The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWorkshop re Septage Capacity Regular Agenda 615 Sheridan Street �/) Port Townsend, WA 98368 1ITT�'W n www.JeffersonCountyPublicHealth.org Public Health December 18,2023 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REQUEST TO: Board of County Commissioners Mark McCauley,County Administrator FROM: Pinky Mingo,Environmental Public Health and Water Quality Director DATE: December 18,2023 SUBJECT: Septage Capacity Analysis Study STATEMENT OF ISSUE: In September of 2022,the Board of County Commissioners provided $30,000 to the City of Port Townsend through an Interlocal Agreement to conduct a septage capacity analysis. In September 2023,the City's consultant RH2 Engineering completed their analysis and we are requesting a workshop to present the findings and options. ANALYSIS/STRATEGIC GOALS/PRO'S and CON'S: The lack of a capacity for the treatment of septage is a growing concern in Jefferson County as the region grows and there are limited options for septage disposal. The City of Port Townsend's septage facility has 4,000 gallons a day capacity and the rest of the septage is taken to Kitsap and Mason Counties. Across the region, wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) are aging and reaching capacity. As WWTPs reach capacity, they often reduce or reject their acceptance of septage. This can create a public health crisis when facilities are unavailable or transportation costs become excessive. It is within the County's best interest to increase septage capacity locally to avoid a public health crisis and to ensure a cost-effective disposal option for our residents. Fiscal Impacts No fiscal impacts at this time. REVIEWED BY: Mark McCaul , County Administrator Date Community Health Environmental Public Health Developmental Disabilities Water Quality 360-385-9400 360-385-9444 360-385-9401 (f) Always working for a safer and healthier community (f) 360-379-4487 •� � December 18, 2023 e Septage Receiving Facility Expansion Alternatives Analysis .•-�- Dan Mahlum, PE, RH2 -- Steve King, PE, City of Port Townsend . Bliss Morris, City of Port Townsend - Pinky Mingo, Jefferson County � � R 2 Septage Receiving Facility Expansion Alternatives Analysis • Existing Condition • City of Port Townsend owns and operates a wwrPSite septage receiving facility co-located with their compost facility at the County's Solid �,�• µme. �:— ��„ Waste site PORT. TOWNSEND P, • The City receives approximately 40% of total County septage generated each year : - ro0.T tOIN3[ND • Project Drivers a a D N w I • Capturing County-wide septage generation COMPO STING FACILITY SITE • Major Considerations • Increases in flow and loading • On-site treatment facilities capacity limitations • Expansion alternatives r--- RH2 Engineering Flows: Existing Conditions • The City operates the existing facility 5 days per week Month Average Daily • Receives an average of 40+ tankers a month Effluent (gal) • Table shows average daily effluent flows by month over Jan 1,440 the 2016-2021 data period (excluding 2019 and 2020 due Feb 2,404 to excessive flows from QFC drain field failure) Mar 2,412 Apr 3,208 • Annual Average Daily effluent flow and Maximum Month May 1,480 Average Daily effluent flow Jun 1,687 Jul 2,035 Annual Average Day Flow (gpd) 21,040 Aug 2,131 Max. Month Average Day Flow (gpd) 31208 Sep 1,928 Oct 2,324 Nov 2,269 Dec 1,158 Average 2,040 Peaking Factor (MMF/AAF) 1.57 RH2 Engineering Flows : Projections • 2016 to 2021 data from Jefferson County (note 2018 and 2019 are outliers) • 2021 Annual Average: 1,312,623 gallons = 31700 gpd • 2021 Max Month Average: 1.57 (peaking factor) * AAF = 5,800 gpd • Assumed Jefferson County Annual Growth Rate = 0.63% Existing Data 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Annual Gallons Pumped 1,245,430 1,137,065 1,900,637 1,751,859 1,170,831 1,312,623 Average Monthly Gallons 103,786 94,755 158,386 145,988 97,569 109,385 Average Weekly Gallons 23,951 21,867 36,551 33,6901 22,516 25,243 Average Daily Gallons (7-day week) 3,422 3,124 5,222 4,813 3,217 3,606 Average Daily Gallons (5-day week) 4,7901 4,3731 7,3101 6,7381 4,503 5,049 Projections Year-1 Year-20 Average Day Flow (gpd) 3,700 4,195 Max. Month Average Day Flow (gpd) 5,800 6,576 5-Day Week Max. Day Flow (gpd) 9,000 10,000 Number of 1,000-gal Tankers per day 9 10 RH2 Engineering ExistingState Waste Discharge Permit S4. FACILITY LOADING A. Design Cntena The flows or waste loads for the permitted facility must not exceed the following design criteria: Projections,Year 1 Maximum Mouth Design Flow(1A DF) 4,000 gpd 5,800 gpd Daily Maximum Flow 6,200 gpd 9,000 gpd RH2 Engineering ExistingState Waste Discharge Permit Effluent Limits: SBR Effluent Latitude 48.10117 Longitude -122.83416 Parameter Average Jlonthly ' Average NN'eekIV b 30 milligrams/liter(mg/L) Biocheuucal Oxygen 45 mg;L Demand(BOD5) u 1 pound/day(lbs/day) 1.5 lbs/day 85/o removal of influent BOD5 Total Suspended Solids 1 mg/Lday 45 m1r/L (TSS) 85%removal of influent TSS 1.5 lbs/day Parameter Midmtam 'Maximum a pH° 6.0 Standard Units(SU) 9.0 SU Effluent Limits: R'etland Influent Parameter Monthh-Geometric dean 7-day-GeometricMean Fecal Colifonn, 200 col;100 mL 400 col./10 mL Parameter Average Monthly Average R.eekh-b Total Re�adual Chlorine 0 � ms! L 0 -, nw L Effluent Limit: NVetland Effluent Parameter Average Monthly Average X%.eekh•b Nitrate 10 nit, L a,, -- RH2 Engineering c v c c w N h' 1 .F ! l( xI t r ++► 4r -Al. ,f LL A l w fr. 1 � On 77 i O C �4 V 4� o a � U m N C m � 3 y O N -j N O ��m 9 •.2 �J W Existing Septage Receiving Facility - Capacities and Deficiencies The septage holding tanks and aeration °D0RD16—"� ooWosT� system are insufficient — to meet projected flows and loads. The septage I dewatering system is �I assumed sufficient to CONDEMATEAMCOWAW A,M meet projected flows RUNW no►, 1L - - - - - - - - and loads. J �— The SBR and aeration , SWTA system are insufficient ," "MAW no MADAM to meet projected " w "�"�` P flows and loads. P Effluent disposal AMTM system is not rated for � , P raTw►now projected flows. 10M I AMMM L EVAPMTM SUX" PM Ecology must be MLIM brought in to discuss VOSTE# MATM SLUM steps needed to expand disposal system or an off-site disposal option is _ needed. RH2 Engineering On -Site Treatment Alternative: New Infrastructure and Improvements • Improvements • Add/enhance influent screening and grit removal • Increase capacity of the septage holding tanks • Construct an additional SBR tank and upgrade all process equipment • Order of Magnitude Costs • On-Site Improvements: $3,800,000+ _ r-- RH2 Engineering Disposal Considerations (Ecology comments in Fact Sheet) • "Ecology is not requiring additional monitoring wells on this site in recognition of the small flows and high quality of the effluent, but may require additional wells and monitoring in the future. No upgradient wells existing to determine background quality of the groundwater." • "The facility must operate within the approved design parameters and comply with all conditions in the permit." Observations from the Fact Sheet \, �•!'-.'.•"� ;/ �•,.f ,.�.i �/ . • The wetland ponds are used to reduce SBR u��spU.� a• "��'�� - `� nitrate concentrations from 6 mg/l to about0. Al 1 mg/l r ��`1�. r. Kt',• �. 1 r„�.ti-•'� •,•.. • • • Groundwater concentration in downgradrent 'c .~;`1-. ,�'w„ t - .•�.:•� }4•' t % ' well is the point of compliance,current requirement is 10/mg/l -•� _ _ ��" J, J�':*" Y `_a.,L _ ` f ,1. :r1.. • Infiltration area is mapped as advanced � �` � ate'.. . � •.t .,,,,�_..-� r .,, r� � outwash sand-highly permeable and the fact Sheet indicates substantial thickness of r •� •'�}, t �• �..r.'�4�' sand and gravel underlies the area , t •� �+ ;+r��Q • Conservative estimate of the infiltration capacity assumes only 0 5 inches per hour f rate for 15,000 h=pond area _ f , ' - »::. rrr•r•• • Geo reports and original design documents .. _ not currently available for review •Co•�••r•ro •``• � Fill � / w p..s saw"neu �r.�r rr�ar•a•r• rr _ ineering Off-Site Treatment Alternative: Connection to WWTP • City also owns and operates a municipal wastewater treatment plant Port . - . • Site is constrained, and -rOth St , truck traffic is not allowed . for adding a septage receiving station • Force main from existing septage facility would run ° �► � ' �; _` w 'r approximately 4.8 miles. 1 Yl: M u.f ernpo�t/Setpage Facility RH2 Engineering Off-Site Treatment Alternative: Connection to WWTP • Improvements • New lift station • New force main from Compost Facility to WWTP (-4.8 miles) • Order of Magnitude Costs • Force main directly to WWTP: $20,000,000+ • Force main to collection system: $6,000,000+ • These do not include WWTP costs • Challenges • Septage quality concerns • WWTP treatment impacts and Puget Sound General Permit restrictions • Shorter forcemain path to collection system would be less expensive but potentially damage City's existing collection system piping RH2 Engineering Summary • City of Port Townsend 's septage receiving facility is near capacity and receives approximately 40% of the County-wide septage • Achieving 100% capture of County-wide septage would require expansion of existing facility or sending to main municipal WWTP • Recommendation is to expand existing facility • Lowest cost at approximately $3.8M • Avoids issues with City's collection system and main WWTP • Keeps truck traffic to the Solid Waste site where it can be accommodated RH2 Engineering Next Steps • County would need to lead effort on funding that needs to be secured • Rates would need to be analyzed and set • City 2024 rate charges: $0.135 per gallon of septage • Mason County 2024 charges: $0.153 per gallon of septage • Note - Neither location accepts mixed septage or grease • Engineering Report and Ecology Coordination needed • Permit modifications and Ecology approval needed to proceed with design • Early discussions needed with Ecology on disposal considerations RH2 Engineering N�\ N� S$ =4J KD C m V) ---I z V) •- December 18, 2023 Septage Receiving Facility Expansion �-�- Alternatives Analysis .•-�- Dan Mahlum, PE, RH2 -- Steve King, PE, City of Port Townsend . Bliss Morris, City of Port Townsend - Pinky Mingo, Jefferson County Septage Receiving Facility Expansion Alternatives Analysis • Existing Condition • City of Port Townsend owns and operates a WWTP Site septage receiving facility co-located with their compost facility at the County's Solid w _� Waste site fir° • • PORT TOWNSEND J O YIN/C I •CNI0S Y L A • The City receives approximately 40% of total County septage generated each year _ -- --• - - •-�•° • Project Drivers IDI" • Capturing County-wide septage generation COMPOLSTING �........ - FACILITY SITE • Major Considerations • Increases in flow and loading • On-site treatment facilities capacity limitations • Expansion alternatives - -- RH2 Engineering Flows : Existing Conditions • The City operates the existing facility 5 days per week Average Daily • Receives an average of 40+ tankers a month Month Effluent (gal) • Table shows average daily effluent flows by month over Jan 1,440 the 2016-2021 data period (excluding 2019 and 2020 due Feb 2,404 to excessive flows from QFC drain field failure) Mar 2,412 Apr 3,208 • Annual Average Daily effluent flow and Maximum Month May 1,480 Average Daily effluent flow Jun 1,687 Jul 2,035 Annual Average Day Flow (gpd) 2,040 Aug 2,131 Max. Month Average Day Flow (gpd) 3,208 Sep 1,928 Oct 2,324 Nov 2,269 Dec 1,158 Average 2,040 Peaking Factor (MMF/AAF) 1.57 RH2 Engineering Flows: Projections • 2016 to 2021 data from Jefferson County (note 2018 and 2019 are outliers) • 2021 Annual Average: 1,312,623 gallons = 32700 gpd • 2021 Max Month Average: 1.57 (peaking factor) * AAF = 51800 gpd • Assumed Jefferson County Annual Growth Rate = 0.63% Existing Data 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Annual Gallons Pumped 1,245,430 1,137,065 1,900,637 1,751,859 1,170,831 1,312,623 Average Monthly Gallons 103,786 94,755 158,386 145,988 97,569 109,385 Average Weekly Gallons 23,951 21,867 36,551 33,690 22,516 25,243 Average Daily Gallons (7-day week) 3,4221 3,1241 5,2221 4,813 3,217 3,606 Average Daily Gallons (5-day week) 4,7901 4,3731 7,3101 6,738 4,5031 5,049 Projections Year-1 Year-20 Average Day Flow (gpd) 3,700 4,195 Max. Month Average Day Flow (gpd) 5,800 6,576 5-Day Week Max. Day Flow (gpd) 9,000 10,000 Number of 1,000-gal Tankers per day 1 91 10 RH2 Engineering ExistingState Waste Discharge Permit S4. FACA.TTY LOADING A. Design Criteria The flows or waste loads for the permitted facility must not exceed the following design criteria: Projections,Year 1 Maximum Month Design Flow(MMDF) 4,000 gpd 5,800 gpd Daily Maximum Flow 6,200 gpd 9,000 gpd RH2 Engineering ExistingState Waste Discharge Permit Effluent Limits: SBR Effluent Latitude 48.10117 Longitude -122.83416 Parameter ,Average Monthly' Average Weekly� Biochemical Oxygen 30 nulligrauis liter(mg/L) 45 mg/L Demand(BOD5) 0 1 pound/day(lbs/day) 1.5 lbs/day 85/o removal of influent BOD5 Total Suspended Solids 30 mg/L 45 mg/L (TSS) c 1lbs/day 1.5lbs/day 85/o removal of influent TSS Parameter Minimum Maximum d pH 6.0 Standard Units(SLT) 90 SU Effluent Limits: I'Vetland Influent Parameter 1\louthh-Geometric Mean 7-dad•Geometric Mean Fecal Coliform` 200 col./100 ml. 400 col 10 niL. Parameter .Average Monthh• ,Average«'eekly b Total Residual Chlorine 0 � ing L 0 7> niQ L Effluent Limit: R'etland Effluent Parameter Average Monthly' .Average'%i'eeklV b Nitrate 10 mg/L as N ----- RH2 Engineering c a v c 'an c w (V U '°.��. LL • �n 4 m gym y J� V (3) o a � U N C w� r c n O N 4 m O X LLJ Existing Septage Receiving Facitity - Capacities and Deficiencies The septage holding tanks and aeration ooTs�,c — — — 0D0n"'� �+ system are insufficient — R01 to meet projected flows and loads. The septage I „ �---- dewatering system is assumed sufficient to CONDE6„TEAWCOW "M meet projected flows RUNM andloads. T0NW MNOA- -1 �- - - - - - - - - J The SBR and aeration SOYMM system are insufficient HMDM %FrLNO to meet projected TMM sErAM STOMMIM ` P flows and loads. P Effluent disposal �► + system is not rated for WIN OftTi rawM7M projected flows. t101A0 AMA7® P E"`P Ecology must be SUM PM brought in to discuss VOSMPCMA,WSUM steps needed to expand disposal system or an off-site disposal option is _ needed. ----- � RH2 Engineering On -Site Treatment Alternative: New Infrastructure and Improvements • Improvements • Add/enhance influent screening and grit removal • Increase capacity of the septage holding tanks • Construct an additional SBR tank and upgrade all process equipment • Order of Magnitude Costs • On-Site Improvements: $3,800,000+ _ RH2 Engineering Disposal Considerations (Ecology comments in Fact Sheet) • "Ecology is not requiring additional monitoring wells on this site in recognition of the small flows and high quality of the effluent, but may require additional wells and monitoring in the future. No upgradient wells existing to determine background quality of the groundwater." • "The facility must operate within the approved design parameters and comply with all conditions in the permit." Observations from the Fad Sheet • The wetland ponds are used to reduce SBR nitrate concentrations from 6 mg/L to about r A.��•.• '1• . '-y t t• ,"`t._��_•. � "�"�' • Groundwater concentration in downgradient ILI j_ well is the point of compliance,current .�`� •°`•• - K requirement is 10/mg/L • Infiltration area is mapped as advanced ,''- ` I r„`�,r,�M�;�`� •,`� } outwash sand-highly permeable and the Fact Sheet indicates substantial thickness of -•" `.' '•t� `, �� +.. ,.' sand and gravel underlies the area ••� ~� • • Conservative estimate of the infiltration capacity assumes only 0 5 inches per hour _ rate for 15,000 W pond area j • ; • Geo reports and original design documents � ��- • __ �+�'r+r� not currently available for review ? i.,r "• Y •r•r•rr. • -- --- trr�Y. '" ineering Off-Site Treatment Alternative: Connection to WWTP • City also owns and operates a municipal wastewater treatment plant •• x • Site is constrained, and 49th St {}, truck traffic is not allowedkv. for adding a septage receiving station -4» • Force main from existing x septage facility would run approximately 4.8 miles. .. ..._ atility RH2 Engineering Off-Site Treatment Alternative: Connection to WWTP • Improvements • New lift station • New force main from Compost Facility to WWTP (-4.8 miles) • Order of Magnitude Costs • Force main directly to WWTP: $20,000,000+ • Force main to collection system: $6,000,000+ • These do not include WWTP costs • Challenges • Septage quality concerns • WWTP treatment impacts and Puget Sound General Permit restrictions • Shorter forcemain path to collection system would be less expensive but potentially damage City's existing collection system piping RH2 Engineering Summary • City of Port Townsend 's septage receiving facility is near capacity and receives approximately 40% of the County-wide septage • Achieving 100% capture of County-wide septage would require expansion of existing facility or sending to main municipal WWTP • Recommendation is to expand existing facility • Lowest cost at approximately $3.8M • Avoids issues with City's collection system and main WWTP • Keeps truck traffic to the Solid Waste site where it can be accommodated RH2 Engineering Next Steps • County would need to lead effort on funding that needs to be secured • Rates would need to be analyzed and set • City 2024 rate charges: $0.135 per gallon of septage • Mason County 2024 charges: $0.153 per gallon of septage • Note - Neither location accepts mixed septage or grease • Engineering Report and Ecology Coordination needed • Permit modifications and Ecology approval needed to proceed with design • Early discussions needed with Ecology on disposal considerations -- I RH2 Engineering N � V) 0 N w a i DATED this 8th November day of , 23 JEFFERSON COUNTY WASHINGTON CLALLAM COUNTY EDC i i (,e� 11/8/2023 Board of County Commissioners Coleen McAleer, 1).1tk2 Jefferson County, Washington Executive Director By: Greg Brotherton,Chair Date By: Kate Dean,Commissioner Date By: Heidi Eisenhour,Commissioner Date SEAL: ATTEST: Carolyn Gallaway,CMC Date Clerk of the Board i Approved as to form only: November 9,2023 Philip C. Hunsucker Date Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Professional Sera ices .Agreement.County Administrator-Version I Page I I of 13 Afternoon Agenda 615 Sheridan Street XMon Port Townsend, WA 98368 2� www.JeffersonCountyPublicHealth.org Public Health December 7,2023 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REQUEST TO: Board of County Commissioners Mark McCauley,County Administrator FROM: Pinky Feria Mingo,Director,Environmental Health and Water Quality Tami Pokorny,Natural Resources Program Coordinator DATE: December 18,2023 SUBJECT: Workshop and Possible Approval of the Brinnon Reach Assessment&Conceptual Design Project Agreement and Authorizing Resolution, RCO#23-1062P;Upon Signature; $218,428.00 STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Public Health requests a workshop and possible Approval of the Brinnon Reach Assessment& Conceptual Design Project Agreement and Authorizing Resolution,RCO#23-1062P ANALYSIS: The Brinnon Reach Assessment&Conceptual Design is a planning-only project to assess current floodplain conditions involving the community of Brinnon and the lower one mile of the Dosewallips River and estuary. Reach geomorphology,hydrology(flood modeling), the Brinnon levee,existing habitat,and other floodplain functions and features will be assessed on foot with landowner permission, or utilizing remote imagery.A conceptual design will be developed and refined through a series of meetings of the Dosewallips River Collaborative to address diverse needs and concerns related to flood risk, land use,climate change,and habitat for listed salmon species. In addition to the grant agreement,the RCO requires formal approval of a specifically worded resolution authorizing representatives to execute documents,confirming review of a sample grant agreement, stipulating that any assistance will be used only for appropriate costs on a reimbursement basis,and confirming additional understandings. FISCAL EMPACT: Costs for the project will be provided by the Recreation and Conservation Office with an in-kind match of at least 15%provided by the following: a contribution of aerial images from the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe,a portion of a FEMA Cooperating Technical Partners Program grant from American Rivers,related Community Health Assessment activities from JCPH,and a portion of the value of the County's recent Sea Level Rise Study from DCD. Community Health Environmental Public Health Developmental Disabilities Water Quality 360-385-9400 360-385-9444 360-385-9401 (f) Always working for a safer and healthier community (f)360-379-4487 W Q-23-081 RECOMMENDATION: JCPH Management recommends that a workshop be held and the Brinnon Reach Assessment& Conceptual Design Project Agreement and Authorizing Resolution for RCO#23-1062P be approved. REVIEWED BY: Mark McCauley, County Administrator Date Community Health Environmental Public Health Developmental Disabilities Water Quality 360-385-9400 360-385-9444 360-385-9401 (f) Always working for a safer and healthier community (f) 360-379-4487 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT Special Meeting—WSAC Virtual Assembly Date: Time: Approved: Greg Brotherton, Chair Jefferson County Commissioners Next Meeting: Time: Regular Meetings, Monday's at 9 a.m. or Special Meeting if properly noticed pursuant to RCW 42.30.080. Place: Commissioners' Chambers