000 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0
Instrumentation and Control of Equip 15% $75,000 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0
Contractor O&P of Sub Cost 15% $75,000 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0
Mobilization, demobilization, bond of Sub cost 6% $30,000 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0
Contingency 30% $1,822,506 30% $52,680 30% $59,944 30% $611,458 30% $78,163 30% $104,228
Engineering Design 15% $989,184 15% $0 15% $0 15% $353,010 15% $0 15% ($0)
Construction Management 10% $659,456 10% $0 10% $0 10% $235,340 10% $0 10% ($0)
Sales Tax 8.4% $663,392 8.4% $19,176 8.4% $21,820 8.4% $222,571 8.4% $28,451 8.4% $37,939
Total Estimated Capital Cost $10,210,000 $247,000 $282,000 $3,461,000 $367,000 $490,000
Total Estimated Onsite Capital Cost $1,412,000 $247,000 $282,000 $321,000 $367,000 $490,000

By : Tt
Date : 11-Aug-08
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Structural
8" PVC Gravity Main (8' to 10' deep) 1,297 $103,760 1,297 $103,760 0 $0 700 $56,000 700 $56,000 700 $56,000 0 $0
8" PVC Gravity Main (10' to 12' deep) 716 $64,395 716 $64,395 0 $0 197 $17,700 197 $17,700 197 $17,700 0 $0
8" PVC Gravity Main (16'-20' deep) 1,252 $157,689 1,252 $157,689 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
8" PVC Gravity Main (20' to 25' deep) 443 $79,650 443 $79,650 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
8" PVC Gravity Main (25' to 30' deep) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
12" PVC Gravity Main (16'-20' deep) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
4" PVC Force Main 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 2829 $90,528 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
12" PVC Force Main 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
4" PVC Gravity Laterals (Side Sewers) 149 $298,935 174 $347,605 202 $404,201 235 $470,010 273 $546,535 318 $635,519 369 $738,990
4" PVC Gravity Laterals - extra for existing houses 42 $42,000 41 $41,000 41 $41,000 42 $42,000 26 $26,000 40 $40,000 40 $40,000
1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - Grinder 5 $12,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Lateral Kits 5 $1,250 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
48" MH (8' to 10' deep) 4 $12,900 3 $9,675 0 $0 3 $9,675 2 $6,450 2 $6,450 0 $0
48" MH (8' to 12' deep) 2 $7,851 2 $7,851 0 $0 1 $3,925 1 $3,925 0 $0 0 $0
48" MH (12' to 14' deep) 3 $13,877 3 $13,877 0 $0 2 $9,251 1 $4,626 1 $4,626 0 $0
48" MH (14' to 16' deep) 2 $10,652 1 $5,326 0 $0 1 $5,326 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
48" MH (16' to 20' deep) 4 $25,505 3 $19,129 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
48" MH (20' to 25' deep) 2 $15,903 1 $7,952 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
48" MH (25' to 30' deep) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Dewatering 1 $50,000 1 $50,000 0 $0 1 $50,000 1 $50,000 1 $50,000 0 $0
AC Surface Restoration 1,800 $54,005 1,800 $54,005 0 $0 452 $13,570 452 $13,570 452 $13,570 0 $0
Native Surface Restoration 6,000 $6,000 7,000 $7,000 8,100 $8,100 9,400 $9,400 10,900 $10,900 12,700 $12,700 14,800 $14,800
Abandon Septic Tank 42 $31,500 41 $30,750 41 $30,750 42 $31,500 26 $19,500 40 $30,000 40 $30,000
Subtotal Structural $1,170,472 $1,182,263 $484,051 $857,494 $803,814 $915,173 $823,790
Grinder Pump (Installed) 5 $22,500 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Site Electrical Connections - Grinder 5 $2,500 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Main Pump Station (2.1 mgd) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Medium Pump Station 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Small Pump Station (0.036 mgd) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1 $250,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Subtotal Equipment $25,000 $0 $0 $250,000 $0 $0 $0
Electrical 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0
Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $1,195,472 $1,182,263 $484,051 $1,107,494 $803,814 $915,173 $823,790
Contractor O&P 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0
Total estimated current construction cost $1,195,472 $1,182,263 $484,051 $1,107,494 $803,814 $915,173 $823,790
Total estimated construction cost $1,237,313 $1,223,643 $500,992 $1,146,257 $831,948 $947,204 $852,623
Contingency 30% $371,194 30% $367,093 30% $150,298 30% $343,877 30% $249,584 30% $284,161 30% $255,787
Engineering Design 15% $157,179 15% $152,561 15% $0 15% $111,929 15% $40,543 15% $39,750 15% $0
Construction Management 10% $104,786 10% $101,707 10% $0 10% $74,619 10% $27,028 10% $26,500 10% $0
Sales Tax 8.4% $135,115 8.4% $133,622 8.4% $54,708 8.4% $125,171 8.4% $90,849 8.4% $103,435 8.4% $93,106
Total Estimated Capital Cost $2,006,000 $1,979,000 $706,000 $1,802,000 $1,240,000 $1,401,000 $1,202,000
Total Estimated Onsite Capital Cost $608,000 $622,000 $706,000 $806,000 $879,000 $1,048,000 $1,202,000

By : Tt
Date : 11-Aug-08
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
RESIDENTIAL AREA #3
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Structural
8" PVC Gravity Main (8' to 10' deep) 0 $0 1,432 $114,526 1,432 $114,526 1,432 $114,526 1,432 $114,526 1,432 $114,526 1,432 $114,526 1,432 $114,526
8" PVC Gravity Main (10' to 12' deep) 0 $0 569 $51,210 569 $51,210 569 $51,210 569 $51,210 569 $51,210 569 $51,210 569 $51,210
8" PVC Gravity Main (14' to 16' deep) 0 $0 2,198 $274,696 398 $49,696 398 $49,696 398 $49,696 398 $49,696 398 $49,696 398 $49,696
8" PVC Gravity Main (16'-20' deep) 0 $0 3,835 $483,174 2,035 $256,374 2,035 $256,374 2,035 $256,374 2,035 $256,374 2,035 $256,374 2,035 $256,374
10" PVC Gravity Main (20' to 25' deep) 0 $0 800 $152,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
12" PVC Gravity Main (8' to 10' deep) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
12" PVC Gravity Main (16'-20' deep) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
4" PVC Force Main 0 $0 2,857 $91,424 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
12" PVC Force Main 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
4" PVC Gravity Laterals (Side Sewers) 430 $859,309 500 $999,216 98 $196,519 101 $202,314 104 $207,896 107 $213,632 110 $219,526 113 $225,583
4" PVC Gravity Laterals - extra for existing houses 50 $50,000 50 $50,000 24 $24,000 48 $48,000 48 $48,000 48 $48,000 107 $107,000 107 $107,000
1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - Grinder 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Lateral Kits 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
48" MH (8' to 10' deep) 0 $0 0 $0 5 $15,051 5 $15,051 5 $15,051 5 $15,051 5 $15,051 5 $15,051
48" MH (8' to 12' deep) 0 $0 0 $0 2 $7,851 2 $7,851 2 $7,851 2 $7,851 2 $7,851 2 $7,851
48" MH (12' to 14' deep) 0 $0 0 $0 2 $10,022 2 $10,022 2 $10,022 2 $10,022 2 $10,022 2 $10,022
48" MH (14' to 16' deep) 0 $0 0 $0 2 $12,427 2 $12,427 2 $12,427 2 $12,427 2 $12,427 2 $12,427
48" MH (16' to 20' deep) 0 $0 21 $133,900 5 $28,693 5 $28,693 5 $28,693 5 $28,693 5 $28,693 5 $28,693
48" MH (20' to 25' deep) 0 $0 0 $0 4 $27,831 4 $27,831 4 $27,831 4 $27,831 4 $27,831 4 $27,831
48" MH (25' to 30' deep) 0 $0 0 $0 1 $9,702 1 $9,702 1 $9,702 1 $9,702 1 $9,702 1 $9,702
Dewatering 0 $0 3 $150,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1 $50,000 1 $50,000 0 $0
AC Surface Restoration 0 $0 3,641 $109,231 2,212 $66,374 2,212 $66,374 2,212 $66,374 2,212 $66,374 2,212 $66,374 2,212 $66,374
Native Surface Restoration 17,200 $17,200 20,000 $20,000 3,900 $3,900 4,000 $4,000 4,200 $4,200 4,300 $4,300 4,400 $4,400 4,500 $4,500
Abandon Septic Tank 50 $37,500 50 $37,500 24 $18,000 48 $36,000 48 $36,000 48 $36,000 107 $80,250 107 $80,250
Subtotal Structural $964,009 $3,008,158 $1,254,027 $1,301,922 $1,307,704 $1,363,540 $1,472,784 $1,428,941
Grinder Pump (Installed) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Site Electrical Connections - Grinder 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Main Pump Station (2.1 mgd) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Medium Pump Station 0 $0 1 $375,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Small Pump Station (0.036 mgd) 0 $0 1 $250,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Subtotal Equipment $0 $625,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Electrical 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0
Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $964,009 $3,633,158 $1,254,027 $1,301,922 $1,307,704 $1,363,540 $1,472,784 $1,428,941
Contractor O&P 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0
Total estimated current construction cost $964,009 $3,633,158 $1,254,027 $1,301,922 $1,307,704 $1,363,540 $1,472,784 $1,428,941
Total estimated construction cost $997,749 $3,760,318 $1,297,918 $1,347,490 $1,353,474 $1,411,264 $1,524,332 $1,478,954
Contingency 30% $299,325 30% $1,128,096 30% $389,375 30% $404,247 30% $406,042 30% $423,379 30% $457,299 30% $443,686
Engineering Design 15% ($0) 15% $509,899 15% $204,168 15% $204,168 15% $204,168 15% $214,259 15% $214,259 15% $204,168
Construction Management 10% ($0) 10% $339,933 10% $136,112 10% $136,112 10% $136,112 10% $142,839 10% $142,839 10% $136,112
Sales Tax 8.4% $108,954 8.4% $410,627 8.4% $141,733 8.4% $147,146 8.4% $147,799 8.4% $154,110 8.4% $166,457 8.4% $161,502
Total Estimated Onsite Capital Cost $1,406,000 $1,614,000 $354,000 $423,000 $432,000 $440,000 $600,000 $609,000

By : Tt
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Item Description
Labor $40 hr 188 $7,520 188 $7,520 188 $7,520 240 $9,600 240 $9,600 240 $9,600
Septic tank pumping $300 ea $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Diesel oil $4.50 gal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Power $0.08 kWh 123390 $9,254 125571 $9,418 128109 $9,608 185495 $13,912 188926 $14,169 192915 $14,469
Structural Maintenance 2% $0 2% $0 2% $0 2% $0 2% $0 2% $0
Equipment replacement 4% $0 4% $0 4% $0 4% $0 4% $0 4% $0
Chemicals $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Hypochlorite $0.60 lb 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Polymer $3.00 lb $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Misc expenses allowance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

By : Tt
Date : 11-Aug-08
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Item Description
Labor 260 $10,400 260 $10,400 260 $10,400 312 $12,480 312 $12,480 312 $12,480 312 $12,480
Septic tank pumping $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Diesel oil $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Power 251990 $18,899 257384 $19,304 263656 $19,774 325385 $24,404 333866 $25,040 343727 $25,780 300759 $22,557
Structural Maintenance 2% $0 2% $0 2% $0 2% $0 2% $0 2% $0 2% $0
Equipment replacement 4% $0 4% $0 4% $0 4% $0 4% $0 4% $0 4% $0
Chemicals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Hypochlorite 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Polymer $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Misc expenses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

By : Tt
Date : 11-Aug-08
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
RESIDENTIAL AREA #3
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Item Description
Labor 312 $12,480 416 $16,640 416 $16,640 416 $16,640 416 $16,640 416 $16,640 416 $16,640 416 $16,640
Septic tank pumping $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Diesel oil $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Power 368529 $27,640 492906 $36,968 495956 $37,197 499095 $37,432 502321 $37,674 505636 $37,923 509043 $38,178 512543 $38,441
Structural Maintenance 2% $0 2% $0 2% $0 2% $0 2% $0 2% $0 2% $0 2% $0
Equipment replacement 4% $0 4% $0 4% $0 4% $0 4% $0 4% $0 4% $0 4% $0
Chemicals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Hypochlorite 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Polymer $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Misc expenses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Annual Cost with Replacement Costs $389,621 $488,272 $513,581 $539,855 $566,251 $593,771 $623,482 $652,323

Date : 8-Sep-08 THESE CALCULATIONS USE $25k/ACRE AND ASSUME DISPOSAL AREA IS OUTSIDE THE UGA
Option: Phase III - 2030 High Flow (1mgd): Irrigation at Agronomic Rate of 0.10 gpd/sf, Storage for 5 months
Item Description Quantity Unit Unit cost, $ Cost, $
Site Process Piping and V 500 LF $65 $32,500 RS Means Infiltration Rate (gpd/sf
Land Purchase: Storage/8 81 Acres $25,000 $2,013,825 7 months storage 2 29.924
Land Purchase: Disposal/ 459 Acres $25,000 $11,478,421 Used 8 gpd/sf, Doubled land area for full redundancy 0.1 Shown in Alex' Slide
Land Purchase: Buffers 135 Acres $25,000 $3,373,061
Storage Basins - Sitework 909,712 CY $8 $7,277,696 7 feet deep basin, Bermed top.
Site Process Piping and V 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 5 months at 1,000,000 gpd at 7 feet deep
Electrical Conduit, Sitewo 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
Monitoring Wells 3 EA $10,000 $30,000
Subtotal Structural $24,240,503 W/O Land

Main Pump Station (2.1 m 0 EA $500,000 $0 $7,375,196
Medium Pump Station 1 EA $375,000 $375,000
Small Pump Station (0.03 0 EA $250,000 $0
Distribution Piping & Equ 1 EA $10,000 $10,000
Subtotal Equipment $385,000 Land Cost

Total estimated current construction cost $24,625,503 $16,865,307
Escalation to time of cons 2.60% $640,263 $7,760,196 $438,498
Total estimated construction cost $25,265,767 $201,765 $17,303,805
Contingency 30% $7,579,730 $7,961,961 $5,191,142
Engineering Design 15% $2,331,254 Land Costs not included $0 Storage 15% $3,357,550.22
Construction Managemen 10% $2,050,466 Land Costs not included Disposal 85% $19,137,396.69
Sales Tax 8.8% $1,804,410 Land Costs not included
Total Estimated Capital Cost $39,031,627 $22,494,947

Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Annual Cost
Labor 104 hr $30 $3,120 2hrs/week maintenance on pump station
Power 326617 kWh $0.07 $22,863 12hr/day run time, 100hp pump station
Structural Maintenance 2% $151,339
Equipment replacement 4% $15,800
Misc expenses allowance $0
Total Annual Cost $193,123
Present Worth Factor 14.6061 20year period, 3.2% discount factor
Present Worth Cost $2,821,000
Total Present Worth Project Cost Estimate
Capital $39,031,627
Operations and Maintenance $2,821,000
Total Present Worth $41,852,600
Subject: Discharge and Reuse Analysis
By : Tt
Date : 1-Mar-06
Option: Phase III - 2030 High Flows (1mgd) Slow Rate Land Disposal & Storage South of Service Area,
Earthwork for Discharge - included in drip emitter cost CY $8 $0 Assume 0.1 cy per lf. Excavation. Cost included in installed cost of pipe.
Site Process Piping and Valving 1,000 lf $25 $25,000 additional for PVC supply/flush lines
Electrical Conduit, Sitework, Lighting 1 LS $15,000 $15,000
Land Acquisition: Infiltration 23 AC $28,032 $643,517 1,000,000 gpd at 2 gpd/sf Infiltration Rate
Land Purchase: Buffers 6 AC $28,032 $160,879
Land Acquisition: Storage 0 AC $28,032 $0 20 Days at 1,000,000 gpd at 7 feet deep
Storage Basin - Sitework 0 CY $8 $0 7 feet deep basin, Berme20 Days at 1,000,000 gpd at 7 feet deep
Drip Emitter Network 1,000,000 LF $1 $1,000,000 (Geoflow, Rodney Ruskin 4/30/30; about $1/ft installed (pipe $0.20/ft, rest is controls, valves, labor); includes controls, valves, not including pump
$0 W/O Land
Subtotal Structural $1,874,396 $1,070,000
Distribution Piping & Equipment 1 EA $20,000 $20,000
Reclaimed Water Pumps/Filter 1 EA $50,000 $50,000 about $250,000 after adders
$0
Subtotal Equipment $70,000
Contractor O&P 15% of Sub Cost $171,000 land not added into contractor markups
Mobilization, demobilization, bond 6% of Sub cost $68,400 land not added into contractor markups Land Cost
Total estimated current construction cost $2,183,796 $1,070,000 $804,396
Escalation to time of construction 8.68% $189,470 $92,835 $69,791
Total estimated construction cost $2,373,266 $1,162,835 $874,187
Contingency 30% $711,980 $262,256

Engineering Design 15% $326,414 land not added into engineering/CM costs $0 Storage 0% $0.00
Construction Management 10% $217,609 land not added into engineering/CM costs Disposal 100% $1,136,443.32
Sales Tax 8.3% $180,616 land not added into sales tax (tax assumed in up-front per-acre cost)

Labor 520 HR $30 $15,600 10 hours/week maint
Diesel oil GAL $2.00 $0
Power 16,331 kWh $0.07 $1,143 AA: 5 hp pump, 12 hr/day
Chemicals 0 LS $5,000 $0
Hypochlorite 0 LB $0.60 $0
Sodium Bisulfite 0 GAL $0.20 $0
Polymer LB $3.00 $0
Present Worth Factor 14.6061
Present Worth Cost $629,000
Capital $3,810,000
Operations and Maintenance $629,000
Date : 8-Sep-08
Option: Phase III - 2030 High Flow (1mgd): Rapid Rate Land Disposal & Storage South of Service Area,
Site Process Piping and Valving 500 LF $65 $32,500 RS Means Infiltration Rate (in/hr) gpd/sf
Land Purchase: Storage/8' Dike/20days/Buidout MM Flows 0 Acres $28,032 $0 2 29.924
Land Purchase: Disposal/Buidout MM Flows 5.7 Acres $28,032 $160,879 Used 8 gpd/sf, Doubled land area for full redundancy 8 Shown in Alex' Slide
Land Purchase: Buffers 1 Acres $28,032 $40,220
Rapid Infiltration Basins - Sitework 37,037 CY $8 $296,296
Storage Basins - Sitework 0 CY $8 $0 4 feet deep basin.
Site Process Piping and Valving 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 7 feet deep basin, Bermed top. 20 Days at 1,000,000 gpd at 7 feet deep
Subtotal Structural $594,895 W/O Land

Main Pump Station (2.1 mgd) 0 EA $500,000 $0 $393,796
Small Pump Station (0.036 mgd) 0 EA $250,000 $0

Total estimated current construction cost $979,895 $201,099
Escalation to time of construction 2.60% $25,477 $778,796 $5,229
Total estimated construction cost $1,005,373 $20,249 $206,328
Contingency 30% $301,612 $799,045 $61,898
Engineering Design 15% $165,099 $0 Storage 0% $0.00
Construction Management 10% $110,066 Land Costs not included Disposal 100% $268,225.99
Sales Tax 8.8% $96,858 Land Costs not included
Total Estimated Capital Cost $1,679,006 Land Costs not included $268,226

Labor 104 hr $30 $3,120
Power 326617 kWh $0.07 $22,863 2hrs/week maintenance on pump station
Structural Maintenance 2% $8,081 12hr/day run time, 100hp pump station
Present Worth Cost $728,000 20year period, 3.2% discount factor
Capital $1,679,006
Date : 8-Sep-08
Option: Phase III - 2030 High Flow (1mgd): Constructed Wetlands, 20 days storage, 1.2 gpd/sf disposal
Site Process Piping and Valving 500 LF $65 $32,500 RS Means Infiltration Rat gpd/sf
Land Purchase: Storage/8' Dike/20days/Buidout MM 3 Acres $25,000 $62,500 2 29.924
Land Purchase: Wetland Disposal/Buidout MM Flow 38 Acres $25,000 $956,535 Used 1.2 gpd/sf 1.2 Shown in Alex' Slide
Wetlands - Sitework 1,666,667 SF $15 $25,000,000
Storage Basins - Sitework 28,233 CY $8 $225,867 7 feet deep basin, Bermed top.
Site Process Piping and Valving 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 20 Days at 1,000,000 gpd at 7 feet deep

Main Pump Station (2.1 mgd) 0 EA $500,000 $0 $25,323,367

Total estimated current construction cost $26,982,160 $1,273,794
Escalation to time of construction 2.60% $701,536 $25,708,367 $33,119
Total estimated construction cost $27,683,697 $668,418 $1,306,912
Contingency 30% $8,921,073 $26,376,784 $392,074
Engineering Design 15% $5,366,588 Land Costs not included $0 Storage 6% $104,203.13
Construction Management 10% $3,577,725 Land Costs not included Disposal 94% $1,594,783.06
Sales Tax 8.8% $3,148,398 Land Costs not included

Capital $48,697,481
For Land Outside the UGA Average Value/Acre $25,000
Land Value per Acre Calculation South End of UGA
Parcels
This calculation will sum the County Assessed Value (or latest sale value) for the six parcels, multiply by
escalation factor to estimate the market value, and divide by the total acreage to get a value/acre.
Parcel # Assessed Value Escalation Factor Estimated Market Acres $/Acre

Value
901112002 $85,500 1.5 $128,250 9.8 $13,140
901111019 $375,000 1.5 $562,500 6.4 $87,499
901112010 $55,265 1.5 $82,898 9.4 $8,784
901112012 $80,700 1.5 $121,050 5.9 $20,458
901112041 $47,875 1.5 $71,813 7.0 $10,276
Average Value/Acre $28,032
By : Tt
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
TREATMENT - SBR
Item Description Unit Cost Unit Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $
Administration/Lab Building $250 SF 400 $100,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $250 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Electrical Building (generator outside) $200 SF 720 $144,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $200 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Mechanical Building $200 SF 2,320 $464,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $200 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Filter & Chemical Building $200 SF 800 $160,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $200 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Excavation $20 CY 4,116 $82,320 0 $0 0 $0 1,062 $20 $21,240 0 $0 0 $0
Backfill $15 CY 1,694 $25,410 0 $0 0 $0 514 $15 $7,710 0 $0 0 $0
Slab Concrete and Rebar $500 CY 554 $276,972 0 $0 0 $0 105 $500 $52,556 0 $0 0 $0
Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar $700 CY 659 $461,155 0 $0 0 $0 87 $700 $61,172 0 $0 0 $0
Headworks Concrete $1,500 CY 37 $55,556 0 $0 0 $0 0 $1,500 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Deck - Aerator Support Concrete $800 CY 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $800 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Access Bridge Concrete $800 CY 30 $24,000 0 $0 0 $0 10 $800 $8,000 0 $0 0 $0
Influent and Effluent Weir Concrete $700 CY 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $700 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Misc Metals (Handrailing, Covers, etc.) Phase 1 $53,349 LS 1 $53,349 0 $0 0 $0 1 $8,521 $8,521 0 $0 0 $0
Site Stormwater Piping and Valving $15,000 AC 3 $45,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $15,000 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Site Process Piping and Valving $98,026 LS 1 $98,026 0 $0 0 $0 1 $30,000 $30,000 0 $0 0 $0
Indoor Process Piping and Valving $392,104 LS 1 $392,104 0 $0 0 $0 1 $40,000 $40,000 0 $0 0 $0
Manholes $6,000 EA 7 $42,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $6,000 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Stormwater Detention Tank and Control Structures $100,000 LS 1 $100,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $100,000 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Paving $30 SY 4,840 $145,200 0 $0 0 $0 0 $30 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Sitework $100,000 LS 1 $100,000 0 $0 0 $0 1 $50,000 $50,000 0 $0 0 $0
Landscaping $100,000 LS 1 $100,000 0 $0 0 $0 1 $10,000 $10,000 0 $0 0 $0
Electrical Conduit, Sitework $40,000 LS 1 $40,000 0 $0 0 $0 1 $10,000 $10,000 0 $0 0 $0
Site Lighting $40,000 LS 1 $40,000 0 $0 0 $0 1 $5,000 $5,000 0 $0 0 $0
Laboratory Equipment $20,000 LS 1 $20,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $20,000 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Furniture $25,000 LS 1 $25,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $25,000 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Land Acquisition $28,000 AC 6 $168,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $80,700 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Land Purchase: Storage/8' Dike/20days/Buidout MM Flows $49,000 AC 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0.00 $49,000 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Land Purchase: Buffers $49,000 AC 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0.00 $49,000 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Storage Basins - Sitework $8 CY 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 6,551 $8 $52,408 0 $0 0 $0
Site Process Piping and Valving $50,000 LS 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1 $50,000 $50,000 0 $0 0 $0
Liner $1.75 SF 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 17,963 $1.75 $31,434 0 $0 0 $0
Concrete Access Ramps $500 CY 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 10 $500 $5,000 0 $0 0 $0
Inlet / Outlet Structures $15,000 EA 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 2 $15,000 $30,000 0 $0 0 $0
Subtotal Structural 0 $3,162,092 $0 $0 $473,041 $0 $0
SBR Equipment $416,860 LS 1 $416,860 0 $0 0 $0 1 $119,103 $119,103 0 $0 0 $0
(3 Transfer pumps @ 2.4 hp)
(3 Blowers @ 40 hp)
(3 Mixers @ 5 hp)
(3 Submersible Pumps for Eq @ 3 hp)
WAS Pumps $7,500 EA 3 $22,500 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Influent Screen - 1/8 in $100,000 EA 1 $100,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Magnetic Flow Meters $5,000 EA 2 $10,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Yard Pump Station Pumps $7,500 EA 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Plant Water Pumps $5,000 EA 2 $10,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Strainer (Manual duplex) $2,000 EA 1 $2,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Hydro Tank $4,000 EA 1 $4,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Odor Control - Carbon Adsorber, Fans, Piping $75,000 LS 1 $75,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Generator $200 kW 750 $150,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Generator Silencer, Louvers, Acoustics $5,000 LS 1 $5,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Underground Fuel Storage Tank, Pumps $15,000 LS 1 $15,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Automatic Transfer Switch $15,000 LS 1 $15,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Motor Control Centers/Variable Frequency Drives $75,000 LS 1 $75,000 0 $0 0 $0 1 $30,000 $30,000 0 $0 0 $0
PLC $100,000 LS 1 $100,000 0 $0 0 $0 1 $20,000 $20,000 0 $0 0 $0
Filter Equipment $292,400 LS 1 $292,400 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Chemical Storage Tanks $10,000 LS 1 $10,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Chemical Feed Pumps $7,500 LS 1 $7,500 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Flow Pacing Controller $5,000 LS 1 $5,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Flocculation Tank $10,000 LS 1 $10,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

By : Tt
Date : 11-Aug-08
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
TREATMENT - SBR
Administration/Lab Building 0 $0 0 $0 2,100 $250 $525,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Electrical Building (generator outside) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $200 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Mechanical Building 0 $0 0 $0 800 $200 $160,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Filter & Chemical Building 0 $0 0 $0 0 $200 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Excavation 0 $0 0 $0 2,457 $20 $49,140 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Backfill 0 $0 0 $0 985 $15 $14,775 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Slab Concrete and Rebar 0 $0 0 $0 238 $500 $118,833 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar 0 $0 0 $0 252 $700 $176,244 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Headworks Concrete 0 $0 0 $0 0 $500 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Deck - Aerator Support Concrete 0 $0 0 $0 0 $800 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Access Bridge Concrete 0 $0 0 $0 33 $800 $26,667 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Influent and Effluent Weir Concrete 0 $0 0 $0 0 $700 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Misc Metals (Handrailing, Covers, etc.) Phase 1 0 $0 0 $0 1 $22,522 $22,522 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Site Stormwater Piping and Valving 0 $0 0 $0 0 $15,000 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Site Process Piping and Valving 0 $0 0 $0 1 $49,013 $49,013 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Indoor Process Piping and Valving 0 $0 0 $0 1 $196,052 $196,052 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Manholes 0 $0 0 $0 0 $6,000 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Stormwater Detention Tank and Control Structures 0 $0 0 $0 0 $100,000 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Paving 0 $0 0 $0 0 $30 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Sitework 0 $0 0 $0 1 $60,000 $60,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Landscaping 0 $0 0 $0 1 $12,000 $12,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Electrical Conduit, Sitework 0 $0 0 $0 1 $40,000 $40,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Site Lighting 0 $0 0 $0 1 $12,000 $12,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Laboratory Equipment 0 $0 0 $0 1 $15,000 $15,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Furniture 0 $0 0 $0 1 $7,000 $7,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Land Acquisition 0 $0 0 $0 0 $80,700 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Land Purchase: Storage/8' Dike/20days/Buidout MM Flows 0 $0 0 $0 0.00 $49,000 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Land Purchase: Buffers 0 $0 0 $0 0.00 $49,000 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Storage Basins - Sitework 0 $0 0 $0 0 $8 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Site Process Piping and Valving 0 $0 0 $0 0 $50,000 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Liner 0 $0 0 $0 0 $1.75 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Concrete Access Ramps 0 $0 0 $0 0 $500 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Inlet / Outlet Structures 0 $0 0 $0 0 $15,000 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Subtotal Structural $0 $0 $1,484,247 $0 $0 $0 $0
SBR Equipment 0 $0 0 $0 1 $241,476 $241,476 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
(3 Blowers @ 40 hp)
(3 Mixers @ 5 hp)
WAS Pumps 0 $0 0 $0 0 $7,500 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Influent Screen - 1/8 in 0 $0 0 $0 0 $100,000 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Magnetic Flow Meters 0 $0 0 $0 0 $5,000 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Yard Pump Station Pumps 0 $0 0 $0 0 $7,500 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Plant Water Pumps 0 $0 0 $0 0 $5,000 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Strainer (Manual duplex) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $2,000 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Hydro Tank 0 $0 0 $0 0 $4,000 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Odor Control - Carbon Adsorber, Fans, Piping 0 $0 0 $0 0 $75,000 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Generator 0 $0 0 $0 0 $175 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Generator Silencer, Louvers, Acoustics 0 $0 0 $0 0 $5,000 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Underground Fuel Storage Tank, Pumps 0 $0 0 $0 0 $10,000 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Automatic Transfer Switch 0 $0 0 $0 0 $15,000 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Motor Control Centers/Variable Frequency Drives 0 $0 0 $0 1 $30,000 $30,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
PLC 0 $0 0 $0 1 $10,000 $10,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Filter Equipment 0 $0 0 $0 1 $292,400 $292,400 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Chemical Storage Tanks 0 $0 0 $0 1 $10,000 $10,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Chemical Feed Pumps 0 $0 0 $0 1 $7,500 $7,500 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Flow Pacing Controller 0 $0 0 $0 1 $5,000 $5,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Flocculation Tank 0 $0 0 $0 1 $10,000 $10,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Subtotal Equipment $0 $0 $606,376 $0 $0 $0 $0

By : Tt
Date : 11-Aug-08
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
RESIDENTIAL AREA #3
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
TREATMENT - SBR
Item Description Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $ Quantity Cost, $
Administration/Lab Building 0 $0 0 $250 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Electrical Building (generator outside) 0 $0 0 $200 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Mechanical Building 0 $0 0 $200 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Filter & Chemical Building 0 $0 0 $200 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Excavation 0 $0 2,457 $20 $49,140 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Backfill 0 $0 985 $15 $14,775 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Slab Concrete and Rebar 0 $0 238 $500 $118,833 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar 0 $0 252 $700 $176,244 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Headworks Concrete 0 $0 0 $500 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Deck - Aerator Support Concrete 0 $0 0 $800 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Access Bridge Concrete 0 $0 33 $800 $26,667 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Influent and Effluent Weir Concrete 0 $0 0 $700 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Misc Metals (Handrailing, Covers, etc.) Phase 1 0 $0 1 $22,522 $22,522 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Site Stormwater Piping and Valving 0 $0 0 $15,000 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Site Process Piping and Valving 0 $0 1 $49,013 $49,013 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Indoor Process Piping and Valving 0 $0 1 $196,052 $196,052 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Manholes 0 $0 0 $6,000 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Stormwater Detention Tank and Control Structures 0 $0 0 $100,000 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Paving 0 $0 0 $30 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Sitework 0 $0 1 $60,000 $60,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Landscaping 0 $0 1 $12,000 $12,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Electrical Conduit, Sitework 0 $0 1 $40,000 $40,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Site Lighting 0 $0 1 $12,000 $12,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Laboratory Equipment 0 $0 0 $15,000 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Furniture 0 $0 0 $25,000 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Land Acquisition 0 $0 0 $80,700 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Land Purchase: Storage/8' Dike/20days/Buidout MM Flows 0 $0 0 $49,000 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Land Purchase: Buffers 0 $0 0 $49,000 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Storage Basins - Sitework 0 $0 0 $8 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Site Process Piping and Valving 0 $0 0 $50,000 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Liner 0 $0 0 $1.75 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Concrete Access Ramps 0 $0 0 $500 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Inlet / Outlet Structures 0 $0 0 $15,000 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Subtotal Structural $0 $777,247 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
SBR Equipment 0 $0 1 $241,476 $241,476 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
(3 Blowers @ 40 hp)
(3 Mixers @ 5 hp)
WAS Pumps 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Influent Screen - 1/8 in 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Magnetic Flow Meters 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Yard Pump Station Pumps 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Plant Water Pumps 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Strainer (Manual duplex) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Hydro Tank 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Odor Control - Carbon Adsorber, Fans, Piping 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Generator 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Generator Silencer, Louvers, Acoustics 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Underground Fuel Storage Tank, Pumps 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Automatic Transfer Switch 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Motor Control Centers/Variable Frequency Drives 0 $0 1 $30,000 $30,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
PLC 0 $0 1 $10,000 $10,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Filter Equipment 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Chemical Storage Tanks 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Chemical Feed Pumps 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Flow Pacing Controller 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Flocculation Tank 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

By : Tt
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
TREATMENT - SBR ERUs 432 ERUs 502 ERUs 584 ERUs 679 ERUs 789 ERUs 918
Installation, Miscellaneous Mechanical 40% $530,104 40% $0 40% $0 40% $67,641 40% $0 40% $0
Electrical 20% $265,052 20% $0 20% $0 20% $33,821 20% $0 20% $0
Instrumentation and Control 15% $198,789 15% $0 15% $0 15% $25,365 15% $0 15% $0
Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $5,481,297 $0 $0 $768,971 $0 $0
Contractor O&P 15% $822,195 15% $0 15% $0 15% $115,346 15% $0 15% $0
Mobilization, demobilization, bond 6% $328,878 6% $0 6% $0 6% $46,138 6% $0 6% $0
Total estimated current construction cost $6,632,369 $0 $0 $930,455 $0 $0
Escalation to time of construction 3.50% $232,133 3.50% $0 3.50% $0 3.50% $32,566 3.50% $0 3.50% $0
Total estimated construction cost $6,864,502 $0 $0 $963,021 $0 $0
Contingency 30% $2,059,351 30% $0 30% $0 30% $288,906 30% $0 30% $0
Engineering Design 15% $1,338,578 15% $0 15% $0 15% $187,789 15% $0 15% $0
Construction Management 10% $892,385 10% $0 10% $0 10% $125,193 10% $0 10% $0
Sales Tax 8.4% $749,604 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $105,162 8.4% $0 8.4% $0
Total Estimated Capital Cost $11,904,000 $0 $0 $1,670,000 $0 $0

Item Description Unit Cost Unit Quantity Annual Cost Quantity Annual Cost Quantity Annual Cost Quantity Annual Cost Quantity Annual Cost Quantity Annual Cost
Labor $40 HR 2,080 $83,200 2,080 $83,200 2,080 $83,200 2,080 $83,200 2,080 $83,200 2,080 $83,200
Diesel oil $4.50 GAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Power $0.075 kWh 108,325 $8,124 116,835 $8,763 126,731 $9,505 138,239 $10,368 151,620 $11,371 167,179 $12,538
Chemicals - alum coagulant for filter $0.15 LB 7,823 $1,173 9,096 $1,364 10,577 $1,587 12,299 $1,845 14,302 $2,145 16,631 $2,495
Hypochlorite $0.60 LB 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Laboratory Testing at Port Townsend $20.00 Test 416 $8,320 416 $8,320 416 $8,320 416 $8,320 416 $8,320 416 $8,320
Polymer $3.00 LB 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
DISCOUNTED Total Annual Cost $100,818 $98,687 $96,721 $94,930 $93,324 $91,914
DISCOUNTED Structural Maintenance 2% $63,242 2% $61,400 2% $59,611 2% $66,533 2% $64,595 2% $62,714
DISCOUNTED Equipment replacement 4% $53,010 4% $51,466 4% $49,967 4% $54,702 4% $53,109 4% $51,562
DISCOUNTED Total Annual Cost with Replacement Costs $217,070 $211,553 $206,300 $216,166 $211,028 $206,190
"overhead" horsepower = 9
"overhead" horsepower with expansion = 16

By : Tt
Date : 11-Aug-08
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
TREATMENT - SBR ERUs 1067 ERUs 1241 ERUs 1443 ERUs 1678 ERUs 1952 ERUs 2269 ERUs 2639
Installation, Miscellaneous Mechanical 40% $0 40% $0 40% $242,550 40% $0 40% $0 40% $0 40% $0
Electrical 20% $0 20% $0 20% $121,275 20% $0 20% $0 20% $0 20% $0
Instrumentation and Control 15% $0 15% $0 15% $90,956 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0
Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $0 $0 $2,545,404 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contractor O&P 15% $0 15% $0 15% $381,811 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0
Mobilization, demobilization, bond 6% $0 6% $0 6% $152,724 6% $0 6% $0 6% $0 6% $0
Total estimated current construction cost $0 $0 $3,079,939 $0 $0 $0 $0
Escalation to time of construction 3.50% $0 3.50% $0 3.50% $107,798 3.50% $0 3.50% $0 3.50% $0 3.50% $0
Total estimated construction cost $0 $0 $3,187,737 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contingency 30% $0 30% $0 30% $956,321 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0
Engineering Design 15% $0 15% $0 15% $621,609 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0
Construction Management 10% $0 10% $0 10% $414,406 10% $0 10% $0 10% $0 10% $0
Sales Tax 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $348,101 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0
Total Estimated Capital Cost $0 $0 $5,528,000 $0 $0 $0 $0

Item Description Quantity Annual Cost Quantity Annual Cost Quantity Unit Cost Annual Cost Quantity Annual Cost Quantity Annual Cost Quantity Annual Cost Quantity Annual Cost
Labor 2,080 $83,200 2,496 $99,840 3,120 $124,800 3,120 $124,800 3,120 $124,800 3,120 $124,800 3,120 $124,800
Diesel oil $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Power 185,272 $13,895 252,753 $18,956 277,217 $20,791 305,665 $22,925 338,743 $25,406 377,208 $28,291 421,935 $31,645
Chemicals - alum coagulant for filter 19,338 $2,901 22,487 $3,373 26,148 $3,922 30,405 $4,561 35,356 $5,303 41,112 $6,167 47,806 $7,171
Hypochlorite 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Laboratory Testing at Port Townsend 416 $8,320 416 $8,320 416 $8,320 416 $8,320 416 $8,320 416 $8,320 416 $8,320
Polymer 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Misc expenses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
DISCOUNTED Total Annual Cost $90,713 $106,100 $124,595 $123,091 $121,904 $121,061 $120,592
DISCOUNTED Structural Maintenance 2% $60,887 2% $59,114 2% $80,826 2% $78,472 2% $76,186 2% $73,967 2% $71,813
DISCOUNTED Equipment replacement 4% $50,060 4% $48,602 4% $66,334 4% $64,402 4% $62,526 4% $60,705 4% $58,937
DISCOUNTED Total Annual Cost with Replacement Costs $201,661 $213,816 $271,755 $265,964 $260,616 $255,733 $251,342
"overhead" horsepower =
"overhead" horsepower with expansion =

By : Tt
Date : 11-Aug-08
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
RESIDENTIAL AREA #3
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
TREATMENT - SBR ERUs 3069 ERUs 3568 ERUs 3666 ERUs 3768 ERUs 3872 ERUs 3978 ERUs 4088 ERUs 4201
Installation, Miscellaneous Mechanical 40% $0 40% $112,590 40% $0 40% $0 40% $0 40% $0 40% $0 40% $0
Electrical 20% $0 20% $56,295 20% $0 20% $0 20% $0 20% $0 20% $0 20% $0
Instrumentation and Control 15% $0 15% $42,221 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0
Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $0 $1,269,829 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contractor O&P 15% $0 15% $190,474 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0
Mobilization, demobilization, bond 6% $0 6% $76,190 6% $0 6% $0 6% $0 6% $0 6% $0 6% $0
Total estimated current construction cost $0 $1,536,493 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Escalation to time of construction 3.50% $0 3.50% $53,777 3.50% $0 3.50% $0 3.50% $0 3.50% $0 3.50% $0 3.50% $0
Total estimated construction cost $0 $1,590,271 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contingency 30% $0 30% $477,081 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0
Engineering Design 15% $0 15% $310,103 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0
Construction Management 10% $0 10% $206,735 10% $0 10% $0 10% $0 10% $0 10% $0 10% $0
Sales Tax 8.4% $0 8.4% $173,658 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0
Total Estimated Capital Cost $0 $2,758,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Item Description Quantity Annual Cost Quantity Unit Cost Annual Cost Quantity Annual Cost Quantity Annual Cost Quantity Annual Cost Quantity Annual Cost Quantity Annual Cost Quantity Annual Cost
Labor 3,120 $124,800 3,640 $145,600 3,640 $145,600 3,640 $145,600 3,640 $145,600 3,640 $145,600 3,640 $145,600 3,640 $145,600
Diesel oil $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Power 473,944 $35,546 534,422 $40,082 546,316 $40,974 558,561 $41,892 571,144 $42,836 584,074 $43,806 597,360 $44,802 611,014 $45,826
Chemicals - alum coagulant for filter 55,589 $8,338 64,640 $9,696 66,420 $9,963 68,253 $10,238 70,136 $10,520 72,071 $10,811 74,059 $11,109 76,103 $11,415
Hypochlorite 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Laboratory Testing at Port Townsend 416 $8,320 416 $8,320 416 $8,320 416 $8,320 416 $8,320 416 $8,320 416 $8,320 416 $8,320
Polymer 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Misc expenses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
DISCOUNTED Total Annual Cost $120,531 $134,668 $131,490 $128,404 $125,405 $122,493 $119,664 $116,915
DISCOUNTED Structural Maintenance 2% $69,721 2% $77,967 2% $75,696 2% $73,492 2% $71,351 2% $69,273 2% $67,255 2% $65,296
DISCOUNTED Equipment replacement 4% $57,220 4% $62,997 4% $61,162 4% $59,381 4% $57,651 4% $55,972 4% $54,342 4% $52,759
DISCOUNTED Total Annual Cost with Replacement Costs $247,472 $275,632 $268,348 $261,276 $254,408 $247,738 $241,261 $234,970
"overhead" horsepower with expansion =

By : Tt
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
TREATMENT - MBR
Structural
Administration/Lab Building $250 SF 400 $100,000
Electrical Building (generator outside) $200 SF 720 $144,000
Mechanical Building $200 SF 2,320 $464,000
Excavation $20 CY 2,828 $56,560
Backfill $15 CY 1,173 $17,595
Headworks Concrete $1,500 CY 37 $55,556
Slab Concrete and Rebar $500 CY 331 $165,519
Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar $700 CY 383 $268,411
Access Bridge Concrete $800 CY 34 $27,467
Effluent Weir Concrete $700 CY 14 $9,722
Misc Metals (Handrailing, Covers, etc.) $32,298 LS 1 $32,298
Site Stormwater Piping and Valving $15,000 AC 2 $30,000
Site Process Piping and Valving $23,600 LS 1 $23,600 1 $20,000 $20,000
Indoor Process Piping and Valving $94,400 LS 1 $94,400 1 $7,500 $7,500
Membrane Bioreactor Piping and Valving $414,153 LS 1 $414,153
Manholes $6,000 EA 7 $42,000
Stormwater Detention Tank and Control Structures $90,000 LS 1 $90,000
Paving $30 SY 4,840 $145,200
Sitework $90,000 LS 1 $90,000
Landscaping $90,000 LS 1 $90,000
Electrical Conduit, Sitework $55,000 LS 1 $55,000 1 $10,000 $10,000
Site Lighting $36,000 LS 1 $36,000 1 $5,000 $5,000
Laboratory Equipment $20,000 LS 1 $20,000
Furniture $25,000 LS 1 $25,000
Land Acquisition $28,000 AC 6 $168,000
Land Purchase: Storage/8' Dike/20days/Buidout MM Flows $49,000 AC 0 $0 0 $0
Land Purchase: Buffers $49,000 AC 0 $0 0 $0
Storage Basins - Sitework $8 CY 0 $0 6551 $52,408
Electrical Conduit, Sitework, Lighting $50,000 LS 0 $0 1 $50,000
Liner $1.75 SF 0 $0 17962.56 $31,434
Concrete Access Ramps $500 CY 0 $0 10 $5,000
Inlet / Outlet Structures $15,000 EA 0 $0 2 $30,000
Subtotal Structural $2,664,480 $0 $0 $211,342 $0 $0
Equipment $1,380,511 EA 1 $1,380,511 1 $351,895
Biological air blowers (@ 40 hp)
Blower piping
Biological air diffuser systems
Anoxic Mixers (@ 2.5 hp)
Influent Screen - 1/8 in.
Transfer Pump from Membrane to Anoxic Basin
Washer Compactor
Permeate Pumps
Redundant Influent Screen $100,000 EA 1 $100,000
WAS Pumps $7,500 EA 2 $15,000
Magnetic Flow Meters $5,000 EA 3 $15,000
Yard Pump Station Pumps $7,500 EA 0 $0
Plant Water Pumps $5,000 EA 2 $10,000
Strainer (Manual duplex) $2,000 EA 1 $2,000
Overhead Crane $100,000 EA 1 $100,000
Hydro Tank $4,000 EA 1 $4,000
Odor Control - Carbon Adsorber, Fans, Piping $75,000 LS 1 $75,000
Generator $200 kW 1,000 $200,000
Generator Silencer, Louvers, Acoustics $5,000 LS 1 $5,000
Underground Fuel Storage Tank, Pumps $15,000 LS 1 $15,000
Automatic Transfer Switch $15,000 LS 1 $15,000
Motor Control Centers/Variable Frequency Drives $100,000 LS 1 $100,000 1 $20,000 $20,000
PLC $100,000 LS 1 $100,000 1 $10,000 $10,000
Main Pump Station (2.1 mgd) $500,000 EA 0 $0 0 $0
Medium Pump Station $375,000 EA 0 $0 0 $0
Small Pump Station (0.036 mgd) $250,000 EA 0 $0 0 $0
Distribution Piping & Equipment $91 LF 0 $0 500 $45,500
Aspirating Aerator $1,000 hp 0 $0 7.5 $7,500
Subtotal Equipment $2,136,511 $0 $351,895 $83,000 $0 $0

By : Tt
Date : 11-Aug-08
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
TREATMENT - MBR
Structural
Administration/Lab Building 2,100 $250 $525,000
Electrical Building (generator outside) 0 $200 $0
Mechanical Building 800 $200 $160,000
Excavation 2,828 $20 $56,560
Backfill 1,173 $15 $17,595
Headworks Concrete 0 $1,500 $0
Slab Concrete and Rebar 322 $500 $160,963
Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar 306 $700 $214,200
Access Bridge Concrete 34 $800 $27,467
Effluent Weir Concrete 6 $700 $3,889
Misc Metals (Handrailing, Covers, etc.) 1 $28,184 $28,184
Site Stormwater Piping and Valving 1 $15,000 $15,000
Site Process Piping and Valving 1 $23,600 $23,600
Indoor Process Piping and Valving 1 $94,400 $94,400
Membrane Bioreactor Piping and Valving 1 $414,153 $414,153
Manholes 0 $6,000 $0
Stormwater Detention Tank and Control Structures 0 $60,000 $0
Paving 1,000 $0
Sitework 1 $50,000 $50,000
Landscaping 1 $10,000 $10,000
Electrical Conduit, Sitework 1 $55,000 $55,000
Site Lighting 1 $10,000 $10,000
Laboratory Equipment 1 $15,000 $15,000
Furniture 1 $7,000 $7,000
Land Acquisition 0 $49,000 $0
Land Purchase: Storage/8' Dike/20days/Buidout MM Flows
Land Purchase: Buffers
Storage Basins - Sitework
Electrical Conduit, Sitework, Lighting
Liner
Concrete Access Ramps
Inlet / Outlet Structures
Equipment 1 $1,136,892 $1,136,892
Blower piping
Washer Compactor
Permeate Pumps
Redundant Influent Screen
WAS Pumps 1 $7,500 $7,500
Magnetic Flow Meters 1 $5,000 $5,000
Yard Pump Station Pumps 0 $7,500 $0
Plant Water Pumps 0 $5,000 $0
Strainer (Manual duplex) 0 $2,000 $0
Overhead Crane 1 $45,000 $45,000
Hydro Tank 0 $4,000 $0
Odor Control - Carbon Adsorber, Fans, Piping 0 $75,000 $0
Generator 0 $175 $0
Generator Silencer, Louvers, Acoustics 0 $5,000 $0
Underground Fuel Storage Tank, Pumps 0 $15,000 $0
Automatic Transfer Switch 0 $15,000 $0
Motor Control Centers/Variable Frequency Drives 1 $45,000 $45,000
PLC 1 $20,000 $20,000
Main Pump Station (2.1 mgd)
Medium Pump Station
Small Pump Station (0.036 mgd)
Distribution Piping & Equipment
Aspirating Aerator
Subtotal Equipment $0 $0 $1,259,392 $0 $0 $0 $0

By : Tt
Date : 11-Aug-08
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
RESIDENTIAL AREA #3
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
TREATMENT - MBR
Structural
Administration/Lab Building
Electrical Building (generator outside)
Mechanical Building
Excavation
Backfill
Headworks Concrete
Slab Concrete and Rebar
Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar
Access Bridge Concrete
Effluent Weir Concrete
Misc Metals (Handrailing, Covers, etc.)
Site Stormwater Piping and Valving
Site Process Piping and Valving
Indoor Process Piping and Valving
Membrane Bioreactor Piping and Valving
Manholes
Stormwater Detention Tank and Control Structures
Paving
Sitework
Landscaping
Electrical Conduit, Sitework
Site Lighting
Laboratory Equipment
Furniture
Land Acquisition
Liner
Subtotal Structural $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Equipment 1 $351,895 $351,895
Blower piping
Washer Compactor
Permeate Pumps
WAS Pumps
Magnetic Flow Meters
Yard Pump Station Pumps
Plant Water Pumps
Strainer (Manual duplex)
Overhead Crane
Hydro Tank
Odor Control - Carbon Adsorber, Fans, Piping
Generator
Generator Silencer, Louvers, Acoustics
Underground Fuel Storage Tank, Pumps
Automatic Transfer Switch
Motor Control Centers/Variable Frequency Drives
PLC
Medium Pump Station
Aspirating Aerator

By : Tt
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
TREATMENT - MBR ERUs 432 ERUs 502 ERUs 584 ERUs 679 ERUs 789 ERUs 918
Installation, Miscellaneous Mechanical of Equip 40% $854,604 $0 $140,758 $33,200 $0 $0
Electrical of Equip 20% $427,302 $0 $70,379 $16,600 $0 $0
Instrumentation and Control of Equip 15% $320,477 $0 $52,784 $12,450 $0 $0
Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $6,403,375 $0 $615,816 $356,592 $0 $0
Contractor O&P of Sub Cost 15% $960,506 $0 $92,372 $53,489 $0 $0
Mobilization, demobilization, bond of Sub cost 6% $384,202 $0 $36,949 $21,396 $0 $0
Total estimated current construction cost $7,748,083 $0 $745,138 $431,477 $0 $0
Escalation to time of construction 3.50% $271,183 $0 $26,080 $15,102 $0 $0
Total estimated construction cost $8,019,266 $0 $771,217 $446,579 $0 $0
Contingency 30% $2,405,780 $0 $231,365 $133,974 $0 $0

Engineering Design 15% $1,563,757 $0 $150,387 $87,083 $0 $0
Construction Management 10% $1,042,505 $0 $100,258 $58,055 $0 $0
Sales Tax 8.4% $875,704 $0 $84,217 $48,766 $0 $0
Total Estimated Capital Cost $13,907,000 $0 $1,337,000 $774,000 $0 $0

Item Description Unit Cost Unit Quantity Annual Cost
Labor $40 HR 2,080 $83,200 2,080 $83,200 2,080 $83,200 2,080 $83,200 2,080 $83,200 2,080 $83,200
Membrane Replacement $75 panel 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Diesel oil $4.50 GAL 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Power $0.075 kWh 173,736 $13,030 186,686 $14,001 201,745 $15,131 219,256 $16,444 239,617 $17,971 263,294 $19,747
Other utilities (water, garbage, etc.) $1,000 month 12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000
Chemicals - membrane cleaning $3,380 LS 2 $6,760 2 $6,760 2 $6,760 2 $6,760 2 $6,760 2 $6,760
Hypochlorite $1.50 LB 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Polymer $3.00 LB 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Structural Replacement 2% $53,290 2% $53,290 2% $53,290 2% $53,290 2% $53,290 2% $53,290
Capital Replacement 4% $85,460 4% $85,460 4% $85,460 4% $85,460 4% $85,460 4% $85,460
"overhead" power with expansion = 16

By : Tt
Date : 11-Aug-08
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
TREATMENT - MBR ERUs 1067 ERUs 1241 ERUs 1443 ERUs 1678 ERUs 1952 ERUs 2269 ERUs 2639
Installation, Miscellaneous Mechanical $0 $0 $503,757 $0 $0 $0 $0
Electrical $0 $0 $251,878 $0 $0 $0 $0
Instrumentation and Control $0 $0 $188,909 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contractor O&P $0 $0 $613,792 $0 $0 $0 $0
Mobilization, demobilization, bond $0 $0 $245,517 $0 $0 $0 $0
Escalation to time of construction $0 $0 $173,294 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contingency $0 $0 $1,537,365 $0 $0 $0 $0
Engineering Design $0 $0 $999,287 $0 $0 $0 $0
Construction Management $0 $0 $666,191 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sales Tax $0 $0 $559,601 $0 $0 $0 $0

Item Description
Labor 2,080 $83,200 3,796 $151,840 3,796 $151,840 3,796 $151,840 3,796 $151,840 3,796 $151,840 3,796 $151,840
Membrane Replacement 400 $30,000 400 $30,000 800 $60,000 800 $60,000 800 $60,000 400 $30,000 400 $30,000
Diesel oil 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Power 290,825 $21,812 323,555 $24,267 406,508 $30,488 404,069 $30,305 454,404 $34,080 512,935 $38,470 580,995 $43,575
Other utilities (water, garbage, etc.) 12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000
Chemicals - membrane cleaning 2 $6,760 3 $10,140 3 $10,140 3 $10,140 3 $10,140 3 $10,140 3 $10,140
Hypochlorite 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Polymer 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Misc expenses 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Structural Replacement 2% $53,290 2% $53,290 2% $91,050 2% $91,050 2% $91,050 2% $91,050 2% $91,050
Capital Replacement 4% $85,460 4% $85,460 4% $135,836 4% $135,836 4% $135,836 4% $135,836 4% $135,836
"overhead" power with expansion =

By : Tt
Date : 11-Aug-08
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
RESIDENTIAL AREA #3
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
TREATMENT - MBR ERUs 3069 ERUs 3568 ERUs 3666 ERUs 3768 ERUs 3872 ERUs 3978 ERUs 4088 ERUs 4201
Installation, Miscellaneous Mechanical $0 $140,758 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Electrical $0 $70,379 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Instrumentation and Control $0 $52,784 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $0 $615,816 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contractor O&P $0 $92,372 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Mobilization, demobilization, bond $0 $36,949 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total estimated current construction cost $0 $745,138 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Escalation to time of construction $0 $26,080 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total estimated construction cost $0 $771,217 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contingency $0 $231,365 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Engineering Design $0 $150,387 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Construction Management $0 $100,258 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sales Tax $0 $84,217 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Item Description
Labor 3,796 $151,840 3,796 $151,840 3,796 $151,840 3,796 $151,840 3,796 $151,840 3,796 $151,840 3,796 $151,840 4,004 $160,160
Membrane Replacement 0 $0 400 $30,000 400 $30,000 800 $60,000 800 $60,000 800 $60,000 400 $30,000 800 $60,000
Diesel oil 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Power 660,137 $49,510 797,890 $59,842 815,989 $61,199 834,622 $62,597 853,769 $64,033 873,444 $65,508 893,662 $67,025 914,438 $68,583
Other utilities (water, garbage, etc.) 12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000
Chemicals - membrane cleaning 3 $10,140 4 $13,520 4 $13,520 4 $13,520 4 $13,520 4 $13,520 4 $13,520 4 $13,520
Hypochlorite 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Polymer 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Misc expenses 0 $0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Structural Replacement 2% $91,050 2% $91,050 2% $91,050 2% $91,050 2% $91,050 2% $91,050 2% $91,050 2% $91,050
Capital Replacement 4% $135,836 4% $149,912 4% $149,912 4% $149,912 4% $149,912 4% $149,912 4% $149,912 4% $149,912

Project: Port Hadlock Facilities Plan
Subject: Disinfection Analysis
By : Tt
Date : 7-Apr-03
Ultraviolet Disinfection + Liquid Hypochlorite for Residual
Building enclosure for equipment 100 SF $100 $10,000
Slab Concrete and Rebar 22 CY $300 $6,667 10*30 dual channels
Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar 36 CY $400 $14,222
Misc Metals (Handrailing, Covers, etc.) 1 LS $5,000 $5,000
Misc Concrete (NaOCl secondary containment) 5 CY $500 $2,500
Site Process Piping and Valving 1 LS $20,000 $20,000
Sitework 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
Electrical Conduit, Sitework 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
Site Lighting 1 LS $20,000 $20,000
Jib Crane for UV Unit 1 LS $5,000 $5,000
$0
Subtotal Structural $103,389
Lamps and Equipment with installation 1 ea $100,000 $100,000
Additional Generator Capacity - for UV and add. 65 kW $200 $12,948
Storage Tank (3-55 gal drums) 3 ea $200 $600
Pumps w/ installation (hypo) 2 ea $2,500 $5,000
Tank Mixers 1 ea $1,000 $1,000
Feed Pacing Controller 1 ea $2,500 $2,500
Chemical Flow Meter 1 ea $2,000 $2,000
$0
Installation, Miscellaneous Mechanical 40% of Equip $49,619
Electrical 20% of Equip $24,810
Instrumentation and Control 15% of Equip $18,607
Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $320,474
Contractor O&P 15% of Sub Cost $48,071
Mobilization, demobilization, bond 6% of Sub cost $19,228
Total estimated current construction cost $387,773
Escalation to time of construction 2.60% $10,082
Total estimated construction cost $397,855
Dollars per gallon $0.80
Costs for 1 MGD $795,710
Escalated ENR to 8500 $845,971
Contingency 30% $253,791

Engineering Design 15% $164,964
Construction Management 10% $109,976
Sales Tax 8.3% $91,280
Total Estimated Capital Cost $1,466,000

Labor 208 hr $30 $6,240 2 hours / week to clean. Double for 1 MG
Septic tank pumping 0 ea $300 $60
Diesel oil gal $2.00 $0
Power 30417 kWh $0.07 $2,129 0.5 mgd, 40 gpm/lamp, 200 watts/lamp, 24 hrs/day. Double for 1
Chemicals $0.00 $0
Hypochlorite 1522 lb $0.60 $913 0.5 mgd, 0.5 mg/l dose. Double for 1 MG
Sodium Bisulfite 0 gal $0.20 $0
Polymer lb $3.00 $0
Structural Replacement 2% $2,068
Present Worth Cost $344,000
Capital $1,466,000

By : Tt
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Liquid Sodium Hypochlorite Disinfection
Building enclosure for equipment $150 SF 280 $42,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Excavation $20 CY 397 $7,940 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Backfill $15 CY 218 $3,270 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Slab Concrete and Rebar $500 CY 73 $36,333 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar $700 CY 67 $47,144 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Misc Metals (Handrailing, Covers, etc.) $500 LS 1 $500 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Misc Concrete (NaOCl secondary containment) $600 CY 5 $3,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Site Process Piping and Valving $25,000 LS 1 $25,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Sitework $15,000 LS 1 $15,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Electrical Conduit, Sitework $5,000 LS 1 $5,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Site Lighting $20,000 LS 1 $20,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Contact Tank Baffles $10,000 LS 1 $10,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Subtotal Structural $215,187 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Storage Tank (3-55 gal drums) $200 ea 6 $1,200 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Pumps w/ installation (hypo) $2,500 ea 2 $5,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Tank Mixers $1,000 ea 1 $1,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Feed Pacing Controller $2,500 ea 1 $2,500 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Chemical Flow Meter $2,000 ea 1 $2,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Subtotal Equipment $11,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $235,662 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total estimated current construction cost $285,151 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Escalation to time of construction 3.50% $9,980 3.50% $0 3.50% $0 3.50% $0 3.50% $0 3.50% $0
Total estimated construction cost $295,131 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contingency 30% $88,539 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0
Engineering Design 15% $57,551 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0
Construction Management 10% $38,367 10% $0 10% $0 10% $0 10% $0 10% $0
Sales Tax 8.4% $32,228 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0
Total Estimated Capital Cost $512,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Labor $40 hr 52 $2,080 52 $2,080 52 $2,080 52 $2,080 52 $2,080 52 $2,080
Diesel oil $4.50 gal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Power $0.08 kWh 3266 $245 3266 $245 3266 $245 3266 $245 3266 $245 3266 $245
Structural Maintenance 2% $4,454 2% $0 2% $0 2% $0 2% $0 2% $0
Chemicals $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Hypochlorite $1.50 lb 156 $235 182 $273 212 $317 246 $369 286 $429 333 $499
Polymer $3.00 lb $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

By : Tt
Date : 11-Aug-08
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Building enclosure for equipment 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Excavation 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Backfill 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Slab Concrete and Rebar 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Misc Metals (Handrailing, Covers, etc.) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Misc Concrete (NaOCl secondary containment) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Site Process Piping and Valving 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Sitework 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Electrical Conduit, Sitework 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Site Lighting 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Contact Tank Baffles 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Subtotal Structural $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Storage Tank (3-55 gal drums) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Pumps w/ installation (hypo) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Tank Mixers 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Feed Pacing Controller 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Chemical Flow Meter 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Subtotal Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Electrical 20% $0 20% $0 20% $0 20% $0 20% $0 20% $0 20% $0
Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contractor O&P 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0
Total estimated current construction cost $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Escalation to time of construction 3.50% $0 3.50% $0 3.50% $0 3.50% $0 3.50% $0 3.50% $0 3.50% $0
Total estimated construction cost $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contingency 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0
Engineering Design 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0
Construction Management 10% $0 10% $0 10% $0 10% $0 10% $0 10% $0 10% $0
Sales Tax 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0
Total Estimated Capital Cost $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Item Description Quantity Annual Cost Quantity Annual Cost Quantity Annual Cost Quantity Annual Cost Quantity Annual Cost Quantity Annual Cost Quantity Annual Cost
Labor 52 $2,080 52 $2,080 52 $2,080 52 $2,080 52 $2,080 52 $2,080 52 $2,080
Diesel oil $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Power 3266 $245 3266 $245 3266 $245 3266 $245 3266 $245 3266 $245 3266 $245
Chemicals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Hypochlorite 387 $580 450 $675 523 $784 608 $912 707 $1,061 822 $1,233 956 $1,434
Polymer $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Misc expenses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

By : Tt
Date : 11-Aug-08
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
RESIDENTIAL AREA #3
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Building enclosure for equipment 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Excavation 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Backfill 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Slab Concrete and Rebar 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Misc Metals (Handrailing, Covers, etc.) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Misc Concrete (NaOCl secondary containment) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Site Process Piping and Valving 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Sitework 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Electrical Conduit, Sitework 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Site Lighting 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Contact Tank Baffles 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Storage Tank (3-55 gal drums) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Pumps w/ installation (hypo) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Tank Mixers 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Feed Pacing Controller 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Chemical Flow Meter 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Subtotal Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Electrical 20% $0 20% $0 20% $0 20% $0 20% $0 20% $0 20% $0 20% $0
Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contractor O&P 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0
Total estimated current construction cost $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Escalation to time of construction 3.50% $0 3.50% $0 3.50% $0 3.50% $0 3.50% $0 3.50% $0 3.50% $0 3.50% $0
Total estimated construction cost $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contingency 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0
Engineering Design 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0
Construction Management 10% $0 10% $0 10% $0 10% $0 10% $0 10% $0 10% $0 10% $0
Sales Tax 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0
Total Estimated Capital Cost $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Item Description Quantity Annual Cost Quantity Annual Cost Quantity Annual Cost Quantity Annual Cost Quantity Annual Cost Quantity Annual Cost Quantity Annual Cost Quantity Annual Cost
Labor 52 $2,080 52 $2,080 52 $2,080 52 $2,080 52 $2,080 52 $2,080 52 $2,080 52 $2,080
Diesel oil $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Power 3266 $245 3266 $245 3266 $245 3266 $245 3266 $245 3266 $245 3266 $245 3266 $245
Chemicals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Hypochlorite 1112 $1,668 1293 $1,939 1328 $1,993 1365 $2,048 1403 $2,104 1441 $2,162 1481 $2,222 1522 $2,283
Polymer $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Misc expenses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Subject: Solids Handling Analysis
By : Tt
Date : 29-Aug-08
Membrane Bioreactors with raw sludge wasting

Sitework 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
Landscaping 1 LS $0

Sludge storage
Steel 10k gallon sludge holding tank 1 EA $20,000 $20,000
Sales Tax 8.3% $6,756
Total Estimated Capital Cost $109,000

Labor 183 HR $40 $7,300
Membrane Replacement 0 panel $75 $0
Power 0 kWh $0.075 $0
Structural Maintenance 2% $290
Equipment replacement 4% $828
Sludge hauling and disposal 1,770,615 GAL $0.12 $212,474
20 year P/A Factor 20.00
Capital $109,000

By : Tt
Date : 29-Aug-08
Membrane Bioreactors With Dewatering
Administration/Lab Building 0 SF $200 $0
Electrical Building (generator outside) 0 SF $150 $0
Mechanical Building 150 SF $150 $22,500
Dewatering and sludge truck loading building 1,000 SF $150 $150,000
Sludge Truck Loading Roofed Area 600 SF $50 $30,000
Slab Concrete and Rebar 24 CY $500 $11,963
excavation 676 CY $20 $13,520
backfill 601 CY $15 $9,020

Indoor Process Piping and Valving 1 LS $51,269 $51,269
Sitework 1 LS $120,000 $120,000
Landscaping 1 LS $0
WAS holding tank
Blower 2 EA $10,000 $20,000
Diffusser with piping 2 EA $10,000 $20,000
Decant pump 0 EA $10,000
Thickener Facilities
Belt Filter Press, w/control panel 1 EA $250,000 $250,000
Compressor, water boaster pump 1 EA $5,000 $5,000
Dewatering Sludge Conveyor 32 LF $1,000 $32,000
Odor Control Scrubber 1 EA $52,800 $52,800
Sludge Pump 2 EA $9,105 $18,210
Polymer Feed System 1 EA $12,140 $12,140
HVAC for buildings $0
Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $1,230,799
Total estimated current construction cost $1,489,267
Total estimated construction cost $1,541,391

Sales Tax 8.3% $166,316

Labor 590 HR $40 $23,608
Power 22,133 kWh $0.075 $1,660
Chemicals - membrane cleaning 0 LS $2,000 $0
Polymer 2,215 LB $3.00 $6,645
Sludge hauling and disposal 165,995 GAL $0.25 $41,499
Capital $2,671,000

By : Tt
Date : 29-Aug-08
Membrane Bioreactors With Thickener
Administration/Lab Building 0 SF $200 $0
Electrical Building (generator outside) 0 SF $150 $0
Mechanical Building 150 SF $150 $22,500
Filter & Chemical Building 650 SF $150 $97,500
Slab Concrete and Rebar 24 CY $500 $11,963
excavation 676 CY $20 $13,520
backfill 601 CY $15 $9,020

Indoor Process Piping and Valving 1 LS $23,210 $23,210
Sitework 1 LS $60,000 $60,000
Landscaping 1 LS $0
WAS holding tank
Blower 1 EA $20,000 $10,000
Diffuser with piping 1 EA $20,000 $10,000
Decant pump 0 EA $10,000
Thickener Facilities
Screw Press Thickerner 1 EA $54,630 $54,630
Odor Control Scrubber 1 EA $60,700 $60,700
Sludge Pump 2 EA $9,105 $18,210
Polymer Feed System 1 EA $12,140 $12,140
HVAC for buildings $0
Thickened sludge storage
Steel 10k gallon sludge holding tank 1 EA $20,000 $20,000

Sales Tax 8.3% $86,396

Labor 590 HR $40 $23,608
Power 17,706 kWh $0.075 $1,328
Polymer 1,108 LB $3.00 $3,323
Sludge hauling and disposal 663,981 GAL $0.20 $132,796
Capital $1,388,000

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5
Thickening and
Unthickened sludge to Port Unthickened sludge to Unthickened sludge Thickening and to Port digested to Port
Townsend Biocycle to Port Angeles Townsand Townsand
Capital $147,649 $147,649 $147,649 $801,649
Annual O&M $150,295 $50,098 $91,847 $64,710
PW O&M
Total PW
WAS gpd ppd Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

2010 1,144 191 tipping and hauling $0.36 $0.12 $0.22
2020 3,681 614
2030 11,849 1,976
TANK
tank volume (ft3) 1337 dimension 18 19 20 under ground 12
wall concrete (cy) 95 cost $37,956
slab concrete (cy) 34 cost $10,267
excavation (cy) 1199 cost $17,982
disposal (cy) 205 cost $3,080
backfill (cy) 993 cost $29,804
diffusers 2 cost $48,560 unit cost from coupeville $20,000
blowers 2 cost unit cost from coupeville $20,000
Total $147,649
THICKENER
total cost $654,000 coupeville alternative 1
screw press capacit
(gpm) 50 coupeville
2010
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

10k gal holding tank $147,649 $147,649 $147,649 $147,649 $147,649
thickener $654,000
total capital cost $147,649 $147,649 $147,649 $801,649
hauling and tipping fee $150,295 $50,098 $91,847 $56,361
labor (included in fee) $8,350
power (included in fee)
equipment replacement (included in fee)
chemicals (included in fee)
total O&M cost $150,295 $50,098 $91,847 $64,710
20-yr. O&M Cost $3,005,903 $1,001,968 $1,836,941 $866,359 $0
20-year Life Cycle

Cost $3,153,551.69 $1,149,616.49 $1,984,589.49

Date : 8-Sep-08
Option: Rapid Rate Surface Percolation Land Application at East Jefferson Little League/Sheriff's Ballfields, Pump from Ness'
Corner Rd. and Shotwell Rd., 1.77 mgd MM Buildout Flows
12" DIP Force Main Overland (10' to 12' deep) 9,000 LF $65 $585,000 RS Means
Dewatering 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
Aphalt Surface Restoration 2,583 SY $30 $77,500 RS Means Assumes 3-foot trench restoration
Gravel Surface Restoration 1,667 SY $10 $16,667 RS Means Assumes 3-foot trench restoration
Land Purchase: Disposal/Buidout MM Flows 5.7 Acres $28,032 $160,879
Land Purchase: Treatment 4.0 Acres $28,032 $112,126

Reclaimed Water Pumps/Filter 1 EA $50,000 $50,000

Escalation to time of construction 2.60% $40,831 $1,229,167
Total estimated construction cost $1,611,255 $31,958
Contingency 30% $483,376 $1,261,125
Construction Management 10% $174,450 Land Costs not included
Total Estimated Capital Cost $2,684,273 Land Costs not included

Capital $2,684,273
Date : 8-Sep-08
Option: Rapid Rate Surface Percolation Land Application adjacent to H.J. Carroll Park, Pump from Ness' Corner Rd.
and Shotwell Rd., 1.77 mgd MM Buildout Flows
Dewatering 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
Aphalt Surface Restoration 13,000 SY $30 $390,000 RS Means Assumes Full 12-foot restoration
Gravel Surface Restoration 1,667 SY $10 $16,667 RS Means
Land Purchase: Storage/15' Dike/20days/Buidout MM 11 Acres $25,000 $275,000 Assumes Tigher Soils
Land Purchase: Treatment 4 Acres $25,000 $100,000

Main Pump Station (2.1 mgd) 1 EA $500,000 $500,000 $1,236,667
Medium Pump Station 0 EA $375,000 $0

Contingency 30% $697,295 $1,843,380

Labor 104 hr $30 $3,120 20year period, 3.2% discount factor
Capital $3,880,361
Option: Rapid Rate Surface Percolation Land Application at Central Site near Hunt/Mason Rds., Pump from Ness' Corner Rd.
and Shotwell Rd., 1.77 mgd MM Buildout Flows
Dewatering 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
Aphalt Surface Restoration 783 SY $30 $23,500 RS Means Assumes 3-foot trench restoration
Gravel Surface Restoration 1,667 SY $10 $16,667 RS Means Assumes 3-foot trench restoration
Land Purchase: Disposal/Buidout MM Flows 5.7 Acres $28,032 $160,879
Land Purchase: Treatment 4.0 Acres $28,032 $112,126
Subtotal Structural $730,424 W/O Land


Escalation to time of construction 2.60% $30,301 $824,167
Contingency 30% $358,717 $845,595

Capital $1,961,500
Date : 8-Sep-08
Option: Rapid Rate Surface Percolation Land Application at Port of Pt. Towsend Airport, Pump from Ness' Corner Rd. and
Shotwell Rd., 1.77 mgd MM Buildout Flows
Dewatering 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
Aphalt Surface Restoration 15,000 SY $30 $450,000 RS Means Assumes Full 12-foot restoration along Rhody Drive
Land Purchase: Storage/15' Dike/20days/Buidout MM Flows 11 Acres $25,000 $275,000 Assumes Tigher soils


Contingency 30% $745,774 $2,004,975

Capital $4,161,439
Date : 8-Sep-08
Option: Rapid Rate Surface Percolation Land Application adjacent to Chimacum H.S, Pump from Ness' Corner Rd. and
Shotwell Rd., 1.77 mgd MM Buildout Flows
Dewatering 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
Aphalt Surface Restoration 10,600 SY $30 $318,000 RS Means Assumes Full 12-foot restoration along Rhody Drive
Land Purchase: Storage/15' Dike/20days/Buidout MM Flows 11 Acres $25,000 $275,000 Assumes Tigher soils


Contingency 30% $639,121 $1,649,466

Capital $3,543,067
APPENDIX D.
PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES FOR RECOMMENDED
ALTERNATIVE
September 2008
By : Tt
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Structural
8" PVC Gravity Main (16'-20' deep) $126 LF 2,760 $347,760 0 $0 0 $0 2803 $353,178 0 $0 0 $0
10" PVC Gravity Main (20' to 25' deep) $190 LF 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
12" PVC Gravity Main (16'-20' deep) $151 LF 500 $75,600 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
4" PVC Force Main $32 LF 8,176 $261,632 0 $0 0 $0 1827 $58,464 0 $0 0 $0
12" PVC Force Main $65 LF 7,323 $475,995 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
4" PVC Gravity Laterals (Side Sewers) $2,000 EA 432 $863,636 70 $140,613 82 $163,506 95 $190,127 111 $221,083 129 $257,078
4" PVC Gravity Laterals - extra for existing houses $1,000 EA 15 $15,000 15 $15,000 15 $15,000 15 $15,000 15 $15,000 42 $42,000
1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - Grinder $2,400 EA 8 $19,200 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Lateral Kits $250 EA 8 $2,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
48" MH (8' to 10' deep) $ 3,225 EA 12 $38,701 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
48" MH (8' to 12' deep) $ 3,925 EA 4 $15,701 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
48" MH (12' to 14' deep) $ 4,626 EA 4 $18,502 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
48" MH (14' to 16' deep) $ 5,326 EA 4 $21,303 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
48" MH (16' to 20' deep) $ 6,376 EA 2 $12,752 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
48" MH (20' to 25' deep) $ 7,952 EA 2 $15,903 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
48" MH (25' to 30' deep) $ 9,702 EA 5 $48,512 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Dewatering $50,000 LS 1 $50,000 0 $0 0 $0 1 $50,000 0 $0 0 $0
AC Surface Restoration $30 SY 6,512 $195,350 0 $0 0 $0 3,752 $112,550 0 $0 0 $0
Native Surface Restoration $1 SY 17,300 $17,300 2,800 $2,800 3,300 $3,300 3,800 $3,800 4,400 $4,400 5,100 $5,100
Abandon Septic Tank $750 EA 15 $11,250 15 $11,250 15 $11,250 15 $11,250 15 $11,250 42 $31,500
Subtotal Structural $4,349,584 $169,663 $193,056 $1,594,269 $251,733 $335,678
Grinder Pump (Installed) $4,500 EA 8 $36,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Site Electrical Connections - Grinder $500 EA 8 $4,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Main Pump Station (2.1 mgd) $500,000 EA 1 $500,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Medium Pump Station $375,000 EA 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1 $375,000 0 $0 0 $0
Small Pump Station (0.036 mgd) $250,000 EA 2 $500,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Contingency 30% $1,822,506 30% $52,680 30% $59,944 30% $611,458 30% $78,163 30% $104,228
Engineering Design 15% $989,184 15% $0 15% $0 15% $353,010 15% $0 15% ($0)
Construction Management 10% $659,456 10% $0 10% $0 10% $235,340 10% $0 10% ($0)
Sales Tax 8.4% $663,392 8.4% $19,176 8.4% $21,820 8.4% $222,571 8.4% $28,451 8.4% $37,939
Total Estimated Capital Cost $10,210,000 $247,000 $282,000 $3,461,000 $367,000 $490,000
Total Estimated Onsite Capital Cost $1,412,000 $247,000 $282,000 $321,000 $367,000 $490,000

By : Tt
Date : 11-Aug-08
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Structural
8" PVC Gravity Main (16'-20' deep) 1,252 $157,689 1,252 $157,689 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
8" PVC Gravity Main (20' to 25' deep) 443 $79,650 443 $79,650 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
12" PVC Gravity Main (16'-20' deep) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
4" PVC Force Main 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 2829 $90,528 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
12" PVC Force Main 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
4" PVC Gravity Laterals (Side Sewers) 149 $298,935 174 $347,605 202 $404,201 235 $470,010 273 $546,535 318 $635,519 369 $738,990
4" PVC Gravity Laterals - extra for existing houses 42 $42,000 41 $41,000 41 $41,000 42 $42,000 26 $26,000 40 $40,000 40 $40,000
1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - Grinder 5 $12,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Lateral Kits 5 $1,250 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
48" MH (8' to 10' deep) 4 $12,900 3 $9,675 0 $0 3 $9,675 2 $6,450 2 $6,450 0 $0
48" MH (8' to 12' deep) 2 $7,851 2 $7,851 0 $0 1 $3,925 1 $3,925 0 $0 0 $0
48" MH (12' to 14' deep) 3 $13,877 3 $13,877 0 $0 2 $9,251 1 $4,626 1 $4,626 0 $0
48" MH (14' to 16' deep) 2 $10,652 1 $5,326 0 $0 1 $5,326 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
48" MH (16' to 20' deep) 4 $25,505 3 $19,129 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
48" MH (20' to 25' deep) 2 $15,903 1 $7,952 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
48" MH (25' to 30' deep) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Dewatering 1 $50,000 1 $50,000 0 $0 1 $50,000 1 $50,000 1 $50,000 0 $0
AC Surface Restoration 1,800 $54,005 1,800 $54,005 0 $0 452 $13,570 452 $13,570 452 $13,570 0 $0
Native Surface Restoration 6,000 $6,000 7,000 $7,000 8,100 $8,100 9,400 $9,400 10,900 $10,900 12,700 $12,700 14,800 $14,800
Abandon Septic Tank 42 $31,500 41 $30,750 41 $30,750 42 $31,500 26 $19,500 40 $30,000 40 $30,000
Subtotal Structural $1,170,472 $1,182,263 $484,051 $857,494 $803,814 $915,173 $823,790
Grinder Pump (Installed) 5 $22,500 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Site Electrical Connections - Grinder 5 $2,500 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Medium Pump Station 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Small Pump Station (0.036 mgd) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1 $250,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Subtotal Equipment $25,000 $0 $0 $250,000 $0 $0 $0
Electrical 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0
Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $1,195,472 $1,182,263 $484,051 $1,107,494 $803,814 $915,173 $823,790
Contractor O&P 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0
Total estimated current construction cost $1,195,472 $1,182,263 $484,051 $1,107,494 $803,814 $915,173 $823,790
Total estimated construction cost $1,237,313 $1,223,643 $500,992 $1,146,257 $831,948 $947,204 $852,623
Contingency 30% $371,194 30% $367,093 30% $150,298 30% $343,877 30% $249,584 30% $284,161 30% $255,787
Engineering Design 15% $157,179 15% $152,561 15% $0 15% $111,929 15% $40,543 15% $39,750 15% $0
Construction Management 10% $104,786 10% $101,707 10% $0 10% $74,619 10% $27,028 10% $26,500 10% $0
Sales Tax 8.4% $135,115 8.4% $133,622 8.4% $54,708 8.4% $125,171 8.4% $90,849 8.4% $103,435 8.4% $93,106
Total Estimated Capital Cost $2,006,000 $1,979,000 $706,000 $1,802,000 $1,240,000 $1,401,000 $1,202,000
Total Estimated Onsite Capital Cost $608,000 $622,000 $706,000 $806,000 $879,000 $1,048,000 $1,202,000

By : Tt
Date : 11-Aug-08
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
RESIDENTIAL AREA #3
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Structural
8" PVC Gravity Main (14' to 16' deep) 0 $0 2,198 $274,696 398 $49,696 398 $49,696 398 $49,696 398 $49,696 398 $49,696 398 $49,696
8" PVC Gravity Main (16'-20' deep) 0 $0 3,835 $483,174 2,035 $256,374 2,035 $256,374 2,035 $256,374 2,035 $256,374 2,035 $256,374 2,035 $256,374
10" PVC Gravity Main (20' to 25' deep) 0 $0 800 $152,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
12" PVC Gravity Main (16'-20' deep) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
4" PVC Force Main 0 $0 2,857 $91,424 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
12" PVC Force Main 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
4" PVC Gravity Laterals (Side Sewers) 430 $859,309 500 $999,216 98 $196,519 101 $202,314 104 $207,896 107 $213,632 110 $219,526 113 $225,583
4" PVC Gravity Laterals - extra for existing houses 50 $50,000 50 $50,000 24 $24,000 48 $48,000 48 $48,000 48 $48,000 107 $107,000 107 $107,000
1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - Grinder 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Lateral Kits 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
48" MH (8' to 10' deep) 0 $0 0 $0 5 $15,051 5 $15,051 5 $15,051 5 $15,051 5 $15,051 5 $15,051
48" MH (8' to 12' deep) 0 $0 0 $0 2 $7,851 2 $7,851 2 $7,851 2 $7,851 2 $7,851 2 $7,851
48" MH (12' to 14' deep) 0 $0 0 $0 2 $10,022 2 $10,022 2 $10,022 2 $10,022 2 $10,022 2 $10,022
48" MH (14' to 16' deep) 0 $0 0 $0 2 $12,427 2 $12,427 2 $12,427 2 $12,427 2 $12,427 2 $12,427
48" MH (16' to 20' deep) 0 $0 21 $133,900 5 $28,693 5 $28,693 5 $28,693 5 $28,693 5 $28,693 5 $28,693
48" MH (20' to 25' deep) 0 $0 0 $0 4 $27,831 4 $27,831 4 $27,831 4 $27,831 4 $27,831 4 $27,831
48" MH (25' to 30' deep) 0 $0 0 $0 1 $9,702 1 $9,702 1 $9,702 1 $9,702 1 $9,702 1 $9,702
Dewatering 0 $0 3 $150,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1 $50,000 1 $50,000 0 $0
AC Surface Restoration 0 $0 3,641 $109,231 2,212 $66,374 2,212 $66,374 2,212 $66,374 2,212 $66,374 2,212 $66,374 2,212 $66,374
Native Surface Restoration 17,200 $17,200 20,000 $20,000 3,900 $3,900 4,000 $4,000 4,200 $4,200 4,300 $4,300 4,400 $4,400 4,500 $4,500
Abandon Septic Tank 50 $37,500 50 $37,500 24 $18,000 48 $36,000 48 $36,000 48 $36,000 107 $80,250 107 $80,250
Subtotal Structural $964,009 $3,008,158 $1,254,027 $1,301,922 $1,307,704 $1,363,540 $1,472,784 $1,428,941
Grinder Pump (Installed) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Site Electrical Connections - Grinder 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Medium Pump Station 0 $0 1 $375,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Small Pump Station (0.036 mgd) 0 $0 1 $250,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Electrical 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0
Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $964,009 $3,633,158 $1,254,027 $1,301,922 $1,307,704 $1,363,540 $1,472,784 $1,428,941
Contractor O&P 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0
Total estimated current construction cost $964,009 $3,633,158 $1,254,027 $1,301,922 $1,307,704 $1,363,540 $1,472,784 $1,428,941
Total estimated construction cost $997,749 $3,760,318 $1,297,918 $1,347,490 $1,353,474 $1,411,264 $1,524,332 $1,478,954
Contingency 30% $299,325 30% $1,128,096 30% $389,375 30% $404,247 30% $406,042 30% $423,379 30% $457,299 30% $443,686
Engineering Design 15% ($0) 15% $509,899 15% $204,168 15% $204,168 15% $204,168 15% $214,259 15% $214,259 15% $204,168
Construction Management 10% ($0) 10% $339,933 10% $136,112 10% $136,112 10% $136,112 10% $142,839 10% $142,839 10% $136,112
Sales Tax 8.4% $108,954 8.4% $410,627 8.4% $141,733 8.4% $147,146 8.4% $147,799 8.4% $154,110 8.4% $166,457 8.4% $161,502
Total Estimated Onsite Capital Cost $1,406,000 $1,614,000 $354,000 $423,000 $432,000 $440,000 $600,000 $609,000

By : Tt
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Item Description
Labor $40 hr 188 $7,520 188 $7,520 188 $7,520 240 $9,600 240 $9,600 240 $9,600
Diesel oil $4.50 gal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Power $0.08 kWh 123390 $9,254 125571 $9,418 128109 $9,608 185495 $13,912 188926 $14,169 192915 $14,469
Structural Maintenance 2% $0 2% $0 2% $0 2% $0 2% $0 2% $0
Chemicals $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Hypochlorite $0.60 lb 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Polymer $3.00 lb $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

By : Tt
Date : 11-Aug-08
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Item Description
Labor 260 $10,400 260 $10,400 260 $10,400 312 $12,480 312 $12,480 312 $12,480 312 $12,480
Diesel oil $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Power 251990 $18,899 257384 $19,304 263656 $19,774 325385 $24,404 333866 $25,040 343727 $25,780 300759 $22,557
Chemicals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Hypochlorite 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Polymer $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Misc expenses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

By : Tt
Date : 11-Aug-08
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
RESIDENTIAL AREA #3
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Item Description
Labor 312 $12,480 416 $16,640 416 $16,640 416 $16,640 416 $16,640 416 $16,640 416 $16,640 416 $16,640
Diesel oil $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Power 368529 $27,640 492906 $36,968 495956 $37,197 499095 $37,432 502321 $37,674 505636 $37,923 509043 $38,178 512543 $38,441
Chemicals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Hypochlorite 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Polymer $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Misc expenses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

By : Tt
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
TREATMENT - MBR
Structural
Administration/Lab Building $250 SF 400 $100,000
Electrical Building (generator outside) $200 SF 720 $144,000
Mechanical Building $200 SF 2,320 $464,000
Excavation $20 CY 2,828 $56,560
Backfill $15 CY 1,173 $17,595
Headworks Concrete $1,500 CY 37 $55,556
Slab Concrete and Rebar $500 CY 331 $165,519
Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar $700 CY 383 $268,411
Access Bridge Concrete $800 CY 34 $27,467
Effluent Weir Concrete $700 CY 14 $9,722
Misc Metals (Handrailing, Covers, etc.) $32,298 LS 1 $32,298
Site Stormwater Piping and Valving $15,000 AC 2 $30,000
Site Process Piping and Valving $23,600 LS 1 $23,600 1 $20,000 $20,000
Indoor Process Piping and Valving $94,400 LS 1 $94,400 1 $7,500 $7,500
Membrane Bioreactor Piping and Valving $414,153 LS 1 $414,153
Manholes $6,000 EA 7 $42,000
Stormwater Detention Tank and Control Structures $90,000 LS 1 $90,000
Paving $30 SY 4,840 $145,200
Sitework $90,000 LS 1 $90,000
Landscaping $90,000 LS 1 $90,000
Electrical Conduit, Sitework $55,000 LS 1 $55,000 1 $10,000 $10,000
Site Lighting $36,000 LS 1 $36,000 1 $5,000 $5,000
Laboratory Equipment $20,000 LS 1 $20,000
Furniture $25,000 LS 1 $25,000
Land Acquisition $28,000 AC 6 $168,000
Land Purchase: Storage/8' Dike/20days/Buidout MM Flows $49,000 AC 0 $0 0 $0
Land Purchase: Buffers $49,000 AC 0 $0 0 $0
Storage Basins - Sitework $8 CY 0 $0 6551 $52,408
Electrical Conduit, Sitework, Lighting $50,000 LS 0 $0 1 $50,000
Liner $1.75 SF 0 $0 17962.56 $31,434
Concrete Access Ramps $500 CY 0 $0 10 $5,000
Inlet / Outlet Structures $15,000 EA 0 $0 2 $30,000
Subtotal Structural $2,664,480 $0 $0 $211,342 $0 $0
Equipment $1,380,511 EA 1 $1,380,511 1 $351,895
Blower piping
Washer Compactor
Permeate Pumps
Redundant Influent Screen $100,000 EA 1 $100,000
WAS Pumps $7,500 EA 2 $15,000
Magnetic Flow Meters $5,000 EA 3 $15,000
Yard Pump Station Pumps $7,500 EA 0 $0
Plant Water Pumps $5,000 EA 2 $10,000
Strainer (Manual duplex) $2,000 EA 1 $2,000
Overhead Crane $100,000 EA 1 $100,000
Hydro Tank $4,000 EA 1 $4,000
Odor Control - Carbon Adsorber, Fans, Piping $75,000 LS 1 $75,000
Generator $200 kW 1,000 $200,000
Generator Silencer, Louvers, Acoustics $5,000 LS 1 $5,000
Underground Fuel Storage Tank, Pumps $15,000 LS 1 $15,000
Automatic Transfer Switch $15,000 LS 1 $15,000
Motor Control Centers/Variable Frequency Drives $100,000 LS 1 $100,000 1 $20,000 $20,000
PLC $100,000 LS 1 $100,000 1 $10,000 $10,000
Main Pump Station (2.1 mgd) $500,000 EA 0 $0 0 $0
Medium Pump Station $375,000 EA 0 $0 0 $0
Small Pump Station (0.036 mgd) $250,000 EA 0 $0 0 $0
Distribution Piping & Equipment $91 LF 0 $0 500 $45,500
Aspirating Aerator $1,000 hp 0 $0 7.5 $7,500
Subtotal Equipment $2,136,511 $0 $351,895 $83,000 $0 $0

By : Tt
Date : 11-Aug-08
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
TREATMENT - MBR
Structural
Administration/Lab Building 2,100 $250 $525,000
Electrical Building (generator outside) 0 $200 $0
Mechanical Building 800 $200 $160,000
Excavation 2,828 $20 $56,560
Backfill 1,173 $15 $17,595
Headworks Concrete 0 $1,500 $0
Slab Concrete and Rebar 322 $500 $160,963
Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar 306 $700 $214,200
Access Bridge Concrete 34 $800 $27,467
Effluent Weir Concrete 6 $700 $3,889
Misc Metals (Handrailing, Covers, etc.) 1 $28,184 $28,184
Site Stormwater Piping and Valving 1 $15,000 $15,000
Site Process Piping and Valving 1 $23,600 $23,600
Indoor Process Piping and Valving 1 $94,400 $94,400
Membrane Bioreactor Piping and Valving 1 $414,153 $414,153
Manholes 0 $6,000 $0
Stormwater Detention Tank and Control Structures 0 $60,000 $0
Paving 1,000 $0
Sitework 1 $50,000 $50,000
Landscaping 1 $10,000 $10,000
Electrical Conduit, Sitework 1 $55,000 $55,000
Site Lighting 1 $10,000 $10,000
Laboratory Equipment 1 $15,000 $15,000
Furniture 1 $7,000 $7,000
Land Acquisition 0 $49,000 $0
Liner
Equipment 1 $1,136,892 $1,136,892
Blower piping
Washer Compactor
Permeate Pumps
WAS Pumps 1 $7,500 $7,500
Magnetic Flow Meters 1 $5,000 $5,000
Yard Pump Station Pumps 0 $7,500 $0
Plant Water Pumps 0 $5,000 $0
Strainer (Manual duplex) 0 $2,000 $0
Overhead Crane 1 $45,000 $45,000
Hydro Tank 0 $4,000 $0
Odor Control - Carbon Adsorber, Fans, Piping 0 $75,000 $0
Generator 0 $175 $0
Generator Silencer, Louvers, Acoustics 0 $5,000 $0
Underground Fuel Storage Tank, Pumps 0 $15,000 $0
Automatic Transfer Switch 0 $15,000 $0
Motor Control Centers/Variable Frequency Drives 1 $45,000 $45,000
PLC 1 $20,000 $20,000
Medium Pump Station
Aspirating Aerator
Subtotal Equipment $0 $0 $1,259,392 $0 $0 $0 $0

By : Tt
Date : 11-Aug-08
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
RESIDENTIAL AREA #3
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
TREATMENT - MBR
Structural
Administration/Lab Building
Electrical Building (generator outside)
Mechanical Building
Excavation
Backfill
Headworks Concrete
Slab Concrete and Rebar
Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar
Access Bridge Concrete
Effluent Weir Concrete
Misc Metals (Handrailing, Covers, etc.)
Site Stormwater Piping and Valving
Site Process Piping and Valving
Indoor Process Piping and Valving
Membrane Bioreactor Piping and Valving
Manholes
Stormwater Detention Tank and Control Structures
Paving
Sitework
Landscaping
Electrical Conduit, Sitework
Site Lighting
Laboratory Equipment
Furniture
Land Acquisition
Liner
Equipment 1 $351,895 $351,895
Blower piping
Washer Compactor
Permeate Pumps
WAS Pumps
Magnetic Flow Meters
Yard Pump Station Pumps
Plant Water Pumps
Strainer (Manual duplex)
Overhead Crane
Hydro Tank
Odor Control - Carbon Adsorber, Fans, Piping
Generator
Generator Silencer, Louvers, Acoustics
Underground Fuel Storage Tank, Pumps
Automatic Transfer Switch
Motor Control Centers/Variable Frequency Drives
PLC
Medium Pump Station
Aspirating Aerator

By : Tt
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
TREATMENT - MBR ERUs 432 ERUs 502 ERUs 584 ERUs 679 ERUs 789 ERUs 918
Installation, Miscellaneous Mechanical of Equip 40% $854,604 $0 $140,758 $33,200 $0 $0
Electrical of Equip 20% $427,302 $0 $70,379 $16,600 $0 $0
Instrumentation and Control of Equip 15% $320,477 $0 $52,784 $12,450 $0 $0
Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $6,403,375 $0 $615,816 $356,592 $0 $0
Contractor O&P of Sub Cost 15% $960,506 $0 $92,372 $53,489 $0 $0
Mobilization, demobilization, bond of Sub cost 6% $384,202 $0 $36,949 $21,396 $0 $0
Total estimated current construction cost $7,748,083 $0 $745,138 $431,477 $0 $0
Escalation to time of construction 3.50% $271,183 $0 $26,080 $15,102 $0 $0
Total estimated construction cost $8,019,266 $0 $771,217 $446,579 $0 $0
Contingency 30% $2,405,780 $0 $231,365 $133,974 $0 $0

Engineering Design 15% $1,563,757 $0 $150,387 $87,083 $0 $0
Construction Management 10% $1,042,505 $0 $100,258 $58,055 $0 $0
Sales Tax 8.4% $875,704 $0 $84,217 $48,766 $0 $0
Total Estimated Capital Cost $13,907,000 $0 $1,337,000 $774,000 $0 $0

Item Description Unit Cost Unit Quantity Annual Cost
Labor $40 HR 2,080 $83,200 2,080 $83,200 2,080 $83,200 2,080 $83,200 2,080 $83,200 2,080 $83,200
Membrane Replacement $75 panel 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Diesel oil $4.50 GAL 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Power $0.075 kWh 173,736 $13,030 186,686 $14,001 201,745 $15,131 219,256 $16,444 239,617 $17,971 263,294 $19,747
Other utilities (water, garbage, etc.) $1,000 month 12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000
Chemicals - membrane cleaning $3,380 LS 2 $6,760 2 $6,760 2 $6,760 2 $6,760 2 $6,760 2 $6,760
Hypochlorite $1.50 LB 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Polymer $3.00 LB 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Structural Replacement 2% $53,290 2% $53,290 2% $53,290 2% $53,290 2% $53,290 2% $53,290
Capital Replacement 4% $85,460 4% $85,460 4% $85,460 4% $85,460 4% $85,460 4% $85,460
"overhead" power with expansion = 16

By : Tt
Date : 11-Aug-08
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
TREATMENT - MBR ERUs 1067 ERUs 1241 ERUs 1443 ERUs 1678 ERUs 1952 ERUs 2269 ERUs 2639
Installation, Miscellaneous Mechanical $0 $0 $503,757 $0 $0 $0 $0
Electrical $0 $0 $251,878 $0 $0 $0 $0
Instrumentation and Control $0 $0 $188,909 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contractor O&P $0 $0 $613,792 $0 $0 $0 $0
Mobilization, demobilization, bond $0 $0 $245,517 $0 $0 $0 $0
Escalation to time of construction $0 $0 $173,294 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contingency $0 $0 $1,537,365 $0 $0 $0 $0
Engineering Design $0 $0 $999,287 $0 $0 $0 $0
Construction Management $0 $0 $666,191 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sales Tax $0 $0 $559,601 $0 $0 $0 $0

Item Description
Labor 2,080 $83,200 3,796 $151,840 3,796 $151,840 3,796 $151,840 3,796 $151,840 3,796 $151,840 3,796 $151,840
Membrane Replacement 400 $30,000 400 $30,000 800 $60,000 800 $60,000 800 $60,000 400 $30,000 400 $30,000
Diesel oil 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Power 290,825 $21,812 323,555 $24,267 406,508 $30,488 404,069 $30,305 454,404 $34,080 512,935 $38,470 580,995 $43,575
Other utilities (water, garbage, etc.) 12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000
Chemicals - membrane cleaning 2 $6,760 3 $10,140 3 $10,140 3 $10,140 3 $10,140 3 $10,140 3 $10,140
Hypochlorite 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Polymer 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Misc expenses 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Structural Replacement 2% $53,290 2% $53,290 2% $91,050 2% $91,050 2% $91,050 2% $91,050 2% $91,050
Capital Replacement 4% $85,460 4% $85,460 4% $135,836 4% $135,836 4% $135,836 4% $135,836 4% $135,836

By : Tt
Date : 11-Aug-08
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
RESIDENTIAL AREA #3
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
TREATMENT - MBR ERUs 3069 ERUs 3568 ERUs 3666 ERUs 3768 ERUs 3872 ERUs 3978 ERUs 4088 ERUs 4201
Installation, Miscellaneous Mechanical $0 $140,758 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Electrical $0 $70,379 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Instrumentation and Control $0 $52,784 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $0 $615,816 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contractor O&P $0 $92,372 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Mobilization, demobilization, bond $0 $36,949 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total estimated current construction cost $0 $745,138 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Escalation to time of construction $0 $26,080 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total estimated construction cost $0 $771,217 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contingency $0 $231,365 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Engineering Design $0 $150,387 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Construction Management $0 $100,258 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sales Tax $0 $84,217 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Item Description
Labor 3,796 $151,840 3,796 $151,840 3,796 $151,840 3,796 $151,840 3,796 $151,840 3,796 $151,840 3,796 $151,840 4,004 $160,160
Membrane Replacement 0 $0 400 $30,000 400 $30,000 800 $60,000 800 $60,000 800 $60,000 400 $30,000 800 $60,000
Diesel oil 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Power 660,137 $49,510 797,890 $59,842 815,989 $61,199 834,622 $62,597 853,769 $64,033 873,444 $65,508 893,662 $67,025 914,438 $68,583
Other utilities (water, garbage, etc.) 12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000 12 $12,000
Chemicals - membrane cleaning 3 $10,140 4 $13,520 4 $13,520 4 $13,520 4 $13,520 4 $13,520 4 $13,520 4 $13,520
Hypochlorite 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Polymer 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Misc expenses 0 $0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Structural Replacement 2% $91,050 2% $91,050 2% $91,050 2% $91,050 2% $91,050 2% $91,050 2% $91,050 2% $91,050
Capital Replacement 4% $135,836 4% $149,912 4% $149,912 4% $149,912 4% $149,912 4% $149,912 4% $149,912 4% $149,912

By : Tt
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Building enclosure for equipment $150 SF 280 $42,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Excavation $20 CY 397 $7,940 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Backfill $15 CY 218 $3,270 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Slab Concrete and Rebar $500 CY 73 $36,333 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar $700 CY 67 $47,144 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Misc Metals (Handrailing, Covers, etc.) $500 LS 1 $500 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Misc Concrete (NaOCl secondary containment) $600 CY 5 $3,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Sitework $15,000 LS 1 $15,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Electrical Conduit, Sitework $5,000 LS 1 $5,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Site Lighting $20,000 LS 1 $20,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Contact Tank Baffles $10,000 LS 1 $10,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Storage Tank (3-55 gal drums) $200 ea 6 $1,200 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Pumps w/ installation (hypo) $2,500 ea 2 $5,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Tank Mixers $1,000 ea 1 $1,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Feed Pacing Controller $2,500 ea 1 $2,500 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Chemical Flow Meter $2,000 ea 1 $2,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $235,662 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total estimated current construction cost $285,151 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total estimated construction cost $295,131 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contingency 30% $88,539 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0
Sales Tax 8.4% $32,228 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0
Total Estimated Capital Cost $512,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Labor $40 hr 52 $2,080 52 $2,080 52 $2,080 52 $2,080 52 $2,080 52 $2,080
Diesel oil $4.50 gal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Power $0.08 kWh 3266 $245 3266 $245 3266 $245 3266 $245 3266 $245 3266 $245
Structural Maintenance 2% $4,454 2% $0 2% $0 2% $0 2% $0 2% $0
Chemicals $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Hypochlorite $1.50 lb 156 $235 182 $273 212 $317 246 $369 286 $429 333 $499
Polymer $3.00 lb $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

By : Tt
Date : 11-Aug-08
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Building enclosure for equipment 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Excavation 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Backfill 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Misc Metals (Handrailing, Covers, etc.) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Misc Concrete (NaOCl secondary containment) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Sitework 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Electrical Conduit, Sitework 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Site Lighting 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Contact Tank Baffles 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Storage Tank (3-55 gal drums) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Pumps w/ installation (hypo) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Tank Mixers 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Feed Pacing Controller 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Chemical Flow Meter 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Electrical 20% $0 20% $0 20% $0 20% $0 20% $0 20% $0 20% $0
Contractor O&P 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0
Escalation to time of construction 3.50% $0 3.50% $0 3.50% $0 3.50% $0 3.50% $0 3.50% $0 3.50% $0
Contingency 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0
Engineering Design 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0
Construction Management 10% $0 10% $0 10% $0 10% $0 10% $0 10% $0 10% $0
Sales Tax 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0

Labor 52 $2,080 52 $2,080 52 $2,080 52 $2,080 52 $2,080 52 $2,080 52 $2,080
Diesel oil $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Power 3266 $245 3266 $245 3266 $245 3266 $245 3266 $245 3266 $245 3266 $245
Chemicals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Hypochlorite 387 $580 450 $675 523 $784 608 $912 707 $1,061 822 $1,233 956 $1,434
Polymer $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Misc expenses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

By : Tt
Date : 11-Aug-08
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
RESIDENTIAL AREA #3
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Building enclosure for equipment 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Excavation 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Backfill 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Misc Metals (Handrailing, Covers, etc.) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Misc Concrete (NaOCl secondary containment) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Sitework 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Electrical Conduit, Sitework 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Site Lighting 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Contact Tank Baffles 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Storage Tank (3-55 gal drums) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Pumps w/ installation (hypo) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Tank Mixers 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Feed Pacing Controller 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Chemical Flow Meter 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Electrical 20% $0 20% $0 20% $0 20% $0 20% $0 20% $0 20% $0 20% $0
Contractor O&P 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0
Contingency 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0
Sales Tax 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0

Labor 52 $2,080 52 $2,080 52 $2,080 52 $2,080 52 $2,080 52 $2,080 52 $2,080 52 $2,080
Diesel oil $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Power 3266 $245 3266 $245 3266 $245 3266 $245 3266 $245 3266 $245 3266 $245 3266 $245
Chemicals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Hypochlorite 1112 $1,668 1293 $1,939 1328 $1,993 1365 $2,048 1403 $2,104 1441 $2,162 1481 $2,222 1522 $2,283
Polymer $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Misc expenses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

By : Tt
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
SLUDGE HANDLING
Item Description Unit cost, $ Unit
Mechanical Building $200 SF 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 150 $30,000 0 $0 0 $0
Filter & Chemical Building $200 SF 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 650 $130,000 0 $0 0 $0
Slab Concrete and Rebar $500 CY 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 24 $11,963 0 $0 0 $0
Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar $700 CY 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 48 $33,496 0 $0 0 $0
excavation $20 CY 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 676 $13,520 0 $0 0 $0
disposal $0 CY 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 340 $0 0 $0 0 $0
backfill $15 CY 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 601 $9,020 0 $0 0 $0
Site Process Piping and Valving $13,926 LS 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1 $13,926 0 $0 0 $0
Site Process Piping and Valving $3,000 LS 1 $3,000 0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Indoor Process Piping and Valving $23,210 LS 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1 $23,210 0 $0 0 $0
Sitework $60,000 LS 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1 $60,000 0 $0 0 $0
Subtotal Structural $3,000 $0 $0 $325,135 $0 $0
Blower $20,000 EA 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1 $ 10,000 $10,000 0 $0 0 $0
Diffuser with piping $20,000 EA 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1 $ 10,000 $10,000 0 $0 0 $0
Decant pump $10,000 EA 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Screw Press Thickerner $54,630 EA 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1 $54,630 0 $0 0 $0
Odor Control Scrubber $60,700 EA 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1 $60,700 0 $0 0 $0
Sludge Pump $9,105 EA 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 2 $18,210 0 $0 0 $0
Polymer Feed System $12,140 EA 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1 $12,140 0 $0 0 $0
Steel 10k gallon sludge holding tank $20,000 EA 1 $20,000 0 $0 0 $0 1 $20,000 0 $0 0 $0
Subtotal Equipment $20,000 $0 $0 $185,680 $0 $0
Installation, Miscellaneous Mechanical of Equip 40% $8,000 40% $0 40% $0 40% $74,272 40% $0 40% $0
Electrical of Equip 25% $5,000 25% $0 25% $0 25% $46,420 25% $0 25% $0
Instrumentation and Control of Equip 15% $3,000 15% $0 15% $0 15% $27,852 15% $0 15% $0
Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $39,000 $0 $0 $659,359 $0 $0
Contractor O&P of Sub Cost 15% $5,850 15% $0 15% $0 15% $98,904 15% $0 15% $0
Mobilization, demobilization, bond of Sub cost 6% $2,340 6% $0 6% $0 6% $39,562 6% $0 6% $0
Total estimated current construction cost $47,190 $0 $0 $797,825 $0 $0
Escalation to time of construction 3.50% $1,652 $0 $0 $27,924 $0 $0
Total estimated construction cost $48,842 $0 $0 $825,749 $0 $0
Contingency 30% $14,652 $0 $0 $247,725 $0 $0
Engineering Design 15% $9,524 $0 $0 $161,021 $0 $0
Construction Management 10% $6,349 $0 $0 $107,347 $0 $0
Sales Tax 8.4% $5,334 $0 $0 $90,172 $0 $0
Total Estimated Capital Cost $84,701 $0 $0 $1,432,013 $0 $0
Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate (per year) Gallons per day 1140 Gallons per day 1,326 Gallons per day 1,541 Gallons per day 672 Gallons per day 782 Gallons per day 909
Labor $40 HR 52 $2,080 52 $2,080 52 $2,080 82 $3,270 95 $3,806 111 $4,424
Diesel oil $4.50 GAL 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Power $0.075 kWh 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 2,453 $184 2,854 $214 3,318 $249
Structural Maintenance 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Equipment replacement 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Hypochlorite $0.60 LB 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Sodium Bisulfite $0.20 GAL 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Polymer $3.00 LB 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 409 $1,227 476 $1,428 553 $1,660
Sludge hauling and disposal $0.30 GAL 416,100 $124,830 483,990 $145,197 562,465 $168,740 245,280 $73,584 285,430 $85,629 331,785 $99,536
Structural Maintenance 2% $60 2% $60 2% $60 2% $6,563 2% $6,563 2% $6,563
Equipment replacement 4% $800 4% $800 4% $800 4% $8,227 4% $8,227 4% $8,227

By : Tt
Date : 11-Aug-08
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
SLUDGE HANDLING
Item Description Quantity Cost, $
Mechanical Building 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Filter & Chemical Building 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
excavation 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
disposal 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
backfill 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Site Process Piping and Valving 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Indoor Process Piping and Valving 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Sitework 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Blower 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Diffuser with piping 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Decant pump 0 $0 0 $0 0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Screw Press Thickerner 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Odor Control Scrubber 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Sludge Pump 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Polymer Feed System 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Steel 10k gallon sludge holding tank 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Electrical 25% $0 25% $0 25% $0 25% $0 25% $0 25% $0 25% $0
Contractor O&P 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0
Escalation to time of construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Engineering Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Construction Management $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sales Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate (per year) Gallons per day 1,057 Gallons per day 1,229 Gallons per day 1,429 Gallons per day 1,661 Gallons per day 1,932 Gallons per day 2,246 Gallons per day 2,612
Labor 129 $5,144 150 $5,981 174 $6,954 202 $8,084 235 $9,402 273 $10,931 318 $12,712
Diesel oil 0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Power 3,858 $289 4,486 $336 5,216 $391 6,063 $455 7,052 $529 8,198 $615 9,534 $715
Structural Maintenance 0 $0 0 $0 2% $0 2% $0 2% $0 2% $0 2% $0
Equipment replacement 0 $0 0 $0 4% $0 4% $0 4% $0 4% $0 4% $0
Hypochlorite 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Polymer 644 $1,931 748 $2,245 870 $2,610 1,011 $3,034 1,176 $3,529 1,367 $4,102 1,590 $4,771
Misc expenses 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Sludge hauling and disposal 385,805 $115,742 448,585 $134,576 521,585 $156,476 606,265 $181,880 705,180 $211,554 819,790 $245,937 953,380 $286,014

By : Tt
Date : 11-Aug-08
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
RESIDENTIAL AREA #3
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
SLUDGE HANDLING
Item Description
Mechanical Building 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Filter & Chemical Building 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
excavation 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
disposal 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
backfill 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Indoor Process Piping and Valving 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Sitework 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Blower 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Diffuser with piping 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Decant pump 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Screw Press Thickerner 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Odor Control Scrubber 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Sludge Pump 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Polymer Feed System 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Steel 10k gallon sludge holding tank 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Electrical 25% $0 25% $0 25% $0 25% $0 25% $0 25% $0 25% $0 25% $0
Contractor O&P 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0
Escalation to time of construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Engineering Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Construction Management $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sales Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate (per year) Gallons per day 3,037 Gallons per day 3,532 Gallons per year 3,629 Gallons per year 3,730 Gallons per year 3,833 Gallons per year 3,939 Gallons per year 4,047 Gallons per day 4,159
Labor 370 $14,780 430 $17,189 442 $17,663 454 $18,151 466 $18,653 479 $19,168 492 $19,697 506 $20,241
Diesel oil $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Power 11,085 $831 12,892 $967 13,248 $994 13,613 $1,021 13,989 $1,049 14,376 $1,078 14,773 $1,108 15,181 $1,139
Hypochlorite 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Polymer 1,849 $5,547 2,150 $6,451 2,210 $6,629 2,271 $6,812 2,333 $7,000 2,398 $7,194 2,464 $7,392 2,532 $7,597
Misc expenses 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Sludge hauling and disposal 1,108,505 $332,552 1,289,152 $386,746 1,324,759 $397,428 1,361,349 $408,405 1,398,950 $419,685 1,437,589 $431,277 1,477,295 $443,188 1,518,098 $455,429

By : Tt
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
EFFLUENT REUSE
Site Process Piping and Valving to Disposal Field $65 LF 500 $32,500 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Land Purchase: Disposal/Buidout MM Flows $28,000 AC 9.0 $252,000 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0
Rapid Infiltration Basins - Sitework $8 CY 18,392 $147,136 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Storage Basins - Sitework $8 CY 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Electrical Conduit, Sitework, Lighting $10,000 LS 1 $10,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Monitoring Wells $10,000 EA 3 $30,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Main Pump Station (2.1 mgd) $500,000 EA 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Medium Pump Station $375,000 EA 1 $375,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Small Pump Station (0.036 mgd) $250,000 EA 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Distribution Piping & Equipment $10,000 EA 1 $10,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $1,189,636 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total estimated current construction cost $1,439,460 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total estimated construction cost $1,489,841 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contingency 30% $446,952 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0
Sales Tax 8.4% $162,691 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0
Total Estimated Capital Cost $2,583,682 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Labor $40 hr 104 $4,160 104 $4,160 104 $4,160 104 $4,160 104 $4,160 104 $4,160
Power $0.08 kWh 10162 $762 12344 $926 14882 $1,116 17832 $1,337 21262 $1,595 25252 $1,894

By : Tt
Date : 11-Aug-08
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
EFFLUENT REUSE
Site Process Piping and Valving to Disposal Field 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Land Purchase: Disposal/Buidout MM Flows 0.0 $0 0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0
Rapid Infiltration Basins - Sitework 0 $0 0 $0 18,392 $147,136 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Storage Basins - Sitework 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Site Process Piping and Valving 0 $0 0 $0 1 $25,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Electrical Conduit, Sitework, Lighting 0 $0 0 $0 1 $10,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Monitoring Wells 0 $0 0 $0 3 $30,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Subtotal Structural $0 $0 $212,136 $0 $0 $0 $0
Medium Pump Station 0 $0 0 $0 1 $ 25,000 $25,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Small Pump Station (0.036 mgd) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Distribution Piping & Equipment 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Subtotal Equipment $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Installation, Miscellaneous Mechanical 40% $0 40% $0 40% $10,000 40% $0 40% $0 40% $0 40% $0
Electrical 25% $0 25% $0 25% $6,250 25% $0 25% $0 25% $0 25% $0
Instrumentation and Control 15% $0 15% $0 15% $3,750 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0
Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $0 $0 $257,136 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contractor O&P 15% $0 15% $0 15% $38,570 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0
Mobilization, demobilization, bond 6% $0 6% $0 6% $15,428 6% $0 6% $0 6% $0 6% $0
Total estimated current construction cost $0 $0 $311,135 $0 $0 $0 $0
Escalation to time of construction 3.50% $0 3.50% $0 3.50% $10,890 3.50% $0 3.50% $0 3.50% $0 3.50% $0
Total estimated construction cost $0 $0 $322,024 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contingency 30% $0 30% $0 30% $96,607 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0
Engineering Design 15% $0 15% $0 15% $62,795 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0
Construction Management 10% $0 10% $0 10% $41,863 10% $0 10% $0 10% $0 10% $0
Sales Tax 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $35,165 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0
Total Estimated Capital Cost $0 $0 $558,454 $0 $0 $0 $0

Labor 104 $4,160 104 $4,160 208 $8,320 208 $8,320 208 $8,320 208 $8,320 208 $8,320
Power 29890 $2,242 35284 $2,646 41556 $3,117 48850 $3,664 57331 $4,300 67192 $5,039 78659 $5,899
Misc expenses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

By : Tt
Date : 11-Aug-08
July 2008
ENR: 8361.74
RESIDENTIAL AREA #3
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
EFFLUENT REUSE
Site Process Piping and Valving to Disposal Field 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Land Purchase: Disposal/Buidout MM Flows 0.0 $0 0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0
Rapid Infiltration Basins - Sitework 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Storage Basins - Sitework 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Electrical Conduit, Sitework, Lighting 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Monitoring Wells 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Medium Pump Station 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Small Pump Station (0.036 mgd) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Distribution Piping & Equipment 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Electrical 25% $0 25% $0 25% $0 25% $0 25% $0 25% $0 25% $0 25% $0
Contractor O&P 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0 15% $0
Contingency 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0 30% $0
Sales Tax 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0 8.4% $0

Labor 208 $8,320 208 $8,320 208 $8,320 208 $8,320 208 $8,320 208 $8,320 208 $8,320 208 $8,320
Power 91994 $6,900 107499 $8,062 110548 $8,291 113688 $8,527 116914 $8,769 120229 $9,017 123635 $9,273 127136 $9,535
Misc expenses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

APPENDIX E.
RELIABILITY AND REDUNDANCY REQUIREMENTS FOR
RECLAMATION AND REUSE STANDARDS
September 2008
E1-14 November 2007 Criteria for Sewage Works Design
Table E1-4. Reliability and Redundancy Requirements of Articles 10 and 11 of the Water
Reclamation and Reuse Standards
Article Requirements
Article 10— 1. Flexibility of Design
General
The design of process piping, equipment arrangement, and unit structures in the reclamation plant
Requirements of
must allow for efficiency and convenience in operation and maintenance and provide flexibility of
Design
operation to permit the highest possible degree of treatment to be obtained under varying
circumstances.
There shall be no bypassing of untreated or partially treated wastewater from the reclamation plant or
any intermediate unit processes to the point of use.
2. Power Supply
The power supply shall be provided with one of the following reliability features:
(a) Alarm and standby power source.
(b) Alarm and automatically actuated short-term storage or disposal provisions as specified in
Article 11, item 1.
(c) Automatically actuated long-term storage or disposal provisions as specified in Article 11,
item 1.
3. Storage Where No Approved Alternative Disposal System Exists
(a) Where no alternative disposal system is permitted, a system storage or other acceptable
means shall be provided to ensure the retention of reclaimed water under adverse weather
conditions or at other times when reuse is precluded.
(b) When wet weather conditions preclude the use of reclaimed water, the system storage
volume shall be established by determining the storage period that would be required for the
duration of a 10-year storm, using weather data that is available from, or is representative of,
the area involved. A minimum of 20 years of climatic data shall be used in storage volume
determinations. (Note that the designer must select an appropriate storm duration to provide the
protection of a 10-year recurrence interval.)
(c) At a minimum, system storage capacity shall be the volume equal to three times that portion
of the average daily flow of reuse capacity for which no alternative reuse or disposal system is
permitted.
(d) Reclaimed water storage ponds or quarantine which can impound a volume of 10 acre-feet
(equivalent to 435,600 cubic feet or 3.258 million gallons) or more may be subject to state dam
safety regulations. See G1-1.4.6E.
Water Reclamation and Reuse November 2007 E1-15
Article 11— 1. Emergency Storage or Disposal
Alternative
(a) Where short-term storage or disposal provisions are used as a reliability feature, these shall
Reliability
Requirements consist of facilities reserved for the purpose of storing or disposing of untreated or partially
treated wastewater for at least a 24-hour period. The facilities shall include all the necessary
diversion works, provisions for odor control, conduits, and pumping and pump-back equipment.
All of the equipment other than the pump-back equipment shall be either independent of the
normal power supply or provided with a standby power source.
(b) Where long-term storage or disposal provisions are used as a reliability feature, these shall
consist of ponds, reservoirs, percolation areas, downstream sewers leading to other treatment
or disposal facilities, or any other facilities reserved for the purpose of emergency storage or
disposal of untreated or partially treated wastewater. These facilities shall be of sufficient
capacity to provide disposal or storage of wastewater for at least 20 days, and shall include all
the necessary diversion works, provisions for odor and nuisance control, conduits, and pumping
and pump-back equipment. All of the equipment other than the pump-back equipment shall be
either independent of the normal power supply or provided with a standby power source.
(c) Diversion to a different type of reuse is an acceptable alternative to emergency disposal of
partially treated wastewater provided that the quality of the partially treated wastewater is
suitable for that type of reuse.
(d) Subject to prior approval by DOH and Ecology, diversion to a discharge point where the
wastewater meets all discharge requirements is an acceptable alternative to emergency
disposal of partially treated wastewater.
(e) Automatically actuated short-term storage or disposal provisions and automatically actuated
long-term storage or disposal provisions shall include, in addition to provisions of (a), (b), (c),
and (d) listed above, all the necessary sensors, instruments, valves, and other devices to
enable fully automatic diversion of untreated or partially treated wastewater to approved
emergency storage or disposal in the event of failure of the treatment process, and a manual
reset to prevent automatic restart until the failure is corrected.
2. Biological Treatment
All biological treatment unit processes shall be provided with one reliability feature, as follows:
(a) Alarm and multiple biological treatment units capable of producing oxidized wastewater with
one unit not in operation.
(b) Alarm, short-term storage or disposal provisions, and standby replacement equipment.
(c) Alarm and long-term storage or disposal provisions.
(d) Automatically actuated long-term storage or disposal provisions.
3. Secondary Sedimentation
All secondary sedimentation unit processes shall be provided with one reliability feature, as follows:
(a) Multiple sedimentation units capable of treating the entire flow with one unit not in operation.
(b) Standby sedimentation unit process.
(c) Long-term storage or disposal provisions.

E1-16 November 2007 Criteria for Sewage Works Design
Article 11— 4. Coagulation
Alternative
(a) All coagulation unit processes shall be provided with all features for uninterrupted chemical
Reliability
Requirements feed, as follows:
(continued) • Standby feeders.
• Adequate chemical storage and conveyance facilities.
• Adequate reserve chemical supply.
• Automatic dosage control.
(b) All coagulation unit processes shall be provided with one reliability feature, as follows:
• Alarm and multiple coagulation units capable of treating the entire flow with one unit not in
operation.
• Alarm, short-term storage or disposal provisions, and standby replacement equipment.
• Alarm and long-term storage or disposal provisions.
• Automatically actuated long-term storage or disposal provisions.
• Alarm and standby coagulation unit process.
5. Filtration
All filtration unit processes shall be provided with one reliability feature, as follows:
(a) Alarm and multiple filter units capable of treating the entire flow with one unit not in
operation.
(b) Alarm, short-term storage or disposal provisions, and standby replacement equipment.
(c) Alarm and long-term storage or disposal provisions.
(d) Alarm and standby filtration unit process.

Port Hadlock Sewer Facility Plan 0908

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Port Hadlock Sewer Facility Plan 0908

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Jefferson County

Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility Plan

Table of Contents .....................................................................................................i

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

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

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

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

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

8. Recommended Alternative and Implementation .........................................8-1

9. Cost and Financing .........................................................................................9-1

10. Public Involvement and Outreach.................................................................10-1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners

Irondale/Port Hadlock Sewer Project Stakeholders Group

Jefferson County Administration

Jefferson County Public Works Department

Jefferson County Department of Community Development

Tetra Tech, Inc.

Triangle Associates, Inc.

Katy Isaksen & Associates

HWA GeoSciences Inc.

Figure ES-1. Vicinity Map

PERMITS, REQUIREMENTS, AND REGULATIONS

FLOW AND LOAD ANALYSIS

Population, Flow and Loading Projections

Commercial Flow and Loading Projections

SEWER SYSTEM PHASING

Phasing Area Description Total Acres

EFFLUENT DISCHARGE/WATER RECLAMATION

Liquid Treatment Process

Solids Handling and Treatment Alternatives

Wastewater Treatment Plant Location

Candidate Treatment Plant Sites

Description Estimated Land Area (acres)

Est. Capital (2008

Figure ES-8. Hydraulic Profile

1. Conn. Chg. for GENERAL & LOCAL

* Assumes 45% Grant for Residential

Estimated Monthly Rate For O&M/Admin Costs

Item/Activity Estimated Date of Completion

AUTHORIZATION AND SCOPE

OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION OF PROPOSED FACILITIES

JEFFERSON COUNTY VISION STATEMENT

Figure 2-1. Vicinity Map

SEWER PLANNING AREA AND URBAN GROWTH AREA (UGA)

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

Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (PHUGA)

PHUGA Land Use and Zoning

Port Hadlock Sewer Planning Area (PHSPA)

Sewer Planning Area Land Use and Zoning

Summary of Land Use and Zoning