HomeMy WebLinkAbout2979
RESOLUTION NO. ~q1't
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, adopting the City of Bremerton
Wastewater Comprehensive Plan.
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton desires to plan for the future and growth in its
wastewater system service area; and
WHEREAS, a wastewater comprehensive plan provides a means to meet future
wastewater collection system and wastewater treatment plant needs; and;
WHEREAS, the City has not adopted a wastewater comprehensive plan since the
Wastewater Comprehensive Plan completed in 1995; and
WHEREAS, the requirements for comprehensive wastewater planning are
specified in State of Washington, Department of Ecology regulations promulgated under
Washington Administrative Code 173-240-020 and 173-240-050; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City of Bremerton Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update
Final Draft dated July 22, 2005 is hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein and adopted as
the City of Bremerton Wastewater Comprehensive Plan.
SECTION 2. Severability. If anyone or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Resolution are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force
immediately upon its passage.
PASSED by the City Council ofthe City of Bremerton, Washington thisQUd:
day of )L1RptdArVl.A.f.A ) , 2005.
resident
D
R:\LEGAL\Resolutions\Public Works\Wastewater Comprehensive Plan. doc
City of Bremerton
2005 Wastewater System Plan Update
CERTIFICATION
This 2005 W astewatE~r System Plan Update for the City of Bremerton has been prepared
under the direction of the following Registered Profession-al.Engineer.
Contents
Executive Summary
Section 1 Introduction
1.1 Background and Existing System .......................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Regulatory Requirements ................ ............. ......... ............. ........... ....... ....... ........... 1-6
1.2.1 Federal Regulations ................... ............ ........................... ..... ............. ...... 1-6
1.2.2 Washington State Regulations .................................................;.............. 1-7
1.3 Compliance Status.. .......... ............. ..... .................... ......... .... ...... ............ .................. 1-9
1.4 Enforcement Actions ..... ....... .......... .............. ....... ................................. ......... .......... 1-9
1.5 Planning Information Sources.............................................................................. 1-10
1.6 Plan Organization and Contents.......................................................................... 1-11
Section 2 Service Area and System Characteristics
2.1 Surrounding Vicinity Characteristics.... ...... ............. ...... ..... ........ ............. ...... ....... 2-1
2.1.1 City of Bremerton ............. ............... ....... ...... ........... ...... ............... ...... ...... 2-1
2.1.2 Topography......... ..... ....................... ................... ..... .... ........... ................... 2-1
2.1.3 Geology and Soils ... ............... .... ............ ........... ........ ...... ........... ............... 2-1
2.1.4 Climate and Air Quality .......................................................................... 2-2
2.1.5 Water Resources... .............. ........ ...... ........ ......... .............. ..... ..................... 2-2
2.1.6 Wildlife and Endangered Species........................................................... 2-5
2.2 Plan Service Area ........ .................................... ........ ............ ...... ............ ................... 2-6
2.2.1 Basins. ............ .... ..... .... ............ .......... ...... ........... ......... .... ... ....... ....... ........... 2-6
2.2.2 Service Agreements ..... ........ ................ ........... .......................................... 2-7
2.3 Infrastructure Description.......... ............................. ....... .................... ......... ........... 2-7
2.3.1 Collection System. ......... .............. ........... .... ......... .................. ................... 2-7
2.3.2 Pump Stations ............ .............................. ....... ................. ....... ................ 2-10
2.3.3 Major Pipelines........ ........... ........... .... ...... ........................ ....... ................. 2-14
2.3.4 Combined Sewer Overflow Structures ................................................ 2-15
2.3.5 Odor Control.......... .................... .................. ........................................... 2-15
2.3.6 Treatment Facilities ........... .................. ........................... ............. ........... 2-16
Section 3 Wastewater System Planning Information
3.1 Land Use and Zoning.............................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Population Projections .................. ................................ ........ ...... .......... .......... ........ 3-1
3.2.1 Current Population Estimate for Bremerton Service Area ................. 3-2
3.2.2 Future Population Estimate for Bremerton Service Area.................... 3-2
3.3 Flow Projections .................. ...................... ..................... ..... ..................................... 3-4
3.4 Collection System Flow Projection ........................................................................ 3-4
3.5 Wastewater Treatment Plant Flow........................................................................ 3-4
CEllI
iii
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Table of Contents. doc
Contents
3.5.1 Historical Flows and Loads..................................................................... 3-5
3.5.2 Seasonal Influence on Flows and Loads................................................ 3-6
3.5.3 Current WWTP Influent Flow................................................................ 3-7
3.5.4 Per-Capita Treatment Plant Flows and Peaking Factors..................... 3-8
3.5.5 Future WWTP Influent Flow Projections .............................................. 3-9
3.5.6 WWTP Influent BODs and TSS Characterization............................... 3-10
Section 4 Collection System Evaluation
4.1 Planning Criteria and Regulations ........................................................................ 4-1
4.2 Capacity Requirements and Limitations .............................................................. 4-1
4.2.1 Combined Sewer Overflow Reduction..............................................:... 4-1
4.3 Improvement Alternatives................ ......... ........ .................... .... .... .... ....... ............. 4-5
Section 5 Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
5.1 Liquid Stream Issues ..... ............... .... ....... .............. .......... .......... .............. .......... ...... 5-1
5.1.1 Effluent Standards ... .............. .......... ........ ..... ......................... ................... 5-1
5.1.2 Compliance Issues ........... ............... ...... ......... ....... ........ ...... ......... ............. 5-2
5.1.3 New Discharge Standards ....................................................................... 5-2
5.1.4 Current TMDL Process ............................................................................5-2
5.1.5 Eastside Treatment Facility Permit ........................................................ 5-4
5.2 Liquid Stream Capacity ....... ....................... ........... ......... ........................... ......... .... 5-5
5.2.1 Westside WTP ................. ........................ ......... .............. ...... ......... ....... ..... 5-5
5.2.2 Eastside Treatment Facility ................................................................... 5-15
5.3 Wastewater Reuse ..... ............. ................. ........ .... ............ ............ ................ ...... ..... 5-16
5.3.1 Planning Criteria and Regulations ....................................................... 5-16
5.3.2 Capacity Requirements and Limitations ............................................. 5-17
5.3.3 Improvement Alternatives .............. ....... ......... ............. ......... .......... ...... 5-20
5.3.4 1998 Recommendations ..... ........... ........ ............. ........ .... ............ ............ 5-22
5.4 Biosolids Management. ........... ........ .......... ............ ................ ....... .............. ........... 5-24
5.4.1 Planning Criteria and Regulations ....................................................... 5-24
5.4.2 Capacity Requirement and Limitations............................................... 5-25
5.4.3 Improvement Alternatives. ......... ........... ......... ............. ........ ....... .... ...... 5-30
5.5 Odor Control.. ............. ..... ........... ........ ......... ........ ........ .... ............................ ........... 5-37
5.5.1 Planning Criteria and Regulations ....................................................... 5-38
5.5.2 Capacity Requirements and Limitations ............................................. 5-39
5.5.3 Improvement Alternatives ...................... ..... .......................... ........ ....... 5-39
5.5.4 Recommendations .................................................................................. 5-39
Section 6 Capital Improvement Program
6.1 Recommended System Improvements ................................................................. 6-1
6.1.1 WWTP Wet Weather and Reliability Improvements .......................... 6-1
6.1.2 WWTP Immediate Needs ........................................................................ 6-1
6.1.3 WWTP Longer-Term Needs.................................................................... 6-6
6.1.4 Ultimate Site Layout............................................................................... 6-10
CEllI
IV
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\ORAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Table of Contents.doc
Contents
6.2 CIP Development........ ............. ..... ........ ............. ..... ....... ................. ........ ....... ........ 6-11
6.3 Financial Analysis ................. .................... ...... ...... ....... ......... ....... ....... ..... ....... ....... 6-11
Section 7 Operations
7.1 Utility Organization........ ...... ...... ........ ............ ...... ................................................... 7-1
7.2 System Operation and Maintenance ..................................................................... 7-1
7.2.1 Collection System ..................................................................................... 7-1
7.2.2 Treatment Facilities. ......... ........ ............... ..... ........ ............ .... ............. ....... 7-3
7.2.3 Data Collection and Management.......................................................... 7-3
7.3 Additional Staff Requirements ....... .............. ......... ................... ...... ..... ......... ......... 7-4
7.3.1 Staff Requirements Due to System Growth .......................................... 7-4
7.3.2 Staff Requirements to Meet Additional Program Needs .................... 7-4
Section 8 Implementation
.8.1 Plan Adoption .. ....... ....... ................. ........... ........... .............. ................ ................. .... 8-1
8.2 Coordination with Kitsap County .........................................................................8-1
8.3 Environmental Impact. .................. ......... ..... ........ .... ........... ............... ............. ......... 8-1
8.4 Future Additions to the Wastewater Comprehensive Plan ............................... 8-2
Section 9 References........ .......... .......... ................ ............. ....... .......... ..... ....................... ............. ....... 9-1
Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Tables
Table 2-1
Table 2-2
Table 2-3
Table 2-4
Table 3-1
Table 3-2
Table 3-3
Table 3-4
Table 3-5
Table 3-6
Table 3-7
CDI
NPDES Permit
Beach Main Hydraulic Profile
Port Blakely Sanitary Sewer Evaluation
Plant Capacity Rerating Study
Mixing Zone Study
Bremerton Beach Main Pigging Technical Memorandum
Major Water Resources ......... ....... ....... ....... .......... ................... .................... 2-4
Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species
Identified by USFWS and NMFS as Potentially Occurring
Within the Project Area ............................................................................... 2-5
West Bremerton Sewer Basins.................................................. .............. .... 2-6
Pump Stations... ................. ..... ......... .............. .................................... ......... 2-10
Census Data for Bremerton City Limits.................................................... 3-1
Population Estimates for Bremerton Service Area.................................. 3-3
City of Bremerton Eastside Treatment Facility Discharge Data............ 3-5
City of Bremerton WWTP Historical Influent Flows and Loads .......... 3-6
Residential, Commercial, and Infiltration Flow Characteristics ........... 3-8
Influent BODs and TSS Characteristics ................................................... 3-11
Influent Wastewater Loads.. ........ ...... .... ............. .............. ........ ........ ........ 3-11
v
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2QQ5\Text\Table of Contents.doc
CEllI
Table 4-1
Table 4-2
Table 4-3
Table 4-4
Table 4-5
Table 4-6
Table 4-7
Table 4-8
Table 4-9
Table 4-10
Table 4-11
Table 4-12
Table 4-13
Table 4-14
Table 4-15
Table 4-16
Table 4-17
Table 5-1
Table 5-2
Table 5-3
Table 5-4
Table 5-5
Table 5-6
Table 5-7
Table 5-8
Table 5-9
Table 5-10
Table 5-11
Table 5-12
Table 5-13
Table 6-1
Table 6-2
Table 6-3
Table 6-4
Table 6-5
Table 6-6
Table 6-7
Contents
Former Collection System Odor Control Facilities
Taken Offline in 1995......... ......... ............... ........ ........ ............... ................... 4-3
Existing Collection System Odor Treatment............................................ 4-3
Anderson Cove Basin ......... ......... .................. .................... ....... ................... 4-5
Callow Avenue Basin.... ........ ........ ........ ....... ..... ...... .................. .................. 4-9
Cherry Avenue Basin ................................................................................ 4-13
East Park Basin.. ......... ........ ..... .......... ......................... ............ .............. ...... 4-15
Kitsap Lake Basin........... ....... ............... .............. ............................. ........... 4-17
Marine Drive Basin....... ........ ..... ..... .................... ....... ................. ............... 4-21
Oyster Bay Basin .......... .................. ............ ..... ........................ ................... 4-24
Pacific Avenue Basin .. .................. ..... ......... ................... ...... ............ .... ...... 4-29
Phinney Bay Basin..... .......................... .............. ......... ....................... ......... 4-33
Pine Road Basin.. ...... .............. ................ ............ ........... .......... ...... ............. 4-35
Sinclair Park Basin ..................................................................................... 4-38
Stevens Canyon Basin .............. ...................... .............................. ............. 4-41
Tracy ton Park Basin..................... ... ...... ...... ...... .... ........ ......... ........ ........ .... 4-43
Trenton Avenue Basin............................................................................... 4-46
Warren Avenue Basin. ....................... ......... ....... ..... ....... ...... ...................... 4-51
Existing NPDES Permit Requirements ..................................................... 5-1
Fecal Coliform Performance. ..... ................. .......... ........ .............. ..... .... ....... 5-5
WWTP Performance with Blending During High Flows..................... 5-10
Design Criteria, Capacity, and Projections - Liquids ........................... 5-12
Expansion Needs for Nitrification........................................................... 5-14
Expansion Needs for Total N Removal.................................................. 5-15
Class A Reclaimed Water Criteria ........................................................... 5-17
Comparison of Water Reuse Alternatives (B&C, 1998) ........................ 5-20
City of Bremerton WWTP Solids Balance Model
Performance Variables ..... .......... ......... ...... ................................. ............... 5-26
Solids Balance Results (2003) ........... ........ ............ .................... ......... ........ 5-27
Sludge Production Projections.... ..................... ............... ...... ................... 5-27
Design Criteria, Capacity, and Projections - Solids .............................. 5-28
Design Criteria, Capacity, and Projections - DAFT .............................. 5-29
Backup Thickener Needs ...................... .... ............. ..... ..... ................. .......... 6-2
Dewatering Needs ....................................................................................... 6-2
Alternatives Description .............. ..................... ....... ....... .......... .................. 6-6
O&M Requirements for Oass A System................................................... 6-7
Present Worth Summary......................................... ................ .................... 6-7
Recommended Capital Facility Plan ....................................................... 6-13
Financing Summary.... ................................ .................................... ........... 6-15
VI
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amenc:lment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Table of Contents.doc
Figures
a:IW
Figure 1-1
Figure 1-2
Figure 1-3
Figure 2-1
Figure 2-2
Figure 2-3
Figure 2-4
Figure 3-1
Figure 3-2
Figure 3-3
Figure 3-4
Figure 4-1
Figure 4-2
Figure 4-3
Figure 4-4
Figure 4-5
Figure 4-6
Figure 4-7
Figure 4-8
Figure 4-9
Figure 4-10
Figure 4-11
Figure 4-12
Figure 4-13
Figure 4-14
Figure 4-15
Figure 4-16
Figure 6-1
Figure 6-2
Figure 6-3
Figure 6-4
Figure 6-5
Figure 7-1
Contents
Vicinity Map ....... ...... ......... ........... .................................... ....... ......... ........ .... 1-2
Sewer Service Area ........ ........ .......... ............. .......... ........ ........... .................. 1-3
Major Overflow, Conveyance, and Treatment Facilities........................ 1-5
Eastside Wastewater Treatment Facility................................................. 2-17
Eastside Treatment Process Diagram...................................................... 2-18
Westside Wastewater Treatment Facility ...............................................2-19
Westside Treatment Process Flow Diagram .......................................... 2-20
Historic WWTP Flows (1998-2003)............................................................ 3-7
Average WWTP Flow (1998-2003) ............................................................. 3-8
Projected Dry Season Flows for WWTP ................................................... 3-9
Projected Wet Season Flows for WWTP .................................................3-10
Map of Basins.. ...................... ...... ..... ........... .............. ..... .............. ......... ....... 4-4
Anderson Cove Basin .................................................................................. 4-8
Callow Avenue Basin ................................................................................ 4-12
Cherry Avenue Basin ................................................................................ 4-14
East Park Basin ............... ........ .... ..... ........... ......... ....... .............. .......... ........ 4-16
Kitsap Lake Basin.... .... ........... .......... ............. .... ............ ....... .......... ..... ....... 4-20
Marine Drive Basin.. .... .................................. ............ ......... ..... ..... ............. 4-23
Oyster Bay Basin ........................................................................................ 4-28
Pacific Avenue Basin............ .......... ............ .................... ........ ..... .............. 4-32
Phinney Bay Basin........ ........ .............. ............ ..... ........ ............. .................. 4-24
Pine Road Basin. ............ ...... .................. ......................... ........... ................. 4-37
Sinclair Park Basin......... ................... ......... ........ ........ ................................ 4-40
Stevens Canyon Basin ................................ ................ ............................... 4-42
Tracy ton Park Basin........ ............ .... ..... ....... ....... ...... ......... ....... ....... ........... 4-45
Trenton Avenue Basin.. .............................. ................ .......... .... ..... ............ 4-50
Warren Avenue Basin................................................................................ 4-54
WWTP Proposed Facilities Plan ................................................................ 6-3
Westside WWTP Outfall Expansion ......................................................... 6-5
TP AD Layout..... .................... ........................ ...... ........ ..... ....... ......... ..... ....... 6-8
Dewatering/ Pasteurization Layout............ .............. ......... .......... ............. 6-9
Ultimate WWTP Layout. ................................ ........... ....... ............ ...... ....... 6-12
Department of P:ublic Works and Utilities Organizational Chart......... 7-2
vii
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\ORAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Tabte of Contents.doc
Executive
Summary
Executive Summary
The City of Bremerton has prepared this Comprehensive Wastewater Plan to ensure
adequate existing and future wastewater capacity and to plan for wastewater system
improvements. The plan objective is to summarize planning strategies, policies, and
regulatory compliance efforts for the City of Bremerton wastewater utility. The plan
that follows establishes long-term system planning and service criteria and evaluates the
capacity, condition, and regulatory compliance of the City's wastewater utility facilities
in accordance with the Washington State Growth Management Act and the City of
Bremerton's Comprehensive Plan. The plan uses a 20-year planning horizon with
intermediate planning timeframes of 5 and 9 years (i.e., 2010, 2014, and 2024), and has
been developed to comply with federal, state, and local regulations.
Background
The City of Bremerton, located in the central part of Kitsap County, is surrounded by
two waterways, Sinclair Inlet and Dyes Inlet, which separate the City into two portions:
West Bremerton and East Bremerton.
The City of Bremerton currently operates two wastewater treatment facilities. The
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) in West Bremerton provides secondary
treatment for the entire wastewater system service area and discharges to Sinclair inlet.
The Westside WWTP currently has a peak hydraulic capacity of 42 mgd, and operates as
a conventional activated sludge secondary treatment process. The Eastside Treatment
Facility provides treatment for wet weather combined sewer flows in East Bremerton.
This facility discharges to Port Washington Narrows and has a maximum hydraulic
capacity of 20 mgd. Projected peak flow to this facility during a design storm event is 15
mgd. Processes at the Eastside Treatment Facility include high rate clarification followed
by ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. A network of gravity sanitary sewer pipelines, pump
stations, and force mains delivers flows from the collection system to these treatment
facilities.
The sewer service area and collection system is divided into nine West Bremerton and
six East Bremerton sewer drainage basins. The six East Bremerton drainage basins are
serviced by a combined sewer, in which the stormwater and sanitary sewage are
collected within the same conveyance system. Four of the nine West Bremerton
drainage basins are also on a combined sewer system. Four other drainage basins have
dedicated separate sanitary sewers and stormwater is conveyed and handled separately.
Additionally, a proposed drainage basin (known as Port Blakeley) eventually may be
added as a sewer drainage basin to the West Bremerton sewer basins.
The City's combined sanitary sewer collection system mains range in size from 6 to 42
inches in diameter for gravity mains and from 4 to 36 inches in diameter for force mains.
When the flow capacities of the combined sanitary sewers and conveyance systems are
exceeded, excess flows are discharged from the combined sewer. overflow structures inPthe system. The City has completed improvements to reduce overflows to one event per
CONI
P:\ Bremerton\ Camp Plan\ Amendment\ 7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AF1ER JUNE 2005\ Text\Execulive Summary.doc
year, per outfall, on a 5-year average during a design storm, in all but two sewer
drainage basins. Overflows from these basins are minor and will be reduced to one
event per year within the next 5 years.
Bremerton's current land use and zoning information indicates that approximately 72
percent of the City and surrounding areas is urban residential development.
Approximately 18 percent of the City and surrounding areas is designated as industrial,
and approximately 7 percent of the City and surrounding areas is designated as
commercial. Approximately 3 percent of the City and surrounding areas is comprised of
parks and public facilities. The population in Bremerton has been relatively stable over
the past 10 years.
The City of Bremerton's service area extends beyond the boundary of Bremerton city
limits. The current population served by the City is estimated to be 36,120. Bremerton's
Comprehensive Plan estimates the service area population to increase to 42,387 by the
year 2010; 45,198 by 2014; and 52,321 by 2024.
CSO Reduction
The City updated the CSO Reduction Plan for Bremerton's drainage basins with a series
of documents, including a CSO Reduction Facility Plan Update dated October2000. The
CSO reduction improvements generally utilize all system capacity. Basin-specific
analysis and CSO Reduction Plan amendments have subsequently been submitted to
DOE for review/approval. The City produces a CSO report that is submitted to the
Washington State Department of Ecology on an annual basis. This report shows that the
CSO reduction program has been very successful in reducing total overflow volume and
frequency, with a volume reduction of 99.7% and frequency reduction of 97.2% for 2004.
Basin Improvements
Hydraulic improvements for the sewer basins include upgrades to existing pump
stations, new pump stations, sewer extensions, and improvements to existing sewers,
including reduction of inflow and infiltration. Basin descriptions and general
improvements are summarized in this Comprehensive Plan.
Plant Cavacitv Needs
Both the WWTP and Eastside Treatment Facility have adequate liquid treatment
capacity to handle current and future conditions in Bremerton. The WWTP is currently
permitted for a maximum monthly average flow of 10.1 mgd. The current NPDES
Permit has expired and the plants are operating under an agreement with Ecology to
extend the old permit.
With a few minor exceptions, the WWTP has been in compliance with all discharge
standards since the City took control of plant operations in 1995. The Permit requires
the City to begin planning for expansion when the actual flow reaches 85 percent of the
permit capacity for three consecutive months. With the exception of extreme wet
CONI
P:\13I'€merton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\ Text\Executive Summary.doc
weather months, actual flow will never reach the 10.1 mgd capacity during this Plan's
planning period.
This Comprehensive Plan Update does not anticipate more restrictive discharge
requirements will be imposed in the foreseeable future. The dry weather mass limits are
based on the plant's 1980 design flow of 10.1 mgd and should never be exceeded over
the period covered in this plan update. If mass limits for extreme wet weather events
become a compliance issue, the City has a plan to construct blended treatment using
high rate clarification (similar to Eastside) and force additional flow to Eastside
Treatment Facility.
In recent years, the WWTP has treated a peak month flow greater than 10.1 mgd and
met discharge concentration and mass limits. In 2001, the City developed a rerating
study for Ecology to assist the agency in modifying the NPDES permit limits. Peak
month flow has increased as the City brings more CSO to the WWTP though major
improvements to the collection system.
Recommended Immediate System Improvements
WWTP recommendations center on improvements to plant reliability and capacity, wet
weather capabilities, and biosolids handling. Eastside Treatment Facility
recommendations involve improvements to the existing outfall. Immediate wastewater
system needs center on biosolids processing at the WWTP.
Thickener Capacity
Installation of a second backup DAF is very expensive and almost impossible to
construct due to the close proximity of the secondary clarifier and the east plant
boundary. The new gravity belt thickener can be installed in an expanded centrifuge area
or in a building on top ofthe existing DAF if the structure can support the load. These
locations put the thickener close to polymer handling and other solids processing
operations.
Dewatering Capacity
The existing, aging centrifuge dewatering unit will be converted to a backup unit and a
new unit will be installed in an expanded centrifuge area. The loading bay will also be
expanded to accommodate a second dump truck or a commercial sludge hauling trailer.
This building addition will be large enough to handle a drum thickener/screw press
type approach should the City decide to move toward a Class A biosolids product. The
old centrifuge would be replaced with a screw press under that scenario.
Generator Upgrades
The other immediate WWTP need is a new standby generator. The existing unit is
outdated, unreliable, and cannot power the entire plant during a power outage.
Partially treated discharges will occur during a power outage at wet weather flows. A
new 1,250 kW unit will handle the existing plant with enough capacity for future plant
needs.
CONI
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AF1ER]UNE 2005\ Text\Executive Summary.doc
Sinclair Inlet Outfall Capacity
The 2003 Facilities Plan recommended a new, low head pump station as the cheapest
and least disruptive alternative for expanding the Sinclair Inlet Outfall capacity. The
recommendation of this plan is to coordinate a new, larger pipe during the upgrade and
remodeling of the SR3/SR304 interchange.
Eastside Outfall Improvement
The existing Eastside Treatment Facility outfall was constructed at the site of the old
Mannette Primary Treatment Plant, which was decommissioned in 1985. A new 36-inch
diffuser section was added in 1972. The capacity of the Eastside outfall is limited to
approximately 15 mgd by the first 250 feet of 20-inch reinforced concrete pipe.
Replacement of this section from the treatment plant, through the bank, and to just
below the low tide line on the beach with a 36-inch line will increase the outfall capacity
to 30 mgd.
The permit for the outfall easement expires in 2010. As part of the renewal process with
the Department of Natural Resources, the permits for replacing the 20-inch section with
new pipe should be pursued.
Schedule for Immediate Improvements
Implementation of immediate needs will take place over the next 5 years, with the wet
weather capacity upgrades to the WWTP starting in 2005 followed by improvements to
both outfalls. The timing of the Sinclair and Eastside outfall projects will be coordinated
with SR3 improvements and lease renewal activities, respectively.
Recommended Longer- T enn System Improvements
BreIDerton has no requirement at this time to achieve a Class A biosolids product.
However, planning for improved biosolids quality will allow immediate thickening and
dewatering improvements to fit into a longer range plan for Class A. There are two
feasible alternatives.
. Conversion to Temperature Phased Anaerobic Digestion (TP AD) - requires a
third digester as well as heating, thickening, and dewatering enhancements to
the existing system.
. Dewatering/Pasteurization - requires a thickener screw press with lime and
steam addition.
The recommended approach to meeting the wet weather, solids loading processing
needs is to install a thickener and new centrifuge immediately.
Capital improvements in the short and medium term will be funded through utility and
non-utility financing sources. Sources of utility funding available to the utility include
annual rate funded capital, system development charges, and revenue bonds. In
addition, new revenne bonds are planned for Bremerton. A number of state and federal
CONI
P;\ Bremerton \ Comp Plan\ Amendment\ 7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\ Text\Exoculive Summary.doc
grants and loans are available to the City. These include Public Works Trust Fund and
State Revolving Fund loans, and EP A grants. The total amount of funding to be
obtained through the utility and non-utility funding sources through 2011 is $26,510,979.
Additional Staff and Equipment Requirements
No additional staff have been added to operate and maintain construction of new
treatment facilities and expansion of existing facilities since 1995. An increase of two
full-time employees for the Wastewater Division (treatment plants/pump stations) and
one full-time employee for the Utility Operations Division (storm/ sewer collection
system maintenance) is required to restore manpower to the 1995 level.
Additional staff would be required to implement future expanded program
requirements as well, including collection system evaluation, infiltration and inflow
reduction, clean-out installation, and cleaning of beach mains and inverted siphons. In
addition, the existing collection system television equipment, backhoes, and Vactor
trucks, which would be an integral part of these programs, are nearing the end of their
service life expectancy, and replacement should be included in equipment replacement
planning as their usage increases.
Comprehensive Plan Implementation
This Wastewater Comprehensive Plan addresses system additions and improvements
that will be required to fully develop the service area. Potential projects are
recommended through the year 2014. CDM recommends that the City periodically
review progress it has made in implementing the plan before the next plan is due. The
City should assess the effectiveness of its improvements to biosolids production, CSO
reduction, basin pump station and conveyance improvements, developments in
wastewater reuse opportunities, and expansion of conveyance and plant capacities.
Current population, population projections, and current and future financial resources
should be reviewed and adjusted as necessary to reflect actual conditions and
accommodate future project implementation.
CONI
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFf AFfERJUNE 2005\ Text\Executive Summary.doc
--I
I
,.,
,
I
n
I
'I
!
I
I
..... 'on....
~, -
- .
,~ ~
- .
- .
- .
., .
- -
0.. .
~. .
One
i
.....1
Section 1
Introduction
The City of Bremerton Department of Public Works and Utilities is responsible for
providing wastewater service to Bremerton and surrounding areas. The City
prepared this Comprehensive Wastewater Plan to ensure adequate existing and
future wastewater capacity and to plan for wastewater system improvements. The
Comprehensive Wastewater Plan, also commonly referred to as the "general sewer
plan" fulfills the requirements of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-240-
020 and minimum comprehensive plan content requirements outlined in WAC 173-
240-050. The intent of the regulations are to provide the City with preliminary
information in sufficient detail to ensure that future reports/ facility plans can be
developed from them without substantial alterations to the concept and basic
considerations.
The last general sewer plan was completed in December 1995 and adopted through
Resolution No. 2549 by the City Council on May 22, 1996. This 2004 plan updates that
plan and uses a 20-year planning horizon with intermediate planning timeframes of 5
and 9 years (i.e., 2010, 2014, and 2024). Periodic plan review and revisions may be
necessary to address regulation changes or other changes in conditions.
1.1 Background and Existing System
The City of Bremerton, located in Kitsap County approximately 15 miles west of
Seattle across Puget Sound, owns, maintains, and operates a sanitary sewer collection
and treatment system that provides service to West Bremerton, East Bremerton, and
surrounding areas of unincorporated Kitsap County as shown in the vicinity map in
Figure 1-1 and the sewer service area map in Figure 1-2.
The system also accepts sanitary sewer flows from the U.s. Navy Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard (PSNS), other U.S. Navy Facilities, and Kitsap County Sewer District No.1
(KCSD No.1) in West Bremerton. Other than the U.s. Navy, the system does not
provide sewer service for any significant industrial dischargers.
The City's sewer system is composed of several components:
.. Combined sanitary and stormwater sewers
.. Gravity sewers
.. Gravity-pressure sewers
.. Sanitary sewer pump stations and force mains
.. Combined sewer overflow (CSO) structures
II Wet weather treatment facility
.. Conventional wastewater treatment facilities
.. Odor Control Stations
CONI 1-1
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 1.doc
-
'0:
o\l
:c
<ll
'c
<.C
N
~
10
;f
~.
<ii
o
~
.q-
o
"'-
IN
o
'-
<.C
o
....
1
...
I
0'
Ii:
/' @ZOOQ DELORME, xMAP BUSINESS; @ 2000 GOT INC, REl Q4!2000
0.
'l>
OC
/'
Ie
(J;)
d'!
...
o
J'-~'-'-.l
\ f- \
\ ~f&Nlj'( \
1.._'
\........---,...,..---_-k.~..~
Washington
,;;f
/
"l"
l"1
N
~
&.
105 0 10
~ i---=::3
SCQle in Miles
C\TY OF BREMERTON
Figure 1-1
Vicinity Map
I'!nM
L
"0
.0
I"-
X
r-
If)
u..
w
a::
x
,
,
,".'
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
, PORT I
, BLAKELY
, ~t:JU"'AN610N AREAl ,
"'
I I
, I
, ,
I ,
I "
I ,#
,.-
&..
....
o
......
<t-
o
E
o
'!1
N
If)
o
"-
OJ
r-
"-
f"-
a
('~
I
Ol
l.L
/"
c:
.2
(L
a.
E
o
u
/"
to
0Cl
0)
't"
/-
"<I-
rf)
('~
0)
/'
n.:
CDM
DYI:$
fNlEf
I
,...-.
.
.
~.
,
.
t
,
\
K11SAP
tAKE
SEWERED r*un.IIONS NON-$EWERED PORTIONS
OF BASINS OF BASINS
,
,
,
,
.
.
1
"
Klt8ap
Lake
~r
/
I'
/
I
/
/'
SfNCt..A/R INLET
CITY OF BREMERTON
~EGEND:
WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
CITY LIMITS
.............~~""
---
-
REFERENCE: WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. ell'r' OF
BREMERTON, CH2MHILL, 1995, FIGURE 2-2 SERVICE AREA
~
~J
~
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 1-2
Sewer Service Area
- 1
I
,
,
I
CONI
Section 1
Introduction
The City of Bremerton currently operates two wastewater treatment facilities. The
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) in West Bremerton provides
secondary wastewater treatment for the entire system wastewater service area and
discharges to Sinclair inlet. The Eastside Treatment Facility provides treatmentfor
wet weather combined sewer flows in the Pine Road Basin of East Bremerton and
discharges to Port Washington Narrows. As shown in Figure 1-3, a network of
gravity sanitary sewer pipelines, pump stations, and force mains delivers flows from
the collection system to these treatment facilities.
The various East Bremerton sewer basins collect wastewater with gravity sewers,
pump stations, and force mains that deliver combined sanitary sewer flows to the East
Bremerton beach main. From the East Bremerton beach main, East Bremerton flows
are delivered to West Bremerton through 16-inch and 24-inch inverted siphons during
normal dry weather operations, then pumped into the Crosstown Pipeline force main
and gravity-pressure sewer main system by pump station CE-l, along with flows
from various West Bremerton basins. The Crosstown Pipeline 9-elivers these pumped
flows to the.Westside WWTP. Wastewater from the remaining West Bremerton
service areas is delivered to the WWTP via gravity sewer mains and pump stations.
During wet-weather conditions most of the combined sewage flow from East
Bremerton is diverted to the Eastside Treatment Facility via the East Bremerton beach
main, where the flow is treated and discharged to Port Washington Narrows. During
wet-weather conditions the East Bremerton beach main is pressurized by pump
station EB-2 to increase peak flow capacity to the Eastside Treatment Facility.
Since a portion of the City of Bremerton sanitary sewer collection system is composed
of combined sewers, flows are derived from the following types of sources:
.. Conventional wastewater and sanitary sewage
.. Stormwater inflow
.. Groundwater infiltration, including rainfall-induced infiltration
The hydraulic capacity of the City's combined sanitary sewer collection system and
associated components is adequate to convey dry weather wastewater flows to the
Westside WWTP for treatment. However, during extreme wet weather storm events,
combined sewer flows can exceed hydraulic capacity of the City's existing combined
sanitary sewer conveyance and Westside/Eastside treatment system. When this
occurs, excess untreated combined sanitary sewer flows have historically been
allowed to overflow to receiving waters of Puget Sound.
As a result of increasing water quality and environmental mandates, federal and state
regulations have been developed to limit the occurrence of untreated combined sewer
overflows. As detailed in the City of Bremerton CSO Reduction Plan Update, (dated
October 2000), the City is currently taking steps to comply with these requirements
and is implementing a number of efforts to reduce the occurrence of untreated
P:\8remerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 1.doc
1-4
Q)
...,
Vi
I
~
ro
en
i.J...
w
0::
X
:S,
...,
z
.....
o
E
r---
o
.0
LC)
o
.........
N
.........
r---
o
I"")
I
~
O'l
Li::
./
c
o
0::
Cl.
E
o
u
./
CD
CO
(j)
v
./
v
I"")
N
(j)
<':
D..
l....
"'0
..Q
r---
x
~OTES:
1. CE-6 DISCHARGE POINT WILL
CHANGE BY DECEMBER 31. 2006
2. PORT BLAKELY SERVICE AREA
WILL BE EXPANDING AS SHOWN
LEGEND:
OF-B'" OVERFLOW STRUCTURE
CW-1. PUMP STATION
------ MAJOR PIPELINE
BASIN BOUNDARY
... SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
COllI
>.
D~ 1~3!"r~'" "<:
INLET ~~,- ?~~% Q)
<:I
II:
"<:
:x:
<>
II:
C
"-
II:
C
ll.
PORT WASHINGTON
NARROWS INVERTED
SIPHONS
,,~
.,*"I "
4' ..,. WI!>
"
iii
iii
g
E
iii
iii
iii
E
, ,
,," PORT ,
$ BLAKELY l
l (EXPANSION AREA) f
, 4'
, $
E ,
E I
iii 4>f
fj 4'4>
iii 4'4f;
'$j,~ "" ",,4f;
~
'l:-
't
-<-
CJ
c'l:- -I.
't
" <0
'l:-
()
~
&7b
"II'-
el. ~
s I \ ~ I. ~
CENTRAL BREMERTON
FORCE MAIN
/
PP-1~
WESTSIDE' "
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
PLANT
~
N
o
1" = 3000'
r---_-.J.u~&JI..."~.""~oI.i.wuJjilll.ll"".i..lllJ....I&lJ
1 500 0 30!
CITY OF BREMERTON
Figure 1-3
Major Overflow, Conveyance,
and Treatment Facilities
CDIVI
Section 1
Introduction
combined sewer overflows to less than 1 per year per outfall, in compliance with
WAC 173-245. These include:
· Separation projects to reduce the stormwater inflow component of flows in the
sanitary sewer system by providing separate collection and conveyance systems
for sanitary sewage and stormwater. Sanitary sewer rehabilitation and repair
projects to reduce and eliminate infiltration sources within the collection system.
Construction of storage facilities.
. Sanitary sewer improvements to redirect existing flows, increase combined sewer
conveyance capacity, and reduce the system hydraulic capacity limitations that
can result in untreated combined sewer overflows within the collection system.
. A wet weather treatment facility to provide appropriate treatment of combined
sanitary sewer flows before they are released to Puget Sound receiving waters
reducing the occurrence of untreated combined sewer overflows.
· Ordinances requiring separation of private property stormwater systems from the
sanitary sewer system, as well as required repair and maintenance of private
service laterals to reduce infiltration from private property sources.
The Eastside Treatment Facility has been designed to provide treatment for the East
Bremerton sewer flows during wet weather storm events to meet Puget Sound water
quality standards. The Eastside Treatment Facility was functional in December 2001
and completed in 2002. Additional system improvements are being implemented to
increase combined sanitary sewer conveyance capacity to the City's WWTP and
Eastside Treatment Facility for treatment prior to discharge.
1.2 Regulatory Requirements
This Wastewater Comprehensive Plan addresses relevant federal, state, county, and
local regulatory requirements.
1.2.1 Federal Regulations
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (PL 92-500), as amended by the
Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL-95-217) and the Water Quality Act of 1987 (PL-I00-4)-
commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act (CW A) - are the federal requirements
over wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal. The CW A gave the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) the authority to implement pollution control
programs such as setting wastewater standards. EP A has the authority to delegate
enforcement to the states, when state regulations are at least as strict as the federal
regulations. In the State of Washington, Washington Department of Ecology
(Ecology) administers and enforces the CW A.
Federal regulations for biosolids treatment and disposal are contained in Title 40 Part
503 of the Code of Federal ReQ111ations (CFRL Biosolids.. as. defined bv EP A Part SLlq
u- ------" ----r- -----~r~ -----.r --~~~~...--~
regulations, are divided into two classifications, Class A and Class B, based on the
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 1.doc
1-6
CDIII
Section 1
Introduction
resulting pathogen density level achieved by the treatment process. All biosolids that
are to be land applied for beneficial use must meet the requirements of one of these
classifications.
Class B biosolids are usually achieved through a Process to Significantly Reduce
Pathogens (PSRP). These processes include conventional aerobic and anaerobic
digestion, composting, lime stabilization, composting, and drying. There are a
number of restrictions on the harvesting of food crops, grazing of animals, and public
access to land where Class B biosolids have been applied.
Class A biosolids can be achieved through a Process to Further Reduce Pathogens
(PFRP). These processes include composting, heat drying, thermophilic aerobic
digestion, and pasteurization. The production of higher quality, Class A biosolids
offers the advantage of increased flexibility since there are few restrictions on the
beneficial use or sale of Class A biosolids.
In order to be recognized as producing Class A biosolids with anaerobic digestion
alone (i.e., pasteurization or heat drying), either the process must satisfy the time-
temperature criteria specified in Part 503 or obtain a PFRP equivalency
recommendation from EP A' s Pathogen Equivalency Committee (PEe). Class A
biosolids can be produced by coupling mesophilic digestion with pasteurization or
heat drying. Thermophilic digestion can produce Class A biosolids by meeting the
time-temperature criteria and obtaining a PFRP equivalency certification from the
PEe.
It must be recognized that the EP A Part 503 regulations also regulate pollutant
concentration, vector attraction reduction, and management practices. Due to the
excellent industrial pretreatment requirements by most wastewater agencies,
pollutant levels are generally quite low. Properly operated conventional and high
performance anaerobic digesters can meet the vector attraction reduction criteria.
Biosolids very low in pollutant levels, Class A in pathogen density levels, and
meeting vector attraction reduction criteria can be classified as Exceptional Quality
(EQ).
The EP A has established minimum requirements for states to use in enacting
regulations for wastewater reuse and reclamation.
1.2.2 Washington State Regulations
States are required under Section 303( d) of the CW A to identify water bodies that are
impaired by pollution and to establish a priority ranking of these impaired waters.
States must establish a total maximum daily load (TMDL) of pollutants for each of
these water bodies including identification of sources, and develop and submit an
implementation plan to meet the TMDL. The primary driver for the State's TMDL
program is a 1997 Memorandum of Agreement between EP A and Ecology regarding
Section 303(d) implementation.
The governing Washington State laws for the planning and designing of wastewater
facilities are the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.48.110. Washington
1-7
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDQC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\section 1.doc
CONI
Section 1
Introduction
Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 173-240 implements the "plans and
specifications" from RCW 90.48.110 and include the requirements for engineering
reports, plans and specifications, and general sewer plans. WAC Chapter 173-240
includes the following:
.. Planning requirements and review procedures
.. Plan contents
.. Requirements for engineering reports for specific projects, ownerships, operation
and maintenance
.. Public notification procedures for construction of wastewater facilities
CSO regulations are addressed in the RCW 90.48.480 and WAC Chapter 173-245.
These regulations call for "the greatest reasonable reduction in CSOs at the earliest
possible date." The WAC Chapter 173-245 regulations developed from this law allow
only one CSO per year per CSO site. The CSO regulations have been addressed in the
City of Bremerton's CSO Reduction Plan, October 2000.
Mirroring associated federal regulations, WAC 173-308 and WAC 173-351 govern the
management, beneficial use, and disposal of biosolids generated by wastewater
treatment processes.
Title 90.26 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) establishes Washington State
law governing the use of reclaimed wastewater including treatment requirements
according to types of use.
Growth Management Act
The State of Washington's Growth Management Act (GMA) was enacted by the 1990
Legislature and its administrative regulations were adopted by Ecology in 1992. The
GMA regulations are contained in Chapter 365-195 WAC and require all counties and
cities with specified populations and growth rates to meet the requirements of the
Act. One of the requirements of the GMA is development of a comprehensive plan.
Comprehensive plans must include maps and descriptive text covering the objectives,
principles, and standards used to develop the plan. One of the required elements of
the comprehensive plan, which relates to the planning for and construction of
wastewater collection and treatment facilities, is the capital facilities plan element.
The capital facilities plan element must meet the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070
and WAC 365-195-315. These requirements include:
.. An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, including the
locations and capacities of these facilities
.. A forecast of the future needs for the capital facilities
.. The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities
.. A requirement to reassess the land use element if the probable funding falls short
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section i.doc
1-8
COM
Section 1
Introduction
General Sewer Plans
A general sewer plan as defined in WAC 173-240-020 is /I a comprehensive plan for a
system of sewers adopted by a local government entity." General sewer plans should
include the general location and description of the following:
. Treatment and disposal facilities
. Trunk and interceptor sewers
. Pumping stations
. Monitoring and control facilities
. Local service areas and a general description of the collection system to serve
these areas
The required contents of a general sewer plan are further described in WAC 173-240-
050. This City of Bremerton Wastewater Comprehensive Plan has been developed to
comply with the above federal and state regulations.
1.3 Compliance Status
EP A has delegated responsibility for administering CW A National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits to the State of Washington.
Bremerton's NPDES Permit (W A-002928-9) (Appendix A) was issued on June 21,
1996. Although the permit has expired, the City has submitted an application for
permit renewal, and, in the interim, is complying with existing permit requirements.
The treatment plant has met monthly and weekly effluent biochemical oxygen
demand (BODs) and total suspended solids (TSS) permit standards with few minor
exceptions since 1995, when the City took control of plant operations from the
Contracted Operator. The last compliance violation occurred in January 1998 with an
average weekly effluent TSS mass discharge violation. Prior to that, a small number
of violations occurred in 1996 and 1997. From a compliance standpoint, the Westside
WWTP has done very well, including receiving an Outstanding Performance Award
from Ecology in 1999. More detailed information on specific permit compliance
issues are discussed in Section 5.
1.4 Enforcement Actions
There are two Consent decrees that resulted from legal actions by private parties
against the City of Bremerton. In addition, Ecology issued a consent order to the City.
The following are descriptions of these actions:
. In 1992, Puget Soundkeeper Alliance (PSA) sued the City of Bremerton for failure
to implement CSO control measures under the Federal Clean Water Act. The City
settled the suit with a federal consent decree requiring implementation of the
City's CSO Reduction Plan, including strict monitoring requirements, by 2011. In
1 QQ7 P~A filDrt ~ ~"l"lh(!Dn"l"lDn--t.. ~'L,,--i+ c\llnm"l"\.n" foho. r~.I~"u" 'U_I~D- ~-I- -L~ L"'IL"'IL____t~~_L'"Ip. 'tk!-Lr' -bu~ -b["kr[~
--=..r-..r-r-, ...0;; ~..c ~ .r..LI:~1IiO.'I: ~ IJtalV".............'1~~.J:Ct; ~~LI; U-L.J:~5..u::1:15 LJ:~ '-'.c~y vv-uu r~ LeI:: ~V~L[YllClL[L,-,." L _
1-9
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 1.doc
Section 1
Introduction
consent decree. Through substantial mediation and negotiation, an amended
consent decree was issued by the court with substantially modified terms.
III In 1992, the City along with Metcalf and Eddy (M&E, a contract operator of the
WWTP) and CH2M HILL (WWTP designer) were sued by the West Hills
Neighborhood Association for failure to control odors at the WWTP. In the
process, Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority (PSAPCA) issued a consent
order to abate odors at the plant by December 31, 1995. The City settled with the
plaintiffs for $4.3 million and made odor control upgrades in compliance with the
consent order in the amount of $7 million. In 1996, a second. suit was filed by the
Charleston Beach Neighborhood Association and was settled for $3.4 million.
III In 1993, Ecology issued Order on Consent No. 93WQ-150 to the City of Bremerton;
this order set out the schedule for completing the individual elements in the City's
CSO Reduction Plan. The Order on Consent was later amended in 2000 to extend
the time allowed for completion of elements of the Callow A venue Basin CSO
Reduction. For compliance with the Order on Consent, the City is required to
have completed all CSO Reduction activities by December 31, 2011 - the City is
well ahead of this schedule.
The City successfully defended a suit for environmental trespass by A&K Trust, a
shellfish grower in Dyes Inlet. The suit claimed the City's CSO program was in
violation of its NPDES Permit and was the cause for the Department of Health's
denial of an application to license shellfish beds. Subsequent data have demonstrated
no water quality impact to the shellfish beds of Dyes Inlet.
1.5 Planning Information Sources
Information sources used in preparation of the following plan elements include:
III Population
· United States Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 census data
Kitsap County-Wide Planning Policy, December 15, 2003
III Land Use
· Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan, 2002
· City of Breffierton Comprehensive Plan, April 5, 1995 (New plan pending).
· City of Bremerton Zoning Ordinance, June 9, 2003
III Drinking Water Impacts
· City of Bremerton Water System Plan, 1999
III Water Quality Plans
CDNI 1-10
P:\BremeJton\Comp PJan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 1.doc
Section 1
Introduction
. City of Bremerton CSO Reduction Plan, October 2000
1.6 Plan Organization and Contents
The plan objective is to summarize planning strategies, policies, and regulatory
compliance efforts for the City of Bremerton wastewater utility. The plan that follows
establishes long-term system planning and service criteria and evaluates the capacity,
condition, and regulatory compliance of the City's wastewater utility facilities in
accordance with the Washington State Growth Management Act and the City of
Bremerton's Comprehensive Plan. The plan uses a 20-year planning horizon with
intermediate planning timeframes of 5 and 9 years (i.e., 2010, 2014, and 2024).
Specific plan components include:
.. Introduction (Section 1) - Summarizes the relevant background information,
provides descriptions of the existing system including applicable regulatory and
other requirements, and identifies related documents and planning information
sources.
.. Service Area and System Characteristics (Section 2) - Provides a description of
the surrounding vicinity characteristics, the plan service area, and the current
infrastructure.
.. Sewer System Planning Information (Section 3) - Documents existing and
anticipated future population, land use, sewer flows and loads, and utility impacts
throughout the plan service area.
.. Collection System Evaluation (Section 4) - Presents necessary system
improvements to the sanitary sewer system. Combined sewer system
improvements are addressed in the October 2000 CSO Reduction Plan prepared
for the City of Bremerton, and include:
· Sewer Main Replacement
· Pump Station Improvements
· Washington Beach Main Abandonment
. Anderson Cove Basin Combined Sanitary Sewer Project (OF-12)
. Trenton and Cherry Avenue Basins Combined Sewer Overflow Project (OF-16)
. Wastewater Collection and Transmission System Improvements for Oyster Bay
· Anderson Cove Inflow and Infiltration Study
. Tracy ton Pump Station (EB-6) Construction/Improvement, and
· Campbell Bay Beach Access at Main Street
.. Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation (Section 5) - Establishes relevant
planning and design criteria and assessed the potential impacts of anticipated
sewage flows on treatment processes and facilities with regard to treatment
standards and requirements. Identifies treatment and process improvements
necessary to accommodate anticipated waste flows and loadings, including those
necessary for proper ancfbeneficial use and disposal of effluents and solids.
COM 1-11
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Seclion 1.doc
CONI
Section 1
Introduction
.
Capital Improvement Program (Section 6) - Summarizes, schedules, and
prioritizes improvements identified in the wastewater comprehensive plan to
include implementation and cost estimates. Also includes a financial analysis of
the current revenues and expenditures to assess financial resources and
requirements.
.
Operations (Section 7) - Describes the Utility's organization and operation and
maintenance procedures and programs.
.
Implementation (Section 8) - Discusses the process to be followed to coordinate
and implement this comprehensive plan, the environmental impact from the
implementation of this plan, and future updates to this plan.
1-12
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 1..doc
~ Oil
--r-
JWO
COM
Section 2
Service Area and System Characteristics
This section provides a description of the surrounding vicinity, the plan service area,
and the current infrastructure.
2.1 Surrounding Vicinity Characteristics
2.1.1 City of Bremerton
The City of Bremerton is located in the central part of Kitsap County about 15 miles
west of Seattle, just southwest of Bainbridge Island. Bremerton is located on the west
side of Puget Sound and is surrounded by two waterways, Sinclair Inlet and Dyes
Inlet. Port Washington Narrows connects Sinclair and Dyes Inlet and separates the
City into two portions. The northeastern portion of the City is commonly called East
Bremerton and the southwestern portion of the City is commonly called West
Bremerton. Figure 1-2 illustrates the City and the surrounding vicinity characteristics.
2.1.2 Topography
The Kitsap County area lies in a structural downfold between two mountain ranges
known as the Puget Trough or Puget Sound Lowland. The county is located in a long,
narrow, irregular-shaped part of the Kitsap Peninsula and is indented by many bays
and smaller inlets that form a very long, irregular-shaped coastline. Waters of the
Puget Sound bound all except the southern part of the county. The relief of the area is
moderately subdued with undulating to rolling lowlands.
2.1.3 Geology and Soils
Bremerton is part of the Puget Lowland, and is part of the large glacial drift plane.
This plane is characterized by the low, gently rolling north-south trending ridges that
are separated by valleys and marine embayment. This area is mantled by glacial till
underlain by older glacial and interglacial deposits. The till in this area ranges in
depths from several to 100 feet in depth. Tills are generally composed of cobbles and
coarse gravel bound in clays, silts, and sands and is usually very dense.
Underlying the till, from Bainbridge Island to Bremerton, are the Blakely Formation
sediments. The Blakely Formation is composed of massive to moderate bedded, dark
reddish-brown cobble to boulder conglomerate in well-cemented matrix of coarse-
grained, poorly sorted sandstone. Sandstone and conglomerate are composed of
sub angular to well-rounded groups of basalt, andesite, hard well-cemented basaltic
sandstone, dark gray siltstone, and a few quartzite and metamorphic rock fragments.
Thin layers of lighter gray-brown clay mudstone, carbonaceous siltstone, and coal are
interbedded. From Bremerton west there is a large outcrop of areas of Eocene
Crescent volcanic rocks.
2-1
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Sect;on 2.doc
CONI
Section 2
Service Area and System Characteristics
2.1.4 Climate and Air Quality
A cool maritime climate prevails within the service area because of its proximity to
the Pacific Ocean and the influence of Puget Sound. In addition to marine influences,
the regional climate is affected by the Cascade and Olympic Mountain ranges, located
east and west of the City, respectively. Bremerton experiences relatively short, cool,
dry summers and prolonged, mild, wet winters. Falls and winters are generally
accompanied by prevailing southwesterly winds, while the winds in the spring and
summer are generally from the northwest. Precipitation in the county ranges from
just under 30 inches per year in the north to almost 70 inches per year in the
southwest portion. On a seasonal basis, nearly 80 percent of the precipitation in
Bremerton occurs in the 6-month period from October through March. Precipitation
as snowfall occurs infrequently and is generally light, at a depth that seldom exceeds
3 to 6 inches in the lower elevations. Snowmelt typically occurs within the first 24
hours after a snowstorm.
The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) is the regional air quality management
agency for Kitsap County. PSCAA represents the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and monitors and manages air quality in the Puget Sound Region. Under the
authority of the Clean Air Act, EP A established the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), which specify maximum concentrations for a set of "Criteria
Pollutants." These pollutants include: CO, PM-10, ozone, sulfur dioxide, lead, and
nitrogen dioxide. Areas of the country where air pollution levels persistently exceed
the national ambient air quality standards may be designated by the EP A as "Non-
attainment" areas. The planning area is not located in a designated non-attainment
area for any of the federal criteria pollutants.
2.1.5 Water Resources
Freshwater and marine resources in this area of Water Resource Inventory Area
(WRIA) 15 include the Sinclair Inlet, Dyes Inlet, and the Port Washington Narrows,
and the associated watersheds that flow into these marine systems.
Both Fresh and Marine waters are classified under the following system and earn
these designations by meeting or exceeding established criteria related to watershed
use and water quality. These designations are determined by the State of
Washington (173-201A WAC).
Designation Quality
AA
A
B
C
Extraordinary
Excellent
Good
Fair
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 2.doc
2-2
CONI
Section 2
Service Area and System Characteristics
Fresh Water
Sinclair Inlet Watershed
The Sinclair Inlet Watershed is located south of Bremerton in central Kitsap County.
Surface waters flowing into the Sinclair Inlet are primarily designated as Class A or
excellent waters by the State of Washington (173-201A WAC). The following fresh
water bodies are within the Sinclair Inlet Watershed:
III
Anderson Creek
Annapolis Creek
Beaver Creek
III
III
III
Blackjack Creek
III Gorst Creek
III Karcher Creek
III Ross Creek
III Ruby Creek (a tributary to Blackjack Creek)
III Sacco Creek
All these fresh water bodies are designated Class A quality except Beaver Creek,
which is classified as Class AA (extraordinary) water.
Dyes Inlet Watershed
The Dyes Inlet Watershed is located west of Bremerton in central Kitsap County.
Surface waters of this watershed are designated Class A waters by the State of
Washington (173-201A WAC). The following fresh water bodies are within the Dyes
Inlet Watershed:
III Barker Creek
iii Chico Creek
.. Clear Creek
III Dickerson Creek
II Kitsap Creek
III Mosher Creek
II Ostrich Bay Creek
.. Pahrmann Creek
III Ridgetop Creek
III Strawberry Creek
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 2.doc
2-3
CONI
Section 2
Service Area and System Characteristics
Water Resources Management Area
The head waters of the Union River have been impounded to form Bremerton's main
water supply. Approximately 65 percent of the City's potable water comes from the
Union River. Additional water comes from wells located near Anderson Creek and
Gorst Creek (both creek's are located within the Sinclair Inlet Watershed) and from
wells in the Central Kitsap area to the north of East Bremerton. The wells extend to
depths of 950 feet and yield water from 300 to 1,100 gallons per minute (gpm).
Marine Water
Sinclair Inlet
The Sinclair Inlet is a shallow estuary with a smooth, muddy bottom. This water
body is characterized by weak tidal currents that result in a low flushing rate for the
inlet; thus contaminants entering the inlet are not always flushed out and can remain
and degrade water and habitat quality. The Sinclair Inlet has been classified as Class
A Waters by the State of Washington (173-201A WAC).
Dyes Inlet and Port Washington Narrows
The Port Washington Narrows flows between Dyes and Sinclair Inlet's and strong
currents - associated with the tidal cycles - characterize movement of water through
Port Washington Narrows. Dyes Inlet is a shallow estuary with a muddy bottom.
This water body is characterized by weak tidal currents that result in a low flushing
rate for the inlet, thus contaminants entering the inlet are not always flushed out and
can remain and degrade water and habitat quality. Dyes Inlet and Port Washington
Narrows are classified as Class A Waters by the State of Washington (173-201A
WAC).
Other Water Resources
The waters within the City's boundary area have differing water quality due to
natural conditions as well as historical practices. Based on a cursory review of past
water quality studies and planning documents, a general assessment of the water
quality of major water resources is provided in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1
Major Water Resources
Water Body Current Water Quality
Kitsap Lake (1)(2) Good
Sinclair Inlet (1 )(3) Excellent
Dyes Inlet (1)(3) Excellent
Port Washington Narrows (1 )(3) Excellent
Chico Creek Excellent
Gorst Creek (1) Excellent
Anderson Creek Excellent
Union River Excellent
Source: Kitsap Co. Health Dist. (SSWM) 2001-2002 Water Quality Monitor Rpt
(1) Water body is 303(d) listed for fecal coliform bacteria
(2) Water body is 303(d) listed for phosphorous
(3) Water body is 303(d) listed for heavy metal, organic, and/or inorganic
parameters
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 2.doc
2-4
CDIVI
Section 2
Service Area and System Characteristics
Wetlands, Floodplains, and Coastal Zones
Known wetlands exist within the study area. Adjacent coastal zones include Port
Washington Narrows, Sinclair Inlet (adjacent to Callow Avenue Basin), and Port
Orchard Bay (adjacent to Trenton Avenue Basin). The Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) published by the U.S. Dept of Housing and Urban Development breaks the
City down into three flood zones. FIRM zones and areas include:
· Zone AI, defined as areas of 100-year flood; base flood elevations and flood hazard
factors determined. This zone includes the entire City coastline and Kitsap Lake
(shoreline, eL 10) (Kitsap Lake, eL 159).
· Zone B, defined as areas between limits of the lOa-year flood and 500-year flood;
or certain areas subject to 100-year flooding with average depths less than one foot
or where the contributing drainage area is less than one square mile; or areas
protected by levees from the base flood. A smallS or 6 block area south of KitSap
Way (low area) is considered zone B.
· Zone C, defined as areas of minimal flooding. This zone designation includes the
rest of the City.
2.1.6 Wildlife and Endangered Species
The following threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species listed in Table
2-2 have been identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW) as species that may occur in the planning area.
Table 2-2
Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species Identified by USFWS and
NMFS as Potentially Occurring within the Project Area
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status
State
Status
USFWS
Bald eagle
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Salvelinus confluentus
Brachyramphus
marmoratus marmoratus
Species Threatened Threatened
Bull trout (Coastal-Puget Sound DPS)
Marbled murrelet
Species Threatened Candidate
Species Threatened Threatened
NMFS
Chinook salmon (Puget Sound ESU) Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha
Coho salmon (Puget Sound/Straight of Oncorhynchus kisutch
Georgia ESU)
Source: USFWS 2001; NMFS 2001; WDFW 2001
Species Threatened Threatened
Species Candidate None
Sinclair Inlet, Port Washington Narrows, and the adjacent Dyes Inlet are considered
environmentally sensitive areas. Bald eagles, which are in the process of being
removed from the endangered species list, have been observed in the study area.
Also, Puget Sound Chinook salmon, which recently have been listed, are present in
Sinclair Inlef and Fort Wasbington Narrows at various times of tIle year.
P:\Elremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Texl\Section 2.doc
2-5
CONI
Section 2
Service Area and System Characteristics
2.2 Plan Service Area
Bremerton's sewer service area is shown in Figure 1-2.
2.2.1 Basins
The sewer service area and collection system is divided into six East Bremerton and
nine West Bremerton sewer drainage basins as shown in Figure 1-2. The six East
Bremerton drainage basins are serviced by a combined sewer, in which the
stormwater and sanitary sewage are collected within the same conveyance system.
The six East Bremerton drainage basins as shown in Figure 1-2 are listed below:
. Cherry Avenue
. East Park
. Pine Road
. Stevens Canyon
. Tracy ton Beach
. Trenton Avenue
The West Bremerton area is divided into nine drainage basins. Four of the nine
drainage basins are on a combined sewer system: Anderson Cove, Callow A venue,
Pacific Avenue, and Warren Avenue. Four other drainage basins have dedicated
separate sanitary sewers and stormwater is conveyed and handled separately: Kitsap
Lake, Oyster Bay, Phinney Bay, and Sinclair Park. The other basin, Marine Drive, is
within Kitsap County's service area and is primarily unsewered. Table 2-3
summarizes this information.
Oyster Bay
Sinclair Park
Basins (Unsewered)
Marine Drive I
Additionally, a proposed drainage basin (known as Port Blakeley) eventually may be
added as a sewer drainage basin to the West Bremerton sewer basins. Port Blakeley is
an approximately lOO-acre development area located just west of Kitsap Lake.
2.2.2 Service Agreements
The City of Bremerton has Negotiated Sewer Service Contracts - which are on file
with Bremerton Wastewater Utility-with the U.S. Navy and KCSD No.1 in West
Bremerton. The service agreements for the U.S. Navv and KCSD No.1 have not
~ -
changed since the last wastewater comprehensive plan was developed in 1995.
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 2.doc
2-6
CDIVI
Section 2
Service Area and System Characteristics
u.s. Navy
The U.S. Navy Contract includes metered discharges from the U.S. Navy Puget Sound
Naval Station (PSNS), Jackson Park family housing, and the Naval Regional Medical
Center. (The East Park family housing, formerly owned by the Navy, has been turned
over to the City and sold for development. The East Park's 1940s sewers are
scheduled to be replaced.) The U.s. Navy Contract states that the Utility will transmit
and treat sewage discharges from these facilities. However, the U.S. Navy owns and
maintains the onsite sewage collection system for its facilities and discharges to the
City's system at designated discharge locations. The discharge locations and
discharge limitations are detailed in the Negotiated Sewer Service Contract. The
Navy's contracted peak discharge is 3.79 million gallons per day (mgd). The City of
Bremerton and the Navy are currently renegotiating the contract to clarify discharge
limits.
Kitsap County Sewer District No.1
KCSD No.1 is located directly north and east of the WWTP. KCSD No.1 discharges
to the City through two pump station (WB-1 and WB-2) and on gravity discharge, all
discharges are metered. The Contract was established in 1992, and allows KCSD No.
1 to discharge up to 400,000 gallons per day (gpd) from the three discharge locations.
The City is responsible for treatment and disposal of these contracted discharges.
Major Industries
Other than the PSNS, there are no major industries in the study area. Most
commercial businesses include beauty salons, food service, gasoline and automotive
services, and medicalj dental offices. Non-residential land use includes commercial
and retail areas, as well as some parks.
2.3 Infrastructure Description
2.3.1 Collection System
The City's combined sanitary sewer collection system mains range in size from 6 to 42
inches in diameter for gravity mains and from 4 to 36 inches in diameter for force
mains. The sewers have been constructed with a variety of materials including clay,
concrete, PVC, asbestos cement, cast iron, ductile iron, and HDPE. Some portions of
the system date from 1910 to 1920. The major conveyance, overflow, and treatment
facilities in the sewer system are shown in Figure 1-3 along with the points of
connection for the U.S. Navy and KCSD No.1.
In most of the sewer basins, the distance from the farthest point in the basin to the
bottom of the basin is relatively short. The longest piped distance within each basin is
less than 11,000 feet. Typical sewer grades range from 0.5 to 12 percent. These slopes
provide for varied flows from very low to high collection system flow velocities. The
time of concentration, or the time it takes water to flow through the system once introduced, varies from minutes to more than 24 hours.
2-7
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendrnent\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Texl\Seclion 2.doc
COM
Section 2
Service Area and System Characteristics
East Bremerton
Flows in East Bremerton are collected from the six sewer basins (listed earlier)
through a series of pumping stations, gravity pipelines, and pressure mains that
discharge to the East Bremerton beach main. The flows from the East Bremerton
beach main gravity flow to a 16-inch and 24-inch siphon under the Port Washington
Narrows.
In the Tracy ton Beach Basin, combined sewers discharge through Overflow Structure
OF-6 to Pump Station EB-6; this delivers flows through an 8-inch-diameter force main
to OF-l in the Pine Road Basin. Similarly, in the Trenton Avenue Basin, the combined
flow transits through OF-7 to Pump Station EB-3 and to Pump Station EB-2. These
pump stations currently discharge to the beach main and during high flow events the
East Bremerton beach main changes from gravity to pressure.
During low flow periods, all flow from East Bremerton is conveyed through two
inverted siphons under the Port Washington Narrows to pump station CE-1 for
subsequent conveyance to the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant. Sluice gates have
been installed on the inverted siphons at pump station CE-l. These sluice gates have
the ability to throttle flow from the siphons to ensure that inflow to pump station CE-
1 does not exceed the station capacity, causing overflows at OF-13. As flows in the
East Bremerton beach main increase, the limited capacity of the inverted siphons and
throttling at CE-l increase the hydraulic grade (HGL) in the beach main. The HGL
will rise to the point that the flow north of the inverted siphons will reverse,
conveying the surcharged flow to a storage facility located at the Eastside Treatment
Facility. As flows continue to increase, the Eastside Treatment Facility will begin to
operate and treat the flows that would otherwise become CSOs.
The capacity of the 20-inch beach main north of the inverted siphons limits the flow to
the treatment plant to approximately 6,650 gpm. During the design storm, a
calculated flowrate of 2,300 gpm is required to be conveyed to pump station CE-l to
maintain the HGL below the OF-3 weir. Refer to Appendix B for hydraulic profile.
In accordance with the City's CSO Reduction Plan, a series of improvements have
been completed in the East Park Basin. East Park flows have been redirected to the
adjacent Cherry Avenue and Trenton Avenue Basins. As part of these upgrades,
Trenton Avenue Basin pump station and force main conveyance capacity has been
increased and the associated flows are pumped directly to the beach main.
The beach main conveys East Bremerton flow to a pair of inverted siphons, 16 and 24
inches in diameter, which convey East Bremerton flow across Port Washington
Narrows to Pump Station CE-l in West Bremerton. From there, flow is delivered to
the WWTP via the Crosstown Pipeline. Some East Bremerton wet-weather flows in
excess of conveyance capacity to the WWTP can also be treated at the Eastside
Treatment Facility, located at OF-l, which discharges through the old Manette
Primary Plant outfall to the Port Washington Narrows.
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 2.doc
2-8
CONI
Section 2
Service Area and System Characteristics
West Bremerton
In West Bremerton, combined sewer system flows from the Pacific Avenue, Warren
A venue, Anderson Cove, and Callow A venue Basins as well as East Bremerton are
pumped into the Crosstown Pipeline system, which conveys flow to the WWTP.
Flows from the Warren Avenue Basin are delivered to Pump Station CE-l, which
pumps both Warren Avenue and East Bremerton flows from the Port Washington
Narrows inverted siphons to the beginning of the Crosstown Pipeline through a 24-
inch-diameter force main.
Pacific A venue Basin combined sewer flows are directed to Pump Stations CE-4 and
CE-6. Each of these pumps stations discharge into the 14-inch-diameter Central
Bremerton force main, which discharges to the Crosstown Pipeline. Refer to
Appendix B for hydraulic profile.
In the Anderson Cove Basin, combined sewer flows are divided into five subbasins.
Flows from four of these subbasins are conveyed to Pump Station CW-1, which
discharges to the Crosstown Pipeline via the 12-inch-diameter Naval Avenue Force
main. Flows from the CW-2 subbasin are delivered to the Callow Avenue Basin via
Pump Station CW -2. During low flow periods a diversion can be used to route the
discharge from CW-2 to CW-1. In 2005, CW-4 will be revised to discharge to the
Crosstown Pipeline.
In the Callow A venue Basin, combined sewer flows and those from the PSNS flow to
Pump Station WB-3, which discharges to the Crosstown Pipeline. The Callow
Avenue Basin also receives flows from the Phinney Bay Basin via a discharge at 15th
and Cambrian, as well as those from Anderson Cove Pump Station CW-2. To limit
the occurrence of CSO in the Callow A venue Basin, the City has completed the
construction of wet-weather Pump Station WB-6 near Pump Station WB-3. Pump
Station WB-3 cannot pump at capacity because the incoming 24-inch gravity sewer
line hydraulically limits flow into the station. Wet-weather flows that exceed the
capacity of WB-3 are diverted to Pump Station WB-6 and pumped to the Crosstown
Pipeline. The Crosstown Pipeline delivers flows to the WWTP.
Sanitary sewer flows in Oyster Bay and Kitsap Lake Basins are conveyed through a
series of pump stations that ultimately flow into the Sinclair Park Basin, and then to
the WWTP by gravity.
2.3.2 Pump Stations
The system pump stations are summarized in Table 2-4.
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 2.doc
2-9
Section 2
Service Area and System Characteristics
Table 2-4
Pump Stations
Discharge
Pump Operating Capacity Tributary Areas / Location/Force
Station Type (gpm) Pump Controls CSO Outfall Main
CE-1 Wet well dry well, Two variable speed Lead-Lag. Warren Avenue Crosstown
caisson, constructed pumps and two Magna Fourth pump on Basin & East Pipeline.
1985. VSDs replaced Drive; two rated for standby if a Bremerton. CSOs
with Magna Drive units 7,000 gpm and two pump fails. are controlled by
in 2001. rated for 1 ,500 gpm OF-13 and OF-14.
each at 167 feet TDH.
CE-2 Package pump station, Two pumps rated for Lead-Lag. Two Warren Avenue Park Avenue
constructed in 1973. 200 gpm at 51 feet pumps total. Basin. Conveyance Line
TDH. which flows to
pump station CE-
1.
CE-3 Custom built pump Two pumps rated for Lead-Lag. Two Warren Avenue To pump station
station, constructed in 200 gpm at 62 feet pumps total. Basin. CE-1.
1973. TDH. Pump station
controls
upgraded in
2002.
CE-4 Wet well dry well, Three pumps; two Lead-Lag. Two Pacific Avenue Central Bremerton
caisson, constructed in rated for 1,940 gpm at pumps total. Basin, PSNS. Force Main to the
1989. 238 feet TDH; the third Third pump to Crosstown
is rated for 200 gpm flush line to CE- Pipeline.
and is used to flush the 3.
: 8-inch force main.
CE-6 Wet well dry well, 10-ft Three pumps; each Lead-Lag; Third Pacific Avenue Central Bremerton
diameter, metal dry well, rated for 600 gpm at pump on standby Basin. CSOs Force Main to the
constructed in 1989. 202 feet TDH. if pump fails. controlled by Crosstown
OF-16. Pipeline.
CW-1 Wet well dry well, Three VFD pumps with Lead-Lag with Anderson Cove Naval Avenue
caisson, constructed PLC, each rated at 900 pump and level Basin, CSOs Force Main to
1984. Updated in 2001. gpm at 175 feet TDH. controls. Third controlled by OF- Crosstown
Only two pumps pump is strictly 9, OF-10A, OF-11 Pipeline.
operating, third is standby if one of and OF-12.
strictly stand-by. the other pumps
fails.
CW-2 Submersible, cast in Three submersible Two pumps Anderson Cove Callow Avenue
place, constructed 1949. pumps, each rated at operate; third Basin. CSOs sewer system with
Reconstructed in 1999. 800 gpm at 175 feet pump on standby controlled by inner-tie to
TDH. if a pump fails. OF-8. discharge to
Anderson Cove
CW-1.
CW-3 Submersible grinder Two submersible Lead-Lag. Anderson Cove To pump station
pumps, constructed in pumps, each rated for Second pump is Basin. CSOs CW-2.
1970s~upgradedin 50 gpm at 40 feet strictly standby. controlled by
2003. TDH. OF-B.
CW-4 Duplex submersible, Two submersible Lead-Lag. Anderson Cove Anderson Cove
constructed in 1984. pumps, one is rated at Second pump is Basin. CSOs Basin High Ave.
Upgraded in 2000's. 450 gpm at 45 feet strictly standby. controlled by Gravity Sewer.
TDH and the other is OF-12.
rated at 250 gpm at 45
feet TDH.
CDIVI 2-10
P:\Bremerton\Comp Ptan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Sectior\ 2.doe
Section 2
Service Area and System Characteristics
WB-1 Owned by Kitsap Co. 230 gpm at 50 feet Lead-Lag. Two Sinclair Park Crosstown
Wet well, mounted; TDH with two pumps pumps total. Beach-front Pipeline.
constructed in 1989. operating. Properties.
WB-2 Owned by Kitsap Co. 780 gpm at 70 feet Lead-Lag. Third KCSD No.1. Crosstown
Wet well dry well, TDH with two pumps pump on standby Pipeline.
constructed of 96-inch- operating. if a pump fails.
dia. precast concrete
manhole sections.
Constructed in 1989.
WB-3 Custom pump station The 2 smaller pumps Lead-Lag with Callow Avenue Crosstown
built in 1984. are each rated at 840 level control. Basin, PSNS, Pipeline.
Belowground wet and gpm at 55 feet TDH. Two smaller Phinney Bay,
dry wells and The other three pumps pumps operate Anderson Cove
aboveground motor and are each rated at 5300 together based Basin 8. CSOs
engine generator room. gpm at 110 feetTDH. on wet-well level. controlled by OF-
Reconstructed in A maximum flow of The smaller 17.
2002/2003. 10,000 gpm. pumps will turn
off when flow
increases and
two of the three
larger pumps will
turn on. Third
pump on standby
if a pump fails.
WB-4 Package pump station Two pumps each rated Lead-Lag. Two Callow Avenue Gravity sewer that
built in 1971. at 100 gpm at 42 feet pumps total. Basin. goes to Crosstown
TDH. Pipeline.
WB-6 Constructed in early Three submersible Lead/Lag with Callow Avenue Crosstown
2003. pumps, each pump is level control; third Basin, Phinney Pipeline.
rated at 3,750 gpm at pump is standby. Bay, Anderson
130 feet TDH. I Cove Basin 8.
I CSOs controlled
by OF-17.
KL-1 Custom pump station Two pumps. Each Lead-Lag. Two Kitsap Lake 16 - inch
constructed in 1970s. pump is rated for 520 pumps total. Basin. Conveyance Line
gpm at 88 feet TDH. Pump controls leading to WWTP.
upgraded in
2001.
KL-2 Custom pump station Two pumps. Each Lead-Lag. Two Kitsap Lake 16 - inch
constructed in 1970s. pump is rated for 500 pumps total. Basin. Conveyance Line
gpm at 148 feet TDH. Pump controls leading to WWTP.
upgraded in
2001.
KL-3 Custom pump station Two pumps. Each Lead-Lag. Two Kitsap Lake 16 - inch
constructed in 1970s. pump is 500 gpm at 14 pumps total. Basin. Conveyance Line
Two new dry-pit feet TDH. Pump controls leading to WWTP
submersible pumps upgraded in
installed in 2002. 2001.
CONI
2-11
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendmenl\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 2.doc
Section 2
Service Area and System Characteristics
KL-4 Custom pump station
constructed in 1970s.
One new dry-pit
submersible pump
installed in 2003.
Two pumps. Each
rated at 450 gpm and
16 feet TDH.
Lead-Lag. Two
pumps total.
Kitsap Lake
Basin.
16-inch
Conveyance Line
leading to WWTP.
MD-1 Constructed in 1994.
Two pumps. Each
rated for 475 gpm at
136 feetTDH.
Lead-Lag. Two
pumps total.
Marine Drive
Basin.
To OB-1 pump
station.
OB-1 Wet well, dry well; Dry-pit submersible Lead-Lag. Third Oyster Bay Basin Gravity Sewer at
constructed 1966. pumps; each rated at pump on standby & Marine Drive Bremerton Blvd. &
Upgraded in 1984, and 755 gpm at 212 feet if a pump fails. Basin. Arsenal Way.
to be further upgraded TDH. Station controls
in 2004. currently being
upgraded.
OB-2 Wet well, dry well; Two pumps. Each Lead-Lag. Two Oyster Bay Basin. Oyster Bay Force
custom pump station, rated for 750 gpm at pumps total. Main.
constructed in 1966. 65 feet TDH. Pump controls
upgraded in
2002.
OB-3 Wet well, dry well; Two dry-pit Lead-Lag. Two Oyster Bay Basin. Oyster Bay Force
custom pump station, submersible pumps. pumps total. Main.
constructed in 1970. Each rated for 400 Pump controls
Pumps replaced in gpm at 13 feet TDH. upgraded in
2000. 2002.
OB-4 Wet well, dry well; : Two dry-pit Lead-Lag. Two Oyster Bay Basin. Oyster Bay Force
custom pump station, . submersible pumps. pumps total. Main.
constructed in 1970. I Each rated for 150 Pump controls
Pumps replaced in ! gpm at 46 feet TDH. upgraded in
2001. 2002.
OB-5 Wet well, dry well; . Two pumps. Each Lead-Lag. Two Oyster Bay Basin. Oyster Bay Force
custom pump station, rated for 550 gpm at pumps total. Main.
constructed in 1966. 47 feet TDH. . Pump controls
upgraded in
2002.
OB-6 Wet well, dry well; ! Two pumps. Each Lead-Lag. Two Oyster Bay Basin. Oyster Bay Force
custom pump station, rated for 490 gpm at pumps total. Main.
constructed in 1966. 40 feet TDH. Pump controls
upgraded in
2002.
OB-7 Constructed in 1993. Two pumps. Each Lead-Lag. Two Oyster Bay Basin. Oyster Bay Force
rated for 375 gpm at pumps total. Main.
70 feet TDH. Pump controls
upgraded in
2002.
PB-1 Wet well, dry well . Two pumps. Each Lead-Lag. Two Phinney Bay Callow Ave Basin
Package pump station. rated for 150 gpm at pumps total. Basin. Pipeline.
Constructed in 1970s. 100 feet TDH.
CONI
2-12
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFrER JUNE 20D5\Text\Section 2.doc
Section 2
Service Area and System Characteristics
PB-2
Wet well, dry well.
Package pump station.
Constructed in 1970s.
Two pumps. Each
rated for 100 gpm at
20 feet TDH.
Lead-Lag. Two
pumps total.
Phinney Bay
Basin.
To pump station
PB-1.
EB-2 Custom station Two small pumps; Lead-Lag with Trenton Avenue East Park Basin.
constructed in 1973. each rated for 270 gpm level control. Basin, CSOs Upgrade will pump
Split wet wells, one for at 30 feet TDH for Two smaller controlled by directly into East
local/low flow and one lower flows. Three pumps operate OF-7. Bremerton Beach
for stormwater/high flow. larger pumps; each together based Main.
Reconstructed in 2003. rated for 2175 gpm at on level. Two
91 feet TDH for larger smaller pumps
flows. will turn off when
flow increases
and 2 of the 3
larger pumps will
turn on. Third
pump on standby
if a pump fails.
EB-3 Wet well dry well; Pumps were converted Second pump on Trenton Avenue East Park Basin
constructed 1972. to dry-pit submersible standby if first Basin, CSOs Beach Main.
Upgraded in 1984 and pumps and are rated at pump fails. controlled by
will be completely 750 gpm at 64 feet Pump controls OF-7.
updated in 2004. TDH. upgraded in
2002.
EB-4 Wet well mounted Two pumps. Each Lead-Lag. Two Trenton Avenue East Bremerton
station constructed in rated for 100 gpm at pumps total. Basin. Beach Main.
1940s, later converted 80 feet of TDH. Electrical service,
to submersible pump pump controls,
station. and panel
upgraded in
2003.
EB-5 Ejector pump station Two pumps. Each Lead-Lag. Two Trenton Avenue East Bremerton
constructed in late rated for 50 gpm at 40 pumps total. Basin. Beach Main.
1970s, upgraded to feet ofTDH.
submersible pump
station in 1995.
EB-6 Wet well dry well; cast in Two pumps Each rated Pumps alternate; Tracy ton Beach East Bremerton
place; constructed in for 625 gpm at 102 feet Two pumps Basin. Beach Main.
1947; were upgraded in TDH. operate at peak
2004. flow. New pump
controls and
electrical service
to be upgraded in
2004.
EB-8 Package pump station Two pumps. Each Lead-Lag. Two Pine Road Basin. East Bremerton
constructed in 1971. rated for 200 gpm at pumps total. Beach Main.
51 feet of TDH.
EB-9 Wet well mounted pump Two pumps. Each Lead-Lag. Two Pine Road Basin. East Bremerton
station constructed in rated for 100 gpm at pumps total. Beach Main.
early 1970s. 75 feet ofTDH.
PP-1 Custom-built Two pumps. Rating Lead-Lag. Two Serves Pipeline from KL-1
submersible constructed unknown. pumps total. Pendergast Park to Westside
in 19905. only. Treatment Plant.
Source: 1996 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan, 2000 CSO Reduction Plan Update, and
:iTaormatia.rr prOVided byPatrreCaxon, CiIyof Bremerton).
CONI 2-13
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 2.doc
CONI
Section 2
Service Area and System Characteristics
2.3.3 Major Pipelines
East Bremerton Beach Main
The East Bremerton beach main conveys wastewater from the East Bremerton basins
to the inverted siphons and/ or the Eastside Treatment Facility. This main includes
20-inch-diameter piping (dating from 1946) between OF-1 and the Port Washington
Narrows inverted siphons, and 18-inch and 16-inch-diameter piping (dating from
1983) from OF-4 to the siphons.
Port Washington Narrows Inverted Siphons
Two inverted siphon pipelines convey combined sanitary sewer flows from East
Bremerton across the Port Washington Narrows to Pump Station CE-1 in West
Bremerton. They include a 16-inch-diameter cast iron line constructed in 1946 and a
24-inch concrete lined ductile iron line constructed in 1983.
The capacity of the inverted siphons varies with the hydraulic gradeline and head in
the East Bremerton beach main. Since the sewer conveyance improvements for
Trenton Avenue Basin are complete, the predicted head in the East Bremerton beach
main provides a combined inverted siphon conveyance capacity of over 4,000 gpm.
In early 2000, the City installed fiberglass sluice gates on the discharge of the inverted
siphons at Pump Station CE-1. These gates provide for increased regulatory
compliance by allowing the City to prevent East Bremerton flows from causing
overflows at OF-13. During major storm events when flows entering CE-l from East
Bremerton must be restricted, excess East Bremerton flows can be treated and released
at the Eastside Treatment Facility. By allowing excess East Bremerton flows to be
treated, more capacity is available for west side flows in the Crosstown Pipeline.
Crosstown Pipeline
The Crosstown Pipeline transports flows from various East and West Bremerton
pump stations across the City to the WWTP. Pump Station CE-l feeds flows into the
Crosstown Pipeline at its end near the Port Washington Narrows. Pump Station CW-
1 discharges to the Crosstown Pipeline through the Naval Avenue force main, Pump
Stations CE-4 and CE-6 discharge through the Central Bremerton force main, and
Pump Stations WB-3, WB-6, and WB-2 discharge directly into the Crosstown Pipeline.
The alignment of the Crosstown Pipeline is shown in Figure 1-3. The pipeline is
constructed from concrete cylinder pipe, polyethylene lined ductile iron, and cement-
lined ductile iron. The first length of the pipeline from Pump Station CE-l is a 24-inch
force main that discharges to the 13th and Naval Avenue surge chamber.
Downstream of the surge chamber the pipeline is a gravity-pressure main that
operates as an inverted siphon. The diameter increases to 30 inches and then increases
again to 36 inches in diameter near Pump Station WB-3. Pump Station CW-l
discharges into the Crosstown Pipeline at the 13th and Naval surge chamber. The
Central Bremerton force main from pump stations CE-4 and CE-6 discharges into the
2-14
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 2.doc
CDIVI
Section 2
Service Area and System Characteristics
Crosstown Pipeline at First and Montgomery. Once modified, Pump Station CW-4
will pump directly into the Crosstown Pipeline at 13th and Ohio.
2.3.4 Combined Sewer Overflow Structures
When the flow capacities of the combined sanitary sewers and conveyance systems
are exceeded, excess flows are discharged from the combined sewer overflow
structures in the system. The City has completed improvements to reduce overflows
to one event per year, per outfall, on a 5-year average during a design storm, in all but
two sewer drainage basins (Cherry Ave beach main, Tracy ton Beach (EB-6). The
Pacific Avenue and Anderson Cove Basins are the only two basins that do not meet
Washington CSO Requirements. Overflows from these basins are minor and will be
reduced to one event per year within the next 5 years. Additional information
regarding the City's efforts to reduce the CSO occurrences is provided in the City's
current CSO Reduction Plan and subsequent updates.
2.3.5 Odor Control
The primary air quality concern for projects involving collection and treatment of
wastewater is odors. In 1992 the City of Bremerton entered into a consent order with
the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority (now the Puget Sound Clean Air
Agency) to abate odors at the Westside WWTP by December 31, 1995. The City has
made odor control upgrades as required by the consent order. Odor control measures
and facilities currently in place at the WWTP include:
II Odor containment enclosures, buildings, and covers for major plant facilities
II Conveyance of foul air to packed tower scrubbers for treatment
II Two-stage, packed tower air treatment for screenings and grit removal facilities,
primary clarifiers, the old headworks, the overflow chambers for the primary
effluent pump station wet well, the gravity thickener and overflow chamber for
the gravity thickener when in service, the dissolved air flotation thickener,
digester vents, the centrifuge area, and the sludge loading facility
II Odor control enclosures for grit removal system
Odor control for the collection systems is discussed in Section 4. Specific equipment
and flows of the plant odor control system are discussed in Section 5.
2.3.6 Treatment Facilities
The City of Bremerton owns, operates, and maintains two wastewater treatment
facilities as shown in Figure 1-3. Both sites are located outside the boundaries of
established floodplains and shorelines and do not contain any onsite environmentally
sensitive areas or wetlands.
2-15
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text:\Sectiofl 2.doc
CONI
Section 2
Service Area and System Characteristics
East Side Treatment Facility
The Eastside Treatment Facility is located in the Pine Road Basin in East Bremerton.
The Eastside Treatment Facility, shown in Figure 2-1, provides treatment for wet
weather combined sewer flows in East Bremerton. This facility has a maximum
hydraulic capacity of 20 mgd. The processes at the Eastside Treatment Facility
include high rate clarification followed by ultraviolet (UV) disinfection as shown in
the process flow diagram in Figure 2-2. A pre-existing outfall delivers treated effluent
to Port Washington Narrows, which is a contiguous water body to Sinclair and Dyes
Inlets.
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant
The Westside WWTP is located in Southwest Bremerton off Sinclair Inlet near State
Route 3. The WWTP currently provides wastewater treatment for the entire system,
has a peak hydraulic capacity of 42 mgd1, and operates as a conventional activated
sludge secondary treatment process. A site plan of the overall WWTP is shown in
Figure 2-3. A treatment process diagram is shown in Figure 2-4.
1 The City estimated 54 mgd peak flow was treated during the October 22, 2003, 100-
yr storm.
2-16
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 2.doc
pe\923<\419S6\C9mp P100\ FigL 1 07/19/05 12e26 moflotjh XREFSe 8X11 LBDR
ot>OR coNiRQL. S\...O'ilER. -
ABANDONED UNES
"'
\\
\u
Q
\
\_ COeR COl'lTROL
eLOWER
~vatT SCREEN
',--- p ,\RSAA\J... F\..OMt
Po
-9)-
SSMK-A RIM 133.2
20" RCP
IE 118.22
"'-1
oS
.yl~
0,.
01'
l'
MANETTE OUTFAlL~4-9
-250' 2i!( RCP TO IE -95 /t
-100' 36" RCP TO IE -83 ..
84' 30" RC' DIffuseR AT Ie 83 I ·
GalERAiOR
C\1Y OF 8REMERTON
-....a. Ii
~
$,.~ G
~4'$0;I.-
S1-A., .
. 'C;~l"
\}:"2, 1":.. 50'
~-~o
Figure 2- '\
Easts'\de Wastewater
Treatment Facility
P:\9234\41986\Comp Plan\ Fig2_2 07/20/05 13:22 moffatjh XREFS: 8X11LBDR
PUMP
STATION
OF-1
BEACH
MAIN
COAGULANT PAC
I
I
('".'''''''''''''''
I
, FLOWMETER
SCREENINGS
SLUDGE
,.11 ~fWlIIlJJJjm"i II ,1111, ,. 1."",.;,",1,1,1" I,ll Ilj",11111 ,j" 11,~dW ".: '."111,1.111 11111:1... "" I I jllllll.'~I'U"III" II, l.lh ,: ~I
CONI
POLYMER
SAND
'. . '.. j
~. :'".\.: "..;"
. ~'" ......
. .': ": : . .,~'
': ':-'~::il""llliIIlll"'III' 111:111,
I IIJ",,';.IIoI,II." '1/'.
'. ..1
CYCLONE
BALLAST/SLUDGE
SEPARATORS
CITY OF BREMERTON
II II II IIIII --
DISCHARGE
TO
PORT
WASHINGTON
NARROWS
Figure 2-2
Eastside Treatment
Process Diagram
-=::::)--- Z ----c::::::J
I~ ~---
,,,,"'" v.,.v~
f ""
f ''-''''''
(I / >">~
~ I /y ~~
/ ~~~~
'J:
'- >',
"'." ~.>>~-..,
o
CO
II
~
}
II
I
JpqL lX II 'al!S :Sj~~>~>..>>. 4flDlj.s:>~ zz:{:.L ngo/EltL~Q ~=]~~!,:! \u~.lsL~~oJ\@~"ElJ t\t~Z€i\:d
c::,
(()
tr)L..>,
I Q) ~
-1--'-
N 0'-
~ g
. Q) l..L
0-1--'
zw-l--'
a c
Q) 3: Q)
~ Q) E
.Q1-a -0
l..L . en Q)
-I--' L
wI-
Q)
3:
C::l
CI
-.t'
z
o
I-
er
w
~
w
er
m
l..L
o
~
o
ft
(/)
lL.
W
U::
x
~
.E
4-
C
E
o
r:J
~
~
11")
o
"-
o
C-~
"-
I'
o
~
I
c-~
Ol
L:
./'
c
o
a:
0-
E
o
u
./
CO
ex)
OJ
~
~
./
~
i"'1
c-~
O'J
--/
0.:
Biofilter Aeration Secondary Chlorine
o (out of service) Basins Clarifiers Rapid Mix
p-----------------------------,
I e I Final Effluent
~l .... ..'l~ G .1 Sampler
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CW-1
CE-1
WB-1
WB-2
WB-3
Grit
Tanks
Preaeration
Primary
Clarifiers
Bar Screens
'71~
08-1
KL-1...... .,
e."."",,,,,,
"'''."
Gravity
Influent
Flow Meter
1t)
Screenings
to Disposal
f)
fDlps GlIPS
4D
RAS
Grit
to Disposal
'-
-0
..0
f"'.
~
x
~
~
-
,"""-~~~"'~,--,-....--""'~- 4~_~_i
AI>
WAS
" II. .110 "I",j.l .1. i ,; "III, I '" L ,II "" ,,,,j,,ll, i.,,~',;I,"",I,',. ili., "I, 1,1" i,~ ,I ,.. J", j J,~, ,1111 0,1,", . ,
".,1"", I"u;~,...... ....I~.I, ,t..JO",,~I.~ "",.",.."1..."".",.".1,, ".
',n ",,..J,,;.,,, ,j, ,. ....,..,"".J,;~..,....".,
Dissolved
Air Flotati on
Th ickener
e
CD
Anaerobic
Digester No.1
Spiral
Heat
Exchanger
Serpentine
Heat
Exchanger
Holding
Tank
Anaerobic
Digester No.2
tl)
Centrifuge
Gravity Thickener
(out of service)
~:.::: ~. ..... .1 .~
. Liquid Sludge or
Oewatered Sludge
to Silva culture
Note: Digesters Operate
in Parallel for Class B
CITY OF BREMERTON
CDM
Chlorine Dechlorination
Contact Basins Parshall
Flume
Flow Meter
LABEL
FLOW STREAM
LIQUIDS
. Raw Wastewater
. Primary Influent
o Primary Effluent
o Primary Effluent
. Primary Effluent (Biofilter Bypass}
e Aeration Basin Influent
o Secondary Clarifier Influent
o Secondary Clarifier Effluent
o DAF Thickener Underflow
cr:> Gravity Thickener Overflow
CD Centrate
. Effluent (io Sinclair Inlet)
CD Screenings BIOSOLIDS
G) Grit
C9 Primary Sludge (PS)
o Return Activated Sludge (RAS)
CD Waste Activated Sludge {WAS)
CD Primary Sludge (Gravity Thickener Bypass)
G> DAF Float
Eli) Thickened Primary Sludge
G) DAF B-ypass
E) Digester No.1 Influent
Q) Digester No. 1 Effluent
€I) Digested Biosolids
e Dewatered Bioso/ids
i lll~,il~illli l.lWlI . IiIIJIII..l,u II. .., :~,! l.~lIl,I1U IlIlill: IU,III, 111~,:jl!l ~ I!.,lliill ~illl,il~lJll,i J~I, 111111 1~~~~11 iIIi llll~ Ilillli.lll.I~IlIII,!.j ~I.illl*'ilj~j~ li~ Illj i,Il~i.lI,I,ihJI i,1 Wiujl 1IiIIilliii~jWI~ll.vl U6i,iil~~~li;
Figure 2-4
Westside Treatment
Process Diagram
r"l
f........1.........
1.1
n
I H
I iLl
I
COM
Section 3
Wastewater System Planning Information
Planning for wastewater infrastructure involves determination of the flowrate and
mass loading variations. Quantifying these variations is important in design and
operation of treatment and conveyance facilities. This section discusses historical and
projected wastewater loads, seasonal influence on flow and loads, average daily and
maximum monthly flows, influent peaking factors, and influent BODs and TSS
characterization.
3.1 Land Use and Zoning
Bremerton's current land use and zoning information indicates that approximately 72
percent of the City and surrounding areas is urban residential development.
Approximately 18 percent of the City and surrounding areas is designated as
industrial, and approximately 7 percent of the City and surrounding areas is
designated as commercial. The industrial areas include a portion of the proposed Port
Blakely property, the Port of Bremerton industrial park, the Bremerton National
Airport, and proposed industrial development areas west of Anderson Creek and
southwest of the airport. Approximately 3 percent of the City and surrounding areas
is comprised of parks and public facilities.
3.2 Population Proj ections
Population estimates are used to determine the contribution of sanitary flow from
residential areas to the total sewage flow. Population growth estimates can then be
used to predict future sanitary flows.
The 1995 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan discusses population forecasts for
Bremerton developed by Kitsap County and the City of Bremerton Comprehensive
Plans. The Kitsap County forecast, developed in 1990, estimated a population of
68,425 in the year 2000, and 81,408 by the year 2014. The 2000 growth projection has
not been realized. The population in Bremerton has been relatively stable over the
past 10 years. Table 3-1 compares 1990 and 2000 census data within Bremerton city
limits. The data shows a small drop in population, and an increase in dwelling units,
resulting in a net decrease in the number of people living in each household.
Table 3-1
Census Data for Bremerton City Limits
No. of Occupied Dwelling No. of People per Occupied
Units Household
15,693 2.43
15,096 2.30
Year
1990
2000
No. of People
38,142
37,259
3-1
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\1"ex\\Section 3.doc
CONI
Section 3
Wastewater System Planning Information
3.2.1 Current Population Estimate for Bremerton Service Area
The City of Bremerton's service area extends beyond the boundary of Bremerton city
limits. The 1995Wastewater Comprehensive Plan estimated the number of the single
family, duplexes, and multifamily dwelling units in each basin by using zoning maps
and aerial photographs. From this information and assuming 2.30 persons living in
each dwelling unit per the 2000 census results, a total population of 44,330 was
determined to be living in the overall service area, including KCSD No.1 and Navy
housing complexes. Removing the population served by septic tanks, the population
served by the City was finally estimated to be 36,120.
3.2.2 Future Population Estimate for Bremerton Service Area
Population estimates were developed in the 1998 City of Bremerton Comprehensive
Plan (BCP) using 1990 census data. Estimates in this report are derived from
assumptions made in the BCP with updates from 2000 census data.
The BCP developed population forecasts derived from anticipated growth rates
developed by the State Office of Financial Management (OFM) and the Puget Sound
Regional Council (PSRC). The OFM population forecast assigns a Low, Intermediate,
or High forecast to Kitsap County. The PSRC forecast is similar to the OFM
Intermediate forecast, which assigns a growth rate of approximately 1.0 percent per
year.
Gorst is an unincorporated area of Kitsap County, located between Port Orchard and
Bremerton at the intersection of State Route 3 and State Route 16. This area
(approximately 500 acres) contains commercial and residential entities that are served
by Bremerton water, but are on septic systems and under the jurisdiction of Kitsap
County Public Works and Utilities.
Historical studies by the Kitsap County Health Department have concluded there are
numerous septic systems that have failed, resulting in partially or untreated
wastewater entering surface and ground water within the area. Therefore, Kitsap
County Public Works has commissioned several studies to determine the feasibility of
providing sanitary sewer service to this area. Sewer service to Gorst can be provided
by Port Orchard or by Bremerton. Kitsap County has not yet determined the fate of
sewer service to the Gorst area at this time due to funding issues. As a result, plans to
provide sewer service to Garst are undefined at this juncture, and have not been
included as part of this planning document.
A planned development at Port Blakely is another area of future increased sewer
flows, potentially to be serviced by the City. The Port Blakely development,located
on the west side of Kitsap Lake in the Kitsap Lake Basin, is in planning stages to begin
building in 18 months to 2 years. The current plan is to construct the development in
several stages and progressively amend the conveyance and sewer system. In 2003,
CDM conducted a desk-top study to estimate discharge flows from build-out in
phases. Study results are included in the Port Blakely Sanitary Sewer Evaluation
Project Summary Letter in Appendix C. Phase I would include Yz build-out for both
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 3.doc
3-2
CONI
Section 3
Wastewater System Planning Information
residential and commercial properties (450 single family residences and 1,250,000 ft2
of commercial space) on 100 acres. Discussions with the City indicate that it may be
possible to accommodate flows from Phase I development within the existing City
wastewater infrastructure, although actual flow measurements and modeling studies
would be required for confirmation and determination of actual infrastructure
requirements. Study results (centered on four separate cases; see Section 4) indicate
that estimated average and peak instantaneous flows from Phase I implementation
range from 105.6 gpm to 131.1 gpm and 309.6 gpm to 424.9 gpm. Full build-out
would involve 1,000 single-family residences and 2,350,000 ft2 of commercial space on
300 acres, more than doubling average flows from Phase 1. Estimated average and
peak instantaneous flows at full build-out ranged from 222.3 gpm to 306.6 gpm and
678.1 gpm to 897.5 gpm.
Port Blakely accomplishments to date include:
· Development of a sub-area plan by Port Blakely development staff
· Annexation into the City, including a development agreement and zoning
· Three-party agreement between the County, City, and Port Blakely
Items that must still be completed include a Master Plan and an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for the development. Ordinance No. 4890 was recently signed
by the City approving an amendment to the Initial Development Agreement with
Port Blakely relating to the submission of the Master Plan and EIS. In addition, an EIS
may be required for access routes to the development.
The population forecast for the City of Bremerton sewer service is summarized in
Table 3-2.
Table 3-2
Population Estimates for Bremerton Service Area
I Year2004 Year 2010 Year 2014 Year 2024
City Limit 37,260 39,552 41,158 45,464
Incorporated Port Blakely 0 2,230 2,230 2,230
Outside Limits I 7,070 7,505 7,810 8,627
Total Population I 44,330 49,287 51,198 56,321
Population wi Septic Tanks
8,210
6,900
6,000
4000
Total Sewered Population
36,120
42,387
45,198
52,321
3.3 Flow Proj ections
Sewage flows are comprised of several different components as discussed below:
· Sanitary - Contribution to sewage flow from residential and commercial areas
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 3.doc
3-3
CONI
Section 3
Wastewater System Planning Information
· Infiltration - Composed of groundwater entering the sewer system through
fractured or defective pipes, leaking joints, manholes, and other areas
· Inflow - Composed of stormwater runoff that enters through direct connections
from roof, street and other locations
· Contract Flows - The u.s. Navy and KCSD. No.1 is permitted to discharge
wastewater into the City's at conveyance and treatment system
· Rainfall- Induced infiltration that occurs after a rainfall event as water soaks into
the ground and into sources of infiltration
Each of these components contributes to existing and future sewage flows to the
collection system and the treatment plant. Existing flows are used to determine how '
much growth may be accommodated before the capacities of existing facilities are
reached. Projected flows are used to determine the improvements required for
intermediate and longer-term development.
3.4 Collection System Flow Proj ection
The collection system within the Bremerton service area consists of sanitary sewers
and combined sewers (sanitary and storm sewers). The existing collection system is
approximately 40 percent combined, resulting in a significant contribution of inflow
to total sewage flow during storm events. Those areas served by combined sewers
have been modeled extensively, resulting in specific recommendations to reduce CSO
as described in the Bremerton's CSO Reduction Plan dated October 2000.
Bremerton is implementing this plan and has reduced combined sewers from 60
percent of the total system in 1995 to approximately 40 percent in 2004. Most inflow is
from residential sources, including foundation drains and sump pumps. Infiltration
comes from multiple sources. Combined sewer reduction efforts will continue and
Bremerton is in the process of separating all reasonable flow; however, for this report,
40 percent combined sewers is assumed.
3.5 Wastewater Treatment Plant Flow
The City operates two wastewater treatment plants. The Eastside Treatment Facility
was constructed to treat CSO flow as part of the CSO reduction plan. Projected peak
flow to this facility during a design storm event is 20 mgd, and is documented in the
2000 CSO Reduction Plan Update. The Eastside facility was completed in December
2001. Table 3-3 summarizes the plants operation data though February 2004.
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTE:.R JUNE 2005\Text\Section 3.doc
3-4
CDI\II
Section 3
Wastewater System Planning Information
Table 3-3
City of Bremerton Eastside Treatment
Facility Discharge Daa
Flow (mgd)
Total Peak
Flow Flow
(MG) (mgd)
0.93 6.74
0.82 7.79
1.66 6.04
3.12 6.06
Fecal
Coliform
Average
(mg/L)
Effluent
17
Date
1/2/03
1/2/03
1/25/03
3/12/03
3/13/03
3/14/03
3/22/03
3/22/03
10/20/03
11/18/03
11/18/03
11/19/03
12/5/03
12/5/03
1/7/04
1/29/04
2/19/04
10
46
0.11 2.71
1.29 6.75 30
42
4.71 14.90 78
6.29 8.81 47
18
20
0.45 3.35 23
10
1.00 2.75 10
0.03 3.79 55
0.13 3.76 10
This evaluation centers on the Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP).
Development of WWTP flow and waste-load estimates are discussed below.
3.5.1 Historical Flows and Loads
The City of Bremerton took over treatment facility operations from the Contract
Operators in December 1995. Since then, the City has implemented many CSO
reduction measures, resulting in an increase in volume of water pumped to the
treatment plant. In addition to minimizing CSO, the City changed the method of
influent sampling so that plant recycle streams no longer contaminate influent
samples. Historical records confirm a significant decrease in influent BODs and TSS
after 1996 as shown in Table 3-4. Hence, only data from 1997 to 2003 was used to
characterize influent wastewater in this report.
^~
3-5
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 3.doc
Section 3
Wastewater System Planning Information
Table 3-4
City of Bremerton WWTP
Historical Influent Flows and Loads
Floy' (mgd) Biochemical Oxygen Demand Total Suspended Solids
Average Max. Month Ave.age Max. Month
Process Ave. Max.
Parameter Day Month (Ibs.) (mg/L) (Ibs.) (mg/L) (Ibs.) (mg/L) (Ibs.) (mg/L)
Design 7.60 10.10 11 ,300 178 18,100 215 11 ,300 178 22,600 268
1996 6.39 9.85 10,274 206 20,523 318 15,038 282 53,415 857
1997 6.80 11.23 7,818 152 9,256 228 8,100 154 9,292 209
1998 6.61 12.22 7,405 150 8,517 184 8,128 165 9,506 234
1999 6.93 14.04 7,509 157 9,046 221 7,845 158 8,767 214
2000 5.15 7.92 7,268 178 7,733 215 7,148 172 8,262 191
2001 5.09 10.03 7,430 181 8,477 201 7,333 178 8,600 208
2002 5.04 8.56 7,275 186 8,181 226 7,230 185 8,009 238
2003 5.25 8.04 7,192 175 10,275 207 7,480 177 10,781 210
3.5.2 Seasonal Influence on Flows and Loads
High flows during winter months have made it necessary to characterize the waste
stream seasonally. Flows for the two permitted seasons are characterized as follows:
· Average Annual- The average loading condition taken over the whole year.
· Dry jSummer Season - This is the period between May 1 and September 30. The
main contribution during this period is from residential and commercial sanitary
sewage, as well as contract flows.
· Wet/Winter Season - This is the period between October 1 and April 30.
For each of these periods, the flow is further characterized into average daily and
maximum month parameters described below. This characterization allows plant
performance to be evaluated under various operating conditions. The flow
parameters correspond to typical plant design criteria.
iii Average Daily - Average of total daily influent flow for the given period
III Maximum Month - Highest monthly average of total daily influent flow occurring
during the stated period
CONI
3-6
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Sectlon 3.doc
COM
Section 3
Wastewater System Planning Information
3.5.3 Current WWTP Influent Flow
Historical data from 1999 through 2003 were analyzed to determine the average daily
and maximum month flows for the annual average and seasonal conditions. The
results are shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2. Flow components have been categorized
into the following:
.
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS), a large and measurable volume, which was
assumed to be relatively constant at 0.5 mgd; however, for all maximum month
projection, 1.0 mgd is assumed.
Infiltration/Domestic/Commercial, which is assumed to be the major component
of dry season flow. This is subject to population fluctuations.
.
Inflow is the major contributing component that accounts for the difference in dry and
wet season flows. This component is independent of population.
The peak flow for 2003 was 58.7 mgd.
70 -
60.-
1ii111999 [] 2000 02001 02002 1liI2003
58.7
50
C 40
CI
e
:c
If. 30
20
14.0
O.
Annual Average
Maximum Month
Maximum Day
Peak
Figure 3-1
Historic WWTP Flows (1999-2003)
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendmenl\7 PROJDOClDRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Secllon 3.doc
3-7
CDN1
Section 3
Wastewater System Planning Information
16.0.-
==::! Inflow 10.1 MGD
Ilii.lililifIlJ Domestic/Commercial/Infiltration 13.97 MGD /
14.0- _PSNS /
- Permitted Capacity for Max Month Flow
12.0 - /
-
10.0. ,- - - -
'6"
'" 8.92
.s. 8.0
..
0 6.46 MGD
;;: 5.68 MGD
6.0
5.05 MGD
1.32
2.0 -
0.0--
Annual Average
Max Month
Annual Average
Max Month
Annual Average
DRY SEASON
WET SEASON
Figure 3-2
Average WWTP Flow (1999-2003)
The plant effluent flow meter was designed to record a maximum flow rate of 32.5
mgd. Plant staff has observed flow rates as high as 58.7 mgd by reviewing
instantaneous flow readings from the two influent parshall flumes. These meter
readings have recently been incorporated into the plant's Supervisory Computer-
Aided Data Acquisition (SCADA) system.
3.5.4 Per-Capita Treatment Plant Flows and Peaking Factors
Per-capita flow to the treatment plant was calculated to assess whether existing plant
capacity is sufficient for future plant flows as determined by the 2024 development
population. This per-capita flow is only relevant to dry season flow, excluding PSNS
flow. Remaining Navy facilities and KCSD No.1 are considered part of the sewered
population. The per-capita flow was determined using the population of 36,119 for
year 2003 and the dry season flow rate of 3.54 mgd for 2003.
In addition to a per-capita flow rate, a peaking factor for dry season flow was
developed for the maximum month parameter by dividing the average annual flow
into the average maximum month flow. Again, the PSNS flows were excluded in this
analysis. Table 3-5 summarizes the results of both calculations.
Table 3-5
Residential, Commercial, and Infiltration Flow Characteristics
Dry Season
Per Capita Flow Rate = 3.54/36,120
Peaking Factor = 4.05/3.86
98.0 gal/capita/day
1.05
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendmen~7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 3.doc
3-8
Section 3
Wastewater System Planning Information
The result is within the characteristics of treatment plant flows for Northwest cities
located on the west side of the Cascades. Summer (dry) season per-capita flows
typically range from 80 to 130 gal! capital day.
3.5.5 Future WWTP Influent Flow Projections
The per-capita flow rate of 98.0 gal! capital day and the future population estimates
were used to determine the residential, commercial, and infiltration component for
the planning horizons of 6, 10, and 20 years in the future. The PSNS component was
assumed to be unchanged. Figure 3-3 compares existing and future dry season
annual average and maximum month flow rates.
6.0
iii Domestic/Commercial/Infiltration
IIiIPSNS
5.68 MGD
4.93 MGD
5.0
4.04 MGD
4.0 -
-.65 MGD
'D
Cl
S3.0 -
::
o
u:
0.0
Annual Average
~
Population:
36,120
Annual Average
6!W!
Population:
42,387
Annual Average
~
PopUlation:
45,198
Annual Average
~
Population:
52,321
Figure 3-3
Proj ected Dry Season Flows for WWTP
The inflow component of the wet season flow must be estimated to determine future
wet season flows for the WWTP.
The CSO Reduction Plan details recommended system improvements, which include
increasing the capacity of existing pump stations. One of the improvements
implemented was expanding the existing Callow Basin pump station WB-3 and
constructing a new pump station, Callow Basin pump station WB-6. This was
completed in 2003. The net increase in flow directed to the treatment plant from these
pump stations is 13.4 mgd as detailed in the amendment to the CSO Reduction Plan.
The CW-4 flow revision will increase the peak flow in 2005.
This increase in flow will impact peak hydraulic flow rates into the system, increasing
the existing peak flow by approximately 14 mgd. The anticipated range in peak flow
is 46 mgd to 58 mgd, depending on whether recorded or observed peak rates are
used.
CONI
3-9
P:IBremertonlComp PlanlAmendmentl7 PROJDOCIDRAFT AFTER JUNE 20051TextlSection 3.doc
Section 3
Wastewater System Planning Information
The additional capacity of the pump stations is assumed to have minimal impact on
maximum month and daily average flow rates because the increase in flow during a
storm event only occurs for a relatively short period. For projection purposes, the
inflow component is calculated from the maximum month from the last 5 years
(February 1999) with a maximum monthly flow of 13.97 mgd. Maximum monthly
flows exceeding the plant's capacity have not been experienced since that month, and
maximum monthly flows exceeding 85 percent plant capacity have only occurred in 5
months (non-consecutive) since then (see Figure 3-1). Figure 3-4 shows the projected
wet season flows.
20.0
18.0 -
c=:::J Inflow
__ Domestic/Commercialllnfiltratlon
_PSNS
- Permitted Capacity for Max Month Flow
- Actual Process Capacity"
14.1 MGD
10.1 MGD
16.0 -
14.61 MGD
15.64 MGD
9.26
9.26
9.26
9.26
13.97 MGD
14.0- -...- - - - - - --
12.0 -
:s
Cl
.s 100 -
:= .
o
ii:
--
8.0
1.64
_1.64
1.64
6.0 .
5.38
4.0
2.0
1.0
0.0 .
Annual Max Month
Average
~
PopUlation:
36,120
Annual Max Month
Average
Annual Max Month
Average
Annual Max Month
Average
2!!ll
Population:
42,387
2014
Population:
45,198
&QM
Population:
52,321
** _ Suggested permit limit for max month flow designated by the 2001 draft re-rating study.
Figure 3-4
Projected Wet Season Flows for WWTP
3.5.6 WWTP Influent BODs and TSS Characterization
The influent BODs per-capita load and peaking factors were determined using the
BODs data for the years of 1997 through 2003. The BODs loads for 1996 were not used
because they are abnormally high due to the effect of in-plant recycle streams in early
1996. The per-capita load is determined by dividing the population into the average
BODs mass load. The analysis provided an average annual per-capita BODs load of
0.2 lb I day. This is a typical value for treatment systems. This value typically ranges
from 0.18 to 0.22lb/capita/day in the Northwest area of the United States. The TSS
per-capita load is 0.2 lb I capital day on an average annual basis. This is also typical of
a municipal wastewater treatment plant (Reference - 2001 Draft Rerating Study).
CDIVI
3-10
P:IBremertonlComp P1an\Amendmenl\7 PROJDOClDRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005lText\Section 3.dao
CONI
Section 3
Wastewater System Planning Information
BODs peaking characteristics were also evaluated for the plant influent BODs mass
load for the years of 1997 through 2003. For each year, the average daily and
maximum month loads were identified. The peaking factor for each of these years
was then determined by dividing the respective BODs load by the average BODs load
for the year. These peaking factors were then averaged for the study period to
determine the characteristic peaking factor. The influent TSS per-capita loads and
peaking factors were determined using the same methodology that was used to
determine the BODs characteristics. The results of these analyses are shown in
Table 3-6.
Table 3-6
Influent BODs and TSS Characteristics
Pounds per capita Max. Month Peaking Factor
Period
Average Annual - Influent
BOD5
Average Annual - Influent
TSS
0.21
1.19
0.21
1.19
Taking the current per-capita loads and peaking factors and applying them to a
population of 38,000 determined the current wastewater characteristics. These loads
are shown in Table 3-7. These are the wastewater concentrations that will be used to
determine the existing capacity of the wastewater treatment plant. It is assumed that
BODs and TSS concentrations will be stable as flows increase due to population
growth.
Process
Parameter
Table 3-7
Influent Wastewater Loads 2
Biochemical O'\:ygen Demand Total Sus ended Solids
Average Max. Month Average Max. Month
(Ibs.) (mg/L) (Ibs.). (mg/L) (Ibs.) (mg/L) (Ibs.) (mg/L)
11,300 178 18,100 215 11,300 178 22,600 268
Design 1
Average
Annual
Dry
Season
Swet 7,466 145 8,424 190 8,009 150 8,915
eason
1 Reference: design sheet in original plant specifications developed by CH2M HILL
2 Based on a population of 38,000 and current per capita
7,414
169
170
9,031
215
8,784
212
7,609
7,362
7,210
8,172
211
189
193
8,185
211
194
3-11
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Sectiorl '3.doc
~l
1
']
;
']
Pl
-1
I
..1
-,
J
']
]
~J
.
Ion
..........
.'. ou'.....~
~ w
~ ~
1
J
'1
.J
....,
iJ
,]
1
J
I
,
.J
ClIVI
Section 4
Collection System Evaluation
This section describes necessary improvements to the sanitary sewer system.
4.1 Planning Criteria and Regulations
Planning criteria for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of gravity
and low-pressure sewers and manholes as well as sewage pump stations and force
mains are dictated in Section C1 and C2 of the DOE Criteria for Sewage Works
Design. The criteria stipulate requirements such as location and site selection, design
flow rates and hydraulics, odor control specifics, reliability factors, and special design
details for pump stations.
4.2 Capacity Requirements and Limitations
4.2.1 Combined Sewer Overflow Reduction
As discussed in Section 2.2.1, all but four of the Bremerton sewer basins are on a
combined sewer system. To address intermittent flows associated with combined
systems and comply with national level CSO control policy requirements, DOE
adopted WAC 173-245, which stipulates that CSO reduction plans be developed to
U control each CSO such that an average of one untreated discharge may occur per
year." To fulfill the requirements of WAC 173-245, the City updated the CSO
Reduction Plan for two basins with the following two documents: Anderson Cove
CSO Reduction Facility Plan (dated July 1999) and Pine Road Basin CSO Reduction
Facility Plan (dated May 2000). The City then developed an update for all of the
remaining basins in a document titled CSO Reduction Facility Plan Update, dated
October 2000. As the CSO reduction improvements were constructed, additional flow
data were evaluated to confirm the necessary improvements in the individual basins.
Basin-specific analysis and CSO Reduction Plan amendments have subsequently been
submitted to DOE for review/approval. These amendments to the CSO Reduction
Plan are as follows:
1. Amendment to Anderson Cove CSO Reduction Facility and CSO Reduction
Facility Plan Update, dated October 24, 2001. This amendment revised
proposed improvements in the Anderson Cove and Callow A venue Basins.
2. Amendment to 2000 CSO Reduction Plan Update, dated August 14,2003. This
amendment revised the proposed improvements in the Pacific A venue Basin.
3. CSO Reduction Facility Plan Update - Amendment to Tracy ton Beach Basin
Improvements, dated August 25, 2004.
4. Anderson Cove CSO System CSO Plan Amendment, dated September 20,
2004.
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Arnendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 4.doc
4-1
COM
Section 4
Collection System Evaluation
5. CSO Reduction Plan - 2005 Amendment, dated February 10, 2005.
The City produces a CSO report that is submitted to the Washington State
Department of Ecology on an annual basis; the most recent report was submitted on
January 31, 2005. Specific information regarding compliance of the various basins is
documented in the report. This report shows that the CSO reduction program has
been very successful in reducing total overflow volume and frequency, with a volume
reduction of 99.7% and frequency reduction of 97.2% for 2004.
For compliance with WAC 173-245, CSO reduction plans are required to be amended
every 5 years. Per 173-245-090(2), the amendment is required to be submitted at the
renewal of its NPDES permit. The most recent CSO Reduction Plan amendment is
dated February 10, 2005.
4.2.2 Odor Control
Combined systems have characteristics, such as high residence times during dry
weather, that can lead to odor production. The unsatisfactory odors produced by
wastewater are generally attributed to hydrogen sulfide, or H2S. The potential for H2S
production and release increases with higher BODs, temperature, and detention time,
and lower pH. When high-capacity combined systems have periods of low flow,
detention times increase, typically in the summer when temperatures are high.
Untreated wastewater conveyed to the plant is high in BODs, creating anoxic
conditions in which H2S is produced.
In February of 1993, "chemical injection in the Bremerton wastewater collection and
transmission system was identified as the highest priority activity to reduce odors at
the Bremerton WWTP" (Parametrix,1993). In October 1992, the sulfide level in the
incoming wastewater ranged between 9 and 12 mg/L, compared to the recommended
level of 1 mg/L for odor control (Parametrix, 1993). In 1993, the City was performing
chemical injection using 55-gallon drums of sodium hypochlorite and 150-lb cylinders
of gaseous chlorine. Usage rates were high, making the sources of chemicals costly
while failing to reduce sulfide to desired levels (Parametrix,1993). A system using
gaseous chlorine chemical injection from I-ton cylinders at three pump stations and
100-lb cylinders at three pump stations was recommended.
In 1996, the City modified the conveyance system odor control structures to reduce
sulfide levels in raw wastewater entering the plant. Six chemical injection facilities
built between 1990 and 1992 were taken offline. Their locations and types are shown
in Table 4-1. Table 4-2 shows the current seven odor control stations, five of which
were added in 1996. Odor Control Stations (OCS) 1 through 3 are packed tower
scrubbers that use sodium hypochlorite and caustic soda, while OCS-4 through 7 are
Granulated Activated Carbon (GAC) towers installed on the wet wells. OCS-l uses
500-gallon storage tanks of both sodium hypochlorite and caustic soda, while OCS-2
and OCS-3 both use 750-gallon storage tanks for each chemical. The tanks are refilled
approximately three times per year.
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJOOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 4.doc
4-2
CDM
Section 4
Collection System Evaluation
Table 4-1
Former Collection System Odor Control Facilities Taken Offline in 1995
Basin or Area Type of Chemical
Served Injection Pump Station Year Built
Oyster Bay Sodium Hypochlorite OB-1 1990
Oyster Bay Chlorine OB-6 1992
Kitsap Lake Sodium Hypochlorite KL-1 1992
East Bremerton Chlorine Former Manette WWTP 1992
West Central
Bremerton Sodium Hypochlorite CW-1 1990
PSNS Sodium HYPochlorite WB-3 1992
Table 4-2
Existing Collection System Odor Treatment
Station
Name
Location
Pump Station or Area
Type of Facility Served a Year Built
Packed tower scrubber
with sodium
hypochlorite and
caustic injection CE-1 1996
Packed tower scrubber Junction of CW-1 and
with sodium CE-1 at transition from
hypochlorite and pressure sewer to
caustic injection gravity sewer 1996
Packed tower scrubber Junction of CE-4, CE-6
with sodium at transition from
hypochlorite and pressure sewer to
caustic injection gravity sewer 1996
Carbon tower scrubber CW-1 1996
Carbon tower scrubber WB-3 1996
Carbon tower scrubber CE-4 1989
Carbon tower scrubber CE-6 1989
OCS~1
1740 Park Ave.
OCS-2
2100 12th S1.
OCS-3
200 High Ave.
OCS-4
2304 19th S1.
OCS-7
622 Burwell S1.
a The locations of these pump stations are shown in Figure 4-1.
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\ORAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 4.doc
4-3
OCS-5
416 S. Cambrian
OCS-6
100 2nd S1.
l-
-0
f
~
a>
"l-
f)
'I
'I>
ill
Ii)
t
it::
l<
~
'::>
2
l-
to
,)
Ll')
o
';......
.-
;-.J
~.......
I~
o
;1
.t
':Y>
tz
--;
2
0..
E
o
\)
>'"
h
::>
ill
v
....-
t-
.)
\j
)
--::
0..
>-
"'<
OJ
orcs
INLET
CHICO BA Y
~
ll:
"'<
:t
t.>
ll:
o
i-
ll:
o
ll..
PORT WASHINGTON
NARROWS INVERTED
SIPHONS
-
/
I
,
,
,
I
~EGEND~ I
~ PORT
OF-a... OVERFLOW STRUCT)JREBLAKELY I
I (EXPANSION AREA),
CW-1. PUMP STATION I I
- - - - MAJOR PIPELINE I I
, I
~ - BASIN BOUNDAR/( , ~
,
, ,
. ...... SERVICE AREA BOO'NDARY
V~SANITARY BASINS
<;)
'l-
~
-{-
C,
,}-I.
~
" ~
'l-
Cl
<(
~\\'-
c" ~
S \ \ tI" ~
WESTSIDE
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
PLANT
'/ / / / / /
1" = 3000'
P----~'~liIdili~j~IJI!I~I.iII~II!JJI!iIJ
1 500 0 3000
CITY OF BREMERTON
~
N
o
CONI
Figure 4-1
Map of Basins
Section 4
Collection System Evaluation
4.3 Improvement Alternatives
Improvements to the collection systems of the combined basins required for
combined sewer overflow reduction are discussed in detail in the CSO Reduction Plan
and plan amendments. The CSO reduction improvements generally utilize all system
capacity. Hydraulic improvements for the sewer basins include upgrades to existing
pump stations, new pump stations, sewer extensions, and improvements to existing
sewers, including reduction of inflow and infiltration. Tables 4-3 through 4-17
provide general overall information on each basin as well as facility descriptions,
recommended improvements, and cost information. A short summary of every
existing pump station is included whether or not facility improvements are
recommended at this time.
Table 4-3
Anderson Cove Basin
Descriptive Information
Size:
Percent Developed:
Zoning:
Type of Sewer System:
370 Acres
90%
Residential and Business Park
Combined
There are four pump stations (CW-1 through CW-4) along the collection system. A capacity upgrade was constructed for
CW-2 in 1999, and a capacity upgrade for CW-1 is scheduled in 2005 (the capacity for CW-1 presented below assumes the
upgrade is complete.) Both of these upgrades are for CSO reduction.
A downstream level control valve was installed on the beach main that conveys flow from Basins 10, 11, and 12 to CW-1.
The valve is a motor-operated gate valve located upstream of the CW-1 wet well. The gate valve actuates upon CW-1 wet
well level. This valve causes a surcharge in the beach main to allow the collection system to be used as storage during
peak storm events.
A force main was installed from CW-4 to 13th Street in anticipation of a future pump station upgrade. The pipe is 8-inch
ductile iron, and is capped at both ends. There is currently no plan to upgrade CW-1; therefore, this pipe may be used for
other purposes.
Pump Station
Capacity (gpm)
Flow (gpm)
CW-1
CW-2
CW-3
CW-4
Not available
Not available
3,500
1,600
50
500
Not available
Not available
C2IVI
4-5
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\OR'AFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 4.doc
Section 4
Collection System Eva/uation
Table 4-3
Anderson Cove Basin (cont.)
Facilities and Recommended Improvements/Additions
Existing Pump Stations:
CW-1 Type: Custom, Wet Number of pumps: 3 Dry-Pit Submersible, all have VFDs
Well-Dry Well
Date built: 1984 Rating of pumps: 900 gpm at 175 ft, 75 hp (ea)
Projected peak Not available Area directly Not available
flow: tributary/percent
developed:
Notes: Walls show deterioration and damage. Currently unsewered and undeveloped areas zoned for Residential and
Industrial Park will cause flow increases if developed. Industrial Park is a gravel pit and is unlikely to be developed in the
near future. Development will require this pump station to be upgraded. The potential exists for KL-1 to be abandoned, and
the flow redirected to Harlow (see the Sinclair Park Basin discussion for details).
Improvements since 1998: Pump controls were upgraded in 2005.
Recommended improvements/additions: CW-1 is scheduled for capacity upgrades in 2006.
CW-2
Type:
Custom, Wet Well wi
Forebay
1949
Not available
Number of pumps:
Rating of pumps:
Area directly
tributary/percent
developed:
3 Submersible, all have VFDs
Date built:
Projected peak
flow:
800 gpm at 175 ft, 75 hp (ea)
Not available
Notes: The force main from CW-2 includes a tee and valve at 19th Street. During dry weather conditions, the discharge
from CW-2 is directed to the collection system on 19th Street and conveyed to CW-1. During periods of anticipated wet
weather, the valves at 19th Street are configured so that the discharge from CW-2 is directed to 13th Street, where it flows
through the Callow Avenue Basin collection system, and eventually to WB-3.
Improvements since 1998: Pump controls were upgraded in 1999.
CEllI
4-6
P:\BremertOl'l\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJOOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 4,dac
Table 4-3
Anderson Cove Basin (cont.)
Section 4
Collection System Eva/uation
Facilities and Recommended Improvements/Additions
CW-3
Type:
Smith & Loveless
Number of pumps:
Date built:
1970s
Rating of pumps:
Area directly
tributary/percent
developed:
I
;
I
I
Projected peak flow:
Not available
2 Submersible
Grinder
50 gpm at 40 ft, each
Not available
Notes: This station was upgraded in 2002 with the addition of two submersible grinder pumps. The electrical and
control panel was also upgraded and is now equipped with a transfer switch and a receptacle for portable standby
power.
CW-4
Type:
Custom
Number of
pumps:
2 Submersible
Area directly
tributary/percent
developed:
Notes: The pump station discharges to a beach force main that discharges at OF-11 at the north end of High
Avenue. An 8-inch force main was installed from CW-4 to 13th Street in 1999 assuming that the pump station
discharge would be revised as follow-on CSO reduction work. The upgrade to CW-4 was eliminated from the CSO
reduction scope, and the force main is a dry line.
Date built:
Upgrade in 1984
Rating of pumps:
Projected peak flow:
Not available
Improvements since 1998: None.
1 pump at 250 gpm at
45 ft, 1 pump at 450
gpm at 45 ft
Not available
Recommended Improvements/Additions: Install a check valve vault and flowmeter (cost = $50,000). Install a
transfer switch and receptacle to provide for a portable standby generator (cost = $10,000).
IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING SEWERS AND/OR NEW SEWER EXTENSIONS:
Reduce Infiltration: Infiltration to the combined system is known to be high in the
Anderson Cove Basin, particularly in Basins No.8 and 9. The CSO reduction
improvements constructed increased the conveyance capacity out of the Anderson
Cove Basin; however, the high levels of infiltration have not been addressed. The net
effect of the increased conveyance was to increase flows up to the system capacity.
Reduction of infiltration is required to allow for growth, reduce pumping and
treatment costs, and provide a "buffer," or "safety factor," that will ensure continued
compliance with CSO regulations. Inflow and Infiltration reduction as an ongoing
project is outlined in detail in Section 7.
caw
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\A!ne\'\dme\1t\7 PROJOOC\DRAFr AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 4.dac
4-7
t
I
I
I
I
I
Jt-1--
LEGEND-SANITARY
(
.._._.~
-,
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
.
,
\
r - (
. \
I
IIlo
-
\
~
v
~
l:
r---
W
::::l
<=
W
s~
CD
-0
>-
<=
en
lOF-11 CW-4 t OF-12
~
~J~ T~
~ I
ANEDERSON COVL BASIN !I~ I
I () I
" ,
.L ,
.~ \
" ,.
-1---_'
I
OF 9
- ,- ...."',!" l
1.J... L,
! I
.1 I
'_'_ I
I
I
I
I r'"
, I ~
~..! :;'-r~-
I I
~ I
r I
.
L-+~
I
I
I
I
-
f
21
.--./
Wi
"Ej>
(() '-
~
_.._.0)
::;>
<=
<P
>
--""
.s:;;
0>
:E
FM -
r ~
-as
>
ro
:z
~
13th Street
.1'
....-. --.
t'" "''''L .- '
- - -r U!!-_ !I!!!!!I"
lJr-----.
------__. I
-~ .-____1
,- '----I
-- --;; ...;r----
"1IIl I .,
----r+-;
I I .
...,.J.
WASTEWATER COMPREHENSWE PLAN
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
_______ BASIN BOUNDARY
- . - CITY LIMITS
EXISTING GRAVITY SEWER
- - - FM - - - EXISTING FORCE MAIN
- - - - - - - EXISTING GRAVITY.PRESSURE SEWER
_ EXISTING CSO OUTFALL
DEB-) EXISTING PUMP STATION & ND.
o EXISTING CSO REGULATOR
DEB-) EXISTING PUMP STATION TO WHICH
" MODIFICATIONS ARE PROPOSED & NO.
'"" PIPE SIZE
.. PROPOSED PUMP STATION
.. .. .. FM" .... PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
. .. .. .. .. ... PROPOSED SEWER REPLACEMENT
. .. .. .. .. ... PROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER
'i1 EXISTING FLOW DIVERSION
I
;
~
~~
,
.I
SCALE 1" = 1000'
FIGURE 4-2
ANDERSON COVE BASIN
Section 4
Collection System Evaluation
Table 4-4
Callow Avenue Basin
r
Descriptive Information
I Size:
Percent Developed:
Zoning:
Type of Sewer System:
625 Acres
95%
Residential and Commercial
Combined
This basin receives flow from the Phinney Bay Basin continuously, and also from the Anderson Cove Basin (CW-2) during wet
weather. There are six pump stations (WB-1 through WB-6) along the collection system. WB-1 and 2 are part of the KCSD
NO.1 system and are not included in this plan. WB-5 also is not addressed in this plan. In 2003, the City constructed WB-6,
and at the same time upgraded WB-3. WB-6 is a true CSO pump station in that it operates only upon surcharge in the
collection system during peak flows. The WB-3 upgrade was required to address the increased discharge head due to the
added surcharge in the Crosstown Pipeline from WB-6, and to maximize flow out of the basin.
Pump Station
WB-3
WB-4
WB-6
Capacity (gpm)
I 0,000
Not available
7,500
Flow (gpm)
Not available
Not available
Not available
Facilities and Recommended 1m rovements/Additions
Existing Pump Stations:
WB-3
Type:
Custom, Wet
Well-Dry Well
Number of pumps:
5 Dry-Pit Submersible,
all have VFDs
Date built:
1984
Rating of pumps:
2 @ 840 gpm at 55 feet each
3 @ 5,300 gpm at 110 feet
each
Area directly
tributary/percent
developed:
Improvements since 1998: Pump controls were upgraded in 2003.
Projected peak
flow:
Not available
Not available
Recommended improvements/additions: None.
WB-4
Type:
Package
Number of pumps:
2
Date built:
1971
Rating of pumps:
100 gpm at 42 ft (ea)
Projected peak
flow:
Not available
Approx. 16 houses
Area directly
tributary/percent
developed:
There is no transfer switch installed for this pump station. During power outages, flows are contained using vactor
Notes:
trucks.
Recommended improvements/additions: None.
4-9
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PRQJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2Q05\Text\Section 4.doc
Section 4
Collection System Evaluation
Table 4-4
Callow Avenue Basin (cont.)
Facilities and Recommended Improvements/Additions
WB-6
Type: Custom Number of pumps: 3 Submersible
Date built: 1994 Rating of pumps: 3,750 gpm at 130
ft, 200 hp (ea)
Projected peak Not available Area directly Not available
flow: tributary/percent
developed:
Notes: WB-6 operates as a true CSO pump station; flow enters WB-6 upon surcharge of the collector sewers in Callow
Avenue. Operation of WB-6 is initiated by closing the sluice gate at WB-3 and thereby surcharging flow back to WB-6. This
operation should not be conducted other than during dry weather since the surcharge at WB-3 increases significantly as the
HGL raises to drive flow to WB-6. PSNS personnel need to be notified when the influent sewers are surcharged because their
influent capacity is reduced due to the elevated HGL.
Recommended improvements/additions: None.
IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING SEWERS AND/OR NEW SEWER EXTENSIONS:
Reduce Infiltration: The CSO reduction improvements constructed increased the
conveyance capacity out of the Callow Avenue Basin. The net effect of the increased
conveyance was to increase flows up to the system capacity. Reduction of infiltration
is required to allow for growth, reduce pumping and treatment costs, and provide a
"buffer," or "safety factor," that will ensure continued compliance with CSO
regulations. Inflow and infiltration reduction as an ongoing project is outlined in
detail in Section 7.
Collection System Evaluation and Repair: During construction of the WB-3
upgrade, severely deteriorated sewers were identified influent to the old WB-3 wet
well. During construction of the SR 304 improvements, cracked and bellied sewers
were uncovered along Cambrian Avenue. These sewers were replaced as a part of the
projects; however, their discovery highlights a larger problem with the condition of
the existing collection system. The City currently has no systematic program for
evaluating its collection system and identifying failing sewers. Due the age of the
collector sewers in the Callow Avenue Basin, it is anticipated that a thorough
evaluation would identify several spot repairs and entire sewer rehabilitation or
replacement projects. A recommended program for collection system evaluation and
repair is outlined in detail in Section 7. Specific improvements to existing sewers in
the Callow A venue Basin are summarized below.
Cambrian Ave Sewer Rehabilitation: Determine the extent of the degraded
sanitary sewer main and cure-in-place line as necessary.
Parallel Crosstown Pipeline: The existing gravity-pressure portion of the
Crosstown Pipeline has no redundancy and no isolation valves. A parallel
mil
4-10
P:\Bremerton\Comp Ptan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 4.doc
Section 4
Collection System Evaluation
main should be constructed to provide redundancy and allow maintenance on
this critical facility.
" -!
l
"
l
Crosstown Pipeline Ventilation and Odor Control: The Crosstown Pipeline
was constructed with air-vacuum/ release stations located at the intersection of
9th Street and Rainier Avenue (STA 113+25,) and at the intersection of 10th
Street and Naval Avenue (STA 129+20.) The pipe flows as an open channel
during low flow periods at these locations, and the air vacuum valves tend to
"breath" during cycling of CE-l and CW-l. The regular release of odorous air
has generated complaints. Operations staff have isolated these valves;
however, in doing so, the protection afforded by the valves has been
eliminated. The Crosstown Pipeline ventilation should be reviewed, and the
stations either permanently isolated or re-established with the odor issues
addressed.
Central Bremerton Force Main: The Central Bremerton force main was
constructed with air release or air vacuum/release (A V / AR) stations located
at several locations along its length. There are no odor issues associated with
these stations; however, there is a potential problem associated with the
original construction. The A V / AR stations installed for the Crosstown
Pipeline had galvanized iron nipples installed between the main and the
isolation valve that corroded over time, and failed in place. All of the nipples
on the Crosstown Pipeline have been replaced. It is believed that the
configuration of the A V / AR valves for the Central Bremerton force main are
of similar construction. The City should investigate to confirm that galvanized
nipples were installed at these locations, and replace them.
ClIVI
4-11
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amef\dmern.\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Sect'lon 4.doc
+- - ~]--;
1s~eet _ J..__ -=~C_-=.~-:::
f..... .....Iloo__ -
. lii-
I
(I):;;
::Jc:::
c:~
Q)~
- --~=T
- an
' ..2 ~
8i
NB-6 '
1.---= (r-
(1'1 ;piB-;j.. r
1,1'
--I I
I
I
I
,
. I
r
r-'
J
CW-1
"f-..l, T70-9
. I I
.J I
-- I
14- I -
I [L I
-Ll_' ...-_----: l~_.
-T--- ..L I i .~
~ I .-
r 1
I
L
I
i
r
=-r
----,- -
l~
----.. --
I C.
- - -,..
,. ....-
...J..._'
J.L-
6th ":tree! L I . . _
\
CALL07J 8
I
1-
--'.... . I
" . \ \lS.4- =_
~
J\
LEGEND-SANITARY
WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
__B. BASIN BOUNDARY
.-- - CITY LIMITS
-. EXISTING GRAVITY SEWER
- - .::: :: ~~i~i:~g ~~~~~ESSURE SEWER
. - EXISTING CSO OUTFALL
- EXISTING PUMP STATION & NO.
D EB-7 EXISTING CSO REGULATOR
o EXISTING PUMP STATION TO WHICH
D EB-7 MODIFICATIONS ARE PROPOSED & NO.
w " " PIPE SIZE AND PIPE CHANGE
III PROPOSED PUMP STATION
PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
. · . f.. .. PROPOSED SEWER REPLACEMENT
. · . . . .. PROPOSED GRAViTY SEWER
EXISTING FLOW DIVERSION
'V SEWER PROJECT NO.
(1) ABANDON EX. SEWER/PUMP STATION
-I-I-I-I-I-H
~I
SCALE 1" = 1200'
.. ,
T
--I
t
~
"
OF-17
"
"
.~I\ t:.'I
FIGURE 4-3
CALLOW A VENUE BASIN
Section 4
Collection System Evaluation
Table 4-5
Cherry Avenue Basin
Descriptive Information
Size:
Percent Developed:
Zoning:
Type of Sewer System:
175 Acres
100%
Residential with some Commercial
Combined
The sewers in Cherry Avenue from Ash Street to Cherry Place become overloaded during large storms, resulting in flooding of
commercial businesses. Backwater valves have been installed at the right-of-way for businesses on Cherry Avenue in this
vicinity. The main is additionally known to have root intrusion, which further reduces system capacity. It is recommended that
this root intrusion be evaluated as part of the proposed collection system evaluation program to identify how extensive the
problem is, and how it would be best addressed.
IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING SEWERS AND/OR NEW SEWER EXTENSIONS:
Reduce Infiltration: The constructed CSO reduction improvements increased the
conveyance capacity from East Bremerton. The net effect of the increased conveyance
was to increase flows up to system capacity. Reduction of infiltration is required to
allow for growth, reduce pumping and treatment costs, and provide a "buffer," or
"safety factor," that will ensure continued compliance with CSO regulations. Inflow
and infiltration reduction as an ongoing project is outlined in detail in Section 7.
Collection System Evaluation and Repair: This basin has known areas of root
damage to the sewers. The City currently has no systematic program for evaluating
its collection system and identifying failing sewers. It is anticipated that a thorough
evaluation of the collection system would identify several spot repairs and entire
sewer rehabilitation or replacement projects. A recommended program for collection
system evaluation and repair is outlined in detail in Section 7. Specific improvements
to existing sewers in the Cherry Avenue Basin are summarized below.
Improvements on Cherry Street to Lower Wheaton Way: Replace
approximately 1,500 If of existing lO-inch sanitary sewer main on Cherry
A venue from Ash Street to Cherry Place. Determine the required main size
during pre-design.
Trenton & Cherry Avenue Basins CSO Reduction: Replace the 12-inch pipe
connection from the manhole at the top of the bluff to the Beach main with 18-
inch pipe. Additionally, the piping from the Cherry Basin Beach main
connection to the 16-inch inverted siphon is constricted and restricts flow to
the Eastside Treatment Plant. The piping should be replaced with 24-inch
pipe, and isolation valves and cleaning stations should be incorporated into
the design to allow cleaning of the inverted siphons.
CDM
4-13
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 4.doc
L
JJ
1
'--
----
-'
D
VG70,v
~
.
F-1r~-"".
I
I
.
.
.
.
.
\
1 ,l r-~
"''''(2
,"j"
I /~
:tX~
I/r--&,
II" '1>0
~
...
'\
\ OF-4
--~~
SCALE 1" = 1000'
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
.
I
.
.
I -
I
.
I
I ._
.---1----~
. .
f . ·
. I
I
-..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
.
.
I
rL
;~,
~ 1.._-.
r-.J
I ._.
L_..I .
.
.
I
,.....-..-. II
L
,
\
--
'v
LEGEND-SAN IT ARY
WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
_______ BASIN BOUNDARY
- . - CITY LIMITS
EXISTING GRAVITY SEWER
- - - FM - - - EXISTING FORCE MAIN
. - - - - -. EXISTING GRAVITY-PRESSURE SEWER
__ EXISTING CSO OUTFALL
r:J E8-1 EXISTING PUMP STATION & NO.
o EXISTING CSO REGULATOR
r:J EB-7 EXISTING PUMP STATION TO WHICH
'" ;' " MODIFICATIONS ARE PROPOSED & NO.
.. PIPE SIZE AND PIPE CHANGE
... PROPOSED PUMP STATION
. . . FM. .. PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
. . . . . .. PROPOSED SEWER REPLACEMENT
PROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER
"il EXISTING FLOW DNERSION
(1) SEWER PROJECT NO.
-t-t-t-t-t-H ABANDON EX. SEWERiPUMP STATION
FIGURE 4-4
CHERRY A VENUE BASIN
Section 4
Collection System Evaluation
Table 4-6
East Park Basin
Descriptive Information
Size:
Percent Developed:
Zoning:
Type of Sewer System:
350 Acres
90%
Residential
Combined
The 1995 w.N Comprehensive Plan indicated that this basin was 90% developed. In the intervening years, the Navy's East
Park Housing was razed, and is currently awaiting redevelopment. The collection sewers within the East Park area are known
to have high rates of infiltration, and should not be reconnected to the sewer system without complete rehabilitation.
IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING SEWERS AND/OR NEW SEWER EXTENSIONS:
Reduce Infiltration: The CSO reduction improvements constructed increased the
conveyance capacity from East Bremerton. The net effect of the increased conveyance
was to increase flows up to the system capacity. Reduction of infiltration is required
to allow for growth, reduce pumping and treatment costs, and provide a "buffer," or
"safety factor," that will ensure continued compliance with CSO regulations. Inflow
and Infiltration reduction as an ongoing project is outlined in detail in Section 7.
Collection System Evaluation and Repair: The City currently has no systematic
program for evaluating its collection system, and identifying failing sewers. It is
anticipated that a thorough evaluation of the collection system would identify several
spot repairs and entire sewer rehabilitation or replacement projects. A recommended
program for collection system evaluation and repair is outlined in detail in Section 7.
Specific improvements to existing sewers in the East Park Basin are summarized
below.
Improvements between Schley and Fir Street: This line has extensive root
intrusion, and also has a "belly."
Improvement on Homer Jones from the YMCA to the Parking Lot to the South:
This line has significant root intrusion.
mil
4-15
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 4.doc
I
I
I
1_--.
,.-..J
I ._.
L_... .
.
I
-I
I
I
.
I
,.,.)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
, --~
\.- I
OF-4 . I .....1
--~ ~~_ I
---.__..._------~-......_~---
~ \:- ~
,-
'\
I
I
I
I
...I-
I
I
I
I
.
.
.
r
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I . _ ._
I---i----f
I
f . I
~
\ r /
~
,~
L
~i
~i
../
J
(2) EAST PARK BASI
j::)
'0
%
'--.--
)
--
SCALE 1" = 1000'
I
I
I
I
-:1; <<~I=Ib-:=,:!;~~!~,~~~,~=t!'Jt.==
--
\
:L
"-- -
, /
--l ~
LEGEND-SANITARY
WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
------- BASIN BOUNDARY
- . - CITY LIMITS
EXISTING.GRAVITY SEWER
- - - FM - - - EXISTING FORCE MAIN
. - - - - -. EXISTING GRAVITY.PRESSURE SEWER
EXISTlNG.CSO OUTFALL
EXISTING PUMP STATION & NO.
EXISTING CSO REGULATOR
EXISTING PUMP STATION TO WHICH
MODIFICATIONS ARE PROPOSED & NO.
PIPE SIZE AND PIPE CHANGE
PROPOSED PUMP STATION
. . . FM. .. PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
. . . . . .. PROPOSED SEWER REPLACEMENT
PROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER
'V EXISTING FLOW DIVERSION
(1) SEWER PROJECT NO.
-I-I-I-H-H ABANDON EX. SEWERlPUMP STATION
--
DEB.'
o
I!I ,a.,
12
18112
.
FIGURE 4-5
EAST PARK BASIN
Section 4
Collection System Eva/uation
Table 4-7
Kitsap Lake Basin
Descriptive Information
Size:
Percent Developed:
Zoning:
Type of Sewer System:
770 Acres
40%
Rural, Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Park
Separate
Kitsap Lake Basin is a 770-acre basin with a separate sanitary collection system. The basin is 40% developed; however, a
development at Port Blakely, located on the west side of Kitsap Lake in the Kitsap Lake Basin, may be constructed in phases.
. The current plan is to construct the development in several stages and progressively amend the conveyance and sewer
system. Phase I would include % build-out for both residential and commercial properties on 100 acres. Infrastructure
improvements including pump stations and gravity and pressure mains will be required for any significant development.
Kitsap Lake Basin currently has four pump stations (KL-1, KL-2, KL-3, and KL-4) along the collection system. Current flows
are within the capacity of the current sewer, although KL-1 discharges to overloaded sewers in the Sinclair Park Basin.
Pump Station
KL-1
KL-2
KL-3
KL-4
Capacity (gpm)
520
500
500
450
Flow (gpm)
360
340
300
50
Facilities and Recommended Improvements/Additions
Existing Pump Stations:
KL-1 Type:
Custom
Number of pumps:
2
Date built:
1970s
Rating of pumps:
520 gpm at 88 feet TDH
Area directly
tributary/percent
developed:
Notes: Wet and dry wells are belowground, and motor room is aboveground. Wet well accessible by motor room building.
Separate building houses engine generator. Wet well walls show deterioration and damage. Currently unsewered and
undeveloped areas zoned for Residential and Industrial Park will cause flow increases if developed. Industrial Park zoned
area is a gravel pit and unlikely to be developed in the near future. Development will require this pump station to be upgraded.
The potential exists for KL-1 to be abandoned and the flow redirected to Harlow (see the Sinclair Park Basin discussion for
details).
Projected peak flow:
1> 770 gpm, including
discharge from KL-2
75 acres/20% developed
and sewered
Improvements since 1998: Pump controls were upgraded in 2001.
Recommended improvements/additions: The potential exists for KL-1 to be abandoned and the flow redirected to Harlow
(see the Sinclair Park Basin discussion for details).
CDII
4-17
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJOOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE. 20D5\T9xt\$eclion 4.00c
Section 4
Collection System Evaluation
Table 4.7
Kitsap Lake Basin (cont.)
KL-2
Facilities and Recommended Improvements/Additions
Type: Custom Number of pumps:
Date built:
1970s
Rating of pumps:
2
500 gpm at 148 feet TDH
Area directly
tributary/percent
developed:
Notes: Wet and dry wells are belowground, and motor room is aboveground. Wet well accessible by motor room building.
Separate building houses engine generator. Future development will likely occur in Residential zones by Kitsap lake and
Industrial Park zoning in the southeast area. Approximately 6% of the basin (Rural) will likely never be sewered.
Development will require this pump station to be upgraded.
Projected peak
flow:
1,570 gpm, including
discharge from Kl-3
380 acres/10% developed
Improvements since 1998: Pump controls were upgraded in 2001.
Recommended improvements/additions: Development will require this pump station to be upgraded.
KL-3 Type: Custom Number of pumps: 2
Date built: 1970s Rating of pumps: 500 gpm at 14 feet TDH
Projected peak 660 gpm, including Area directly 135 acres/85% developed,
flow: discharge from Kl-4 tributary/percent 70% sewered
developed:
Notes: Wet and dry wells are belowground. Motor and engine generator room is aboveground. Wet well can be accessed
by motor room building. Walls of wet well show deterioration and damage. Existing collection system can be altered to serve
newly developed and sewered areas.
Improvements since 1998: Pump controls were upgraded in 2001; the pumps are new as of 2002 (dry-pit submersible).
Recommended improvements/additions: None.
KL-4 Type: Custom Number of pumps: 2
Date built: 1970s Rating of pumps: 450 gpm at 16 feet TDH
Projected peak 280 gpm Area directly 180 acres/80% developed,
flow: tributary/percent 16% sewered
developed:
Notes: Wet and dry wells are belowground. Motor and engine generator room is aboveground. Wet well can be accessed
by motor room building. Walls of wet well show deterioration and damage. The currently unsewered area is Residential and
75% developed.
Improvements since 1998: Pump controls were upgraded in 2001; one ofthe two pumps is new as of 2003 (dry-pit
submersible) and the other is scheduled for replacement in 2005.
Recommended improvements/additions: None.
a:at
4-18
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amen.dment\7 PROJDOC\ORAFT AFTER JUNE 2005,iext\Sect\on 4.tlo(;
Section 4
Collection System Evaluation
Table 4-7
Kitsap Lake Basin (cont.)
1
!
Facilities and Recommended Improvements/Additions
New Pump Stations:
Chico Way Pump Station (KL-5) and Force Main: Construct a 120-gpm submersible pump station and approximately 2,000
If of 4-inch force main. Cost = $350,000.
IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING SEWERS AND/OR SEWER EXTENSIONS:
Kitsap Lake Main Replacement: The existing sanitary sewer is located in the
lake from KL-4 to KL-2. The main is not accessible for maintenance. The main
is gravity north of KL-4; this portion is deteriorated. From KL-4 to KL-2 it is
gravity-pressure - residences flow by gravity to the main, which KL-4 and KL-
3 pump into. Backwater valves have been installed on residences to avoid
flooding. Extreme high lake levels exceed the manhole rimelevationsi
therefore, high infiltration/ inflow is experienced.
Chico Way Trunk Sewer: Construct 1,700 If of 8-inch sewer from the Chico
Way Forcemain discharge. Cost = $250,000.
aIVI
4-19
P:\8remerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\TeJd\Sectiot\ 4.doc
/.
~
~~ I
- .J
I
.. -
~ f~
I
----.,
----
.
.
. (1)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
if
I .
I
Y
. I \
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I .
I
if
I .
I
II
I.
I
. ------_111-
KITSAP
LAKE
(
~
\
,
\
,
KITSAP LAKE BASIN "
KL-1 ~
I
)(
LEGEND-SANITARY
I
,
I
~
I
I
I
r
'\
"
\ L ~
117.~------~1l--------~
I .
I' -, ,
I ~
I .
1___- -, ,
WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
..______ BASIN BOUNDARY
- . - CnY LIMITS
EXISTING GRAVnY SEWER
- - - FM - - - EXISTING FORCE MAIN
. - - - - -. EXISTING GRAVnY-PRESSURE SEWER
__ EXISTING CSO OUTFALL
o EB.7 EXISTING PUMP STATION & NO.
D EXISTING CSD REGULATOR
o E'.7 EXISTING PUMP STATION TO WHICH
IZ MODIFICATIONS ARE PROPOSED & NO.
" I IZ PIPE SIZE AND PIPE CHANGE
11II PROPOSED PUMP STATION
_ . _FM. _ _ PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
. . . . . .. PROPOSED SEWER REPLACEMENT
PROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER
'\1 EXISTING FLOW DIVERSION
(1) SEWER PROJECT NO.
-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 ABANDDN EX. SEWERlPUMP STATION
.J
L,,-~
I
II
I
I
J
~,
"................._ftJ
.
I
I
I
I
.
SCALE 1" = 1500'
L- . ~
,
\
.
,
.,
FIGURE 4-6
KIT SAP LAKE BASIN
Section 4
Collection System Eva/uation
Table 4-8
Marine Drive Basin
Descriptive Information
Size:
Percent Developed:
Zoning:
Type of Sewer System:
210 Acres
80
Residential with some Commercial
Unsewered
It is recommended that sewage be pumped out of the basin to Pump Station OB-1 in the Oyster Bay Basin. The capacity of
the force main serving OB-1 can accommodate these flows, but the capacity of the pump station will need to be increased by
40%.
The 1995 WW Comprehensive Plan indicated that an alternative would be to pump the sewage to the Callow Avenue Basin.
This is no longer considered an alternative since the CSO events in the Callow Avenue Basin have been reduced for
compliance with 173-245 WAC.
Pump Station
MD-1
Capacity (gpm)
Not available
Flow (gpm)
Not available
Facilities and Recommended Improvements/Additions
Existing Pump Stations:
MD-1 Type:
Date built:
1994
Number of pumps:
Rating of pumps:
2
475 gpm at 136 ft (ea)
Custom
Projected peak
flow:
Not available
Area directly
tributary/percent
developed:
55 acres/30% developed
Notes: MD-1 was constructed by a developer to serve an area bounded by Kitsap Way on the south, Bertha Avenue on the
east, the extension of 1ih Street on the north, and Marine Drive, Lower Marine Drive, and Oyster Bay on the west. Sewage is
pumped through 1,090 If of 6-inch force main and discharges to a gravity sewer on Kitsap Way.
Improvements since 1998: None.
Recommended improvements/additions: None.
CDII
4-21
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 4.t1oc
Section 4
Collection System Eva/uation
Table 4-8
Marine Drive Basin (cont.)
Facilities and Recommended Improvements/Additions
New Pump Stations:
Madrona Place PS & FM: Construct a 50-gpm submersible pump station and 580 If of 4-inch-diameter force main. Cost =
$250,000.
Larrel Avenue PS & FM: Construct a 30-gpm submersible pump station and 340 If of 4-inch-diameter force main. Cost =
$250,000.
Marine Drive PS & FM: Construct a 120-gpm submersible pump station and 400 If of 4-inch-diameter force main. Cost =
$250,000.
Cedars Way PS & FM: Construct a 30-gpm submersible pump station and 560 If of 4-inch-diameter force main. Cost =
$250,000.
North Oyster Bay PS & FM: Construct a 30-gpm submersible pump station and 40 If of 4-inch-diameter force main. Cost =
$250,000.
Mud Bay PS & FM: Construct a 400-gpm submersible pump station and 4,480 If of 6-inch-diameter force main. Cost =
$1,500,000
Notes: To serve Madrona Point with a typical gravity collection system, six pump stations are required, as summarized
above. Before development occurs, the potential for an alternative collection system, such as a vacuum system, should be
investigated to minimize new facilities.
IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING SEWERS AND/OR NEW SEWER EXTENSIONS:
Marine Drive Trunk: Construct 4,460 1f of 8-inch sewer. Cost = $650,000.
Kitsap Way Trunk: Construct 2,760 If of 10-inch sewer. Cost = $400,000.
CDM
4-22
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amenrlment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 4.doc
j
/\
00. r (
I
~
LEGEND-SANITARY
WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
_______ BASIN BOUNDARY
- . - CITY LIMITS
EXISTING GRAVITY SEWER
- - - FM - - - EXISTING FORCE MAIN
. - - - - -. EXISTING GRAVITY.pRESSURE SEWER
__ EXISTING CSO OUTFALL
8 EB.7 EXISTING PUMP STATION & NO.
o EXISTING CSO REGULATOR
I!I EB-7 EXISTING PUMP STATION TO WHICH
" MODIACA nONS ARE PROPOSED & NO.
" I " PIPE SIZE AND PIPE CHANGE
11IIII PROPOSEO PUMP STATION
.. .. .. FM.. .... PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
. .. .. .. .. ... PROPOSED SEWER REPLACEMENT
PROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER
'\1 EXISTING FLOW DIV.RSION
(1) S.W.R PROJ.CT NO.
-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 ABANDON .X. S.W.R!PUMP STATION
SCALE 1" = 1500'
OSTRICH
BAY
(
\
\
\
\
~
#
,
/
.. -
L
I~
iii
L.U
>
0::
Cl
L.U
:z
0::
.<(
.::E
\ (4'
.
.
j~
(
-a..
1!
,
I
I
}
1,
(
PHINNEY .
BAY
..."
--1.
FIGURE 4-7
MARINE DRIVE BASIN
Section 4
Collection System Evaluation
. Table 4-9
Oyster Bay Basin
Descriptive Information
Size:
Percent Developed:
Zoning:
Type of Sewer System:
725 Acres
80%
Residential, Commercial, General Industrial, Industrial Park
Separate Sanitary Collection
There are seven pump stations (OB-1 through OB-7) along the collection system. Current and projected flows are within the
capacity of the current sewer system (most sewers use less than 20% of sewer capacity).
The section of the basin north of OB-5 contains a military reservation, with the Navy Regional Medical Center and Navy
housing. The military reservation serves Jackson Park Elementary School, which is located outside the reservation. North of
Jackson Park Elementary School between the military reservation and SR-3, land will be developed and zoned as Multi-Family
(MF). OB-7 and the force main were constructed so the Navy sewer system would not have to support this area.
Undeveloped areas currently include the southwest portion of the military reservation, which can be served in the future by the
new gravity sewer built with OB-7. These changes would be in lieu of increasing the capacity of OB-5 and adding a beach
force main between OB-5 and OB-2.
Pump Station
OB-1
OB-2
OB-3
OB-4
OB-5
OB-6
OB-7
Capacity (gpm)
1000
750
400
150
550
490
375
Flow (gpm)
840
620
160
50
390
280
Not available
Facilities and Recommended Improvements/Additions
Existing Pump Stations:
OB-1 Type:
Custom
Number of pumps:
3
Date built:
Built 1966, modified
1984
Rating of pumps:
2 replaced pumps: 755 gpm
at 212 feet TDH, third pump:
500 gpm at 212 feet TDH
Projected peak
flow:
1860 gpm, including
discharge from OB-2
and future flow from
Marine Drive Basin
Area directly
tributary/percent
developed:
200 acres/80% developed,
70% sewered
Notes: Unsewered area (45% developed) is zoned Residential and Industrial Park.
CDII
4-24
P:\Bremerton\Comp Pfan\Amendrnent\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 4.doc
Section 4
Collection System Eva/uation
Table 4~9
Oyster Bay Basin (cont.)
Facilities and Recommended Improvements/Additions
Improvements since 1998: Two of the three pumps were replaced with dry-pit submersible pumps. The third pump is
scheduled for replacement in 2005. Station controls were upgraded in 2004.
Recommended im provements/additions: None.
OB-2 Type: Custom Number of pumps: 2
Date built: 1966 Rating of pumps: 750 gpm at 65 feet TDH
Projected peak 1230 gpm Area directly 280 acres/80% developed,
flow: tributary/percent 50% sewered
developed:
Notes: Wet and dry wells are belowground, and the motor room is aboveground. Wet well is accessible by motor room
I building. A portable standby generator is compatible with the stations. Separate force mains were built to prevent house
flooding due to high hydraulic gradient. One force main is a 10- and 18-inch-diameter, high-pressure pipe. The other is a
I low-pressure, 12-inch main that connects to house services and has a relief vent at the pump station. The area that is
i unsewered is mostly Residential, and about 60 percent developed. The sewered area is developed, and is generally
. Commercial and General Industrial.
Improvements since 1998: Pump controls were upgraded in 2002.
Recommended improvements/additions: Standby emergency generator.
'OB_3 Type: Custom Number of pumps: 2
Date built: 1970 Rating of pumps: 400 gpm at 13 feet TDH
Projected peak 160 gpm Area directly 24 acres/100% developed
flow: tributary/percent
developed:
I Notes: Zoned Residential. Wet and dry wells are belowground. Motor room is aboveground. Wet well can be accessed
I by motor room building. Station can be supported with a portable standby generator.
i Improvements since 1998: Pump controls were upgraded in 2002, and pumps were replaced with dry-pit submersible
pumps in 2000.
Recommended improvements/additions: None.
OB-4 Type: Custom Number of pumps: 2
Date built: 1970 Rating of pumps: 150 gpm at 46 feet TDH
Projected peak 50 gpm Area directly 12 acresl1 00% developed
flow: tributary/percent
developed:
Notes: Zoned Residential. Wet and dry wells are belowground. Motor room is aboveground. Wet well can be accessed
by motor room building. Station can be supported by a portable standby generator.
CDII
4-25
P:\8remerton\Comp Plan\Arnendment\7 PROJPOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 4.doc
Section 4
Collection System Evaluation
Table 4-9
Oyster Bay Basin (cont.)
Facilities and Recommended Improvements/Additions
Improvements since 1998: Pump controls were upgraded in 2002, and pumps were replaced with dry-pit submersible
pumps in 2001.
Recommended improvements/additions: None.
08-5 Type: Custom
Number of pumps: 2
Date built: 1966 Rating of pumps: 550 gpm at 47 feet TDH
Projected peak 370 gpm Area directly 240 acres/75% developed
flow: tributary/percent
developed:
Notes: Wet and dry wells are belowground. Motor room is aboveground. Station can be supported by a portable standby
generator. There is an existing 10-inch, low-pressure force main for house service, with capabilities to add a high-pressure
16-inch force main. Areas served include the Navy Jackson Park Housing and Regional Medical Center, the Kitsap County
Health Department, and Jackson Park Elementary School.
Improvements since 1998: Pump controls were upgraded in 2002.
Recommended improvements/additions: Pump replacement with dry-pit submersible style pumps. Install a standby
! emergency generator; cost = $50,000.
08-6 Type: Custom
Number of pumps: 2
Date built: 1966 Rating of pumps: 490 gpm at 40 feet TDH
Projected peak 340 gpm Area directly Not available
flow: tributary/percent
developed:
Notes: Wet and dry wells are belowground. Motor room is aboveground. Station can be supported by a portable standby
generator.
Improvements since 1998: Pump controls were upgraded in 2002.
Recommended improvements/additions: Pump replacement with dry-pit style submersible pumps. Install a standby
emergency generator; cost = $50,000.
mM
4-26
P:\8remerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 4.doc
Section 4
Collection System Eva/uation
Table 4-9
Oyster Bay Basin (cont.)
OB-7
Facilities and Recommended Improvements/Additions
Type: Custom
Number of pumps: 2
Date built:
1993
Rating of pumps:
375 gpm at 70 feet TDH
Projected peak
flow:
Not available
Area directly
tributary/percent
developed:
34 acres/20% developed
Notes: Submersible pump station built to serve north of Jackson Park Elementary School between SR-3 and the Navy
military reservation. A 4,300-lf force main carries sewage between the service area and existing gravity sewer on
Shorewood Drive. The sewage is pumped through a newly built gravity sewer through NAD Park.
Improvements since 1998: Pump controls were upgraded in 2002.
Recommended improvements/additions: None.
IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING SEWERS AND/OR NEW SEWER EXTENSIONS:
WW Collection and Transmission System Improvements - Oyster Bay: The
existing gravity-pressure main on the beach serves adjacent homes by gravity,
pump station OB-5 pumps into it. The residences have backwater valves
installed to avoid flooding since the BGL regularly surcharges above the
elevation of the residences. Main replacement is necessary.
ClIVI
4-27
P:\Bremerton\CQmp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 4.doc
)
---
(
)
\
("
I
l.i:
J
I
/)
I
..f..
~I
'--=-.., -
I
I
I
l
1-
11
LEGEND-SANITARY
WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
.._____. BASIN BOUNDARY
- . - CITY LIMITS
EXISTING GRAVITY SEWER
- - - FM - - - EXISTING FORCE MAIN
. - - - - -. EXISTING GRAVITY-PRESSURE SEWER
~ EXffiTINGamOU~~L
DEB.' EXISTING PUMP STATION & NO.
o EXISTING CSO REGULATOR
DEB.' EXISTING PUMP STATION TO WHICH
12 MODIFICATIONS ARE PROPOSED & NO.
^' I " PIPE SIZE AND PIPE CHANGE
/III PROPOSED PUMP STATION
. . . FM. .. PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
. . . . . .. PROPOSED SEWER REPLACEMENT
PROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER
\l EXISTING FLOW DIVERSION
(1) SEWER PROJECT NO.
-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 ABANDON EX. SEWERlPUMP STATION
SCALE 1" = 1600'
/
!
r
PHI;-
tl
,,~----
FIGURE 4-8
OYSTER BA Y BASIN
Section 4
Collection System Eva/uation
Table 4-10
Pacific Avenue Basin
Descriptive Information
Size: 95 Acres
Percent Developed: 100%
Zoning: Commercial with Some Residential
Type of Sewer System: Combined
I CSO reduction improvements in the Pacific Avenue Basin include upgrade to Pump Station CE-6, construction of a large-
diameter trunk storm drain from CE-6 to the ferry terminal, construction of various collector sewers, and inflow & infiltration
reduction through rehabilitation of specific facilities. A portion of the inflow & infiltration projects were completed in 2004, with
; the remainder scheduled to occur in 2005. A portion of the trunk storm drain is scheduled to be constructed in 2005, with the
I remainder constructed in 2006. The pump station upgrade involves re-directing the discharge from the Central Bremerton
: force main to a discharge located at the manhole at Park Avenue and ih Street. Discharge from CE-6 will then flow through
the collection system to CE-1 in the Warren Avenue Basin.
Pump Station
CE-4
CE-6
Capacity (gpm)
1,940
Flow (gpm)
Not available
Not available
Not available
Facilities and Recommended 1m rovements/Additions
i Existing Pump Stations:
i CE-4 Type:
!
Custom
Date built:
1973
Number of pumps:
Rating of pumps:
3
2 @ 1,940 gpm at 238 ft
(ea)
1 @ 200 gpm
Projected peak Not available Area directly 55 acres/100% developed
flow: tributary/percent
developed:
i Notes: CE-4 is actually two pump stations; the primary station conveys flow through the Central Bremerton force main to the
, Crosstown Pipeline, the secondary station consists of a flush pump with integral relief vent that flushes the Washington Beach
I main to regularly generate cleaning velocities in the main and reduce the potential/frequency of blockages. Capacity of CE-4
is currently reduced when CE-6 operates since they pump to a common force main. The 2005 upgrade of CE-6 will actually
I increase the capacity of CE-4 during storm events due to the lower discharge head conditions.
Improvements since 1998:
Recommended improvements/additions: CE-6 is scheduled for pump station upgrade in 2005.
CE-6 Type: Package Number of pumps: 3
Date built: 1989 Rating of pumps: 600 gpm at 202 ft (ea)
Projected peak Not available Area directly 35 acres/100% developed
flow: tributary/percent
developed:
Notes: CE-6 will be upgraded in 2005 to a capacity of approximately 1,200 gpm; the August 2003 CSO Plan Amendment
identifies inflow to CE-6 at 1,000 gpm during the CSO design storm.
Recommended improvements/additions: Upgrade of pump station required for CSO reduction in 2005. Specifics
regarding upgrade are identified in an August 14, 2003 letter report entitled "Amendment to the 2000 CSO Reduction Plan
Update."
CDM
4-29
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 4.doc
call
Section 4
Collection System Evaluation
IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING SEWERS AND/OR NEW SEWER EXTENSIONS:
Reduce Infiltration: The constructed CSO reduction improvements have generally
increased flow to the WWTP up to system capacity. Reduction of infiltration is
required to allow for growth, reduce pumping and treatment costs, and provide a
"buffer," or "safety factor," that will ensure continued compliance with CSO
regulations. Inflow and Infiltration reduction as an ongoing project is outlined in
detail in Section 7.
Collection System Evaluation and Repair: The City currently has no systematic
program for evaluating its collection system and identifying failing sewers. It is
anticipated that a thorough evaluation of the collection system would identify several
spot repairs and entire sewer rehabilitation or replacement projects. A recommended
program for collection system evaluation and repair is outlined in detail in Section 7.
Specific improvements to existing sewers in the Pacific Avenue Basin are summarized
below.
Ever ~ince its construction in 1989, the Central Bremerton force main has experienced
problems with surcharging at the surge chamber, resulting in flooding of the
associated odor control facility. Vents were installed downstream of the surge
chamber, which greatly reduced surcharge events; however, surcharging still occurs.
The main regularly operates without surcharge during low flow and high flow
conditions; however, infrequently surcharges will occur, resulting in flooding of the
odor control station. A study was conducted in December 2004 to evaluate the
surcharge and attempt to explain the cause. It is believed that during low flow
conditions when the surcharge in the Crosstown Pipeline is low, flow through the
Central Bremerton force main flows from subcritical to supercritical, and back several
times. Air locks developed within the pipe are not relieved through the vents,
resulting in the surcharges. Since the flooding occurs only infrequently, it is believed
that the critical flow rate is caused when both CE-4 and CE-6 operate at the same time.
Redirecting the discharge of pump station CE-6 away from the Central Bremerton
force main and to the Warren A venue Basin (Pump Station CE-l) should eliminate the
flooding problem.
Construct Storm Drain Collection System: An August 14, 2003 letter report
entitled" Amendment to the 2000 CSO Reduction Plan Update" identifies
construction of a storm drain collection system as a component of CSO
reduction in the Pacific A venue Basin. The capacity upgrade to CE-6, coupled
with the Trunk SD construction and identified inflow and infiltration
construction, is sufficient to reduce CSO in this basin in compliance with WAC
173-245. The purpose of the storm drain collection system is to reduce loading
on the sanitary collection system, reduce O&M costs, and develop a safety
factor for future growth. The collection system is not shown in this figure for
clarity .
4-30
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 4,doc
Section 4
Collection System Evaluation
Washington Avenue Beach Sewer: The Washington Avenue beach sewer
collects flow from residences and commercial businesses along the east side of
Washington A venue between the extension of 2nd Street and Highland
Avenue. The sewer main conveys flow from the Pacific Avenue Basin north to
the W arren Avenue Basin. Specifics regarding this project are discussed under
the W arren Avenue Basin improvements to existing sewers.
CE-6 Force Main (Pacific Avenue CSO Project, OF-16): Install a new
forcemain from pump station CE-6 to redirect flow to pump station CE-1 via
the Park Avenue Sanitary Sewer.
Trunk Storm Drain (Pacific Avenue CSO Project, OF-16): Construct a large
diameter trunk storm sewer from Park Avenue to the Ferry Terminal.
Storm Drain Separation Projects (Pacific Avenue CSO Project, OF-16):
Separation of inflow from the right-of-way is required at four locations: the
alley between 4th and Burwell Streets just west of Park Avenue, the alley
between 6th and 7th Streets just west of Park Avenue, the catch basin at the
northwest corner of 6th Street and Pacific Avenue, and the alley between
Burwell and 4th Street just east of Pacific Avenue.
Replace or reline the Gregory and High Surge Chamber: The surge chamber at
Gregory and High has evidence of extensive sulfide damage. The extent of
structural damage must be investigated, and the structure should either be
replaced or lined to prevent further degradation.
all
4-31
P:\Bremerton\Comp PlanVtmendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 20D5\Text\Secljon 4.doc
.
I
I
OF-12f'---'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:l ,
I \
~~T----
-,- i
-..w _ .:;:'
__I
-- - -q I'M _ ____ .......
-=.::-~I--
i......J L_ ./"1
! .------..
--,I I
'-_ I
r----....
1.,;----,
--/----_.
..- -....
I '
I
-1--.
I
1 .
I I
--lJ ~
1'6,
1'-
,I
VENl.lE BASil J
--------- -
'\
\
~
\
\~
CE-3
~
~
--- ...--.. \
~ I: \
--1..1 I-'.--":r
,.._ I 1l
'-il ! :
..J I I
ff(
. "-
. /
1./
(6)
Grego~ I Street
,~ - -f-M-
____.J._____1 ._--_..~
LEGEND-SAN IT ARY
OF-15 0
_~10 WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
_______ BASIN BOUNDARY
- . - CITY LIMITS
EXISTING GRAVITY SEWER
- - FM - - EXISTING FORCE MAIN
- - - - EXISTING GRAVITY.PRESSURE SEWER
__ EXISTING CSO OUTFALL
o E"7 EXISTING PUMP STATION & NO.
o EXISTING CSO REGULATOR
D E"7 EXISTING PUMP STATION TO WHICH
u MODIFICATIOHS ARE PROPOSE[) & NO.
" I " PIPE SIZE AND PIPE CHANGE
II PROPOSED PUMP STATION
.. .. .. FM.. .... PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
. .. .. .. .. ... PROPOSED SEWER REPLACEMENT
PROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER
V EXISTING FLOW DIVERSION
(1) SEWER PROJECT NO.
-I-I-I-I-I-H ABANDON EX. SEWERlPUMP STATION
fl
f
--- ......
,
-l
SCALE 1" := 800'
FIGURE 4-9
PACIFIC A VENUE BASIN
Section 4
Collection System Evaluation
Table 4-11
Phinney Bay Basin
Descriptive Information
Size:
Percent Developed:
Zoning:
Type of Sewer System:
140 Acres
80%
Commercial and Residential
Separate Sanitary
This basin is 100% 5ewered. There are two pump stations (PB-1 and PB-2) along the collection system. Current and
projected flows are within the capacity of the current sewer system.
Pump Station
PB.1
PB-2
Capacity (gpm)
150
100
Flow (gpm)
60
50
Facilities and Recommended Improvements/Additions
Existing Pump Stations:
PB.1 Type: Package
Number of pumps:
Date built: 1970s Rating of pumps:
Projected peak Area directly
flow: 60 gpm, including tributary/percent
discharge from PB-2 developed:
2
150 gpm at 100 feet TDH
80 acres/70% developed
and sewered
Notes: Wet and dry wells are constructed of concrete and are accessed by a steel tube 3 feet in diameter. Phinney Bay
Drive is a source of surface runoff to the dry well. Zoned Residential and Commercial.
Improvements since 1998: None.
Recommended improvements/additions: Upgrade to submersible pumps due to limited access. Reconstruct the existing
hatch and piping. Cost = $200,000.
PB-2
Type:
Package
Number of pumps:
2
Date built:
19705
Rating of pumps:
100 gpm at 20 feet TDH
Projected peak
flow:
40 gpm
Area directly
tributary/percent
developed:
60 acres/90% developed
Notes: Wet and dry wells are constructed of concrete and are accessed by a steel and concrete tube 3 feet in diameter.
Zoned Residential.
Improvements since 1998: None.
Recommended improvements/additions: None.
CDII
4-33
P:\Bcemerlon\Comp Plan\Amerldlml\)t\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 4.doc
~
...........
PHINNEY I
BAY
LEGEND-SANITARY
;_&~ WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
_______ BASIN BOUNDARY
- . - CITY LIMITS
EXISTING GRAVITY SEWER
- - FM - - EXISTING FORCE MAIN
-- - EXISTING GRAVITY-PRESSURE SEWER
__ EXISTING CSO OUTFALL
8 EB.7 EXISTING PUMP STATION & NO.
o EXISTING CSO REGULATOR
8 EIl-7 EXISTING PUMP STATION TO WHICH
" MODIFICATIONS ARE PROPOSED & NO.
" I " PIPE SIZE AND PIPE CHANGE
.. PROPOSED PUMP STATION
. . . 'M. .. PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
. . . . . .. PROPOSED SEWER REPLACEMENT
PROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER
V EXISTING FLOW DIVERSION
(1) SEWER PROJECT NO.
-H-+.I-f-H ABANDON EX. SEWERlPUMP STATION
SCALE 1" = 800'
-,
~
I
I
I
....
I I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
-
~
I
I
I
i.
I
I
~--
L__
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ii
I
I .
II
! . 0-:::r'--
\ r---J
I I@_.,J
m"RTNNEY' r----.
r.IJ -, III.... l.
r .
i' SAY . I I
, _~':::.. J I ,.
~.J_!
, I I
. ..1_. I
~ I I
% I I r~
I I I ~
I. . I ~
---H-J-~-
I
I
/
(
\
v
OF-8
\
/
,
Q)
:::l
c::
Q)
~
.......
Q)
"0
>-
c::
U)
_ 19th:;
1 I
I
--"'"
/
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-~-
I
I
I
I I....
I I
1.-.-'
"" - - '<I"""":!"'~-
~
-_._-.~
FIGURE 4-10
PHINNEY BA Y BASIN
Section 4
Collection System Evaluation
Table 4-12
Pine Road Basin
Descriptive Information
Size:
Percent Developed:
Zoning:
Type of Sewer System:
790 Acres
80%
Residential with Some Commercial
Combined
The City constructed a CSO storage facility in this basin in 2000, and a trunk sanitary sewer/in-line storage facility as well as
the Eastside Treatment Plant (CSO Treatment Plant) in 2001. The trunk sanitary sewer connects the downstream end of the
Stevens Canyon Basin to the inlet to the Eastside Treatment Plant. During peak flow conditions, the beach main downstream
of OF-2 in the Stevens Canyon Basin will surcharge and reverse flow in the trunk sewer to convey it to the Eastside Treatment
Plant. During the design storm, all flow from east Bremerton is directed to this treatment plant. Details on the treatment plant
are included in Section 2.
Pump Station
EB-8
EB-9
Capacity (gpm)
200
100
Flow (gpm)
Not available
Not available
Facilities and Recommended 1m rovements/Additions
Existing Pump Stations:
I EB-8 Type:
Date built:
Package
1971
Number of pumps:
Rating of pumps:
2
200 gpm at 51 ft (ea)
Projected peak
flow:
Not available
Area directly
tributary/percent
developed:
Approx. 35 single &
multifamily houses
Improvements since 1998: None.
I Recommended improvements/additions: Install a transfer switch and receptacle for connection of a portable generator.
Cost = $10,000. Upgrade telemetry. Cost = $20,000.
EB.9 Type: Custom Number of pumps: 2
Date built: 1970s Rating of pumps: 100 gpm at 75 ft (ea)
Projected peak Not available Area directly Approx. 50 single & multifamily
flow: tributary/percent houses
developed:
Recommended improvements/additions: Evaluate the condition and size of the emergency holding tanks. Increase the
size of the parking area for maintenance vehicles. Install new Flygt submersible pumps. Cost = $25,000.
aIVI
4-35
P:\Bremertoo\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 4.ooc
I
I
,
COlI
Section 4
Collection System Evaluation
IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING SEWERS AND/OR NEW SEWER EXTENSIONS:
Reduce Infiltration: The constructed CSO reduction improvements have generally
increased flow to the WWTP up to system capacity. Reduction of infiltration is
required to allow for growth, reduce pumping and treatment costs, and provide a
"buffer," or "safety factor," that will ensure continued compliance with CSO
regulations. Inflow and Infiltration reduction as an ongoing project is outlined in
detail in Section 7.
Collection System Evaluation and Repair: The City currently has no systematic
program for evaluating its collection system and identifying failing sewers. It is
anticipated that a thorough evaluation of the collection system would identify several
spot repairs and entire sewer rehabilitation or replacement projects. A recommended
program for collection system evaluation and repair is outlined in detail in Section 7.
Specific improvements to existing sewers in the Pine Road Basin are summarized
below.
Improvements behind Lowes Hardware from Almira to Wheaton Way: This
pipe has extensive root damage. The Lowes Hardware building is currently
proposed for demolition and reconstruction. Replacement of the main in
conjunction with this new construction is anticipated.
Improvements in Utility Easement between Broadmoor Village & Hanford
Avenue: The main has extensive root damage and a "belly." The main
requires replacement.
Improvements on McClain running west on Sheridan to Elm to Hefner to
Lebo: To eliminate a downstream surcharge, the sanitary sewer has been
diverted. Due to the diversion, a surcharge is required to convey flow
downstream. New sanitary sewer is required along this route.
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 4.doc
4-36
------.
I
I-
I
1\
I
I
f..:.., :
:J!!' i ~_ !
~ i L, TI
~Ylla -. 121
.,~___.L -=-l
I PINE KOAD BASIN
.,-~
,lit
&?J
,
- i
(1)
;>1'
yL
\S-
t;.-.
'--------.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
) L..~.
--. - i
Ie ,.'
....
.. I
. J
I
,-(-------~-;-_.
I I
I .
: Sl!lv~n 8~orl -
I~-----~---~--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I T-
+-l--
y ~--
I
I
I
I
-LJ
L.
I
"0
o
'"
a::
Q)
c
c:
---,
!.2
LEGEND-SANITARY
WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
_______ BASIN BOUNDARY
- . - CI1Y LIMITS
EXISTING GRAVITY SEWER
- - - FM - - - EXISTING FORCE MAIN
. - - - - -.. EXISTING GRAVrrv-PRESSURE SEWER
___ EXISTING CSO OUTFALL
o EB-7 EXISTING PUMP STATION & NO.
c EXISTING CSO REGULATOR
o '8.7 EXISTING PUMP STATION TO WHICH
12 MODIFICATIONS ARE PROPOSED & NO.
" I 12 PIPE SIZE AND PIPE CHANGE
iii PROPOSED PUMP STATION
. . . FM. .. PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
. . . . . .. PROPOSED SEWER REPLACEMENT
PROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER
"il EXISTING FLOW DIVERSION
(1) SEWER PROJECT NO.
-H-I..++-f-l ABANDON EX. SEWERlPUMP STATION
~
CI:
i:;, II
~..A, //
?w
I :.s;.~
(;'>
CE-1 ~-t-
I
> I
OF-1ar"""..
I
I
.........
SCALE 1" = 1200'
FIGURE 4-11
PINE ROAD BASIN
Section 4
Collection System Evaluation
Table 4-13
Sinclair Park Basin
Descriptive Information
Size:
Percent Developed:
Zoning:
; Type of Sewer System:
960 Acres
50%
Residential with Commercial and Light Industrial
Separate Sanitary
Sinclair Park Basin is 50% sewered. Current sewer capacities are exceeded in the following sewers: 1) Jones Street from
Cottman Avenue to Oyster Bay Avenue, and 2) Kean Street and Rodgers Street from Wilkes Avenue to SR-3. Projected
future flows exceed the capacity of KL-1 (which pumps into Sinclair Park Basin) and the current gravity sewer in the Sinclair
Park Basin. Recommendations include abandonment of pump station KL-1 and the inverted siphon.
; OB-1 also pumps sewage into Sinclair Park Basin. Sewer conveyance systems from Oyster Bay Basin, Kitsap Lake Basin,
; and Sinclair Park Basin are owned by the City of Bremerton and run through KCSD No.1. KCSD NO.1 has three discharges,
one of which is to these three sewers.
i
, Development of a plan to provide sanitary sewer service to the West 650 zone is not addressed in this update to the WW
Comprehensive Plan. A plan for sewer service for this area should be developed.
Pump Station
PP-1
Capacity (gpm)
200
Flow (gpm)
Not available
Facilities and Recommended Improvements/Additions
Existing Pump Stations:
PP-1 Type:
Custom
Number of pumps:
2
Date built:
Not available
Rating of pumps:
Not available
Projected peak
flow:
Not available
Area directly
tributary/percent
developed:
Serves Pendergast Park
facilities
Improvements since 1998: Electrical upgraded in 2002.
Recommended improvements/additions: None.
New Pump Stations:
Harlow Drive Pump Station (SP-1) and Force Main: Construct a 150-gpm submersible pump station and approximately
310 If of 4-inch force main. Cost = $350,000.
IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING SEWERS AND/OR NEW SEWER EXTENSIONS:
Old Kitsap Lake Interceptor: Replace 725lf of 8-inch sewer with a 12-inch
sewer on Jones Street from 160 ft southwest of Cottman Avenue to Oyster Bay
A venue. This project will not be required if the KL-l discharge is redirected, as
flows will decrease. Cost = $150,000.
CDM
4-38
P:\8remerton\Comp PClan\Amendment\7 PROJOOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 4.doc
Section 4
Collection System Evaluation
Kean Street Trunk Sewer: Replace 1,100 If of 10-inch sewer with IS-inch sewer
on Kean Street from First Street to Wilkes Avenue. Replace 305 If of 10-inch
sewer with 18-inch sewer and replace 1,580 If of 10- and 12-inch sewer with 21-
inch sewer on Kean and Rodgers Streets from Wilkes Avenue to SR-3. This
capacity upgrade is required to accept the added flow with the diversion that
would be constructed when KL-l is abandoned. Cost = $450,000.
Bay View Drive Trunk Sewer: Replace 790 If of 21-inch sewer with 24-inch
sewer from 300 ft northwest of H Street to F Street. This capacity upgrade is
required to accept the added flow with the diversion that would be
constructed when KL-l is abandoned. Cost = $150,000.
KL-l Interceptor: Construct 4,000 If of 21-inch sewer from Pump Station KL-1
along 0 Street, Sunnyhill Street, and Harlow Drive to Kean Street. This
capacity upgrade is required to accept the added flow with the diversion that
would be constructed when KL-l is abandoned. Cost = $1,000,000.
Werner Avenue Trunk Sewer: Construct 8-inch sewer on Werner Road from
1,350 If west of Eden Road to the City limit. This improvement is required for
development. Cost = $250,000.
Northwest Sinclair Park Trunk Sewer: Construct 2,000 If of 8-inch sewer.
This improvement is required for development.
Southwest Sinclair Park Trunk Sewer: Construct 3,600 If of 8-inch sewer. This
improvement is required for development. Cost = $500,000.
West Sinclair Park Trunk Sewer: Construct 3,900 If of lO-inch sewer. This
portion of the trunk will be a gravity-pressure sewer and connect to the
Crosstown Pipeline near the WWTP headworks. This improvement is
required for development. Cost = $500,000.
Improvements on 4-inch line between Bruenn and Li.lac Lane: The existing
sanitary sewer is installed very shallow and is on private property. The main
is substandard. New sanitary sewer is required along this route.
CDII
4-39
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJOOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 4.doc
r---~~
- -I
I
I ,
I '
l
"
,
----,-------..."'"
I
--I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
~
(,
r
\
..
'\
\..
'-
"'0
'"
o
(5) 0:::
:c
>-
c::
c::
::>
en
0---
L
WelTJer Road
I
- .--'.
SINCLAIR PARK BASI~
'f
pp-, c:f
\
.,
l~
LEGEND-SANITARY
-.--.--.--
---..----
WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
_______ BASIN BOUNOARY
- . - CITY LIMITS
EXISTING GRAVITY SEWER
- - - FM - - - EXISTING FORCE MAIN
. - - - - - - EXISTING GRAVITY-PRESSURE SEWER
EXISTING CSO OUTFAlL
EXISTING PUMP STATION & NO.
EXISTING CSO REGULATOR
EXISTING PUMP STATION TO WHICH
MODIFICATIONS ARE PROPOSED & NO.
PIPE SIZE AND PIPE CHANGE
PROPDSEDPUMP STATION
.. .. .. FM" ..... PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
. .. .. .. .. ... PROPDSED SEWER REPLACEMENT
PROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER
"i1 EXISTING FLOW DIVERSION
(1) SEWER PROJECT NO.
-I-I-I-I-I-H ABANDON EX. SEWER/PUMP STATION
--
0'&7
o
DEB-7
.J
-_.------
"
18112
IJI
(
I
SCALE 1" = 1200'
FIGURE 4-12
SINCLAIR PARK BASIN
Section 4
Collection System Evaluation
Table 4-14
Stevens Canyon Basin
Descriptive Information
Size:
Percent Developed:
Zoning:
Type of Sewer System:
230 Acres
90% (all areas are sewered)
Residential with Some Commercial
Combined
The northern manhole at Lebo Boulevard and Juniper Street is at the boundary of the Stevens Canyon and Cherry Avenue
Basins. Staff have installed sandbags in this manhole in the past to divert flow to the Cherry Avenue Basin for operational
reasons.
The City constructed a trunk sanitary sewer/in-line storage facility that connects the Stevens Canyon Basin to the Pine Road
Basin/Eastside Treatment Plant. During peak flow conditions, the beach main downstream of OF-2 will surcharge and
reverse flow in the trunk sewer and convey flow to the Eastside Treatment Plant.
IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING SEWERS AND/OR NEW SEWER EXTENSIONS:
Approximately 280 ft of sewer on Lebo Boulevard west of Juniper Street is in a
wooded area, and is moderately to severely damaged by roots. The manhole in the
center of this section of main essentially has a tree growing out of it. This section of
main and associated manholes should be rehabilitated or replaced.
Reduce Infiltration: The constructed CSO reduction improvements have generally
increased flow to the WWTP up to system capacity. Reduction of infiltration is
required to allow for growth, reduce pumping and treatment costs, ahd provide a
"buffer," or "safety factor," that will ensure continued compliance with CSO
regulations. Inflow and Infiltration reduction as an ongoing project is outlined in
detail in Section 7.
Collection System Evaluation and Repair: The City currently has no systematic
program for evaluating its collection system, and identifying failing sewers. It is
anticipated that a thorough evaluation of the collection system would identify several
spot repairs and entire sewer rehabilitation or replacement projects. A recommended
program for collection system evaluation and repair is outlined in detail in Section 7.
Specific improvements to existing sewers in the Stevens Canyon Basin are
summarized below.
Improvements on Reid from Lebo to Stephenson: Main replacement is
required due to a known significant infiltration problem in this vicinity. The
extent of the project will be determined in predesign.
Beach Main Replacement from Eastside Treatment Plant to 16-inch Siphon:
Existing AC beach sewer is exposed in multiple locations. Replacement length
is approximately 3,000 If.
a:I\t
4-41
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 4.doc
I
I
I
I
/" I
I
I-
I
I
.---.......
L
':'1 _____.
I.....
~
..
I
,_.
1
--.
I
PO,o
rr r w..
~S1714J
GrON
TI
-L1
(2)
I
I
OF-1r....--1
SCALE 1" := 1000'
-v-
LEGEND-SAN IT ARY
jit_ WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
_______ BASIH BOUNDARY
- . - CITY LIMITS
EXISTIHG GRAVfTY SEWER
- - 'M - - EXISTING FORCE MAIN
- - - - EXISTING GRAVITY-PRESSURE SEWER
_ EXISTING CSO OUTFAll
[J ".7 EXISTING PUMP STATION & NO.
o EXISTING CSO REGULATOR
[J EB-7 EXISTING PUMP STATION TO WHICH
, MODIFICATIONS ARE PROPOSED & NO.
'" I " PIPE SIZE AND PIPE CHANGE
III PROPOSED PUMP STATIOH
. .. .'M.. ... PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
. .. .. . .. .. PROPOSED SEWER REPLACEMEHT
PROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER
'\l EXISTING FLOW DIVERSION
(1) SEWER PROJECT NO.
-I-I-I-I-I-H ABANDON EX. SEWERlPUMP STATIOH
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
,-.
I
--I
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
1___-
--
~
/
'-..........
EAST 0f
BASI.~
~
.
FIGURE 4-13
STEVENS CANYON BASIN
Section 4
Collection System Evaluation
Table 4-15
Tracyton Beach Basin
Descriptive Information
Size:
Percent Developed:
Zoning:
Type of Sewer System:
210 Acres
50%
Residential
Combined
Several sewers in this basin are deteriorated and require replacement. A complete list of required improvements is not
currently developed.
Pump Station
EB-6
Capacity (gpm)
1,250
Flow (gpm)
Not available
Facilities and Recommended Improvements/Additions
Existing Pump Stations:
EB-6 Type:
Custom,
submersible
Number of pumps:
3
Date built:
1947
Rating of pumps:
625 gpm at 102 ft (ea)
Projected peak
flow:
Not available
Area directly
tributary/percent
developed:
Not available
Notes: Pumps installed at EB-6 have very flat pump curves, and the station is currently pumping below its rated capacity due
to higher headloss in the force main than anticipated. Should additional capacity be necessary to reduce CSO events, it is
believed that cleaning the EB-6 force main by pigging would greatly reduce system headloss, thus increasing the station
capacity.
Improvements since 1998: Upgraded in 2005.
Recommended improvements/additions: None.
IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING SEWERS AND/OR NEW SEWER EXTENSIONS:
Reduce Infiltration: The constructed CSO reduction improvements have generally
increased flow to the WWTP up to system capacity. Reduction of infiltration is
required to allow for growth, reduce pumping and treatment costs, and provide a
"buffer," or "safety factor," that will ensure continued compliance with CSO
regulations. Inflow and Infiltration reduction as an ongoing project is outlined in
detail in Section 7.
Collection System Evaluation and Repair: The City currently has no systematic
program for evaluating its collection system and identifying failing sewers. It is
anticipated that a thorough evaluation of the collection system would identify several.
spot repairs and entire sewer rehabilitation or replacement projects. A recommended
program for collection system evaluation and repair is outlined in detail in Section 7.
ClIVI
4-43
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 20Q5\Text\Section 4.doc
._._.~
..
I-
I
I
,~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
V 1_._.
I- I I
----.......
I
LEGEND-SANITARY
WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
_______ BASIN BOUNDARY
- . - CITY LIMITS
EXISTING GRAVITY SEWER
- - - fM - - - EXISTING FORCE MAIN
. - - - - -. EXISTING GRAVITY-PRESSURE SEWER
__ EXISTING CSO OUTFAlL
DE'.) EXISTING PUMP STATION & NO.
o EXISTING CSO REGULATOR
o E~) EXISTING PUMP STATION TO WHICH
" MODIFICATIONS ARE PROPOSED & NO.
" I " PIPE SIZE AND PIPE CHANGE
. PROPOSED PUMP STATION
. . . fM. .. PROPOSED. FORCE MAIN
. . . . . .. PROPOSED SEWER REPLACEMENT
PROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER
\l EXISTING FLOW DIVERSION
(1) SEWER PROJECT NO.
-H-H-I-H ABANDON EX. SEWERlPUMP STATION
I
;-=--\J
.--.
-L
CYTON bEACH BASIN
L,
--W
~ -0 "-llr-
~ I
0::
>, ..
Q)- I
. [ ~r.
L .....
I
- -I--
.
..l
(
-,
,.
I
I
I
1Tr~~-
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
\
r-/
I \
I
"
CW-3
o
\\
i
\
\/
, CW-2
l'/
OF-8
~.
"
-- - - ....
ri
SCALE 1" = 1000'
FIGURE 4-14
TRACYTON BEACH BASIN
Section 4
Collection System Evaluation
Table 4-16
Trenton Avenue Basin
Descriptive Information
Size:
Percent Developed:
Zoning:
Type of Sewer System:
780 Acres
70% (100% in City limits, 60% in the unsewered area in the County)
Residential and Commercial
Combined
Pump Station EB-2 is actually two separate pump stations: EB-2 Local and EB-2 High Flow. EB-2 Local collects inflow from
beach sewers, and pumps the inflow to a gravity main on the north side of the EB-2 electrical building. From there, gravity
conveys flow through a check valve into the 18-inch EB-2 force main installed on the beach. This force main typically conveys
flow as a gravity-pressure main; however, during high flow conditions the beach sewer on the east side of the Port
Washington Narrows will surcharge and close the check valve. Once the check valve is closed, influent flowto the force main
will divert to EB-2 High Flow through the "goose-neck" adjacent to the electrical building. At this point, the force main operates
as a true force main, conveying the flow from EB-2 High Flow to the beach sewer and on to either Pump Station CE-1
(through the two inverted siphons under the Port Washington Narrows) or to the Eastside Treatment Plant (CSO Treatment
Plant). The hydraulics OF influent to EB-2 are complicated, and include reversing of flows during storm events. Appendix B
shows a flow schematic that presents the hydraulics in this basin. The following paragraphs describe the system hydraulics
influent to EB-2.
As flow to EB-3 begins to overwhelm the pump station, the sanitary sewer influent to the pump station begins to surcharge. A
downstream level control valve (OLC), located at the intersection of Shore Drive and Trenton Avenue (in Bachmann Park), will
begin to close and throttle flow to the capacity of EB-3. The resulting surcharge in the 18-inch main on Shore Drive will
continue up Pitt Avenue to the manhole at the intersection of East 10th Street and Pitt Avenue (MH-2), where it will turn west
and flow to pump station EB-2 High Flow. Since there is no overflow structure at the EB-2 pump station, a second OLC is
located on the line influent to EB-2 High Flow to limit the flow to the pump station. Upon surcharge of this line, the OLC will
close and initiate a CSO at OF-7B.
Flow conveyed along Pitt Avenue north of East 10th Street is intercepted by Manhole 2 (MH-2), located at the intersection of
Pitt Avenue, and East 10th Street. The flow is conveyed by gravity through a check valve to the EB-2 force main. MH-2
includes a center wall that separates flow north of 10th Street from the south. The purpose of this separation is to limit
surcharge north of 10th Street. Surcharge north of East 10th Street must be limited to avoid flooding structures with
basements.
Pump Station
EB-2 Local
EB-2 High Flow
EB-3
EB-4
EB-5
Capacity (gpm)
270
4,350
1,270
300
100
Flow (gpm)
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Facilities and Recommended Improvements/Additions
Existing Pump Stations:
EB-2 Type:
Local
Custom,
submersible
Number of pumps:
2
Date built:
1973
Rating of pumps:
270 gpm at 30 ft (ea)
Projected peak
flow:
Not available.
Area directly
tributary/percent
developed:
Beach sewers
mil
4-45
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 4.doc
Section 4
Collection System Evaluation
Table 4-16
Trenton Avenue Basin (cont.)
Facilities and Recommended Improvements/Additions
Improvements since 1998: Upgraded in 2003.
Recommended improvements/additions: None.
EB-2 High Type:
Flow
Custom,
submersible
Number of pumps:
3
Date built:
1973
Rating of pumps:
2,175 gpm at 91 ft (ea)
Projected peak
flow:
Not available
Area directly
tributary/percent
developed:
780 acres/Entire basin
Improvements since 1998: Upgraded in 2003.
Recommended Improvements/Additions: None.
EB-3
Type:
Date built:
Custom
Number of pumps:
Rating of pumps:
2
750-gpm at 64-ft (ea)
1973
Projected peak
flow:
Not available.
Area directly
tributary/percent
developed:
Beach sewers
Notes: None.
Improvements since 1998: Upgraded in 2004.
Recommended improvements/additions: Install a standby emergency generator. Cost = $100,000.
Type: Custom, Number of pumps:
EB-4 submersible
Date built: 1940s Rating of pumps:
Projected peak Not available Area directly
flow: tributary/percent
developed:
3
100-gpm at 80-ft (ea)
780 acres/Entire basin
Notes: The pumps are hard piped, and wet well entry is necessary for their removal.
Improvements since 1998: None.
Recommended improvements/additions: None;
CD\fI
4-46
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJOOC\ORAFT AFTER JUNI:: 2005\Text\Sectjon 4.doc
Section 4
Collection System Evaluation
Table 4-16
Trenton Avenue Basin (cont.)
EB-5
Type:
Date built:
Facilities and Recommended Improvements/Additions
Ejector Number of pumps:
1970s Rating of pumps:
2
50 gpm at 40 ft (ea)
Projected peak
flow:
Not available
Area directly
tributary/percent
developed:
Beach sewers
Notes: The pumps are hard piped, and wet well entry is necessary for their removal. This station is proposed to be
abandoned with the Trenton Avenue Pump Station and force main construction.
Improvements since 1998: None.
Recommended improvements/additions: Install a new transfer switch and receptacle for standby power. Cost = $15,000.
New Pump Stations:
Trenton Avenue Pump Station (EB-10) & Force Main: Construct a 600-gpm package PS and 900 If of 6-inch-diameter
force main. Cost = $1,000,000.
East 30th Street PS (EB-11) , East 3o'h Street Booster Pump Station (EB-12), and Force Main: The 1995 WW Comp
Plan indicates that two 100-gpm rail-guided submersible pump stations and 1 ,400 If of 4-inch-diameter force main are required
because one cannot produce the required head. The necessity of two pump stations at this location should be confirmed
during predesign. Cost = $1,000,000.
Cascade Avenue Pump Station (EB-13) & Force Main: Construct a 300-gpm submersible pump station and 600 If of 4-
inch-diameter force main. Cost = $250,000.
Notes: A possible alternative to the future configuration shown in Figure 4-15 would be to direct the discharge from the new
Trenton Avenue Pump Station to the sewer on Stone Way in the East Park Basin. This would increase flows in the East Park
Basin, but would eliminate the flow from being pumped by either EB-2 or EB-3. If sufficient capacity is available in the East
Park Basin for this additional flow, discharge from the new Trenton Avenue Pump Station should be directed to the East Park
Basin.
The total cost to construct a sewer system (collection and transmission) for the area tributary to proposed pump stations EB-
11, 12, and 13 is known to be extremely high; however, to date it has not been identified. Since development of a sewer
system would normally be funded through an LID, the high cost to each LID participant is expected to be cost prohibitive. It is
anticipated that service in this area would only be practical if an external source of funding (grant funding) were to be
procured.
IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING SEWERS AND/OR NEW SEWER EXTENSIONS:
Reduce Infiltration: The constructed CSO reduction improvements have generally
increased flow to the WWTP up to system capacity. Reduction of infiltration is
required to allow for growth, reduce pumping and treatment costs, and provide a
"buffer," or "safety factor," that will ensure continued compliance with CSO
regulations. Inflow and Infiltration reduction as an ongoing project is outlined in
detail in Section 7.
COM
4-47
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 4.doc
a:at
Section 4
Collection System Evaluation
Collection System Evaluation and Repair: The City currently has no systematic
program for evaluating its collection system, and identifying failing sewers. It is
anticipated that a thorough evaluation of the collection system would identify several
spot repairs and entire sewer rehabilitation or replacement projects. A recommended
program for collection system evaluation and repair is outlined in detail in Section 7.
Specific improvements to existing sewers in the Trenton A venue Basin are
summarized below.
East 30to/Trenton Trunk Sewer: Construct 3,200 If of 8-inch sewer. Cost =
$350,000.
Cascade Trail Trunk Sewer: Construct 1,600 If of 8-inch sewer. Cost::::::
$200,000.
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\ORAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 4.doc
4-48
-----.----------
"j
~~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---
---I
/
I
-~
I
I
1_-.
...J
EAST (ARK I
BASI~. W'";
c: r---
'" I
~ I:
~ I
~--l
---1J-Ji
I ~
I ~
I :5
I 1':
l!'
I-
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
lal
r
:L. fkENTON A
'-~-~li::
I
I
I
_ .. ..I L ~2).. ....
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(4)
----
----
.,.--
EB.5
l
'\
I
~--
--~----~:~l:-
/
k!lil""'......'~ WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PlAN
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
---____ BASIN BOUNDARY
- . - CITYUMITS
EXISTING GRAVITY SEWER
- - FM - - EXISTING FORCE MAIN
- - - - EXISTING GRAVITY-PRESSURE SEWER
--- EXISTING CSO OUTFAlL
o EB.l EXISTING PUMP STATION & NO.
o EXISTING CSO REGULATOR
~ EB-l EXISTING PUMP STATION TO WHICH
" MOOIFICATIONS ARE PROPOSED & NO.
" I " PIPE SIZE AND PIPE CHANGE
II PROPOSED PUMP STATION
.. .. _FM.. .. III PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
. .. .. .. .. ... PROPOSED SEWER REPLACEMENT
PROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER
" EXISTING FLOW DIVERSION
(1) SEWER PROJECT NO.
-I-I-+-I-I-H ABANDON EX. SEWER/PUMP STATION
/
Hh S ell
G~
/ ~
SCALE 1" = 1000'
FIGURE 4-15
TRENTON A VENUE BASIN
Section 4
Collection System Eva/uation
Table 4-17
W arren Avenue Basin
Descriptive Information
1
\
Size:
Percent Developed:
Zoning:
Type of Sewer System:
290 Acres
95%
Residential with some Commercial and Park Lands.
Combined
There are three pump stations (CE-1, CE-2, and CE-3) along the collection system. CE-1 conveys all dry weather flows
from all of east Bremerton, as well as all flow from the Warrant Avenue Basin. CE-2 and CE-3 flow to CE-1. Current
and projected flows are within the capacity of the sewer system.
Pump Station
CE-1
CE-2
CE-3
Capacity (gpm)
8,500
400
400
Flow (gpm)
Not available
I
, i
Not available
Not available
Facilities and Recommended 1m rovements/Additions
Existing Pump Stations:
I CE-1 Type:
Custom
Number of pumps:
4
Date built:
1984
Rating of pumps:
2 @ 7,000 gpm at
167 ft (ea), & 2 @
1,500 gpm at 167 ft
(ea)
Projected peak
flow:
Not available
Area directly
tributary/percent
developed:
Not available
Notes: CE-1 conveys all dry weather flows from all of east Bremerton, as well as all flow from the Warren Avenue Basin.
I Motor-operated sluice gates are installed in the wet well that actuate upon surcharge of the wet well during high flows.
Once actuated, flow in east Bremerton is conveyed to the Eastside Treatment Plant (CSO Treatment Plant).
Improvements since 1998: None.
Recommended improvements/additions: None.
CE-2
Type:
Package
Number of pumps:
2
Date built: 1973
Rating of pumps:
200 gpm at 51 ft (ea)
Projected peak flow: Not available
Area directly
tributary/percent
developed:
780 acres/Entire basin
Notes: The pumps are hard piped, and wet well entry is necessary for their removal.
cmI
4-50
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 4.doc
Section 4
Collection System Evaluation
Table 4-17
Warren Avenue Basin (cont.)
Facilities and Recommended Improvements/Additions
Improvements since 1998: None.
Recommended improvements/additions: Install a transfer switch and receptacle to provide for a portable standby
generator. Cost = $15,000.
CE-3 Type:
Custom
Number of pumps:
2
Date built:
1973
Rating of pumps:
200 gpm at 62 ft (ea)
Projected peak
flow:
Not available
Area directly
tributary/percent
developed:
35 acres/100% developed (but not
to density allowed)
Notes: During pre-design of the Washington Avenue Beach Sewer, consideration should be given to upgrade or
abandonment of this pump station.
Improvements since 1998: None.
Recommended improvements/additions: Install safety improvements to the dry well ladder. Install a gas-tight
cover on the wet well hatch inside the building. Cost = $100,000.
IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING SEWERS AND/OR NEW SEWER EXTENSIONS:
Reduce Infiltration: The CSO reduction improvements constructed have generally
increased flow to the WWTP up to system capacity. Reduction of infiltration is
required to allow for growth, reduce pumping and treatment costs, and provide a
"buffer," or "safety factor," that will ensure continued compliance with CSO
regulations. Inflow and Infiltration reduction as an ongoing project is outlined in
detail in Section 7.
Collection System Evaluation and Repair: The City currently has no systematic
program for evaluating its collection system and identifying failing sewers. It is
anticipated that a thorough evaluation of tlle collection system would identify several
spot repairs and entire sewer rehabilitation or replacement projects. A recommended
program for collection system evaluation and repair is outlined in detail in Section 7.
Specific improvements to existing sewers in the Warren A venue Basin are
summarized below.
ClIVI
4-51
P;\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\ORAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\iext\Section 4.doc
Section 4
Collection System Evaluation
Improvements at 51111 tit Street: Replacement is required.
Washington Avenue Beach Sewer: Sewage from the residences on the east side
of Washington Street from 4th Street north to 13th Street flows eastward over
the bluff and into a sewer pipe on the beach. Since the pipe was not installed
on any gradient, it acts a gravity-pressure main. There is a connection from
Pump Station CE-4 at the south end of the pipe that is used to flush the main
regularly. There are a number of issues associated with the configuration of
the beach main and laterals that make the existing configuration unfavorable,
result in excessive maintenance, and make the main prone to failure.
Approximately 90% of the laterals north of the Manette Bridge, and several of
the laterals south of the Manette Bridge, are installed at grade down the bluff.
Their at-grade installation makes them susceptible to damage from falling
debris. The laterals are typically covered by vegetation, which conceals
failures for extended periods of time. In addition, various parts of the bluff are
unstable, and ground movement has exposed and broken several of the
laterals. Also, many of the laterals are exposed at the toe of the bluff on the
beach. During high tides, floating debris can impact the laterals and shear
them off near ground level. The broken laterals allow beach sand and gravel
to enter and partially or fully plug the pipe. The low flows in the pipe are not
sufficient to remove the debris; therefore, it is believed that the main is
partially obstructed. Additionally, there is limited access to the beach, and no
improved roads on the beach for maintenance and repairs of the main.
Equipment (backhoes, etc.) must be driven on the beach at low tide from
Highland A venue. During previous repairs, the City has gotten equipment
stuck on the beach. To date, staff have been able to recover the equipment
ahead of incoming tides; however during each repair event the outcome is
uncertain. The beach main requires replacement with a new structure, and
associated access road. Cost = $2,000,000.
CD\I
4-52
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 20Q5\Text\Section 4.doc
OF-13
.
I
I
OF-12,-"---'
l~ I
I I
I
I
I I
~ \
1/ "
~~T--
--- I
,
I
.../}Y~
1/ ~o
1/ ~
~
--'.--t" --
'I"" rn ~ I._a.
I
I
- ..-J--L"i"~ =
!. .------.
-I I
I
r-----..I
'-----.
- - --:_____'
... ......0
I -
I
-I- ---.J'
I
I
I
..
-1-
_.- """---
WA~RE \J A \IEN JE
BAslt\.J-'-'~--
r'.J
----.-
I
....1
. -, '-,
I '-, _J-
r------ ._-~
I
I
I
I OF-16
I -0 CE-6A
0" ~ _ _ _...GJ _ _ .M
I -------------.
. ~----___~ I
~~ j I
1 -M - . -eM- I
----- ----~-----~____J I
I
I
.--,.,.
><
\,
o \,
OF-15A ~
/'
I
I
I
I
~
II
LEGEND-SANITARY
_~ WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PlAN
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
_______ BASIN BOUNDARY
- . - CITY LIMITS
EXISTli'IG GRAVITY SEWER
- '" - - EXISTING FORCE MAIN
- - - - EXISTING GRAVITY-PRESSURE SEWER
EXISTING CSO OUTFALL
EXISTING PUMP STATION & NO.
EXISTING CSO REGUlATOR
EXISTING PUMP STATION TO WHICH
MODIFICATIONS ARE PROPOSED & NO.
PIPE SIZE AND PIPE CHANGE
PROPOSED PUMP STATIOH
.. .. .. FM.. .... PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
. .. .. .. .. ... PROPOSED SEWER REPlACEMENT
PROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER
V EXISTli'IG FLOW DIVERSION
(1) SEWER PROJECT NO.
-I-I-I-I-I-H ABANDON EX. SEWERlPUMP STATION
OF-15
o
JL
---
OEB-7
o
DEB.7
----
,---
--- .4-
"
1&) 12
II
,
SCALE 1" = 800'
FIGURE 4-16
WARREN A VENUE BASIN
'-'1
iJ
I
,J
-j
f
CEllI
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
This section of the Plan examines the capacity needs of the existing Westside
Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Eastside Treatment Facility. The section is
divided into liquid treatment facilities, water reuse, biosolids management, and odor
control.
5.1 Liquid Stream Issues
Both the WWTP and Eastside Treatment Facility have adequate liquid treatment
capacity to handle current and future conditions in Bremerton. The following
subsections detail the capacity and issues associated with the plant's liquid processing
units.
5.1.1 Effluent Standards
The WWTP is currently permitted for a maximum monthly average flow of 10.1 mgd.
Table 5-1 lists the current NPDES permit limits for the WWTP. The current NPDES
Permit has expired and the plants are operating under an agreement with Ecology to
extend the old permit. The mass loading limits for TSS and BOD5 were set using the
flow rate of 10.1 mgd and the effluent concentration limits.
Table 5-1
Existing NPDES Permit Requirements
Permit Parameter
Maximum Mor1th
10.1
18,100
22,600
Average Monthly
30
2,527
30
2,527
6.0-9.0
200
0.13
Influent
Flow, mgd
BOD5 Loading, ppd
TSS Loading, ppd
. Effluent
BOD5 concentration, mg/L
BOD mass loading, Ib/day
TSS concentration, mg/L
TSS mass loading, Ib/day
pH
Fecal coliform, cfu/1 OOml
Total residual chlorine, mg/L
N/A
N/A
N/A
Average Weekly
45
3,790
45
3,790
6.0-9.0
400
0.37
The NPDES permit also requires that average monthly effluent concentrations for
BOD5 and TSS not exceed 15 percent of the respective monthly average influent
concentrations except during the wet weather months of October through April
inclusive. The waiver of the federal 85 percent removal requirement recognizes that
the Bremerton system collects CSO and the WWTP treats CSO flows to current water
quality standards.
5-1
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 5.l1oc
COM
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
5.1.2 Compliance Issues
With a few minor exceptions, the WWTP has been in compliance with all discharge
standards since the City took control of plant operations in 1995. The plant received
an Outstanding Performance Award in 1998. The weekly average TSS mass limit has
been exceeded once in 1996, twice in 1997, and once in 1998. The exceeding of the
maximum week limit of 3,790 ppd occurs during extreme, back-to-back, wet weather
events. Compliance with CSO issues is addressed in the CSO Plan and City's annual
CSO compliance reports.
The Permit requires the City to begin planning for expansion when the actual flow
reaches 85 percent of the permit capacity for three consecutive months. With the
exception of extreme wet weather months, actual flow will never reach the 10.1 mgd
capacity during this Plan's planning period.
5.1.3 New Discharge Standards
This Comprehensive Plan Update does not anticipate more restrictive concentrations
will be imposed in the foreseeable future. The dry weather mass limits are based on
the plant's 1980 design flow of 10.1 mgd and should never be exceeded over the
period covered in this plan update. However, the City has made significant
reductions in their CSO volumes and much of those flows now reach the Westside
WWTP. The WWTP has the potential to exceed its weekly mass limit even though its
effluent concentration is significantly below the 45 mg/l dictated by water quality
standards.
If mass limits for extreme wet weather events become a compliance issue, the City has
a plan to construct blended treatment using high rate clarification (similar to Eastside)
and force additional flow to Eastside Treatment Facility. This contingency plan is
discussed in more detail in the recommendations.
5.1.4 Current TMDL Process
Just as air pollution management is benefiting from emission trading, so too might
Total Maximum Daily Limits (TMDL) planning gain from employing effluent
pollution reduction credits. Air pollution emission reduction credits trading as a
commodity is a concept gaining much popularity across the country. In each air
quality attainment area or district, each business must comply with designated
limitations for maximum emission of pollutants into the atmosphere. When a business
is able to conserve a portion of its allocation, it may choose to trade as a commodity its
excess to another business in need of additional allocation. This concept has been
established by states and approved by the federal government.
A model for this concept was established in California in 1997 when the California Air
Resources Board (ARB) adopted a statewide regulation in Interchangeable Air
Pollution Emission Reduction Credits. The regulation is codified as Health and Safety
Code and requires ARB to develop and adopt a methodology for use by local air
pollution districts to calculate the value of lIinterchangeable" emission reduction
5-2
P:\Bremerton\Comp I='lan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AfTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 5.doc
COlI
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
credits generated from stationary, mobile, and area sources. The purpose of the
regulation is to promote compliance flexibility and cost effectiveness.
The regulation sets out general requirements that local air pollution control districts
and air quality management districts (" districts ") must meet when developing rules
governing the generation and use of interchangeable credits. As specified in the
regulation, an interchangeable credit is "an emission reduction credit generated from
a stationary, mobile, or area source that can be used, traded, or banked among
programs and/ or source categories." In order to standardize and facilitate credit
trading, the proposed regulation establishes a uniform credit currency, expressed in
pounds of pollutant in the year generated.
Wastewater Effluent Pollution Model
Air pollution emission reduction credits trading are a concept that could be applied to
wastewater effluent pollution limit regulation to promote compliance and cost
effectiveness in water quality management As TMDLs are established within a water
body, each entity that discharges treated effluent into that body is allocated a
maximum allowable pollution discharge limit As a treatment facility is retrofitted
with upgraded treatment technology, it could choose to relinquish a portion of its
allocation as a commodity to another entity within the same water quality attainment
area. This could provide valuable incentives for upgrading technology and provide
for new plant capacity for growth management
Significant effort is being waged in establishing TMDLs for threatened water bodies.
Currently, there is little effort, other than the regulatory "hammer," to provide
incentives for cost effective pollution reduction methods. Implementation of
wastewater effluent pollution limit regulation would, of necessity, be initiated at the
federal level and offered to the states as a management technique. Since EP A
regulations allow for the concept for air quality, current federal legislation may
provide a comparable provision for water quality. It would require authorization at
the state level within Chapter 173 WAC.
A key principle of this pollution reduction credits trading concept is that of
"equivalency," i.e., the use of interchangeable credits must not result in greater
pollution discharge than would have occurred in the absence of the trading program.
With this parameter as its baseline, there is little difference conceptually with the air
pollution emission reduction credits trading program.
Currently there exists no authority at the state level for such a program; however, the
concept is rich with potential and merits earnest pursuit The City is encouraged to
promote and support, possibly through Water Environment Federation and direct
legislative involvement, the concept of wastewater effluent pollution reduction credits
trading.
P:\Bremerton\Comp Ptan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 5.doc
5-3
CEllI
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Additional Considerations
The marine waters surrounding Bremerton including Sinclair and Dyes Inlets have
been identified as fecal coliform impaired. This impaired designation has resulted in
the State of Washington Departments of Ecology and Health, Kitsap County Health
District, and the City of Bremerton working cooperatively with the US Navy in
initiating an aggressive program for identifying point and non-point sources for fecal
coliform. This program, supported by the EP A, is in the research and development
stage and has shown great potential as the next generation of analytical modeling for
water quality analysis.
This program, entitled ENVVEST, was initiated by the US Navy. The Navy developed
this three dimensional pollution dispersion model enabling the layered analysis of the
effects of pollutant discharge into marine waters. In the first phase, fecal coliform was
analyzed for the Bremerton Area marine waters.
The first phase of the ENVVEST model development has been completed, which, in
part, illustrates the impact of the City's CSO upon Dyes Inlet. Phase 2 will address
additional pollutant loadings and impacts on the marine waters, which include
contributions from storm water outfalls, freshwater stream discharges, and
wastewater treatment plant outfalls. Once the ENVVEST modeling is completed for
Phase 2, State regulators have indiCated a desire to establish pollution units through
the TMDL process utilizing ENVVEST for the marine waters surrounding Bremerton.
The designation and allocation of pollution units will affect the region's potential for
growth and will require storm water and domestic wastewater discharges to be
considered in the unit process. This allocation of pollution units will be a component
of the TMDL allocations and as improved controls and technological advances occur,
the potential for effluent pollution reduction credits trading will be even more
beneficial to overall growth management.
5.1.5 Eastside Treatment Facility Permit
The Eastside Facility began treatment of CSOs in December 2001. The City initiated
operation under an agreement reached through Federal Court. The plant is operated
with the permission of Ecology using the City permit application of 2001. The facility
is designed to a fecal coliform standard of 200 CFU /100 mL. Performance since the
plant came online is summarized in Table 5- 2.
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 5.doc
5-4
CDII
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Table 5~2
Fecal Coliform Performance
Year
Month and Day
Performance
Fecal #/100 mL
17
10
46
30
42
78
47
18
23
10
10
55
10
2003
January 2
January 27
March 12
March 22 (7:30 am)
March 22 (8:40 am)
October 20
November 18 (12:45 pm)
November 18 (6:40 pm)
December 5 (1 :35pm)
December 5 (3:30pm)
January 7
January 29
February 19
2003
2003
2003
2003
2004
2004
5.2 Liquid Stream Capacity
5.2.1 Westside WWTP
2001 Rerating Study
The peak month capacity limitations listed in Bremerton's NPDES Permit (W A-
002928-9) are 10.1 mgd, 18,100 lbs/ day, and 22,600 lbs/ day for maximum month flow,
BODs, and TSS, respectively. These limits were taken from the April 1983
construction plans when the WWTP was expanded from primary to secondary
treatment. In recent years, the plant has treated a peak month flow greater than 10.1
mgd and met discharge concentration and mass limits. In 2001, the City developed a
rerating study for Ecology to assist the agency in modifying the NPDES permit limits.
Peak month flow has increased as the City brings more CSO to Westside though
major improvements to the collection system. The following is an excerpt from that
study prepared by CDM in conjunction with Richwine Environmental (Appendix D).
"The City of Bremerton's Westside wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) was
originally designed for a maximum month flow rate of 10.1 mgd. The capacity
of the treatment plant is based on the characteristics of the flows and loads
that it receives. The City's treatment plant is unique in that it receives flows
from the combined sewer system resulting in increased wet weather flows and
high peaking factors. This results in a more dilute wastewater, which changes
the capacity characteristics of the treatment plant.
"The treatment plant was designed for a maximum month influent flow of
10.1 mgd at a BODs concentration of 215 mg/L and a TSS concentration of 268
5-5
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\ORAF'T AFTER JUNE 2005\Tex\.\Section 5.doc
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
'" -.,
!
,
t
mg/L. These wastewater concentrations are comparable to the concentrations
received today at the treatment plant during the dry season. The maximum
month flow occurs during the wet season. A detailed analysis of the plant
flows and loads for the period between 1997 and 2000 show that the BODs and
TSS concentrations are 131 mg/L and 146 mg/L, respectively, at the maximum
month flow. Therefore, the treatment plant needs to be rerated to provide a
plant capacity under the actual maximum month wastewater characteristics.
--1
i
I
"The Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) outlines in the Criteria for
Sewage Works Design (Orange Book) the requirements for rerating a
municipal wastewater treatment plant. Section Gl-5.4.2.A defines two
methods for rerating a facility. These are the Standard Facility Rerating and
the Nonstandard Facility Rerating. The City desires to rerate the treatment
plant under the Standard Facility Rerating classification.
"The capacity of the treatment plant is defined in the NPDES permit at a
maximum month flow of 10.1 mgd. The actual capacity of the treatment plant
is a maximum month average daily flow of 14.1 mgd. The maximum daily
primary clarifier overflow rate of 1400 gpd/ft2limits the plant capacity. This
value is higher than the Orange Book standard of 1200 gpd/ ft2, but was
selected based on the historical performance of the system.
" Another critical design criterion that must be considered is the maximum
hydraulic flow that can be sent to the secondary process. The maximum daily
secondary flow that can be adequately treated is 22.8 mgd. This is based on
the peak secondary clarifier overflow rate of 1200 gpd/ ft2. This criteria is
based on the design standard specified in the Orange Book and was confirmed
with historical operating data. On each of the occurrences that the permit
limits were exceeded, this design criterion was also exceeded.
"The treatment plant receives flows greater than 22.8 mgd as maximum daily
flows and on rare occasions as a daily average flow. During these periods, the
influent wastewater is dilute resulting in primary effluent BODs and TSS
concentrations in the range of 50-75 mg/L. Forcing these high flows to the
secondary system degrades the effluent quality by flushing solids from the
secondary clarifiers. The best alternative that will produce the best effluent
quality is to maximize the flow to the secondary system to 22.8 mgd and blend
the primary effluent flows greater than 22.8 mgd with the secondary effluent
prior to disinfection. The treatment plant currently has the capability to
provide this blended effluent. This process alternative will provide an effluent
that will meet the effluent discharge standards specified in the NPDES permit.
INFLUENT LOAD CHARACTERISTICS
" An analysis of the influent flows and loads was performed for the period
1987 - 2000. The past four years of data, which is the period that the treatment
CEllI
5-6
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 5.doc
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
plant has been back under City operation, was determined to be the most
representative of the influent flows and loads of the service population. This
data was analyzed to determine the current system wastewater characteristics.
The following conclusions were made:
"The influent wastewater is municipal in composition with the average dry
weather per-capita flow at 125 galj capital day. The average BODs load is at
0.20 lbsl capital day and the average TSS load is at 0.20 Ibsl capital day.
"The maximum peaking factor experienced at the treatment plant exceeds 5.0,
which is over twice the typical value of 2.38 for a city of this size. This is due
to the combined sewer system.
"The plant influent flow currently averages 6.50 mgd on an average annual
basis. The average dry season flow is 4.75 mgd and the average wet season
flow is 7.71 mgd. The maximum month flow from which the plant design is
based is 11.3 mgd, which is 112% of the maximum month design flow,
however, the dry weather flow is only 62% of the dry weather design flow.
This difference is due to the high flows that are received during rainfall events.
In addition, the City's combined sewer overflow (CSO) reduction program
contributes significant flow to the WWTP that was previously discharged.
"The plant influent BODs loading currently averages 7,638 Ibsl day with a
maximum month loading of 8,936lbsl day. The design average BODs load is
11,300 lbsl day and the design maximum month is 18,100 lbsl day. The
current loads are 68% of the average load and 49% of the design maximum
month load.
"The plant influent TSS loading currently averages 7600 lbsl day with a
maximum month loading of 9424lbsl day. The design average TSS load is
11,300 lbsl day and the design maximum month is 22,600 lbsl day. The
current loads are 67% of the average load and 42% of the design maximum
month load.
"This analysis shows that the treatment plant is at 68 % of the design based on
average flows and loads. However, high flows created by the combined sewer
system are experienced at the treatment plant during rain events. These cause
the current maximum month design flow to be exceeded.
UNIT PROCESS HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE
"The influent concentrations become very dilute during high flow periods
resulting in low removal rates in the primary process. The primary effluent
concentrations tend to stay in the range of 50 - 75 mg/L during high flow
periods when the removal rates become very low.
"The aeration basins have performed well within the design organic loading
rate of 120 lbsl day 11000 ft3.
CDII
5-7
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Texl\Section 5.doc
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
liThe critical process parameter to the successful performance of the secondary
process has been the secondary clarifier overflow rate. The peak hydraulic
overflow rate of 1200 gpdj ft2 cannot be exceeded without a high probability of
loss of excess solids and poor effluent quality.
liThe treatment plant has performed well over the past 5 years based on
monthly and weekly effluent BODs and TSS permit standards. There have
been seven times when permit standards have been exceeded: two for
monthly TSS, two for weekly BODs and three for weekly TSS. These incidents
have occurred during three separate events. Each of these three events was
caused by peak flows greater than 22.8 mgd to the secondary process resulting
in the flushing of solids from the secondary process.
liThe performance of the treatment plant has continued to improve since the
City began operation of the treatment plant in 1996. This is due to the
reduction of recycle streams, improved maintenance of the facility, and
optimization of the unit processes based on operational experience.
CAPACITY EVALUATION
"Each unit process in the treatment plant was evaluated to determine a dry
season and a wet season capacity. The unit process capacities have been
summarized in Table ES-1.
Table ES-1
City of Bremerton WWTP
Unit Process Capacity
Rated Capacity Limiting
Unit Process Maximum Month Flow Units
(mgd) Condition
Screening 30 Screen Capacity mgd
Grit Removal 30 Hydraulic mgd
Capacity
Primary Treatment 14.1 Overflow Rate gpd/ft2
Secondary 14.2 Overflow Rate gpdltt
Treatment
Disinfection 30 Basin hrs
Detention Time
Gravity Thickening 15.2 Solids Ibs/day/ft2
Loading
CEllI
5-8
P:\8remerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\ORAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Seclion 5.doc
CEllI
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Flotation Thickening
Solids
Loading
Ibs/day/ft2
16.7
Anaerobic Digestion
(One digester)
Hydraulic
Detention Time
14.9
days
"The performance of the primary and secondary treatment processes and the
quality of the plant effluent for the years 1996 through 2000 were evaluated to
determine the operating characteristics of the system. This analysis consisted
of a detailed evaluation of the operating data for the primary and secondary
treatment processes and the plant effluent. Most of the emphasis on effluent
quality and performance was given to the period of 1997 through 2000. This
was the period of time when the plant has operated free of significant recycle
streams and the laboratory database was the most complete. The following
conclusions were made:
"Percent BODs and TSS removal is not a good design variable due to the
characteristics of the system.
"The limiting dry season unit process is anaerobic digestion. This is based on
the revised hydraulic detention time standards that were implemented with
the EP A 503 regulations to ensure adequate pathogen kill for land application
of the treated biosolids. This new criteria is more stringent that the original
design criteria.
"The limiting wet season unit process is the primary treatment process at 14.1
mgd. This process is limited based on the average day overflow rate. The rate
specified in the Orange Book is 1200 gpdj ft2, but a rate of 1400 gpdj ft2 was
used for this evaluation. This higher value is based on the historical
performance of the primary clarifiers at these higher overflow rates.
"The design maximum month condition as specified in the NPDES permit is
based on the wet season design criteria. Therefore, the treatment plant should
be rerated to a maximum month capacity of 14.1 mgd."
The results of most of this study are still valid, and form the basis of the plant capacity
assessment for the Comprehensive Plan. Plant data for the past few years has
demonstrated the sludge production is lower than estimated in the Rerating Study.
The plant currently has enough digester capacity to meet Class B requirements with
one digester out of service. Biosolids processing capacity is discussed in more detail
later in this section.
Westside Hydraulic Capacity
The WWTP has a hydraulic capacity of 32.5 mgd from its 1980 design. The primary
effluent pump station limits the plant secondary capacity. The hydraulic analysis of
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE: 2005\Text\Section 5.doc
5-9
CEllI
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
the existing plant and outfall completed for the 2002 Facility Plan determined that a
maximum of 55 mgd could be accommodated without overflowing structures. The
primary clarifiers and the disinfection facilities have passed a peak instantaneous flow
of 58.7 mgd when Sinclair Inlet is not at extreme high tide. The plant meets NPDES
Permit requirements while providing blending of 32.5 mgd of secondary effluent with
primary effluent as summarized in Table 5-3.
Table 5-3
WWfP Performance with Blending During High Flows
Flow (mgd)
Fecal
Coliform
CFU/100
mL
Eff. Limit =
400
Effluent
BOD (mg/L)
TSS (mg/L)
24-hr
Average
Date (mgd)
11/18/03 27.03
01/27/99 16.77
01/28/99 26.81
01/29/99 19.86
02105/99 18.74
02/06/99 18.09
02/07/99 17.90
-- Not analyzed
Peak
Flow
(mgd)
>32.5
>32.5
>32.5
>32.5
>32.5
>32.5
>32.5
Eff. LilTJit = 45
Influent Effluent
149 23
54 23
Eff. Limit = 45
Influent Effluent
198 25
85 34
45 33
63 16
69 18
50 15
49 17
26
10
196
48 13
10
The Bremerton WWTP outfall is 568 feet long, 36 inches in diameter, and terminates at
a depth of approximately -30 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) datum into
Sinclair Inlet at a location west of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS). The terminal
portion of the outfall consists of a 20-port diffuser with 61/2 -inch-diameter openings
at 6-foot spacing. The diffuser ports discharge horizontally in alternating directions at
a depth of -29 feet MLLW. Effluent flow projections for the outfall are a maximum
day flow of 10 mgd during dry weather and a maximum day flow of 58.7 mgd during
wet weather. The current capacity of the WWTP outfall is approximately 50 mgd.
Outfall capacity depends on several factors including tide stage and amount of
sediment in the inlet section of the pipe. The discharge capacity can be increased to
meet the instantaneous peak flow by allowing some flooding of the effluent meter
during those rare, extreme wet weather events.
A visual inspection of the WWTP outfall was completed on April 1, 2002. During this
inspection, all 20 ports were flowing freely with no obstruction. Each port was
surrounded by thick marine growth; however, the growth was not inhibiting flow.
There was some silting inside the diffuser, particularly toward the middle and
offshore end. This material was fine grained and filled the pipe up to an estimated 40
percent of the pipe diameter in places. It is not known how far back the outfall might
be subjected to silting. During inspection of the outfall, joints and joint harnesses of
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 5.doc
5-10
CEllI
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
the RCP pipe were analyzed. There were no signs of spauling, damage, or decay on
any visible surfaces of the pipe, joints, or end structure.
Mixing Study
Mixing zones have been designated by Ecology in the NPDES permit for the WWTP.
The state water quality standards (WAC 173-201A) allow Ecology to establish these
zones around discharges in determining water quality-based effluent treatment
requirements. Both acute and chronic mixing zones are designated for toxicants in
the wastewater effluent. Concentrations of these toxicants may not exceed water
quality standards outside of these mixing zones. The dimensions of the authorized
mixing zones are as follows:
. The boundary of the chronic mixing zone is a horizontal distance of 200 feet plus
the depth of water over the discharge ports at MLL W, or approximately 229 feet
for the WWTP outfall, as measured from any diffuser port. Chronic water quality
criteria for toxicants are applied at this boundary.
. The boundary of the acute mixing zone is defined as 10 percent of the distance to
the applicable boundaries of the chronic mixing zone, or 22.9 feet, as measured
horizontally from any diffuser port. Acute water quality criteria for toxicants are
applied at this boundary.
. The acute and chronic mixing zone boundaries extend for the full depth of the
water column.
Ecology (1994) and EPA (1991) have established a statistical test of the "reasonable
potential to exceed water quality standards" at the acute and chronic mixing zone
boundaries. A Mixing Zone Study (Appendix E) was conducted to examine the
potential to exceed these standards with the projected effluent from the WWTP after
the wet weather facilities are constructed. Results from the Mixing Zone Study show
that there is no reasonable potential to exceed standards for any water quality
parameter.
Process Capacity Needs
Projected loadings are compared to existing plant capacity in Table 5-4.
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 5.doc
5-11
SectionS
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Table 5-4
Design Criteria, Capacity, and Projections - Liquids
1980 Actual
Capacity 2003 :
Unit Design 2010 2014 2024
Capacity (Rerating (actual)
Study)
Raw Wastewater Actual Projected
Annual Average (mgd) 7.6 5.7 6.3 6.6 7.3
Maximum Monthly Average
(mgd) 10.1 14.1 14.0 14.6 14.9 15.6
Peak Instantaneous (mgd) 29.5 57.6 57.6 57.6 57.6
Raw Sewage Characteristics
Annual Average - BODs 11,300
(Ibs/day) 6,900 8,200 8,700 10,100
Max. Month - BODs (Ibs/day) 18,100 8,100 9,500 10,100 11,700
Annual Average - TSS 11,300
(Ibs/day) 6,900 8,100 8,700 10,000
Max. Month - TSS (Ibs/day) 22,600 8,000 9,400 10,100 11 ,700
Headworks (screens and grit chambers) Actual Projected
Mechanical Cleaned Bar
Screens
No. of Units 2
Capacity of each (mgd) 15
Manual Raked Bar Screens
No. of Units 1
Capacity of each (mgd) 30
Grit Chambers
No. of Units 2
Capacity of each (mgd) 15
Headworks Capacity
Peak Flow (mgd) 30 30 52 52 52 52
Primary Clarifiers Actual Projected
No. of Units 2
Diameter (feet) 80
Side water Depth (feet) 10
Overflow rate (OFR)
Average Annual Flow (gpdfft2) 900 570 630 650 720
Maximum Monthly Flow
(gpd/tf) 1,100 1,400 1,400 1,500 1,500 1,600
Peak Daily Flow (gpd/ft2) 3,300 5,700 5,700 5,700 5,700
OFR Flow Rate
Maximum Month (mgd) 14.1
Secondary Treatment (aeration Actual Projected
basins and secondary clarifiers)
Aeration Basins
No. of Units 2
Volume (each-ft~ 55,600
Side water Depth (feet) 13.5
Secondary Clarifiers
No. of Units 2
ClIVI 5-12
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2.005\Text.\Sectlon 5,QOC
Diameter (feet)
Side water Depth (feet)
Overflow rate (design year)
Average Annual Flow
(gpd/ft2)
Maximum Monthly Flow
(gpd/ft2)
Secondary Treatment (aeration
basins and secondary clarifiers)
Maximum Month Flow
Capacity (mgd)
Peak Flow Capacity (mgd)
Disinfection (Chlorine contact chambers)
Chlorine Contact Chambers
No. of Units
Volume (each-ft3)
Side water Depth (feet)
Detention Time
Annual Average (minutes)
Peak Hour (minutes)
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
110
14
420
300
330
350
380
550
750
740
770
780
820
14.2
32.8
Actual
Projected
2
28,000
14 ft
80
20
106
10
96
10
92
10
83
10
20
With the exception of the headworks screening and contact time during extreme wet
weather events, the WWTP has adequate liquid stream capacity to meet the needs of
the next 20 years.
Future Discharge Standards
Ecology is developing TMDLs for Sinclair Inlet. Nitrogen (N) loadings are one focus
of the studies and modeling. For long range planning purposes, this section of the
Plan addresses improvements needed if strict controls on ammonia or total nitrogen
were to be proposed in permit requirements. Issues considered are:
III Nitrification capacity of existing Westside WWTP and use of the existing
biotower, in a future nitrification process
III Expansion needs for nitrification of current flows
III Expansion needs for nitrification at year 2024 loadings
III Expansion needs for total N removal of current flows
III Expansion needs for total N removal at year 2024 loadings
Plan-it STOAT (version 1.1.0.220) was used for modeling the existing process and
performing these investigations. The model was calibrated with existing plant data.
Influent quality inputted into the model was the average of the 2003 dry weather
BOD, TSS and ammonia concentrations (195/190/30 mg/L respectively). Modeling
was performed at the minimum influent temperature of 120 C.
CDM
5-13
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFrER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 5,doc
COM
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Nitrification
Nitrification takes place when the biomass of the activated sludge converts ammonia
to nitrate. Nitrification is commonly used to reduce the toxicity of the effluent in
some aquatic environments. This conversion takes place at sludge age greater than
approximately 3 to 9 days depending on factors such as dissolved oxygen level and
temperature of the aeration basin.
The nitrification capacity of existing plant without and with the biotower is 3.0 and
3.5 mgd dry, respectively. The plant could not nitrify year-round at 2004 flows. The
maximum capacity for nitrification was obtained when 90 percent of the flow was
directed to the biotower as a roughing filter ahead of the activated sludge process,
and 10 percent directly to the activated sludge process. At the high BOD loadings
resulting from directing this much flow to the biotower (over 80 Ibs/1000 cf/ d), only
5 percent total N removal was assumed in the biotower. A 50 percent biotower
recirculation flow was found to be necessary to achieve the benefits from the
biotower. For the activated sludge process to achieve nitrification, a sludge retention
time (SRT) of 7.2 days was needed. Achieving nitrification of current flows and
loadings (4.0 mgd dry season and BOD, TSS and ammonia of 195/190/30 mg/L)
would require doubling the aeration basin and final clarifier capacity (two additional
aeration basins and final clarifiers equal in size to the existing basins, resulting in a
more conservative design SRT of 9.5 days).
Nitrification of 2024 loading requires a significant increase in plant facilities. The 2024
design loading used for planning was the maximum month dry season flow of 6.4
mgd indicated in Figure 3-2, and BOD/TSS/ammonia concentrations of 245/250/40
mg/L.
Table 5-5 summarizes plant expansion needs for nitrification.
Table 5-5
Expansion Needs for Nitrification
Flow/Loadings
Current
Aeration Basins
Final Clarifiers
Comments
Basins of equal size to
existing. Numbers
include the existing
basins.
4
4
2024
6
6
Nitrification-Denitrification
Total N removal is achieved by biologically converting nitrate to nitrogen gas.
Achieving total N removal of current flows and loadings would require the addition
of 27-foot-long by 45-foot-wide anoxic basins, to the head end of the four each 45-foot-
wide by 90-foot-Iong aerations basins required for nitrification, plus mixed liquor
recirculation pumping sized to pump twice the incoming flow (4 mgd dry season
flow). Biotower operation as described above is required to achieve full nitrification
of current flows.
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Sedion 5.doc
5-14
CEllI
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Total N removal for 2024 loading requires a significant increase in plant facilities. The
2024 design loading used was the maximum month dry season flow of 6.4 mgd
indicated in Figure 3-2, and BOD /TSS/ ammonia concentrations of 245/250/40
mg/L. Expansion needs for total N removal are shown in Table 5-6.
Table 5-6
Expansion Needs for Total N Removal
Flow/Loadings
, Aeration Basins* Final Clarifiers* Comments
Anoxic
Basins
Current
Anoxic basins 45
feet wide by 27 feet
4 4 long. 8 mgd mixed
liquor recycle
pumping
Anoxic basins 45
feet wide by 40 feet
6 6 long. 15 mgd
mixed liquor
recycle pumping
4
2024
6
*Basins of equal size to existing. Numbers include the existing basins.
At these high 2024 loadings, there was very little benefit from running the biotower to
treat any portion of the flow.
Summary of Ammonia and Nitrogen Removal Potential
Both reliable nitrification and denitrification with the technology currently used at the
plant is not feasible due to the limited site. Iftotal N removal needed to be
accommodated at the Westside site, the City would need to investigate less
conventional technology that requires a smaller footprint. Such technologies would
be membrane bioreactors (MBRs) or nitrification processes that can be used on the
secondary effluent such as biological submerged filters.
5.2.2 Eastside Treatment Facility
Facilities in East Bremerton were constructed in 2001 to treat a portion of the CSO
flow during storm events. The Eastside Treatment Facility was designed for a
nominal flowrate of 15 mgd with a maximum hydraulic capacity of 20 mgd. The
existing Manette Outfall limits the capacity to 14 mgd at extreme high tide.
Mixing Study
An effluent mixing zone study for the discharge of wastewater through the Manette
Outfall was completed as part of the Engineering Report for the project. The mixing
zone analysis found that the current diffuser size, depth, and configuration are
adequate for flows up to 30 mgd. As stated previously, EP A and Ecology have
adopted a statistical test to determine the reasonable potential for toxicants to exceed
water quality standards for wastewater discharge. This test was applied to the
effluent data furnished in the February 2000 dilution study in the Pine Road CSO Plan
(HDR,2000). No parameters were predicted to have a reasonable potential to exceed
water quality standards.
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Seclion 5.doc
5-15
CEllI
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Outfall Condition and Capacity
The Eastside Treatment Facility uses the 20-inch outfall built for the Manette Primary
Treatment Plant for discharge into Port Washington Narrows. The Manette Primary
Treatment Plant was demolished in 1985. The outfall is approximately 480 feet long.
The first 200 feet is the origina120-inch cast iron pipe and is in fair condition (repaired
on September 10, 2001). The remaining outfall and diffuser is 36-inch RCP
constructed in 1971 and is in good condition. The 20-inch section limits the discharge
to approximately 14 mgd at extreme high tid~. The Manette Outfall diffuser is 36-
inches in diameter and 84 feet long. The terminal portion of the outfall consists of a
21-port diffuser with 5 %-inch diameter openings. Diffuser ports discharge
horizontally in alternating directions at a depth of -24 feet MLLW.
Process Capacity
The first full wet season for the Eastside Treatment Facility was an extremely dry
winter. The plant operated six times during the current winter of 2003-04. The
operation challenges appear to be at low flows and modifications are underway to
provide greater turndown capacity for the metering and chemical mixing systems.
5.3 Wastewater Reuse
This section is a recap of the reuse plan developed by Brown & Caldwell in 1998. The
recommendations of that plan have been modified to reflect current conditions.
5.3.1 Planning Criteria and Regulations
Criteria regulating the production, quality, and usage limitations of reclaimed
wastewater have been developed by Washington State Department of Health (DOH)
in the Water Reclamation and Reuse Standards, September 1997 (WDOH, 1997). These
standards were developed from the EP A's Guidelines for Water Reuse, 1992. For
planning purposes, "Class A" waters are often designated; these waters are consistent
with non-potable water use for landscape irrigation of open access areas such as parks
and golf courses, anywhere where exposure to spray is possible.
Class A Treatment Requirements
The treatment requirements for Class A waters are at a minimum, treatment using
secondary treatment, coagulation, filtration, and disinfection. Treatment is required
to reduce the BOD to less than 30 mg/L, the TSS to less than 30 mg/L, to increase the
dissolved oxygen concentration to greater than zero and the water must be
nonputrescible. Filtration must be accomplished by passing secondary effluent
through a natural undisturbed soils or a filter media to meet the final turbidity
standards of less than or equal to a maximum of two Naphthalmetric Turbidity Units
(NTUs) based on a 24-hour average, or less than or equal to a maximum of five NTUs
based on complete record. Disinfection must be performed to reduce the total
coliform count to less than 23 organisms (org) per 100 mL in any sample, and less
than 2.2 org per 100 mL for a 7-day average. The residual chlorine concentration must
be 1.0 mg/L residual after a modal contact time at peak flow of 30 minutes and a
P:\6remerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\SeGtion 5.doc
5-16
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
chlorine concentration of 0.5 mg/L residual at the point of use (WDOH, September
1997). Reclaimed water criteria are summarized in Table 5-7.
Table 5-7
Class A Reclaimed Water Criteria
Standard
Oxidized Secondary Effluent
BOD
TSS
Dissolved Oxygen
concentration
Filtered
Turbidity
Requirement
< 30 mg/L, maximum
< 30 mg/L, maximum
Greater than 0.0
.::: 2 NTU, maximum based on 24-hour average
< 30 NTU, maximum based on complete record
Disinfection
Total Coliform
Residual Chlorine
~ 23 organisms/100 mL in any sample
~ 2.2 organisms/100 mL, 7-day median
1.0 mg/L residual after a modal contact time at peak flow of 30 minutes
0.5 mg/L residual at the point of use
5.3.2 Capacity Requirements and Limitations
The 1998, Brown and Caldwell (B&C, 1998) Water Reuse Feasibilihj Study (Reuse Study)
identified the five potential reclaimed water users in the Bremerton area, including:
the Gold Mountain Golf Complex, the Port of Bremerton Industrial Park, Puget Sound
Naval Shipyard, Pendergrast Park, and the groundwater recharge area for stream
flow augmentation of Gorst Creek. The reclaimed water uses and demands for these
users are discussed below.
The amount of reuse water that would be required for Gorst Creek to reach its In-
Stream Flow Requirements exceeds the total output of WWTP; therefore, calculations
are based on 50 percent of the Gorst Creek demand. When all potential users are
taken into account, reuse water volume demand is closest to total historical plant
effluent output between July and November. Each user has a unique water reuse
demand in terms of volume and scheduling. Historical effluent production always
meets or exceeds these demand projections, although projected supply equals
projected demand in October, November, July, and August. Individual user demand
can be summarized as follows:
II Gorst Creek demand is by far the largest potential user. Demand peaks in
December at 8 mgd over 24 hours, and is lowest in May at 1.75 gpd over 24 hours.
II PSNS demand is 144,000 gpd between June and September, and 504,000 gpd
between October and May, always over 24 hours per day.
II Gold Mountain Golf course requires approximately 750,000 gpd spread over 24
hours per day between June and September.
c:ICIIWI 5-17
P:\Brernerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Sectlon 5.doc
CDM
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
. Pendergast Park demand peaks in June and July at 58,300 gpd, with the daily
demand spread over an 8-hour nightly watering period.
. Demand from Port of Bremerton businesses peaks at 39,700 gpd in July, with
minimum demand at 13,600 gpd in December and January.
If all users are taken into account, monthly demand peaks in December at just over 8
mgd, and drops to 2.3 mgd in May. Average summer demand (June-Sept) is 3.8 mgd,
compared to the average winter demand (Oct-May) of 5 mgd. Peak hour demand rate
is approximately 9.01 mgd (0.375 million gallons per hour) (B&C,1998).
In addition to unique volume requirements, each listed user has unique requirements
in terms of water quality for the reuse water. All users require water that at least
meets Class A treatment standards, which are listed above. Plant water quality data
collected between 1994 and 1996 show higher than acceptable levels of chloride, total
dissolved solids (TDS), metals, and TN concentrations for the potential users. Of all
the potential users, PSNS has the most stringent water quality demands. Nearly
mineral-free water is needed for use in its boiler operations. For PSNS to be an end
user of reuse water, reverse osmosis (RO) or ion-exchange treatment would be the
only methods of sufficiently reducing TDS in the effluent (B&C, 1998).
Gold Mountain Golf Complex
The Gold Mountain Golf Complex is located on Old Belfair Valley Road, located just
southwest of Bremerton (west of the Gorst Area). This golf complex is comprised of
two 18-hole golf courses that are owned and operated by City of Bremerton Parks and
Recreation Department. The golf course currently uses potable water for irrigation at
a rate of 750,000 gpd from late May through late September. The potable water is
pumped into one of two ponds, the Cascade pond and the Olympic pond, where it is
stored. Storage capacity for irrigation water is approximately 20 million gallons.
Current WWTP effluent would need to be blended with potable water at a ratio
between (2:1) and (6:1) or undergo additional treatment to lower TDS and possibly
nutrients. Because of the grass type on the golf course, the reuse report recommended
a TDS limit of 2,000 mg/L. Nutrient removal may also be required to prevent algal
blooms in the storage ponds. The large storage area eliminates "peak hour"
requirements. A conveyance pipe is already in place for this use (B&C, 1998).
Port of Bremerton Industrial Park
In 1998, 23 companies operated within Port of Bremerton Industrial Park, 3 of which
were "wet" industries with processes amenable to non-potable water use. The three
businesses are Fred Hill Materials (cement preparation), Morrison Gravel (gravel
mining and washing), and Express Pipe and Precast (no current records). The top
water user was Fred Hill Materials, with almost 90 percent of the 21,100 - 43,900 gpd
water demand of the three businesses. Fred Hill Materials would likely require reuse
water to be blended at a ratio of (2:1) (reuse water: potable water) to meet its
requirements for pH, turbidity, TSS, Chlorides, and Sulfate (B&C, 1998).
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 200S\Texf\Secfion 5.doc
5-18
CEllI
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
Between 1992 and 1996, water and sewer use records show PSNS used approximately
2.3 mgd potable water and discharged only 1.0 mgd. The discrepancy has no clear
explanation, but could be partially attributed to unknown pieces of the water system
that were undocumented when built. The PSNS identified boiler feed and irrigation
as the two feasible uses for reclaimed water. A separate piping system would need to
be built to support these uses. Boiler Feed water demand averages about 504,000 gpd
in the winter and 144,000 gpd in the summer. Respective peak flows are estimated to
be 720,000 gpd in the winter and 216,000 gpd in the summer. Boiler water would
require treatment at PSNS or RO treatment at the WWTP to remove minerals.
Irrigable land acreage was only 2 to 4 acres in 1997. Building reuse water conveyance
solely for irrigation would not be cost-effective (B&C, 1998).
Pendergast Park
The 50-acre Pendergast Park is on the north side of Gold Mountain. It is maintained
and operated by the City of Bremerton Parks and Recreation Department. At the time
of its opening in 1997, the irrigated area included three softball fields (with three more
planned) and two soccer fields. The irrigation season is from April to September.
Average daily demand is estimated at 32,600 gpd, with a peak of 58,300 gpd. A
conveyance pipe is aheady in place for this use. Unlike sensitive golf greens, which
cannot tolerate high salt concentrations, Pendergast Park is a potential user of Class A
effluent with higher TDS and chloride.
Gorst Creek
Gorst Creek originates near Sunnyslope, joins the West Fork near the base of Gold
Mountain, and discharges into the Sinclair Inlet. Instream Flow Requirements, which
are the flows required to "retain perennial rivers and streams with flows necessary to
provide for preservation and protection of wildlife, fish, scenic, aesthetic, recreational
and other environmental values, and to preserve water quality," were established for
Gorst Creek in 1981 in Chapter 173-515 WAC. Monitoring activities between October
18,1990 and November 25, 1995 indicated that Gorst Creek did not comply with
Instream Flow Requirements on 63 percent of the recorded days. Reclaimed water
used to augment flows in Gorst Creek would have to comply with RCW 90.46, and
upon reaching Gorst Creek would be regulated by surface water standards described
in WAC 173-201A. Regulations for using WWTP reclaimed water to recharge Gorst
Creek are not directly applicable to the reclaimed water itself but to the stream water
downstream of the recharge area. Therefore, pilot studies would have to be
completed to determine the effects of dilution and natural II soil aquifer treatment"
(SAT) between the infiltration galleries and the point of instream water quality
monitoring. It estimated that a blending ratio of 6 parts potable water to 1 part reuse
water would be required to reduce IDS and chloride to acceptable levels (B&C, 1998).
The potential demand for reclaimed water to recharge Gorst Creek averages 7.18 mgd
and ranges from 1.55 to 12.7 mgd, depending on daily, seasonal, and annual rainfall
5-19
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 F'ROJOOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 20Q5\Text\Section 5.doc
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
patterns. This generally exceeds the total average effluent flow from the Westside
WWTP, which is 6.15 mgd (B&C, 1998).
5.3.3 Improvement Alternatives
Six alternatives were developed in the Reuse Study, including:
1. Total Reverse Osmosis (RO)
2. Creek with Blending, no PSNS
3. Creek with Blending plus RO for PSNS
4. No Creek, no PSNS
4A. No Creek, No PSNS, Separate Secondary Facilities
5. No Creek, RO for PSNS
Highlights of these alternatives are summarized in Table 5-8 and described in the
following paragraphs (B&C, 1998):
Table 5-8
Comparison of Water Reuse Alternatives (B&C, 1998)
RO-treated Life Cycle
Class A Water Cost ($
Produced Produces Users (potable millions -
(millions of (millions of water: reuse water) total
gallons per gallons per - if blending is present
Alternative day) day) required worth)
Alternative 1 - Total RO 4.45 4 Port of Bremerton, 80.8
Gold Mt. Golf
Course, Pendergast
Park, PSNS, Garst
! Creek
! Alternative 2 - Creek with 1.19 0 Port of Bremerton 20.6
Blending, no PSNS (2:1), Gold Mt. Golf
Course (4:1),
Pendergast Park,
PSNS, Gorst Creek
(1 :6)
Alternative 3 - Creek with 1.75 0.5 Port of Bremerton 31.9
Blending, plus RO for (2:1), Gold Mt. Golf
PSNS Course (4:1),
Pendergast Park,
PSNS, Gorst Creek
(1 :6)
Alternative 4 - No Creek, 0.69 0 Port of Bremerton 14.4
no PSNS
(2:1), Gold Mt. Golf
Course (4:1),
Pendergast Park
CEllI 5-20
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\SeClion 5.doc
CEllI
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Alternative 4A - No Creek,
no PSNS, separate
secondary facilities
0.88
20.8
o
Port of Bremerton,
Gold Mt. Golf
Course, Pendergast
Park
Port of Bremerton
(2:1), Gold Mt. Golf
Course (4:1),
Pendergast Park,
PSNS
Alternative 1 ("Total RO") has the greatest non-economic value, producing over 4.45
mgd of Class A water and 4.00 mgd of RO-treated reusable water. Under this
alternative, no blending with potable water is necessary to meet water quality needs
of Gorst Creek, PSNS, Gold Mt. Golf Course, Port of Bremerton, and Pendergast Park.
This option also has the highest life-cycle cost, estimated at $80.8 million.
Alternative 5 - No Creek,
RO for PSNS
1.25
0.5
27.6
Alternative 2 ("Creek with blending, no PSNS") produces 1.19 mgd of Class A water
and no RO-treated water. Class A water would be used as-is by Pendergast Park.
Gorst Creek, Gold Mountain Golf Course, and Port of Bremerton would blend Class
A reuse water with potable water at ratios of (1:6), (4:1), and (2:1), respectively. Life
cycle cost for this alternative is $20.6 million.
Alternative 3 ("Creek with blending plus RO for PSNS") produces 1.75 mgd of Class
A water, and 0.5 mgd of RO-treated water. RO-treated water would be used
exclusively by PSNS. Class A water would be used as-is by Pendergast Park. Gorst
Creek, Gold Mountain Golf Course, and Port of Bremerton would blend Class A reuse
water with potable water at ratios of (1:6), (4:1), and (2:1), respectively. Life cycle cost
for this alternative is $31.9 million.
Alternative 4 ("No Creek, No PSNS") produces 0.69 mgd Class A treated water and
no RO-treated water. Class A water would be used as-is by Pendergast Park. Gold
Mountain Golf Course would blend Class A-treated water with potable water at a
ratio of 4:1, and Port of Bremerton would require blending also at a ratio of 2:1. Life
cycle cost for this alternative is $14.4 million.
Alternative 4A ("No Creek, No PSNS, Separate Secondary Facilities") produces 0.88
mgd Class-A treated water, treated with additional secondary facilities, and no RO-
treated water. The water treated with the additional secondary facilities would come
from the Westside WWTP influent pipes that do not carry PSNS wastewater effluent.
Pendergast Park, Gold Mountain Golf Course, and Port of Bremerton would use the
treated water without blending. Life cycle cost for this alternative is $20.8 million.
Alternative 5 ("No Creek, RO for PSNS") produces 1.25 mgd Class-A Treated water
and 0.5 mgd RO-treated water. Class A water would be used as-is by Pendergast
Park. Gold Mountain Golf Course would blend Class A-treated water with potable
water at a ratio of 4:1, and Port of Bremerton would require blending at a ratio of 2:1.
RO-treated water would be used exclusively by PSNS for boiler operations. Life-cycle
cost for this alternative is $27.6 million.
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Texl\Sec:lion 5.doc
5-21
CEllI
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Major assumptions affecting the cost of these alternatives include:
. Users would provide all potable water where blending is necessary.
· All reclamation facilities and storage would be located at the Westside WWTP.
· Blending water from Twin Lakes would be used for Gorst Creek.
. Water quality regulations for Gorst Creek would not change.
· Chosen pipeline alignments, or similar alignments, would be feasible.
. Property costs were not included in the cost estimates.
· Life cycle costs assumed life cycle period of 20 years (40 years for static
structures), with an annual interest rate of 6.0 percent and annual inflation of 2.0
percent.
· The "planning level" cost estimates given for each alternative have a confidence
interval of +50 percent and -30 percent.
For any of the above options, all reuse water storage would be located at the Westside
WWTP. Required storage volume is 45,780 gallons for Alternatives 2, 4, and 4A; and
81,780 gallons for Alternatives 1, 3, and 5.
5.3.4 1998 Recommendations
The recommended alternative from Brown and Caldwell's 1998 study was Alternative
4A, the "No Creek, no PSNS, Separate Secondary Facilities" alternative. This
alternative involves providing secondary treatment to a portion of the raw
wastewater entering the treatment plant, followed by reclamation. The rerouted
wastewater would be arriving from the southwest in lO-inch and 12-inch lines; these
lines do not carry PSNS water, so that the wastewater would have lower levels of
salinity than the total combined wastewater. The primary and secondary treatment
would be provided via a small packaged plant membrane bioreactor or sequencing
batch reactor system sized for 1 mgd of flow. Sludge from this system would be
routed into the current solids processing facilities at the main treatment plant. This
alternative would treat the secondary effluent to Class A standards for the following
users: the Gold Mountain Golf Complex, Port of Bremerton, and Pendergrast Park.
The total amount of reusable Class A-treated water made available to the users would
be 0.88 mgd. The reclaimed. water would not be provided for the augmentation of
Gorst Creek or for boiler feed at the PSNS.
This alternative was chosen for the following reasons:
Ii!I
Blending of valuable potable water and reclaimed water is not required.
1/
No RO treatment is required.
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 5.doc
5-22
J
CEllI
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
. The treatment system could be used for reclaimed water as well as CSOs.
. Additional secondary treatment system diverts raw sewage from the main plant,
thus increasing the total Westside WWTP treatment capacity.
. Future regulatory changes regarding Gorst Creek stream flow augmentation do
not affect this alternative.
. Compared to the other alternatives, capital and O&M expenditures are practical.
. Many non-economic benefits are associated with this alternative.
Under this alternative, demand peaks in the summer rather than the winter, and the
primary user is Gold Mountain Golf Course. Average summer demand (June
through September) is 0.82 mgd, while average winter demand (October through
May) is 0.02 mgd. Peak month use is approximately 0.84 mgd, while peak hour use
rate is 0.85 mgd. The plant would have the capacity to produce 0.93 mgd.
PSNS and Gorst Creek are not users under Alternative 4A, which eliminates the need
for costly RO treatment. Additional secondary treatment for the reuse stream is
employed to achieve the required reuse water standards for the potential users. The
influent water would be separated from influent coming from PSNS, and will be
lower in salinity than the current blended waste stream. The secondary treatment for
this portion of reuse water would m.eet the user's water quality requirements and
eliminate the need for blending with potable water (B&C, 1998).
For Ease of Operation, Alternative 4A ranked 3 (1 being least favorable and 6 being
most favorable) compared to the other alternatives. Ease of Operation was described
as Sf moderately complex process." The reason for this rating was the necessity of
separating the raw waste into two streams for treatment. Benefits of this alternative
compared to the other alternatives in this category are: No use of complex RO
equipment, no infiltration galleries or groundwater monitoring, and less handling of
chemical or brine wastes. Cleaning and maintenance of the conveyance pipe system
will require less effort than raw water conveyance systems because there will be less
settling of solids (B&C, 1998).
Alternative 4A is described as a Sf... type of gateway alternative. It allows the City to
reclaim a portion of the wastewater, but still preserves options for greater degrees of
reuse in the future." Additionally, the reuse report stressed the need to plan for
future flexibility when designing and implementing this alternative. There is
potential that treatment will need to be enhanced to meet more stringent regulations,
or reduced in response to higher-quality influent. The plan would meet current DOH
criteria (B&C, 1998).
In 1998, the reuse plan recommended implementing Alternative 4A in two phases.
Completion of the plan is expected to take three years because considerable off-site
piping and on-site treatment facilities must be designed and installed. Phase I, which
P:\Bremerton\Comp PJan\Amendment\7 PRQJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 5.doc
5-23
\
i
CEllI
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
involves irrigating Pendergast Park and some treatment plant landscaping with reuse
water, was assumed to be easy to implement because it was assumed that the
conveyance pipe to the Park was already in place. This pipeline has not been
constructed. During Phase I, additional data would be collected on water quality,
reuse water demands, and required facilities and equipment. Filtration units could
also be compared during Phase 1. Planned implementation of filtration units is the
use of two 12-square-foot filters in Phase I and four 50-square-foot filters in Phase II.
Because a funding source for reuse has not been identified, and major facilities not
part of the Westside Plant (storage, conveyance and service connections) have not
been constructed, this plan update recommends keeping space at Westside for the
facilities described in the 1998 plan. When reclamation becomes financially feasible,
the City should consider a compact reuse facility at the Eastside site to serve users in
East Bremerton.
5.4 Biosolids Management
Sludge produced from the wastewater treatment process at the Westside WWTP
consists of primary sludge (PS) and waste activated sludge (WAS). The gravity
thickener at the plant was designed for PS thickening, but currently is not in service
because 6 to 7 percent solids in the PS coming out of the primary clarifiers is being
achieved. PS is pumped directly to the digesters as well as the primary scum floating
in the primary clarifier. The dissolved air flotation thickener (DAFT) thickens WAS
and secondary scum. A portion of the sludge was treated to Class A for vector
attraction and pathogen reduction with a Pathogen Reduction Heat Treatment
system, which includes treatment by a mesophilic anaerobic digester, heating by
spiral and serpentine heat exchangers, detention in a holding tank, and cooling in a
second anaerobic digester. This equipment is not in use. The sludge is dewatered by
centrifuge. The resulting biosolids are land applied in nearby forests owned by the
City. A plan view of the sludge processing facilities is shown in Figure 2-3 and a flow
chart of the solids processing can be found in Figure 2-4.
5.4.1 Planning Criteria and Regulations
Federally, biosolids regulations are listed in 40 CFR 503. The 503 regulations establish
requirements for the final disposal of sewage biosolids when biosolids are beneficially
applied to the land, distributed and marketed as fertilizer, used on other surface
disposal sites, or incinerated. The requirements for each end use and disposal method
limit the pollutant concentrations, such as heavy metals, in the biosolids. The
regulations also address monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements.
Biosolids regulation is delegated to Ecology. Biosolids management is governed
under WAC 173-308, Biosolids Management.
The purpose of WAC 173-308 is to protect human health and the environment when
biosolids are applied to the land. It encourages the maximum beneficial use of
biosolids, and is intended to conform to all applicable federal rules adopted under the
Federal Clean Water Act.
5-24
P:\Bremel1on\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 20Q5\Text\Seclion 5.doc
CEllI
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Biosolids, as defined by 40 CFR 503 regulations, are divided into two classifications,
Class A and Class B, based on the level of vector attraction and pathogen reduction
achieved by the treatment processes. All biosolids that are land-applied for beneficial
use must meet the requirements of one of these classifications.
Class B biosolids are achieved through a Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens
(PSRP). These processes include aerobic and anaerobic digestion, composting, lime
stabilization, and drying. There are a number of restrictions on the harvesting of food
crops, grazing of animals, and public access to land where Class B biosolids have been
applied. Class B requires a significant level of record keeping to track cumulative
loadings of several trace constituents.
Class A biosolids can be achieved through a second Process to Further Reduce
Pathogens (PFRP). These processes include composting, heat drying, thermophilic
aerobic digestion, and pasteurization. The production of higher quality, Class A
biosolids offers the advantage of increased flexibility since there are a few restrictions
on the beneficial use or sale of Class A biosolids.
In order to be recognized as producing Class A biosolids with anaerobic digestion
alone (i.e., pasteurization or heat drying) the process must satisfy either the time-
temperature criteria specified in 40 CFR 503 or be able to obtain a PFRP equivalency
recommendation from EP A' s Pathogen Equivalency Committee.
5.4.2 Capacity Requirement and Limitations
Review of Plant Operations Data
As part of the evaluation of the wastewater solids, one year (2003) of operating data
for the primary, secondary, sludge thickening, and sludge digestion were reviewed.
The data consisted of daily values and averages for waste activated sludge, raw
sludge, digested sludge, and dewatered sludge parameters.
Solids Balance
A solids balance is an evaluation of the solids production and removals at each of the
liquids and solids unit processes in the treatment plant. The solids balance evaluates
the effects of the recycle streams from the solids handling processes and incorporates
them into the unit process loads. This evaluation is necessary to determine solids
production for sizing of the solids handling unit processes.
A solids balance was developed for each of the current seasonal loading conditions
and future seasonal conditions. The solids balance provides the solids stream flows
and loads that will be used to determine the solids processing unit capacities.
Current plant data and some assumptions on the performance of each unit process
must be made to determine the solids balance. Concentrations of TSS and BOD are
assumed to stay in the current range at the future projection flows. Flows are
expected to increase in the future with population growth. The relative accuracy of
these assumptions is critical, so meaningful and representative results can be obtained
5-25
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DAAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 5.doc
CEllI
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
from the model. Process performance assumptions were determined by evaluating
historical data and process performance at the treatment plant over the past 5 years.
Table 5-9 shows the assumptions made in this model. The performance values that
were assumed in this model were based on conservative values. This was done to
ensure that the process capacity is available when a unit process does not perform
optimally.
Table 5~9
City of Bremerton WWTP
Solids Balance Model Performance Variables
Variable
Basis
Influent BOD & TSS Concentrations
Peaking Factors
VSS as % of TSS
Historical Data
Historical Data
Historical Data
Historical Data
Historical Data
Historical Data
Yield (Ibs. VSS/lb. BODs Applied)
Secondary Effluent TSS
Secondary Effluent BODs
Total Solids Cone. of WAS
% Volatile Solids in WAS
Historical Data
Historical Data
Historical Data
Historical Data
Historical Data
Historical Data
Historical Data
Assum tion
Historical Data
Historical Data
Dewatering Capture Efficiency
Total Solids Cone. of Dewatered Sludge
Assumption
Historical Data
The results of the solids balances are shown in Table 5-10. These loadings are used to
determine the current solids handling process capacities.
5-26
P:\BremertonlComp PlanlAmendment\7 PROJOOCIDRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\TexllSectiOn 5._
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Table 5-10
Solids Balance Results (2003)
", TSS in Ibs/day
I,
I Average Annual Dry Season Wet S"\ason
,
i Flow Stream
Ave Day Max Month Ave Day Max Month Ave Day Max Month
Influent 6,900 8,000 6,400 6,900 7,500 8,000
Primary Sludge 2,'900 3,400 2,700 2,900 3,100 3,400
Waste Sludge 4,900 5,700 4,700 5,000 5,100 5,700
TWAS 4,600 5,400 4,500 4,700 4,800 5,400
Digested Sludge 4,600 5,400 4,400 4,700 4,900 5,400
Dewatered 4,400 5,100 4,200 4,500 4,600 5,100
Sludge
Future Solids Loading Projections
Using the future flow projections developed in Section 3 and the same assumptions,
solids balance for future flows were developed. Table 5-11 summarizes the solids
balance results for future solids loading. Design criteria and capacities for unit
processes for future solid handling are shown in Table 5-12.
Table 5-11
Sludge Production Projections
TSS in Ibs/day
Flow Stream 2010 2014 2024
Annual Max. Annual Max. Annual Max
Ave. Month Ave. Month Ave. Month
Influent 8,100 9,800 8,700 1 , ,400 10,000 12,000
Primary Sludge 3,400 4,100 3,600 4,300 4,200 5,000
WAS 5,700 6,800 6,100 7,300 7,100 8,500
TWAS 5,400 6,500 5,800 7,000 6,800 8,100
Digested Sludge 5,400 6,500 5,800 7,000 6,700 8,000
Dewatered 5,200 6,200 5,500 6,600 6,400 7,600
Sludge
CEllI
5-27
P:\Sremerton\Comp Plan\Arnendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2Q05\Text\Section 5.doc
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Table 5-12
Design Criteria, Capacity, and Projections - Solids
Actual
Unit Design Capacity 2003-04 2010 2014 2024
(Rerating (actual)
Study)
Anaerobic Digesters No. 1
No. of Units 2 2 2 2 2 2
Volume (each)
Active digestion (ft3) 40,800 40,800 40,800 40,800 40,800 40,800
Sludge Storage (ft3) 11,800 10,200 10,200 10,200 10,200 10,200
Total (ft3) 51,000 51,000 51,000 51,000 51,000 51,000
Diameter (ft) 50
Maximum Sidewater Depth (ft) 26
% TSS in Digester Feed 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8%
%VSS in Digester Feed 77% 77% 77% 77% 77%
Primary Sludge and TWAS Flow
(Digester Feed)
Annual Average (Ib/day) 7,800 8,800 9,400 11,000
Annual Average (gpd) 16,200 19,000 20,300 23,500
Maximum month (Ib/day) 9,100 10,500 11,200 13,000
Maximum Month (gpd) 18,900 22,200 23,600 27,300
Hydraulic Retention Time (both
digesters in service)
Annual Average (days) 22.5 38 32 30 26
Maximum Monthly Average
(days) 12.7 15.0 32 28 26 22
Detention Time (relative flow)
Volatile Solids Loading
Percent Volatile Solids
Primary Sludge 70% 76% 76% 76% 76%
WAS 80% 79% 79% 79% 79%
Annual Average (Ibs
VSS/ft3/day) 0.11 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.11
Maximum Monthly Average
(Ibs VSS1ft3/day) 0.21 0.14 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12
Centrifuge
% TS in Digested Solid 3.5 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4%
Digested Solids Flow
Annual Average (Ibs/day) 4,636 5,400 5,800 6,700
Max Month (Ibs/day) 6,500 6,500 7,000 8,000
Max Month - 7 hr/day
Operation (gpm) 80 45 52 55 64
Dissolved Air Floatation Thickener
The DAFT is used to thicken waste activated sludge. The DAFT systems consist of the
rectangular tank float collection mechanism inside the tank, and thickened WAS
pumps. The air dissolution system was removed and replaced with an aspirating
recycle pump, which has simplified and reduced the cost of operation. Table 5-13
lists the dimensions and sizes of equipment.
COM
5-28
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Seclion 5.doc
CEllI
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
Unit
Table 5-13
Design Criteria, Capacity, and Projections - DAFT
Actual
D' Capacity 2003-04 2010
eSlgn (Rerating (actual)
Study)
2024
2014
Dissolved Air Floatation
Thickener
No. of Units 1
Size (ft2) 500
Sidewater Depth (ft) 13
WAS - Max Month, (gpm) 56 67 72 64
(Ib/day) 5,700 6,800 7,300 8,500
Solids Loading Rate (lbsIft2/hr) 2.0 2.0 0.46 0.57 0.61 0.71
Hydraulic Loading Rate
(including recycle- gpm/ft2) 2.6 0.22 0.26 0.29 0.37
The tank provides about 10,000 lb/ day of solids loading based on 24-hour-per-day
operation. The projected 2024 maximum month loading of 7,100 lb/ day is
significantly less than the capacity of the unit. The existing DAFT is sufficiently sized
for the solids future WAS loadings, but lacks a backup unit for reliable operation.
Gravity Thickener
The gravity thickener has a diameter of 30 feet and a sidewater depth of 10 feet. The
gravity thickener is not used at this time by plant operations due to its high operating
costs. Rather, primary sludge is thickened in the primary sedimentation tanks. The
plant maintains 6 to 7 percent total solids (TS) sludge in the primary sedimentation
tanks.
Digestion
A schematic of the WWTP solids handling and treatment facilities is shown in Figure
2-4. The plant has two identical cylindrical digesters constructed in the early 1980' s.
The digesters are 50-feet in diameter and 26-feet deep, with an active digestion
volume of 41,100 ft3 each and are mesophilic anaerobic digesters. Based on the solids
projections in Table 5-11, these two digesters have adequate capacity to produce
Class B digested biosolids over the life of the planning period. Digestion only reaches
higher than acceptable loadings if one digester is out of service for maintenance, or
one digester is being used as part of a Class A processing system. The improvement
alternatives for this plant can be found in 5.4.3 Improvement Alternatives.
IleatTreatmentSyst~
The heat treatment system can treat approximately 30 percent of the sludge
production. In order to treat the entire solids flow from the digester, the system
would need to be enlarged by approximately four times. Currently, the limiting
process within the system is the detention tank. The detention tank is sized for
approximately 10 gpm, or approximately one fifth of the estimated sludge flow in
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 5.doc
5-29
CEllI
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
2010 if the system is run 7 hours per day. This system is currently in mothball
condition.
5.4.3 Improvement Alternatives
In general, wastewater agencies are searching for additional value from their sludge
processing systems as well as planning to develop a Class A product. Many
wastewater agencies are striving to reduce costs for sludge processing at the same
time their options are diminishing for beneficial use or disposal of Class B biosolids,
and they are being pressured to improve biosolids quality to satisfy users and the
public. Some agencies are implementing productivity initiatives with objectives to
competitive performance. High performance anaerobic digestion is part of the
solution for many wastewater agencies.
In the following paragraphs, the objectives of high performance anaerobic digestion
are discussed, followed by some processes used to enhance digestion. After
discussing these processes, a summary of the advantages and disadvantages will be
provided.
Improvement Alternatives
The objectives of high performance digestion include:
III Improved Biosolids Quality
III Energy Conservation
III Increased Digester Capacity
III Enhanced Operating Characteristic
III Reduced Solids Mass
The City may want to achieve several of these objectives simultaneously. The
following paragraphs will discuss how high performance anaerobic digestion can
meet multiple objectives.
Improved Biosolids Quality
One of the driving forces for the development of high performance digestion
technologies is the increasingly stringent regulatory requirement for biosolids
handling. (Biosolids types and regulations are discussed in the section 5.4.1 Planning
Criteria and Regulations.)
With increased regulation, rising disposal costs, and a greater emphasis on public
perception, the production of high quality biosolids is becoming more important.
High quality biosolids have an improved public perception and a tremendous
opportunity for beneficial use through land applications.
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 5.doc
5-30
I
I
i
CEllI
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
As mentioned earlier, to be recognized as producing Class A type biosolids with
anaerobic digestion alone the process must satisfy the time-temperature criteria
specified in Part 503, or obtain a process to further remove pathogens (PFRP)
equivalency recommendation from EP A's Pathogen Equivalency Committee. Class A
type biosolids can be produced by coupling mesophilic digestion with pasteurization
or heat drying (currently the City is treating its biosolids with an anaerobic digestion
coupled with digestion). Thermophilic digestion can produce Class A type biosolids
by meeting the time-temperature criteria and obtaining a PFRP equivalency
certification from the pathogen equivalency committee.
Energy Conservation
There are several ways that high performance digestion results in energy
conservation. If Class A biosolids are produced, energy can potentially be conserved
by reduced trucking requirements because distribution can occur at closer locations.
Greater volatile solids reduction can conserve energy by reducing the amount of
solids to be dewatered and transported. Improved dewatering characteristics from
some high performance digestion processes can conserve energy by reducing the
energy required for hauling because of the higher solids concentration and reduced
water content of the biosolids product. An increase in volatile solids in volatile solids
conversion or a slight percent increase in the solids concentration of dewatered
biosolids can have significant impact on biosolids destruction in the digester and
concurrent reduction in solids cost and reduced environmental impacts associated
with production and transport of the polymer.
Increased Digester Capacity
High performance digestion to enable higher loading rates may be of interest either to
avoid expansion of the existing facilities or decrease the size and cost of new facilities.
Achieving stable digestion with higher loading rates results in increased digester
capacity. Several wastewater agencies have considered implementing high
performance digestion processes to increase digester capacity. When faced with
limited space or the cost of new digester, enhancing digestion performance can be a
viable alternative.
Enhanced Operating Characteristics
Some solids processing facilities at wastewater treatment plants have problematic
operating characteristics. Some have difficult to digest sludges, odor control
problems, foaming problems, instability episodes, poor dewatering characteristics,
low volatile solids conversion rates, and low quality or quantity digester gas
production. Sometimes the solution is fundamental improvements to conventional
mesophilic digestion. Other times a high performance digestion process may be
beneficial.
High Performance Processes
There are several opportunities for enhancing the anaerobic digestion process.
Uniform feeding, better mixing, and more adequate and uniform heating are just
5-31
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJOOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Seclion 5.doc
CEllI
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
some of the processes that can enhance the operating characteristics of conventional
mesophilic digestion. Another process could create ideal environments for the key
phases of digestion: e.g., acid-forming phase and gas-forming phase. There is an
opportunity to increase the reaction rates while reducing pathogen concentrations by
increasing temperatures that support mesophilic bacteria to temperatures that
support thermophilic bacteria. Or a process could extend the solids retention to
benefit from more solids reaction time. The processes mention above could also be
combined.
The following high performance processes are discussed below:
· Optimizing the components of conventional mesophilic digestion
. Operating at thermophilic temperatures
· Separating the reactions of digestion into acid and gas phase
· Increase the solid retention time greater than the hydraulic retention time
Other processes that can be coupled with digestion that may be considered include:
. Thermal, mechanical, or chemical hydrolysis
. Chemical treatment
. Enzyme or catalyst enhancement
. Pasteurization
Optimize Conventional
In many cases the performance of conventional mesophilic digestion can be
improved. Too often the performance of advanced digestion processes is compared to
poorly performing mesophilic digestions. High performance mesophilic digestion
can compete with some advanced digestion processes for improved operating
characteristics including volatile solids reduction and digester gas production.
For any anaerobic digestion process to be successful, major attention needs to be paid
to pre-treatment. Specifically, efforts need to be addressed with respect to debris
removal (fine screens and sludge screening), grit removal, and thickening.
Additionally, intermediate grinding, energy conservation, heat recovery and mixing
are critical areas that must be addressed.
Typical operating temperatures of mesophilic digestion at wastewater treatment
plants are 95 to 980 F. Most modern anaerobic digestion systems are single-stage
high-rate digesters. Some features of a well-designed and well-operated mesophilic
digester process are:
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 5.doc
5-32
CEllI
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
.. Uniform (or semi-continuous! continuous) feed of screened and de-gritted raw
sludge
.. Automatic removal (positive control) of floatables, scum, and foam
.. Complete mixing
.. Adequate heating
.. Improved pre-thickening of feed
Enhancing the features mentioned above can optimize a conventional mesophilic
digester. Improvements to a conventional digester would be beneficial to a high
performance digester as well. It makes sense to optimize the fundamental operating
features of a conventional digestion before or in conjunction with advancing to high
performance digestion.
A disadvantage of mesophilic digestion is that it does not reduce pathogen
concentrations enough to produce Class A type biosolids. In order to produce Class
A type biosolids, mesophilic digestion would need to be coupled with another
process, such as pasteurization (like the current system), heat drying, or chemical
treatment. Such configurations would include mesophilic digestion followed by
pasteurization followed by mesophilic digestion, mesophilic digestion followed by
dewatering in a screw press with lime or steam addition.
The City has piloted thermal and chemical conditioning applying lime using a screw
press with good results. The demonstration unit produced 35 to 45 percent Class A
cake from the existing digested sludge. The process involves raising Class B sludge
cake to a pH of 12 for several hours followed by pressing the biosolids in a heated
screw press. The screw press uses steam at 50 psig.
Thermophilic Digestion
Thermophilic anaerobic digestion is similar to mesophilic digestion except the process
occurs at thermophilic temperatures, about 122 to 1400 F. Thermophilic digestion is
based on the principle that higher temperatures reduce pathogens and thermophilic
bacteria and result in more rapid reaction rates than mesophilic bacteria.
There are several variations of high temperature digestion: thermophilic digesters in
series, thermophilic followed by mesophilic, mesophilic followed by thermophilic
followed by mesophilic. The most common is thermophilic followed by mesophilic.
Thermophilic followed by mesophilic is often referred to as temperature phased
anaerobic digestion (TP AD). Following thermophilic digestion with mesophilic
digestion allows for this process to take advantage of thermophilic digestion without
the disadvantage of greater odors from high volatile fatty acids (VF As) in the digested
sludge.
Advantages of thermophilic digestion are:
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 5.doc
5-33
COlI
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
. Increased volatile solids reduction for greater bioenergy conversion
. Faster reaction rates for shorter retention times and greater capacity for a given
volume
. Increased pathogen destruction for improved biosolids quality
. Improved dewaterability of the digested sludge
The most frequent cited disadvantages of single-stage thermophilic digestion are:
. More intense odor from the sludge resulting form a higher VF A content
. Higher energy requirements for heating sludge to a higher temperature and
maintaining the digesters at a higher temperatures
. Greater thermal stress on concrete digesters due to higher temperatures
. Increased moisture in the digester gas resulting in a substantial increase in
condensate
. Greater ammonia levels in the dewatering filtrate/ centrate (The increased
ammonia level is a function of the amount of volatile solids destruction and the
concentration feed)
. Mechanical problems such as plugging of heat exchangers from caking due to
higher operating temperatures
Class A type biosolids can be produced from thermophilic digestion when time-
temperature criteria specified in Part 503 is satisfied. The operational challenge is
protection against short-circuiting and ensuring that every particle is exposed to
conditions to reduce pathogens to acceptable levels. One method is to operate the
thermophilic digester in a batch mode instead of a continuous or semi-continuous
mode. Another approach is to operate several thermophilic digesters in series.
Separate Acid/Gas Phases
The acid gas process (AG process) consists of an acid-forming digester followed by a
gas-forming digester. The theory behind the AG process is that creating separate
ideal environments for the acid forming and gas forming bacteria can enhance
digestion performance. The U acid digester" is highly loaded and has a short detention
time of 1 to 2 days. A U gas digester" that is more lightly loaded and follows the acid
digester, has a longer detention time of about 10 days.
Biological hydrolysis occurs in the acid digester, but minimal amounts of methane gas
are produced. The gas production from the acid digester is typically less than 6
percent of the total AG process. The gas composition from the acid digester has a
lower quality gas than that from the gas digester and usually contains less than 40
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 200S\Text\Section 5.doc
5-34
CEllI
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
percent methane. The relatively short detention time of the acid digester can be
maintained by allowing the varying volumes in the digester corresponding to
variations in the raw sludge flow.
To create the desired environmental conditions in the gas digester, the conditions of a
conventional digester must be met. The gas digesters are based on flow-through,
constant volume reactors. Therefore, the detention time varies with the flow rate of
raw sludge.
There are several versions of the AG process where different operating temperatures
are used for the acid and gas phases, these include mesophilic acid digester followed
by mesophilic gas digester (AGMM), mesophilic acid digester followed by a
thermophilic gas digester (AGMT), thermophilic acid digester followed by a
mesophilic gas digester (AGTM). One of the reactors needs to be thermophilic in
order to achieve Class A level pathogen reduction.
Advantages of the AG process are:
III Greater volatile solids destruction in a smaller volume than a conventional
mesophilic digestion process
III Achieving greater volatile solids destruction would result in a reduction of solids
and consequently a reduction in solids processing and handling after digestion
III Foam control
III Increased gas production, stability
III Class A potential with AGMT or AGTM configuration
Disadvantages of the AG process are:
II Increased complexity from multiple phases
II Requires maintaining a short-detention time acid phase reactor
II Requires separate handling of acid phase off-gases that have low concentrations of
methane and potentially high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide
III Significantly higher odor potential during maintenance of the acid phase digester
Extend Solids Retention
The extended solids retention (ESR) process involves separating the hydraulic and
solids retention times in anaerobic digester by using sludge recycle thickening. The
ESR process separates the solids from the digested sludge by using thickening
equipment. The thickened digested sludge is then blended with the incoming raw
sludge, and reintroduced back into the digester. This process allows for a longer
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Sectlon 5.doc
5-35
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
solids residence time when compared to the hydraulic residence time since the solids
are separated form the liquid and returned. The benefit of this process is to return
active bacteria back to the digester so that they further decompose the organics and
increase methane formation. An additional benefit may be the elutriation of
inhibitory metabolic byproducts during the thickening process, thus resulting in more
complete digestion.
Thickening can be accomplished with various thickening techniques. These include
gravity thickening, gravity belt thickening, and dissolved air floatation thickeners.
There are several advantages for the use of ESR, including the following:
.. Anaerobic digester volume can be decreased
.. ESR allows for further organic conversion to methane gas
II Potential for enhanced operating characteristics
II Traditional thickening equipment already on site can be used, thus eliminating the
cost for purchasing specialized treatment system
.. Overall reduction in polymer usage could be achieved
II The increased solids concentration can serve as a buffer to shock loadings
II Reduced digester volume requirements may result in lower life cycle cost
.. Separating the SRT from the HRT provides greater flexibility in solids removal
from the ESR digestion process
.. Increased solids concentration in the dewatering feed may result in improved
dewatering
Disadvantages of ESR are:
II An additional thickening process is required
.. Added complexity
II Class A type biosolids are not produced unless this system is coupled with
pasteurization, heat drying, or chemical treatment
Most Viab Ie Alternatives for Class A for Bremerton
There are three alternatives that should be considered for Bremerton at this time.
II Expansion of the existing system - This alternative will require a new
digester/holding tanks and a new processing building.
CEllI 5-36
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 20Q5\Text\Sed.iQn 5.doc
CEllI
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
· TP AD - This alternative also requires a new digester and sludge control building
with improvements to the boiler and odor control systems.
· Screw Press - A screw press with lime addition could be installed downstream of
the existing two mesophylic digesters. The plant staff believes a single unit could
be installed on the roof of the digester control building and discharge directly into
a truck. Both structural and odor control concerns need to be addressed before it
could be determined if this approach is viable. Lime addition to sludge at sites
where odors are a major concern (such as Westside) have been problematic on
other projects. The high pH caused release of significant amounts of ammonia
from the sludge. For the cost comparison in Section 6, it is assumed a new press
building would be needed that would include new loading facilites with total
containment of odors. The odor scrubber currently dedicated to the biotower
could be incorporated into a new screw press building design.
Class B dewatered or liquid land application would remain as a backup for all these
alternatives.
5.S Odor Control
When projects involve the collection and treatment of wastewater, odor emissions are
encountered. In 1992, the City of Bremerton entered into a consent order with the
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority (now the Puget Sound Clean Air
Agency) to abate odors at the WWTP by December 31, 1995. The City made odor
control upgrades as required by the consent order.
Bremerton has addressed the multiple sources of odor that are typical of a wastewater
treatment plant. In 1996, amendments were made to the collections system to reduce
the concentration of hydrogen sulfide in the plant influent. Additional improvements
have been made to the wastewater treatment plant to control odor. The biofilter was
covered in 1995 and taken offline in 1996. In 1996, Bremerton added two main packed
tower chemical odor scrubbers to process odorous air generated in the Headworks,
Primary Treatment, and Solids Handling areas, and one packed tower chemical odor
scrubber for the biofilter. Sodium hypochlorite and sodium hydroxide are the
chemical scrubbing agents. Air is collected from the following areas of the plant and
processed in the two main scrubbers:
· Screening (Headworks)
· Gravity Thickener
· Grit removal (Headworks)
· Overflow chamber for gravity
thickener (when in service)
· Primary Clarifiers
· Old Headworks
· DAFT system
.
Primary Effluent Pump station
wet well overflow chambers
· Centrifuge area
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Seclion 5.doc
5-37
CEllI
Odor containment enclosures, buildings, covers for major plant facilities, and other
plant improvements have also been implemented. These include grit removal system
capacity improvements, including rock traps, bar screens, an aerated grit channel, and
additional grit storage.
Hydrogen sulfide is monitored once daily from the scrubber stacks with an Arizona
hydrogen sulfide monitor. The only public complaints about odor have occurred
when a portion of the odor control system is taken offline for repair. There have been
no major difficulties with odor since 1996 when the improvements were put in place.
5.5.1 Planning Criteria and Regulations
Air quality and odor control for wastewater treatment plants in Kitsap County is
governed by both qualitative and quantitative regulations. Section 9.11 of Puget
Sound Clean Air Agency Regulation 1 ("Emission of Air Contaminant: Detriment to
Person or Property") is a qualitative regulation of odor, and states the following
(Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, 2001):
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to cause or allow the emission of any air
contaminant in sufficient quantities and of such characteristics and duration as
is, or is likely to be, injurious to human health, plant or animal life, or
property, or which unreasonable interferes with enjoyment of life and
property .
(b) With respect to odor, the Agency may take enforcement action under this
section if the Control Officer or a duly authorized representative has
documented all of the following:
(1) The detection by the Control officer or a duly authorized
representative of an odor at a level 2 or greater, according to the
following odor scale:
level 0 - no odor detected;
level 1 - odor barely detected;
level 2 - odor is distinct and definite, any unpleasant
characteristics recognizable;
level 3 - odor is objectionable enough or strong enough to cause
attempts at avoidance; and
level 4 - odor is so strong that a person does not want to remain
present;
P:\Bremerton\Comp PlanlAmendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 5.doc
5-38
mil
Section 5
Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation
(2) An affidavit from a person making a complaint that demonstrates that
they have experienced air contaminant emissions in sufficient
quantities and of such characteristics and duration so as to
unreasonably interfere with their enjoyment of life and property; and
(3) The source of the odor.
(c) Nothing in this Regulation shall be construed to impair any cause of action
or legal remedy of any person, or the public for injury or damages arising
from the emission of any air contaminant in such place, manner or
concentration and to constitute air pollution or a common law nuisance.
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulation III, Appendix A, provides a quantitative,
Acceptable Source Impact Level (ASIL) for a list of compounds, including hydrogen
sulfide. The ASIL is equal to the worker 8-hour Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL)
divided by 300. An instantaneous measurement of hydrogen sulfide at any property
boundary must not exceed 0.9 Ogjm3, or 0.001 ppm. (Puget Sound Clean Air Agency,
2000.) There are also limits called" odor thresholds," which vary between
publications and are not regulated, due to varying odor sensitivity among
individuals.
5.5.2 Capacity Requirements and Limitations
One of the three scrubbers is used continuously, and a second is used only during the
summer months. The combined rate of odorous air removal from the above facilities
is 16,200 scfm, which is maintained using a main 100 HP fan and a combination of
booster fans. The scrubbers receive an average of 60 lbjhour (minimum 17.5lbjhour,
maximum 102lbjhour) sodium hypochlorite and an average of 161bjhour
(minimum 3lbjhour, maximum 30 Ibjhour) sodium hydroxide.
The third scrubber is used when the biofilter is in operation. The biofilter scrubber
has a 50-HP fan that moves odorous air at the rate of 9,000 sefm. The biofilter
scrubber consumes an average of 1.0 lbjhour sodium hypochlorite, and an average of
O.5lbjhour sodium hydroxide.
5.5.3 Improvement Alternatives
Currently, the anaerobic digesters have floating covers, which allow the escape of
odors when they foam. However, the plant has had no odor complaints in several
years, and the odors from the digester covers impact the plant site only.
5.5.4 Recommendations
No new odor control is recommended for the existing facilites. New sludge
processing to produce Class A biosolids on the whole plant sludge production will
need a comprehensive odor management plan specific to the alternative
implemented. The existing biotower scrubber system could be incorporated into new
odor control for sludge processing.
5-39
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2.005\Texl\Sec\i.on 5.ooc
1
!
j
r-l
I
d
C. '-.. I 0 f..'.-;..
! , ~
- ..,
~ "
S'X
CEllI
Section 6
Capital Improvement Program
This Section describes the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for the Wastewater
Utility, including cost estimate development for the CIP, recommended
improvements, and funding sources.
6.1 Recommended System Improvements
Primary recommended system improvements discussed in Section 5 involve those at
the WWTP and the Eastside Treatment Facility. Major conveyance improvements are
discussed in the 2000 CSO Plan Update.
WWTP recommendations center on improvements to plant reliability and capacity,
wet weather capabilities, and biosolids handling. Eastside Treatment Facility
recommendations involve improvements to the existing outfall.
6.1.1 WWTP Wet Weather and Reliability Improvements
As demonstrated in Section 5, immediate wastewater system needs center on
biosolids processing at the WWTP.
6.1.2 WWTP Immediate Needs
As Bremerton implements its CSO reduction programs, more wastewater load as well
as flow is reaching the WWTP. Peak month BOD and TSS loadings can be as high as
40 percent more than average. By 2010, the WWTP will have 28 days of digester
detention time with both digesters in service and less than 15 days with one unit out
of service for maintenance or repair. The WWTP also has a single waste-activated
sludge thickener (DAF) and a single dewatering centrifuge. Digester capacity will be
exceeded with the DAF out of service. Using liquid digested sludge for land
applications is the only backup to the single centrifuge and this method of applying
biosolids to the City's forest is no longer viable. The plant needs to bring its solids
handling up to prudent reliability standards during the sustained peak month periods
attributable to wet weather flows
The existing standby generator is 20 years old and not adequate to power the whole
plant. This unit will be replaced with a new generator set as part of immediate
improvements to the WWTP. The Eastside facility has standby generator capacity for
the entire plant.
Thickener Capacity
The installation of a second backup DAF is very expensive and almost impossible to
construct due to the close proximity of the secondary clarifier and the east plant
boundary. Instead, a new gravity belt thickener (GBT) can be installed in an
expanded centrifuge area or on top of the DAF. These locations put the thickener
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\SeClion 6.doc
6-1
CEllI
close to polymer handling and other solids processing operations. The design criteria
for the new GBT are found in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1
Backup Thickener Needs
2010 2014
24 hours/day I 7 hours/day 24 hours/day 7 hours/day
6,800 6,800 7,300 7,300
0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
63 217 68 233
283 971 304 1,043
1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
42 145 45 156
0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
45 I 45 45 45
90 90 90 90
108 262 113 278
Operation>>
Waste Activated Sludge
ppd
%TSS
gpm
pounds per hour
New GBT
Width, meters
Loading, gpm/meter
Capture, %
Belt Cleaning
Flow, gpm
Pressure, psig
Total Filtrate, gpm
The new gravity belt thickener will be installed in an expanded centrifuge area, as
shown in Figure 6-1, or in a building on top of the existing DAF if the structure can
support the load.
Dewatering Capacity
The existing, aging centrifuge dewatering unit will be converted to a backup unit and
a new unit will be installed in an expanded centrifuge area. The loading bay will also
be expanded or moved to accommodate a second dump truck or a larger commercial
sludge hauling trailer. Design criteria for the new centrifuge are provided in Table 6-
2. The proposed location for the new centrifuge is shown on Figure 6-1. This
building addition will be large enough to handle a drum thickener/screw press type
approach should the City decide to move toward a Class A biosolids product. The
old centrifuge would be replaced with a screw press under that scenario. The
discussion in Section 6.1.3 contains more background information on various long-
term biosolids process alternatives.
Table 6-2
Dewatering Needs
2010 2014
Operation>> 24 hours/day 7 Hours/day 24 hours/day 7 Hours/day
DiQested Sludge
ppd 6,500 6,500 7,000 7,000
%TSS 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4
gpm 16 55 17 59
pounds per hour 271 929 292 1,000
Cake
%TSS 25% 25% 25% 25%
Wet Tons/day 11.7 11.7 12.6 12.6
Capture, % 90% 90% 90% 90%
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 6.doc
6-2
_..:;:~:.:.:::~).. m.. ... .,.;,
..~~,
---'
_ 0
;00
~
'~
""
~
'."
',- ~~ 0
~O
"t
o
00
II
~ ~
I
f
i
I
l
/
l
I
i
i
I
i
\
I
,
!
I
ldaltth~J
C \! N''''"
" Q),c;i Hi/lie/gO
9v'SV';
i ,.q -Ii, I
\~diitd\~jf}6 i t~\, t:.rC:6 '\
, ,J
. ;
~
c:
o
I
<'0
o (f)
Z- ID
,--
;t::
ID-
L U
:J 0
Q"lLL
r..;:
TI
ID
(f)
o
Q.
()
l-
n...
z
o
I-
~
W
~
LJJ
c:r
en
I..L
o
(:
o
fi
CEllI
Generator Upgrades
The other immediate Westside WWTP need is a new standby generator. The existing
unit is outdated, unreliable, and cannot power the entire plant during a power outage.
Partially treated discharges will occur during a power outage at wet weather flows. A
new 1,250 kW unit will handle the existing plant with enough capacity for future
plant needs. A skid-mounted, outdoor package unit with integral fuel tank is
estimated to cost $250,000. The total project cost for an installed generator with pad
and electrical connections is $750,000. The site for the new standby generator is
shown on Figure 6-1. This location, near the electrical maintenance shop, minimizes
new conduit runs and does not conflict with biosolids handling upgrades.
Sinclair Inlet Outfall Capacity
The 2003 Facilities Plan analyzed several alternatives for expanding the Sinclair Inlet
Outfall capacity and recommended a new, low head pump station as the cheapest and
least disruptive alternative. A new 42-inch-diameter pipe between the chlorine
contact tank and the outfall South of SR3 was a close second in the ranking. The
recommendation of this plan is to coordinate a new, larger pipe with the upgrade and
remodeling of the SR3jSR304 interchange. The approximate layout of the new outfall
is shown on Figure 6-2.
Eastside Outfall Improvement
The existing outfall was constructed for the Manette Primary Treatment Plant. A new
36-inch diffuser section was added in 1972. The diffuser section of the outfall is a 36-
inch-diameter concrete cylinder pipe with 215.75-inch-diameter ports. The ports are
located on alternating sides of the pipe at 4-foot spacing. The diffuser is located at a
depth of -24 feet MLLW datum. The capacity of the Eastside outfall is limited to
approximately 15 mgd by the first 250 feet of 20-inch reinforced concrete pipe.
Replacement of this section from the treatment plant, through the bank, and to just
below the low tide line on the beach will increase the outfall capacity to 30 mgd.
The permit for the outfall easement expires in 2010. As part of the renewal process
with DNR, the permits for replacing the 20-inch section with new pipe should be
pursued.
Schedule for Immediate Improvements
Implementation of immediate needs will take place over the next 5 years, with the wet
weather capacity upgrades to the WWTP starting in 2005 followed by improvements
to both outfalls. The timing of the Sinclair and Eastside outfall projects will be
coordinated with SR3 improvements and lease renewal activities, respectively.
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendmenl\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 6.doc
6-4
s\nc\a\r
\n\et
~~
~~
Not to SC<l\e
Railroad "TracKs ~ \
\
\ \
, ,
\ ,
\ ,
, ,
\ ,
\ \
, \
, \
\ ,
, \
\ ,
, \
\ \
, \
\.,/ ,
, ,
, ,
, .
"\50~o~42"
concrete pipe
, '
, '
, '
\ '
, '
, '
, '
\ '
, '
\ '
, '
, '
, '
, \
, '
, '
, '
, \
, '
, \
, .
,
State \-\ig\"wvaV ~ \
\ \
\
\
\
\
24" pipe
\
I
\
M\-\-3 \
\ Q\\
\ ?It;
NeW pressure \
Man\1o\es
\
\
\
\
555 ~ o~ 36" RCP pipe
wit\1 "\ 28 ~ Oi~user section
wit\1 20 Oisc\1arge Orinces,
6.5 in Oia. Increase OrifIce
Number to 40
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
359 tt o~ 24"
concrete Pipe
\.
""ests\de
\f'JWfP
p..pproy.imate 400~
of NeW 42" OuHa\\ pipe
f\9ure 6..2
\Nestside WWTP Outfall Eltpal1s\OI1
42"
C\1\orine contact
Chamber
CDIII
6.1.3 WWTP Longer-Term Needs
Bremerton has no requirement at this time to achieve a Class A biosolids product.
However, planning for improved biosolids quality will allow immediate thickening
and dewatering improvements to fit into a longer range plan for Class A.
There are two feasible alternatives.
· Conversion to Temperature Phased Anaerobic Digestion (TPAD) or a heat
treatment system - Each of these approaches requires a third digester as well
as heating, thickening, and dewatering enhancements to the existing system.
· Dewatering/Pasteurization - requires a thickener screw press with lime and
steam addition.
Because equipment needs and O&M costs for the heat treatment system would be
very similar to TP AD, only TP AD is carried forward in the analysis. A description,
operation and maintenance costs, and present worth comparison of the TP AD and
dewatering/pasteurization alternatives are found in Tables 6-3, 6-4, and 6-5,
respectively. Potential layouts for these two alternatives are shown in Figures 6-3 and
6-4.
Table 6-3
Alternatives Description
Immediate Needs(2004-06)
Future Improvements (2010-11)
TPAD
o New Thermophylic Digester with control
building
. New Centrifuge or Belt Filter Press
. New Gravity Belt Thickener
· Boiler and Heat Exchanger Upgrades
· Centrifuge or Belt Filter Press with
Building Addition
· Electrical and Instrumentation
Improvements
Dewaterina/Pasteu rization
. Dewatering Building
. Thickener/Screw Press
. Holding Tank
. Odor (Ammonia) Control
. Electrical and Instrumentation
· Thickener/Screw Press
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Seclion 6.doc
6-6
CEllI
Table 6-4
O&M Requirements for a Class A System
Mid- Planning Period Annual Flow, mgd 6.6
Average
Sludge Production, Dry TonsAyr 1,060
Annual Cost, $
Alternative TPAD DewaterinQ/Pasteurization
Power $120,000 $47,000
Chemicals
Polymer 79,000 67,000
Lime -- 54,000
Labor
O&M 28,000 45,000
Hauling/Reuse 84,000 37,000
Odor Control --
Equipment Replacement 192,000 59,000
Total
$505,000
$420,000
Table 6-5
Present Worth Summary
TPAD
Dewatering/Pasteurization
Capital Cost
2004-2006
2010-2011
$6,700,000
1,300,000
$3,200,000
1,400,000
Present Worth of Capital
Present Worth of O&M
Total Present Worth
7,500,000
5,900,000
$13,400,000
4,100,000
4,500,000
$9,600,000
The anaerobic digestion alternative (TP AD or heat treatment) with dewatering has a
total present worth 40 percent more than the screw press alternative.
Dewatering/ pasteurization has the lowest present worth cost for two reasons:
· The initial cost is one half the cost of a digester based alternative
· O&M costs are lower due to the dryer sludge and reduced handling
requirements
A screw press would be the best alternative if the City wanted to implement a Class A
strategy now.
Maintaining a Class B approach would allow the City to delay construction of a new
digester. However, the present worth of this approach still favors the dewatering
alternative using the screw press. If the digester was constructed in 2010 and Class A
implemented at that time, the total present worth of TP AD and
pasteurization/ dewatering is reduced to $8.5 million and $7.8 million, respectively.
The screw press alternative is still slightly less expensive than a new digester later on.
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Texl\Section 6.doc
6-7
~'=
"'" ,
~ , . '''''''-
...Nbl:tCi Scale.
~, -......"........
...,'<.
".
,""c
.,
-" .~.........,-'//..,
. ...:~.".^P:~::.d.......--..~:..:...==..~..... ..--
,4~'<
.,....dO""'"
_,~".__.<<,.,.......w..,^,.,,,
.~..
LlE.A.,tlfO.~
i j. Un 'r<KS,
G"""....
, 'Kl ~
AND
~,,/;....~~~""'-
W:\ProjeclS\2f9ilmFtgure 0.3 TPAl:t [ayoul.ai
02f2Bf05 JJT
Figure 6-3
TPAD Layout
CONI
L[)
o
'-
N
'-
t"-
O
'"""
I
CD
0>
i.i::
/"
c
o
CL
0.
E
o
u
/"
CO
CO
m
'"""
/"
'"""
n
N
m
--::
CL
..c:
+'
o
"-
a
E
......tI!i:(to. Scale
. N"
-"""""''' """"",-'-
~_~_..__c
7~""-:""'.,....<"'''~
SECONDARY
. DfUm Thipkener.
Screw Press
Steam3Boiler.
PRIMARY
CD
L[)
o
_.<<~
CITY OF BREMERTON
Figure 6-4
Dewatering/
Pasteurization
Layout
COM
CEllI
The recommended approach to meeting the wet weather, solids loading processing
needs is to install a thickener and new centrifuge immediately. The alternative is the
least capital intensive and will satisfy the immediate needs to meet the wet weather
solids handling peak. The screw press option can be investigated as part of a project
to meet Class A when that need arises. Addition of a new boiler and lime handling
will also be needed to meet Class A requirements. A TP AD, heat treatment, or other
digester-based approach requires construction of an expensive, third digester.
6.1.4 Ultimate Site Layout
Wet Weather Treatment
In response to a federal consent decree, and consistent with the City of Bremerton's
adopted CSO Reduction Plan, combined sewer flows from existing City overflow sites
will be rerouted to the new Eastside Treatment Facility or the WWTP. Additional
overflows on the west side will be routed to the WWTP; these additional flows were
to begin to arrive in January 2003. In response to this increase in load on the WWTP,
the City began planning and design of a high rate clarification addition to the WWTP
similar in capacity to the Eastside Treatment Facility. The scope of this effort is
contained in the Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility Plan (CDM, 90%
submittal, June 2002). The project contained construction of a parallel primary
treatment train to the existing plant for treatment of approximately 20 mgd of wet-
weather flow. Elements of the proposed project included the following:
iii Headworks: Additional flow metering, sampling, and screening capacity.
II Solids Removal: High-Rate Clarification (HRC): An HRC system was to be
installed to reduce TSS, BODs, some metals, and phosphorus.
II Chemical Feed Systems: Coagulant and polymer feed systems for the HRC.
II Chlorine Contact Chamber: A new chlorine contact chamber was proposed to be
installed adjacent to the existing chambers for disinfection of wet-weather flows.
II Infrastructure Upgrades (Odor Control, Sludge Handling, and Electrical): All of
the new headworks and solids removal facilities were proposed to be covered and
ducted to the existing odor control system, which have adequate capacity for the
added facilities. Sludge from the new HRC was to be pumped to the existing
sludge handling facilities and stabilized in the existing anaerobic digestion
facilities.
The effort was put on hold in 2003 in light of unknowns in the regulatory framework.
High sludge loads but not the frequent high flows predicted in the CSO Plan have
been experienced at the WWTP.
This project could be considered in the future in response to the need to provide a
high level of treabnent during extreme wet weather events. A placeholder is shown
on Figure 6-5, the ultimate WWTP layout. The new HRC facilities would be located
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC'DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 6.doc
6-10
COM
just east and south of the existing Primary Clarifiers No.2 and the new contact
chamber would be located adjacent to the existing unit.
Water Reuse
The 1998 Water reuse study recommended a small, 1-mgd membrane bioreactor
(MBR) plant be built that was fed from the 16-inch interceptor from the sewer basins
that have low sea water contamination (Kitsap Lake, Sinclair Park, and Oyster Bay).
A viable site for this facility is in the location of the existing biotower. The biotower
has no use in the comprehensive plan at this time. This location is shown on Figure 6-
5.
If salts are eliminated or reduced in the other portions of the City, more conventional
filtration could be used in place of the more expensive MBR. Direct filtration of
secondary effluent could be sited near the existing chlorine contact chamber and the
new contact chamber could be used for disinfection of filtered effluent for reuse. A
location for this approach is shown on Figure 6-5.
6.2 CIP Development
The CIP was developed to address infrastructure needs to meet growth,
environmental regulations, and improvements in existing operations and reliability.
An 8-year Capital Improvement Plan and schedule have been developed outlining the
Utility's project requirements from 2005 through 2011. The Capital Improvement
Plan and schedule are summarized in Table 6-6.
Costs are based on engineering estimates and actual costs from similar engineering
and construction work. Costs include project construction bid estimates, a
construction contingency factor of 20 percent, and an allowance for engineering,
taxes, legal, and administrative fees of 45 percent. Estimated costs are in 2004 dollars
and based on ENR's material and building cost indexes.
6.3 Financial Analysis
As shown in Table 6-6, capital improvements in the short and medium term will be
funded through utility and non-utility financing sources. Sources of utility funding
available to the utility include annual rate funded capital, system development
charges, and revenue bonds. In addition, new revenue bonds are planned for
Bremerton.
A number of state and federal grants and loans are available to the City, and comprise
the non-utility funding shown in Table 6-7. These include Public Works Trust Fund
and State Revolving Fund loans, and EP A grants. The total amount of funding to be
obtained through the utility and non-utility funding sources through 2011 is
$26,510,979.
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Sectiofl6.doc
6-11
::x:t=
\:r
~ 80
~
Advanced Pr\mGlry or
.}-tR-G~ ~ea~eh1:~-- ----,/
--p-
--
~ .~ ~""'h:'-i~----'/-'-"-'"
,pJ'c"'~ ',-,' '" .- - --.-
/up:grades .. .
eRn
,:.lH)
SECONOAf';Y
G\gester
No.3
lh\CKener and
;CiNrRiFt@:$water\ng Capac\ty FR\f,!"Wr
. " JRf.A ' .' ",,",OCR NO '
i
ReUse
Fniers
Rep\ace f3\'Q!\\ter
w\th Membr~me
. . .~
6\0 Reactor'
BL.fj~~tH
e,.ii\J)\t4G
~_..r'."8'"
~~'-'h'_'O,._c,;_-~ __:0'; -
.'. ....-\:'\:~'"::~~::,:..
!
i " I'
"', New '''E'''''NC ",,,,. . cblbrlne contact
GEl nerator ~~iia;),'i>u';;g 9"fanl<~r Wet Weather
, ,,\'-'
, ,c"<,='"V~,<=",,,w=ctl\S~o
, /,~.,pc",,~~frF'~":~"--" ,-,'<< ,__".c"~--'" In ~g)~l}
.1".
Legend :
\~
B'::.,:::m \ d' t ....1 dJ
::;;::1;;;i;:;:"vv: mme \a e l",eJ~. s
". --c,\
L J Future wetWeat~eT'1$atment
C J ReUse Facilities l-, ,,,-' --
[' ::J WAD ClasS A Bi()solids processing
~.. ...,--~-- .,.....
...... _ _c__""~---- ',r<'
~,____=-1 -_. ~
Figure 6-5
U\t\mate WW1P Layout
Table 6-1
Bremerton Utility District
Recommended Capital Facility Plan
Projecl Cost Schodule
2011
financing
Loant.ir
Total Rates ani
25,000 -I
200,000 -I
3,205,000 -I ....!.:!..
250,000 -I
0 -I
-I
100,000 -I
3,780,000 --
Projecl
~ Projoct Type projoct TIlle/Descrfptlon Projoct Cost
New Roof on Control
WB Treolmen! BuIlding 25,000
WWTP UpgradeJrronlage
WB Treafment Improvements
WB Treolmenl WWTP Upgrade
WB Treatment OulfaU
EB Trealment outtan
WB Trealmenl Digester
WB Trealment Water Reuse
Subtotal- WWTP
WWTP & Pump stallon
Improvements -Including
Fuel Tonk Replacements,
TreatmenV Aulvmslle Switch Geor.
CoIleeIion and Emergency Power
~ System Supply
CoIIectlon
CW System Sewer Main Replacament
Washlnglon street Beach
CoUectlon MoIn Abandonment
~ System (Design In 2005)
Collection Pump station CE-1
WB System Control Sy5tem Upgrade
Collection Kl-1, 2 Pump stallon
WB System Upgrade,
- CoHection Anderson Cove Basin
WB System COO Project(CW-1)
- CQllection PaCific Avenue COO
WB System Project (OF-16)
WW CoRectJon and Trans
CoOecllon System Improvemenls-
~ System Oyster Bay
Collection
CW System Mise Equip - Dept 33
Collection Improvement on Schley
~ System from Shelldan 10 Callahon
Improvement on Homer
CoOection Jones from YMCA to
~ System PailIlng Lot 10 Soulh
Collection Improvements between
~ System Schley and Ar street
Improvements on Reed
CoOection between Lebo and
EB System stephenson
Improvements on ,4..inch
Collectlon wne between Bruenn and
WB System Lilac lone,
Collection Improvementsal51111th
~ System street
Improvements In Utlnly
Easement between
Collection I3roadmoor VlOage end
~ System Hanford Avenue
Improvements behind
Collection Lowe's Hardware from
EB System AlmIra to Wheaton Way
Replace S8 on Sheldon
Conectlon from Pacific 10 Evergreen
~ System Park
Improvements on McClain,
Collection running west on SheIIdan
EB System to 8m to Hefner 10 Lebo
Improvements on Cheny
Collection st. to Lower Wheaton
fB .System Way
500,000 l,500,OOC. [. 2,030,OOC' -I 2
80,000 O. 0 80,000 . -I
.~ 175,000 -I
o 0 0 1,000,000 -I 5
o 0 O' 3,800,000 4
2006
2007
2008
2010
550,000
2,375,000 -I
2009
350,000
l,625,OOC .
o
o
25,000
1,075,000 -I
15,00['
90,000 -1.._
(I
0'-1.._.
200,000 200,000
3,200,000 450,000 2,755,000 0
250,000 0 0 0 250.000
500,000 0
2,000,000 0 0 0
100,000 D- ol 100,000 0
6,275,OOD. 450,001 ! 2,755,00[' 225,DOC. 100,000 01 250,000
II
30,00['-1.. _
50,000.-1.. _
-1.._
0.-1.._
-1.._
0'-1.._
o -I
--
150,000 -1.. -2-
-1.._
o -I
Annua I
Annua,1
225,OOL I
225,0001
500,000
350.0001
450,00C'
450,000
2OO,OOC'
200.0001
350,000'
350,000
13,500,0001
30,000'
I
[.
C'
80,OOC.
LI
175,000 (I (' 175,OOC
1,000,000 1,000,000 0 (
3,800,000 1,800,000 2,200,000
1,100,OOll
Annuall
250.000 .
15,0001
L'
15,0001
(I
15,0001
75,00( I
750,000
15,001.1
15,000
75,0011
...
l'
II
30,OOll
50,0001
LI
1.1
30,OOll
0,
I
Co
01
50.000
50,OOC .
~~.
o
o
30,000
10,0001
o
10,000
o
o
01
o
50,000
150,000
o
150.000.
o.
o
300,000
o
o
30,000
o
o
Table 6-1
Bremerton Utility District
Recommended Capital Facility Plan
Project Cost Schedule financing
Project Loan(,:jr
Area Project Type Project TUleJDescl1pllon Project Cost 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Rates ant
- --
Kitsap Lake Main
CoIJeclion Replecement (Design in
WB System 2006) 2,200,000 ~
Beach Main Replacement
Collection from ESTP to 16" Siphon
EB System (includes design) 100,000 125,000 1,000,000 1,125,000 2
Collection Reline the surge chamber
WB System Ell GregOl'J & High 35,000 ~
- Collection Reline surge chamber at
WB System 13\h and Naval 35,000 ~
--
Crosstown Pipeline
Collection ventilation and odor
WB System control (Design In 2006) 1.100,000 65,000 800,000 865,000 ~
Cambrian Ave Sewer
Collection Rehebililatlon (Design in
WB System 2010) 275,000 ~
- Conection Access for BeachmBln
CW System maintenance 150,000 0 ~
Oyster Bay RemodeV
CW expansion 771,000 396,250 375,000 771,250 ~
- Collection Beachmaln & Cntlcal FM --
CW System Cleaning 475,000 75,000 200,000 200,000 475,000 ....L _
CoDeclion CoRectlon System
CW System Evaluation & Inspection Annual 150,000 150,000 150,000 450,000 ~
- Collection Sanitary lateral I & I --
CW System Reduction Annual 160,000 180,000 200.000 540,000 ~
--
Collection Tracyton BlVd Air-Release
WB System & Cleaning Access 100,000 0 ~
- Collection --
CW System Utility Bliling System 40,000 40,000 40,000 ~
Subtotal ~ CollecUon
System 25,581,000 3,Oll5,OOO 2,815,000 1,616,25(' 3.220,OOE I 3,945,000 2,265,000 16,946,250
Tolal - WWTPI COLLECTION 31,856,000 3,535,000 5,570,000 1,941,250 3,320,000 3,945,000 2,515,000
GRAND TOTAL 20,726,250
we = West Bremerton EB ~ East Brem.rlon CW " City-wide
Footnotes:
1 - Funding is by EPA STAG Grant and Rates. STAG Grant amount is $1,746,000 and requires a 45% match.
2 - Funding source is currently undefined.
3 - Funding is an SRF Step 3 loan, $1075,000.
4 - Funding is from multiple sources; a $1,940,000 STAG Grant, a $250k and $1,000,000 SRF Loan, and a $4,960,000 PWTF Loan.
5 - Funding Is from a $300,000 SRF (Design), and $475,000 PWTF (Construction, in-hand) and $525,000 PWTF (Pending.)
6 - Balance of design costs are from a new design loan, and balance of construction costs are from new construction loan.
7 - Funding is from new design and construction loan to be applied for in 2006
Project Cost Schedule Financing
Project Project Non-
Area Project Type Title/Description 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Utility Utility
- New Roof on Control I
WB Treatment Building 15,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,000 -.[
-
Table 6-6
Bremerton Utility District
Recommended Capital Facility Plan
WWTP Solids
Management
(Centrifuge in 2006 and
WB Treatment Gravity Belt in 2008)
Headworks Mechanical
WB Treatment Bar Screen
WWTP
Upgrade/frontage
WB Treatment Improvements
Class A Water Fiiler
(included in Water
WB Treatment Reuse)
o
300,000
o
150,000
o
o
o
450,000 -.[
100,000
o
o
o
o
o
o
100,000....i..- _
o
o
150,000
o
o
o
o
150,000 ....i..-_
-
,WWTP Capacity
WB ,Treatment Upgrades 200,000
-
WB Treatment Generator 750,000
-
I
WB Treatment Outfall 0
-
EB Treatment Outfall 0
-
Biosolids Storage Pad
WB Treatment (roof upgrade) 80,000
-
WB Treatment Digester 0
-
WB Treatment Water Reuse 0
Subtotal - WWTP 1,145,000
I WWTP & Pump Station
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o -.[
o
-
964,000 0 0 0 0 3,164,000 -.[ -.[
0 0 0 0 0 750,000 -.[
0 0 600,000 0 0 600,000 -.[
500,000 0 0 0 0 500,000 -.[
0 0 0 0 0 80,000 -.[
0 0 0 2,000,000 0 2,000,000 -.[
0 100,000 0 0 0 100,000 -.[
1,614,000 250,000 600,000 2,000,000 0 7,909,000
2.000,000
o
o
o
o
o
2,300,000
'Improvements -
/nc/uding Fuel Tank
'Rep/acements,
Treatmenll Automatic Switch Gear,
Collection and Emergency Power
WB & CW System Supply 165,000 215,000 215,000
Collection Sewer Main
CW System Replacement 300,000 300,000 300,000
Washington Street
Beach Main
Collection Abandonment (Design
WB System in 2005) 0 150,000 0 700,000 500,000 0 0 1,350,000 ....i..- _
Pump Station CE-1
,Coliection Control System
WB System Upgrade 150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 150,000 -.[
,Coliection KL-1, 2& PB-1 Pump 01 01 01 01 01 100,0000=1
WB System Station Upgrade 100,000 0
Collection Anderson Cove Basins
WB System CSS Project (OF-12) 650,000 0 0 0 0 {) 0 650,000 ....i..- _
Trenton & Cherry Ave
Collection Basins CSO Reduc. (OF
EB System 12) 750,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 750,000 -.[
Collection aCllC venue 1,166,667/ 1,166,666/ 0/ 01 0/ 3,700,000r:=D
WB System Project (OF-16) 200,000 1,166,667
WW Coliection and
Trans System
Collection Improvements - Oyster
WB System Bay 0 0 0 550,000 0 550,000 1,100,000 -.[
Tracyton PS (EB-6) -I
CoIIeclloo COFtStFUE:tloo
WB System /Improvement 600,000 0 0 0 0 600,000
Collection
CW System Misc Equip - Dept 33 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 70,000
CDNI
P:\BremertonIComp PlanlAmendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\TabieslSection 6\Bremerton CFP Table 6-6_ July2B.xls
Table 6-6
Bremerton Utility District
Recommended Capital Facility Plan
-I Project Cost Schedule Financing
Project Project I !'fan-
Area Project Type Title/Description 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Utility Utility
- Collection Quality and Quantity I
cw System Meters - Dept 31 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 70,000 ...(
Collection
EB System
Collection
EB System
Collection
EB System
-
Collection
EB System
-
Collection
WB System
- Collection
WB System
Collection
EB System
-
Collection
EB System
Collection
WB System
Collection
EB System
Collection
EB System
-
Collection
WB System
Collection
EB System
Collection
WB System
Collection
WB System
Collection
WB System
Collection
WB System
-
improvement on Schley
from Sheridan to
Callahan
o
0 0 0 0 73,600 0 73,600 ...(
0 0 0 19,200 0 0 19,200 ...(
0 0 0 0 38,400 0 38,400 ...(
n
0 0 0 51,200 0 0 51,200 -L_
a 0 0 25,600 0 0 25,600 ...(
0 01 01 01 5,0001 01 5,0001~
Improvement on Homer
Jones from YMCA to
Parking Lot to South
)mprovements between
'Schley and Fir Street
Improvements on Reed
between Lebo and
Stephenson
Improvements on 4-inch
line between Bruenn
and Lilac lane
Improvements at 511
11th Street
o
o
o
o
Improvements in Utility
Easement between
Broadmoor Village and
Hanford Avenue
o
o
o
o
o
6,000
o
6,000 ...(
'Improvements behind
Lowe's Hardware from
Almira to Wheaton Way
Replace SS on Sheldon
from Pacific to
Evergreen Park
I mprovements on
McClain, running west
on Sheridan to Elm to
Hefner to Lebo
Improvements on
Cherry SI. to Lower
Wheaton Way
Kitsap Lake Main
Replacement (Design in
2006)
Beach Main
Replacement from
ESTP to 16" Siphon
(includes design)
Improvements along
alley between Arsenal
and Patton
Reline surge chamber at_
13th and Naval
0 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 ...(
56,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 56,000 ...(
0 0 0 0 282,000 0 0 282,000 ...:L _
0 0 0 0 28,800 0 0 28,800 ...(
0 0 0 0 100,000 2,000,000 100,000 2,200,000 ...:L _
0 0 0 1,000,000 0 0 0 1,000,000 --L.. _
0 0 0 0 0 19,200 0 19,200 -:L_
0 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 50,000 -:L_
a 0 0 0 0 100,000 1,000.000 1,100,000 ...(
--
15,000 250,000 0 0 0 0 0 265,000 ' ...(
SUDIOlal . "-ouecuon I 1,781,6671 3,816.666/ 2.356,8001 3,012,2001
System 3,036,000 2,131,667 2.470,000 18,405,000
Total- WWTP/ COLLECTION 4,181,000 4,431,667 3,395,667 3,866,666 2,956,800 5,012,200 2,470,000
GRAND TOTAL 26,314,000
Collection
CW System
CDIVI
Crosstown Pipeline
ventilation and odor
control (Design in 2006)
Cambrian Ave Sewer
Rehabilitation (Design in
2005)
Access for Beachmain
maintenance
30 000
30 000
30 000
30 000
30 000
o
o
150000 ...(
WB = West Bremerton
EB = East Bremerton
CW = City-wide
P:\Bremerton\Comp PlanlAmendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\TableslSection 6\Bremerton CFP Table 6-6_ July2B.xls
Table 6-7
Financing Summary
Total (through 2011)
Funding Source
Utility:
Annual Rate Funded Capital
Non-Utility:
Public Works Trust Fund Loans
State Revolving Fund Loans
EPAGrants
$11,866,250
$3,924,000
$1,250,000
$3,686,000
TOTAL
$20,726,250
CEllI
Table 6-7
Financing Summary
Funding Source
Utility Annual Rate Funded Capital
System Development Charges
New Revenue Bonds
Transfer from Stormwater
Non-Utility Public Works Trust Fund Loans
State Revolving Fund Loans
EPA Grants
TOTAL
Total (through 2011)
$12,028,979
800,000
981,000
100,000
5,340,000
2,825,000
4,436,000
$26,510,979
Annual project costs are a function of commodity and labor costs. These costs and
bond ratings change on an annual basis. Each year, the City reviews the capital
funding budget and modifies the budget as needed to address these changes.
P;\Bremerton\Comp PJan\Amendmenl\7 PROJDOC\DRAF=T AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 6.doc
6-15
I
Section
Seven
CEllI
Section 7
Operations
Operation and maintenance of the wastewater system includes the collection system
pipes in the ground, wastewater pump stations, odor control stations, CSO sites, the
Westside Wastewater Treatment Facility, and the Eastside CSO Treatment Facility.
The following entities have responsibility for the infrastructure described above:
Collection System and CSO Sites:
Utility Operations Division
Pump Stations:
Wastewater Division
Odor Control Stations:
Wastewater Division
Westside Wastewater Treatment Facility:
Wastewater Division
Eastside CSO Treatment Facility:
Wastewater Division
7.1 Utility Organization
The Wastewater Utility has been organized to meet system needs with persons
assigned based on availability of personnel and their expertise. The Director of Public
Works and Utilities has the responsibility for the Wastewater Utility. This includes
planning, financing, operation, maintenance, capital improvement program, and
personnel.
An organization chart of the Department of Public Works and Utilities is shown on
Figure 7-1.
7.2 System Operation and Maintenance
Operation and maintenance of the wastewater system is completed by the City of
Bremerton's staff with City-owned equipment. The City owns and maintains the
necessary equipment for the system's normal and emergency needs. A detailed list of
equipment and special tools can be obtained from the City's asset management
program.
Complex or unusual repairs may be completed by a contractor.
7.2.1 Collection System
The collection system was first installed in the late 1800s to transport untreated
sewage and storm water to the marine waters of Puget Sound. The lines were
combined to allow the storm water an opportunity to flush the raw sewage to the
receiving body of water. In the 19305, attempts were made to screen or grind the
wastewater material prior to discharge.
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Secfion 7.doc
7-1
CITY OF BREMERTON
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES
UTILITIES OPERATIONS
-" ,- . .......-.. ,"
.- '--'-, --'.. ;".- - ,'.
ADMINISTRAT(vE.. .0
MA.NAGER .
WASTEWATER
MANAGER
.'0" .. ..,',.......,_._.,..
,," - -,....-<.,.
UTILITIES.OPERATIONS ..~
MANAG~R
. . . . . . I ..
AASR II ADMINISTRATION I CUSTOMER SERVICE/II WWTP I WWTP] WATER DISTRIBUTION l CROSS l FACILITIES/ WATER DISTRIBUTION J
UTILITY BILLING OPS SUPV MAINT SUPV SUPV CONNECTION INV SUPV SUPV
AA SR I I OAS SPEC I UTILITY BILLING I I I WWTP I WWTP MAINT I WATER DIST I I WA~ER II I CROSS CONN I MAl NT II LEAD UTIL II LEA~ UTIL
SUPV I OPERATOR II TECH MAINS SPECIALTIES '1 CON SPEC COORD II SERV SPEC SERV SPEC
AA SR I I OAS I AA SR I WWTP I WWTP MAINT [ LEAD UTIL ! UTIL CUST MAIN I UTIL SERV I H UTIL SERV
OPERATOR II TECH SERV SPEC SERV REP COORD I SPEC SR SPEC SR
AASR I I OAS I AASR I WWTP I WWTPMAINT [ UTILSERV !LEADWATER UTILSERV I UTILSERV I H UTILSERV
(Vacant) OPERATOR I TECH SPEC SR DIST SPEC SPEC SPEC SPEC SR
I OA II I AA II I WWTP I WWTP MAINT [ UTIL SERV ! UTILMETER UTIL SERV I U UTIL SERV
OPERATOR I TECH (Vacant) SPEC SR READER SPEC "1 SPEC
I OA II I AA II I WWTP I WWTP CMMS l UTll SERV ! UTll SERV UTIL SERV I
OPERATOR I TECH SPEC SR SPEC SR SPEC
AA II J-I I WWTP LAB I. ELECTRONICS l UTIL SERV
TECH TECH SPEC
'JOURNEY LEVEL l UTIL SERV
ELECTRICIAN SPEC
l UTll SERV
SPEC
l UTll SERV
SPEC
'.'-',--" ----,.. -,"'---'-" '. '-'--
."- ,,', ,- .,' .',"',-- - .. ',-" ,".,
-,' '-.
<-- ," -- - .. ." --
"-: .'.,-',--',- - '. --'
WATER RESOURCES
MANt~,~~,
F<We:SIR'(
MANAGER.
WATER RESOURCESJ I FORESTRY SERV
MANAGER SPEC SUPV
WATER RESOURCESJ I FORESTRY SERV
OPSSUPV SPECSR
OPERATOR j. I FORESTRY SERV
LEAD WATER SPEC SR
OPERATOR
SR WATER
OPERATOR SR ]
WATER (Vacant)
WATER
OPERATOR
WATER
OPERATOR
ENVIRONMENTAL J
TECH
ENVIRONMENTAL J
TECH
WATER RESOURCE J
ASSISTANT
j
J
j
CEllI
Section 7
Operations
In the 1940s, the US Department of Defense constructed two primary wastewater
facilities, one at Charleston Beach and the other at Lions Field.
Today, the collection system consists of PVC, asbestos/ concrete, clay, concrete
cylinder, ductile iron pipe from 6 to 36 inches with total lineal footage estimated at
225 miles.
There are a total of 35 pump stations ranging from simple 5-horsepower pumps to
400-horsepower pumps capable of pumping from tens to thousands of gpm. In most
cases the pump stations have emergency power supplies in the event commercial
power is lost.
7.2.2 Treatment Facilities
There are two wastewater treatment facilities serving the Bremerton wastewater
system. All wastewater sludges are collected at the Westside WWTP, anaerobically
digested, treated to Class B standards, dewatered, and applied to the City's
silviculture site for reuse.
The Westside WWTP is a biological secondary treatment process and is in continuous
operation, with effluent discharge to Sinclair Inlet. Flows range from a dry weather
flow of 1,000 gpm to wet weather flow of 37,000 gpm.
The Eastside Facility is a High-Rate Clarification physical/ chemical treatment system
that can start automatically or in the manual mode. The primary purpose of this
facility is to treat diluted wet weather flows and provide UV disinfection to meet
secondary water quality standards. The treatment system can treat from 0 to 20,000
gpm in 15 minutes.
7.2.3 Data Collection and Management
Data collection is completed with hands-on inspection of all equipment and processes.
Some data is collected and recorded on paper. Critical information is recorded into
the Westside computer system for archiving.
Most of the data is collected by programmable logic control (PLC) systems that
measure, calculate, and execute prescribed functions for many in-plant and pump
station functions. The information generated within the WWTPs and pump stations
is stored/ archived in an electronic format at the Westside facility for reference.
Operation data is logged into the electronic archive system. Examples of the data
include laboratory results, operator inspection results, and process performance(s).
Maintenance data is managed by a computer software package purchased by the City
of Bremerton. Customizing activities have been completed, allowing the software to
document preventative maintenance, corrective maintenance, predictive maintenance,
inventory control, and purchase orders. Details on the software system capability can
be obtained at the WWTP.
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Secfion 7.doc
7-3
mil
Section 7
Operations
All data is stored in a dual archiving system that provides complete backup of all
information. This is accomplished by a side-by-side (mirror) system that exchanges
information every 5 seconds.
7.3 Additional Staff Requirements
7.3.1 Staff Requirements Due to System Growth
Since 1995, the City has constructed a new treatment plant (Eastside CSO Treatment
Plant), expanded the existing Westside WWTP (headworks, grit chambers, and odor
control), expanded biosolids operation (dewatering), installed five new remote odor
control stations (CE-1, Gregory & High, 12th & Naval, CW-l, and WB-3), constructed
two new pump stations (EB-2 High and WB-6), expanded operations at five pump
stations (EB-2 Low, WB-3, CW-2, EB-3, and EB-6), expanded the collection system by
over 25 miles, and in 2005 will construct expansions to two additional pump stations
(CW-1 and CE-6). No additional staff have been added to operate and maintain these
new and expanded facilities; therefore, operations and maintenance of the utility
infrastructure has been affected. Staff has scaled back maintenance activities in order
to meet typical day-to-day operational demands. While it is difficult to identify a
threshold for adding staff on the basis of growth, this section includes a
recommendation to be used for planning and budgeting purposes.
As presented earlier, the Wastewater Division operates and maintains the City's
pump stations, odor control stations, and treatment plants. The Wastewater Division
currently has sufficient staff to operate and maintain these facilities during dry
weather; however, since both the Westside WWTP and the Eastside CSO Treatment
Plant require 24-hour staffing during high/wet weather flows, operations must rely
heavily on overtime to operate and maintain these facilities. This is illustrated by the
creation of an additional standby/on-call schedule utilizing existing operations staff
for the Eastside Treatment Facility, and response to startups during the wet weather
months of October through April. During high flow wet weather events, a staffing
reduction of two full-time employees (FTEs) is created at the Westside Plant.
Maintaining the equipment at the Eastside Treatment Facility has also resulted in an
additional 8 hours (0.2 FTE) spent each week throughout the year.
An increase of two FTEs for the Wastewater Division (treatment plants/pump
stations) and one FTE for the Utility Operations Division (storm/ sewer collection
system maintenance) is required to restore manpower to the 1995 level.
7.3.2 Staff Requirements to Meet Additional Program Needs
Collection System Evaluation
The Utility Operations Division is responsible for operation and maintenance of the
collection system and CSO sites. The Division's many duties include street sweeping;
responding to citizen complaints; cleaning catch basins, manholes, etc.; investigating
problems with the collection system; repairing failing facilities; supporting capital
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\A.mendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE. 2005\Text\Section 7.doc
7-4
. 1
.. I
!
CEllI
Section 7
Operations
construction projects (design assistance, locates, constructability assistance, potholing,
etc); supporting other departments in operations, maintenance, and construction; and
construction of extensions to the collection system. Given the age of Bremerton's
collection system, many areas of the system are known or suspected to be in disrepair.
The City has video equipment to perform pipeline inspections and assess condition;
however, currently pipe inspection is limited to investigating problems and
confirming quality of new construction.
Staff have identified a goal of establishing a program to perform a systematic
inspection of all pipes and structures within the collection system to identify
structural deficiencies and develop rehabilitation actions. The primary benefit of this
program is to ensure that structures requiring major rehabilitation or replacement are
identified and addressed before a failure occurs. The program also helps to ensure
proper management and prioritization of the Capital Improvement Program.
Inspection work associated with meeting the goal entails vactor cleaning of the utility
line to be inspected, immediately followed by video inspection of the main and
condition assessment and rating. The product of this investigation would be a
prioritized list of substandard mains, manholes, and associated appurtenances that
require rehabilitation or replacement.
A total of approximately 23 miles of collection system would need to be inspected
annually in order to achieve an inspection frequency of 10 years for the City's entire
existing collection system. As the system continues to expand, the annual evaluation
length would need to increase proportionately.
Inflow and Infiltration Reduction
To obtain CSO reduction for compliance with 173-245 WAC, the City generally
separated all inflow to the combined system from right-of-way and many private
sources, and additionally increased the conveyance capacity to its Wastewater
Treatment Plant. As a result of these activities, the conveyance system for the
combined basins is currently at capacity during the CSO design storm. To allow for
growth, reduce pumping and treatment costs, and provide a "buffer" or "safety
factor" that will ensure continued compliance with CSO regulations, it is
recommended that the City implement an inflow and infiltration reduction program
with the goal of reducing peak sanitary flows to the combined system. The
recommended program would identify areas with large amounts of infiltration, and
repair leaking sanitary laterals using a combination of cure-in-place pipe, lateral
replacement, or point repairs. As with the collection system evaluation program
previously mentioned, additional staff would be required to implement this program.
Clean-out Installation
The property line is the location where ownership of sanitary sewer laterals transfers
from property ownership to the City. New sanitary sewer laterals are installed with a
clean-out at the property line; however, this standard is fairly new and most
residences do not have a clean-out in this location. When problems exist with
conveyance of sewage from a residence, the City is typically called to investigate. To
7-5
P:\Bremerton\Comp PJanlAmendment\7 PROJDOCIDRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Texl\Section 7.doc
CEllI
Section 7
Operations
investigate, the City must dig up the lateral and install a clean-out. Once the clean-
out has been installed, the City can evaluate the problem and address it. Although
this program works, it is recommended that a program to install clean-outs on all
residences be established. Systematic installation of future clean-outs throughout the
City would reduce later retrofitted clean-out installation costs, and would improve
efficiency and allow quicker response to citizen complaints.
It is anticipated that two new FTEs would be the minimum amount of additional staff
required to support these three proposed programs (collection system evaluation,
inflow and infiltration reduction, and clean-out installation). The two new FTEs
would split their time at approximately 4-month intervals between the three
programs, and would accomplish the following: installation of approximately 80
clean-outs, repair of approximately 80 laterals, and video inspection/ evaluation of
approximately 23 miles of collection system.
In addition to the added staff, other program startup costs include a new service truck
and lateral cure-in-place repair equipment that is expected to cost approximately
$100,000. Annual costs for personnel and materials are expected to be on the order of
$250,000 using these assumptions. The existing CCTV equipment, backhoes, and
vactor trucks, which would be an integral part of these programs, are nearing the end
of their service life expectancy, and replacement should be included in equipment
replacement planning as their usage increases.
Cleaning of Beach Mains and Inverted Siphons
Several critical components of the City's conveyance system were installed without
cleaning and maintenance provisions incorporated into the original design. These
system components include the various beach mains, the two inverted siphons that
convey combined flow under the Port Washington Narrows to West Bremerton, the
Naval Avenue force main, the Central Bremerton Pipeline, and the Crosstown
Pipeline.
During model development and calibration associated with CSO reduction, it became
evident that portions of the East Bremerton beach main had become partially
obstructed with rocks and debris. Since cleaning facilities for the beach main were not
considered during the original design, removal of the debris is currently not possible;
however, rock trap manholes were installed at entry points to the beach main to help
minimize further deposition. As a component of the Trenton and Cherry Avenue
CSO reduction project, a document entitled "Bremerton Beach Main Pigging
Technical Memorandum" was developed (see Appendix F). The purpose of this
document was to identify a cleaning strategy for the East Bremerton beach main and
inverted siphons, and to identify necessary access locations and isolation valves to be
incorporated into a beach main upgrade that is scheduled for 2005. Proposed
modifications to the East Bremerton beach main are shown on Appendix B (Figure 7-
2, HDR, 2001 CSO Report).
P:\Bremerton\Comp Ptan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Seclion 7.doc
7-6
CEllI
Section 7
Operations
The City anticipates cleaning the East Bremerton beach main in 2006. This is
anticipated to be a very costly undertaking that could involve anchoring barges at the
inverted siphon connections to the beach main during pigging operations. Follow-on
cleaning of the other critical components of the conveyance system (critical force
mains and gravity-pressure sewers) should also be scheduled. After this initial
cleaning has been accomplished, regular cleaning of these critical pipelines should be
scheduled at a frequency of once every 5 years.
7-7
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 7.doc
C~[ OIl
-.r- 9 ;-"_:..
~ !~~.~
- ~ ~-
~ - g
~ , - ~
~ - ~ -, ~
~ i ~ ~
]
CEllI
Section 8
Implementation
Adoption of a Wastewater Comprehensive Plan must be coordinated with Ecology
and Kitsap County, and correspond with State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A)
requirements. The steps associated with plan implementation are discussed below,
along with recommended future updates to the Wastewater Comprehensive Plan.
8.1 Plan Adoption
The preparation, review, and adoption of comprehensive sewer plans are determined
by local and state procedures. A Wastewater Comprehensive Plan should be
produced every 5 years. The plan is then reviewed by both the City and Ecology.
Other parties that will have access to the plan are Kitsap County, nearby sewer
systems, water purveyors, local libraries, and other interested parties. The
Wastewater Comprehensive Plan should be adopted by the City Council before
implementation.
8.2 Coordination with Kitsap County
Kitsap County has a similar plan on a county-wide scale. The Kitsap County
Comprehensive Plan was most recently updated in June 1999. The City of Bremerton
supports Kitsap County objectivesi therefore, the City's Director of Public Works and
Utilities will continue being involved in the County Utility Coordinating Committee.
The City believes that the County Comprehensive Plan should apply the following
guidelines:
. Environmental impacts, regulatory concerns, and public health and safety be
addressed and funded using a common approach
. Sound engineering and economic principles be used to delineate service
boundaries, project future use and capacity, manage growth, and select
infrastructure and service standards
. The plan be area wide, incorporating urban areas of the County
8.3 Environmental Impact
According to SEP A (RCW 43.21 C), environmental documentation must be prepared
on proposals for legislation and other major actions having a probable significant,
adverse environmental impact. A Draft 2002 Environmental Assessment has been
prepared for the proposed Westside WWTP wet-weather facility. The Port Blakely
Communities Development group is in the process of initiating a Master Plan and an
EIS for the Port Blakely development. In addition, an EIS may be required, and
funded by the Port Blakely communities, for access routes to the Port Blakely
development. Going forward, it is anticipated that National Environmental Policy
Act (NEP A) and SEP A will be addressed on a project-by-project basis. It is
8-1
P:\6remerton\Comp Pl"an\A.mendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 8.doc
CDII
Section 8
Implementation
anticipated that new developers would fund environmental impacts studies as
required.
8.4 Future Additions to the Wastewater Comprehensive
Plan
This Wastewater Comprehensive Plan addresses system additions and improvements
that will be required to fully develop the service area. Potential projects are
recommended through the year 2014.
CDM recommends that the City periodically review progress it has made in
implementing the plan before the next plan is due. The City should assess the
effectiveness of its improvements to biosolids production, CSO reduction, basin pump
station and conveyance improvements, developments in wastewater reuse
opportunities, and expansion of conveyance and plant capacities. Current
population, population projections, and current and future financial resources should
be reviewed and adjusted as necessary to reflect actual conditions and accommodate
future project implementation.
8-2
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Seclion 8.doc
" .
eCT1o-n
N'ne
i
,j
I
I
,J
CDlVI
Section 9
References
Beak Consultants Incorporated, 1998. City of Bremerton NPDES Sediment Monitoring
Report, Beak Project No. 22319, August 1998
Brown and Caldwell, 1998. Final Report, Water Reuse Feasibility Study, City of
Bremerton, September 17, 1998.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. in Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc., 2001.
Draft City of Bremerton Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant Rerating Study, July 2001.
CH2MHill,1992. Combined Sewer Overflow Reduction Plan, City of Bremer ton, October
1992.
CH2MHill,1995. Wastewater Comprehensive Plan, City of Bremer ton, December 1995.
City of BreIDerton Department of Public Works and Utilities, 2002. Combined Sewer
Overflow Annual Report for 2001, NPDES Permit #WA-002928-9, January 31,2002.
Cosmopolitan Engineering Group, 2003. Sinclair Inlet Sediment Monitoring Report,
Project No. BRE002, August 2003.
HDR Engineering, Inc., 2000. City of Bremer ton CSO Reduction Plan Update, October 31,
2000.
Kitsap County Sewer District #1 and the City of Bremerton, 1992. Interlocal Agreement
for Discharge of Sewer, Sewer District #1, July 28, 1992.
Parametrix,1993. Feasibility Report, Wastewater Collection System Chemical Injection
Odor Control Program, CihJ of Bremer ton, February 1993.
Plant-it STOAT WWTP Modeling Program. 2003. WRcjCDM, version 1.1.0.220,
November 2003.
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, 2000. Regulation III, Appendix A. Acceptable Source
Impact Levels. April 2000.
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, 2001. Regulation 1, Section 9.11. Emission of Air
Contaminant: Detriment to Person or Property. September, 2001.
RW. Beck, 1994. Final Basis of Design, Technical Appendices D, E, Wastewater Treatment
Plant Odor Control Project, City of Bremer ton, December 1994.
Shapiro and Associates, 2002. Draft Bremerton Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant Wet
Weather Facilities, Environmental Assessment, Apri125, 2002.
9-1
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\A.rnendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 9.doc
CDIVI
Section 9
References
Washington State Department of Ecology, October 1997. Memorandum of Agreement
between the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Washington State
Department ofEcologLj Regarding the Implementation of Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean
Water Act, October 29, 1997.
Washington State Department of Ecology, 1998. Criteria for Sewage Works Design,
Publication Number 98-37, December 1998.
Washington State Department of Ecology, 2002. Draft Permit and Fact Sheet, State
Waste Discharge Permit Number ST-7374for the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Code 106.31,
Building 427, Bremerton, WA 98314-5000, June 4,2002.
P:\Bremerton\Comp Ptan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Text\Section 9.doc
9-2
.
!
ii
r
j
I
!
d
idx
A
Appendix A
NPDES Permit
CDIVI
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7PROJDOC\ORAFT AFTER JUNE 2005
eo"
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office, 3790 . 760th Ave S.E. · BeJlevue, Washington 98008.5452 · (206) 649.7000
June 21, 1996
CERTIFIED '
d
P 140 707 812
i
i.
;1
II
'i
'1
CERTIFIED MAIL
P 140 707 812
.~."" ,:/!o':-''':';'')
Mr . John Poppe, Wastewater Manager
City of Bremerton
3027 Olympus Drive
Bremerton, W A 9831.0
RECEiVED
JUN 24 1996
Dear Mr. Poppe: Dept. VI n...o.I"tl.,o 'HUIl\;:l and
Utilities
RE: NPDES Permit Issuance City of Bremerton
City of Bremerton Wastewater Treatment Plant; Permit No. W A 002928-9
Expiration Date: June 21, 2001
Under the provisions of Chapter 90.48 RCW Water Pollution Control Laws as amended and
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (The Clean Water Act) Title 33 United States Code,
Section 1251 et seq., the enclosed NPDES Pennit No. WA 002928-9 is hereby issued to the
City of Bremerton Wastewater Treatment Plant located at 160 Oyster Bay Road, Bremerton,
Washington (Kitsap County).
The permit authorizes the Permittee to discharge treated wastewater to marine water of the
State of Washington subject to the tenns and conditions of the permit.
Pursuant to RCW 90.48.465, a pennit fee will be assessed. Semi-annual notices for payment
will be mailed to you from our office in Olympia.
Any person feeling aggrieved by this State Waste Discharge permit may obtain: review
thereof by application, within 30 days of receipt of this pennit, to the Washington Pollution
Control Hearings Board, Post Office Box 40903, Olympia, WA 98504-0903. Concurrently, a
copy of the application must be sent to the Department of Ecology, Post Office Box 47600,
Olympia, WA 98504-7600. These procedures are consistent with the provisions of Chapter
43.21B RCW and the rules and regulations adopted thereunder.
----
p.
Mr. John Poppe, Wastewater Manager
City of Bremerton
June 21, 1996
Page 2
ORIGINAL
Any appeal must contain the following in accordance with the rules of the hearings board:
a) The appellant's name and address;
b) The date and number of the permit appealed;
c) A description of the substance of the pennit, that is the subject of the appeal;
d) A clear, separate, and concise .statement of every error alleged to have been
committed;
e) A clear and concise statement of facts which the requester relies to sustain his
or her statements of error; and
t) A statement setting forth the relief sought.
An application for pennit renewal must be made at least 180 days prior to the expiration date
of this permit. If at any time during the tenn of this pennit a question should arise regarding
the pennit or discharge, or if there is a significant change in the discharge or operation,
please contact Mike Dawda at (206) 649-7027.
Enclosed is a copy of the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) form as specified in Special
Condition S3. of your permit. Please make copies as needed.
Sincerely,
Aj;{ 11~
ohn H. Glynn
. Water Quality Supervisor
Northwest Regional Office
JHG:CJS:cs
Enclosures:
Permit & Fact Sheet
DMR form with instructions
cc: Bev Poston, Permit Fee Unit
Mike Dawda, Facility Manager
Laura Fricke, Unit Supervisor
Chris Smith, WPLCS
Central Files: 11 iI 1 4, Kitsap, W A 002928-9
WQ 1./
Page 1 of 36
Permit No. W A-002928-9
Issuance Date: June 21, 1996
Effective Date: July 1, 1996
Expiration Date: June 21, 2001
, I
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELTh11NATION SYSTEM
WASTE DISCHARGE PERMIT
State of Washington f:~ ~,y
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office . .
3190 160th Avenue SE
Bellevue, W A 98005-5452
1
. :
In compliance with the provisions of
The State of Washington Water Pollution Control Law
Chapter 90.48 Revised Code of Washington
and
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(The Clean Water Act)
Title 33 United States Code, Section 1251 et seq.
R. --
,;.
--
C E ,-V E D
JUN 2.4 1996
1
. ~
CITY OF BREMERTON
239 Fourth Street
Brernerton, Washington 98337
"";CIJ', '-'; . ........"JW vvorKS and
Utilities .
City of Bremerton
Plant Location:
Receiving Water:
1600 Oyster Bay Road
Bremerton, W A 98312
Sinclair Inlet
Puget Sound
Water Body LD. No.:
Discharge Location:
07-15-03
Latitude: 470 32' 59" N
Longitude: 1220 40' 11" W
Plant Type:
Biofilter/ Activated Sludge
Secondary Treatment System
is authorized to discharge in accordance with
the special and general conditions which follow.
Page 2 of 36
Permit No. WA-D02928-9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUNIMARY OF SCHEDULED PERMIT REPORT SUBMITTALS .............. 5
SPECIAL CONDmONS
S 1. .Effluent Limitations ........................................ 7
A. Effluent Limitations
B. Mixing Zone Descriptions
S2. Testing Schedule .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . .9
A. Compliance
B. Process Control
C. Toxics
D. Whole Effluent Toxicity
S3. Monitoring and Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.
B.
c.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
1.
J.
K.
Reporting
Records Retention
Recording of Results
Representative Sampling
Test Procedures
Flow Measurement
Laboratory Accreditation
Additional Monitoring by the Permittee
Signatory Requirements
Reporting of Unauthorized Discharges
Reporting - Sediment Quality Data
I I
S4. Prevention of Facility Overloading ............................. 16
A. Design Criteria
B. Plans for Maintaining Adequate Capacity
C. Notification of New or Altered Sources
S5. Operation and Maintenance of Municipal Facilities ................... 18
A. Certified Operator
B. O&M Manual
C. O&M Program
D. Short-Term Reduction
E. Electric Power Failure
F.- Prevent Connection of Inflow
Page 3 of 36
Permit No. W A-002928-9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
56. Construction or Maintenance-Related Overflow or Bypass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
S7. Residual Solids ......................................... 20
S8. Pretreatment........................................... 20
S9. Acute Toxicity ......................................... 22
A. Effluent Characterization
B. Effluent Limit for Acute Toxicity _
C. Monitoring for Compliance With an Effluent Limit for Acute Toxicity
D. Response to Noncompliance With an Effluent Limit for Acute Toxicity
E. Monitoring When There Is No Permit Limit for Acute Toxicity
F. Sampling and Reporting Requirements
S10. Chronic Toxicity ............ ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
A. Testing Requirements
B. Sampling and Reporting Requirements
S 11. Sediment Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
A. Sediment Sampling
B. Sediment Data Report
S12.
Combined Sewer Overflows
. . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 29
A. Discharge Locations
B. Combined Sewer Overflow Report
C. Combined Sewer Overflow Reduction Plan Amendment
D. Compliance Schedule
GENERAL CONDITIONS
G 1. Discharge Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
G2. Proper Operation and Maintenance ............................. 32
03. Reduced Production for Compliance ............................ 32
04. Noncompliance Notification ................................. 32
Page 4 of 36
Permit No. W A-002928-9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
G5. Bypass Prohibited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
G6. Right of Entry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
G7. Permit Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
'1
G8. Permit Modified or Revoked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 .. I
~ ";
G9. Reporting a Cause for Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
-
G10. Toxic Pollutants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
G 11. Plan Review Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 36'
G12. Other Requirements of 40 CFR ............................... 36
G13. Compliance With Other Laws and Statutes ........................ 36
G14. Additional Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
G 15. Revocation for Nonpayment of Fees ............................ 36
G16. Removed Substances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
G 17. Duty to Reapply ........................................ 36
. I
I
Page 5 of 36
Permit No. W A-002928-9
SUMMARY OF PERMIT REPORT SUBMITTALS
i Permit First
Section Submittal Frequency Submittal Date
. j S3.A. Discharge Monitoring Report Monthly, no later than the
\
15th day of the month
Discharge Summary Report following the completed
reporting period
S4.B. Plan for maintaining adequate as necessary
capacity
S4.C. Notification of new or altered sources as. necessary
S5.B. Updated Operation and Maintenance as necessary
Manual
. ,
I S5.D. Notice of Short-term Reduction in as necessary
Treatment Level
S6. Report on Construction- or as necessary
Maintenance-related Bypass
S8.C. Notice of New Significant Industrial as necessary
Users
S9.A. Acute Toxicity Characterization Data 4/year during the fIrst Within 60 days
year after the first of
the four final test
results
S9.A. Acute Toxicity Characterization l/permit cycle Within 90 days
Summary Report after the last
monitoring
results are final
S9.E. Acute Toxicity Tests Data 2/permit cycle, provided With the
monitoring for compliance application for
is not required permit renewal
SIO.A. Chronic Toxicity Tests Data 2/permit cycle With the
application for
permit renewal
SlI. Sediment Data Report l/permit cycle June 30, 1998
S12.B. Combined Sewer Overflow Report Annually May 31, 1997
Page 6 of 36
Permit No. WA-002928-9
Permit
Section
First
Submittal Date
With the
application for
permit renewal
180 days prior to
permit. expiration
(or earlier)
Submittal
Combined Sewer Overflow Reduction
Plan Amendment
Frequency
1/permit cycle
S12.C.
Application for permit renewal
l/permit cycle
G17.
-_OJ
j
I
-, 1
I
i
i
I
. I
" ;
~
i
Page 7 of 36
Permit No. W A-002928-9
SPECIAL CONDmONS
S1.
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
A.
Effluent Limitations
Beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the
expiration date the Permittee is authorized to discharge municipal wastewater
at the permitted location subject to the following limitations:
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS a: OUTFALL # 001
Parameter
Biochemical Oxygen Demandb 5 day
Total Suspended Solidsb
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
A verage Monthly
Average Weekly
45 mg/L, 3790 lbs/day
45 mg/L, 3790 lbs/day
400/100 mL
30 mg/L, 2527 lbs/ day
30 mg/L, 2527 lbs/day
200/100 mL
pH
:
shall not" be outside the range 6.0 to 9.0
Parameter
Average Monthly
Maximum Daily
II
,
I Total Residual Chlorinec 0.13 mg/L 0.37 mg/L ' I
I aThe average monthly and weekly effluent limitations are based on the arithmetic mean of the
samples taken with the exception of fecal coliform, which is based on the geometric mean.
bThe average monthly effluent concentration for BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids shall not
exceed 30 mg/L or 15 percent of the respective monthly average influent concentrations,
whichever is more stringent. The minimum reduction requirement does not apply during wet
weather months, October through April, inclusively, when the plant flows are influenced by
combined sewage.
,
cThe maximum daily value,for Total Residual Chlorine is the maximum of the daily values
during a calendar month. The daily value is defined as the arithmetic mean of the sample
I measurements taken during a calendar day. ,
The average monthly value for Total Residual Chlorine is the arithmetic mean of the daily values
during a calendar month.
Page 8 of 36
Permit No. W A-Q02928-9
S1. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS: (continued)
B. Mixing Zone Descriptions
1. The diagram below shows dimensions and boundaries of the allowable
zones of chronic criteria exceedance and acute criteria exceedance
surrounding the outfall diffuser. The shaded area is the zone of acute
criteria exceedance.
120 FEET LONG
DIFfUSER WITH
lWEmY &oS INCH
DIAMETER flORTS
.
~ll 454ft
o CHRONIC
I.lOONG
ZONE
8ACUlE
WIXING
ZONE
~-.. ~u.
I -120a- .I
.1514 II .,
[NOTTQSClUI
"
2. Chronic Mixing Zone Boundaries
The height of the chronic mixing zone extends vertically from the
outfall diffuser to the water surface at Mean Lower Low Water
(MLL W). The diagram above depicts other dimensions and
boundaries.
3. Acute Mixing Zone Boundaries
The height of the acute mixing zone extends vertically from the outfall
diffuser to the water surface at Mean Lower Low Water (MLL W).
The shaded area in the diagram above depicts other dimensions and
boundaries.
4. Dilution Ratios
The dilution ratios for aquatic life criteria, as determined by the water
quality modeling analysis are as follows:
(i) Receiving Waters:Facility Effluent = 69:1 for the chronic mixing
zone.
(ii) Receiving Waters:Facility Effluent = 25: 1 for the acute mixing
zone.
Page 9 of 36
.. ) Permit No. W A-002928-9
S2. TESTING SCHEDULE
The Permittee shall monitor the wastewater and sludge according to the following
schedule:
B. PROCESS CONTROL:
Tests
Sample Point
Sampling Frequency
Sample Type
Aeration Basin
7/week
3/week
3/week
3/week
3/week
3/week
3/week
grab
grab
grab
grab
grab
grab
grab
pH
Plant Influent
Primary Digesters
Plant Influent
Primary Digesters
Plant Influent
Aeration Basin
Temperature
Dissolved
Oxygen
Mixed
Liquor
I Suspended
Solids
(MLSS)
Page 10 of 36
Permit No. W A-002928-9
..
Tests . Sample Point Sampling Frequency Sample Type
IMx~ Aeration Basin 3/week grab
LIquor
Volatile
Suspended
Solids
(ML VSS)
30 minute Aeration Basin 3/week grab
Settleability
Sludge Aeration Basin lIweek calculate
Volume
Index (SVI)
CO2 Primary Digesters 3/week grab
Analysis and
Volume
Alkalinity Primary Digesters 3/week grab
I Volatile Primary Digesters 3/week grab
Acids
C. TOXICS:
Tests Sample Point Sampling Frequency Sample Type
Ammonia-N Final Effluent l/month 24.,.hr flow
(NH3~N) proportion
composite
Total Plant Influent 1/2 months 24-hr flow
Recoverable Final Effluent 1/2 months proportion
Metals: (in January, March, composite
Arsenica May, July,
Cadmium September, and
Chromium November)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Page 11 of 36
I Permit No. W A-Q02928-9
!
Tests Sample Point Sampling Frequency Sample Type
Cyanide 07V eak Plant Influent 1/2 months grab
Acid I)issociable) Final Effluent 1/2 months grab
(in January, March,-
\ May, July,
,
\ September, and
,
November)
Priority Pollutant Plant Influent Twice during the 24-hr flow
Metals (Total Final Effluent permit term - Once proportion
Recoverable) : during August 1999 composite
i Antimony and once during
Beryllium January 2000
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Priority Plant Influent Twice during the grab
Pollutant: Final Effluent permit term - Once
I Phenols during August 1999
. ,! and once during
January 2000 q, ..
Priority Pollutant Plant Influent Twice during the 24-hr flow
Organics: Final Effluent permit term - Once proportion
Acid during August 1999 composite
Extractables and once during
Base-Neutrals January 2000
Pesticides
PCBs
\ Priority Pollutant Plant Influent Twice during the grab
l Organics: Final Effluent permit term - Once
I
.. i Volatile during August 1999
Organics and once during
January 2000
;
i aThe method number and method detection levels (MDLs) for total recoverable
,
arsenic shall be as shown in the following table.
Page 12 of 36
Permit No. W A-002928-9
S2. TESTING SCHEDULE: (continued)
Parameter
Total Recoverable Arsenic
Method Detection Level
EP A Method Number (1\1DL)
206.2 (GFAA) 1 ug/L
Footnotes:
(1) The method detection level (MDL) for arsenic is 1 fJ.g/L using graphite furnace
atomic absorption spectrometry and method number 206.2 from 40 CPR Part 136.
The quantitation level (QL) for arsenic is 5 fJ.g/L (5 x: MDL).
(2) The analytical methods to be used are described in Condition S3.E. of this
permit.
(3) Average values shall be calculated as follows: measurements below the MDL =
0; measurements greater than the MDL = the measurement.
Tests
Sample Point
Final Effluent
Sampling Frequency Sample Type
(i) 4/year during the fIrst 24-hr composite
year, for characterization (in
August and November 1996,
and February and May 1997)
D. WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY:
Acute Toxicitya
(ii) 2/year (in January and
August) for compliance, if
necessary
24-hr composite
24-hr composite
Final Effluent
(ill) 2/permit term; In
January and August 2000
(only if compliance
monitoring in (ll) is not
required)
2/permit term; In January
and August 2000
Chronic
Toxicityb
24-hr composite
aThe testing and reporting requirements for the Acute WET tests are described in Condition
S9. (Acute Toxicity) of this permit.
bThe testing and reporting requirements for the Chronic WET tests are described in
Condition S10. (Chronic Toxicity) of this permit.
Page 13 of 36
Permit No. W A-002928-9
53. MONlTORlNG AND REPORTING
The Permittee shall monitor and report in accordance with the following conditions.
. I
A.
Reporting
I
. I
Monitoring results obtained during the previous month shall be summarized
and reported on a form provided, or otherwise approved, by the Department,
to be submitted no later than the 15th day of the month following the
completed reporting period. The report(s) shall be sent to the Department of
Ecology, Northwest Regional Office 3190 160th Avenue 5E, Bellevue,
Washington 98008-5452. Monitoring shall be started on the effective date of
the permit and the first report is due on the 15th day of the follQwing month.
1
1
i
In addition to the monthly report, a monthly summary report form (BPA No.
3320-1) shall be submitted no later than the 15th day of the following month.
This report is limited to the parameters specified in condition S 1.A. and the
flow. Monitoring results for metals and other toxic compounds must be
submitted no later than the 30th day of the following month. Monitoring
results of the whole effluent toxicity (WET) tests shall be submitted in
accordance with Conditions 59. and S10. of this permit.
B.
Records Retention
The Permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information, including all
calibration and maintenance records and all original recordings for continuous
monitoring instrumentation, copies of all reports required by this permit, and
records of all data used to complete the application for this permit, for a
period of at least 3 years. The Permittee shall retain for a minimum of five
(5) years all records pertaining to the monitoring of sludge. This period of
retention shall be extended during the course of any unresolved litigation
regarding the discharge of pollutants by the Permittee or when requested by
the Director.
C. Recording of Results
For each measurement or sample taken, the Permittee shall record the
following information: (1) the date, exact place and time of sampling; (2) the
individual who performed the sampling or measurement; (3) the dates the
analyses were performed; (4) who perfonned the analyses; (5) the analytical
techniques or methods used; and (6) the results of all analyses.
Page 14 of 36
Permit No. W A-002928-9
I i
S3. MONITORING AND REPORTING: (continued)
D. Representative Sampling
Samples and measurements taken to meet the requirements of this permit shall
be representative of the volume and nature of the monitored discharge,
including representative sampling of any unusual discharge or discharge
condition, including bypasses, upsets and maintenance-related conditions
affecting effluent quality.
E. Test Procedures
All. sampling and analytical methods used to meet the wastewater monitoring
requirements specified in this permit shall conform to the Guidelines
Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants contained in 40
CFR Part 136, unless otherwise specified in this permit or approved in writing
by the Department.
The analytical method for "total recoverable arsenic" shall be in accordance
with the Test Method 206.2 (GFAA) of the Methods for Chemical Analysis
for Water and Waste. EPA-600/4-79-020. Revised March 1983.
The analytical methods for "total recoverable metals" (except arsenic) shall be
in accordance with the Test Method 4. 1.4 of the Methods for Chemical
Analysis for Water and Waste. EPA-600/4-79-020. Revised March 1983. The
analytical method for mercury shall be II Cold Vapor Atomic Absor:ption
Spectrometric Method." 3112 B.. Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater. 19th Edition. 1995 and as revised.
The analytical method for "weak acid dissociable cyanide" shall be in
accordance with Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater. 4500-CN 1.. 19th Edition. 1995 and as revised.
F. Flow Measurement
Appropriate flow measurement devices and methods consistent with accepted
scientific practices shall be selected and used to ensure the accuracy and
reliability of measurements of the volume of monitored discharges. The
devices shall be installed, calibrated, and maintained to ensure that the
accuracy of the measurements are consistent with the accepted industry
standard for that type of device. Frequency of calibration shall be in
conformance with manufacturer's recommendations or at a minimum
frequency of at least one calibration per year. Calibration records shall be
retained for at least three years.
Page 15 of 36
Permit No. W A-002928-9
53. MONITORING AND REPORTING: (continued)
G. Laboratory Accreditation
All monitoring data, except for flow, temperature, settleable solids,
conductivity, pH, and internal process control parameters, shall be prepared by
a laboratory registered or accredited under the provisions of, Accreditation of
Environmental Laboratories, Chapter 173-50 WAC. Conductivity and pH
shall be accredited if the laboratory must otherwise be registered or accredited.
Sediments, soils and hazardous waste data are exempted from this requirement
pending accreditation of laboratories for analysis of these media by the
Department.
H. Additional Monitoring by the Permittee
If the Permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by this
permit (S2.) using test procedures specified by Condition 53.E. of this permit,
then the results of this monitoring shall be included in the Permittee's self-
monitoring reports.
1. Signatory Requirements
All applications, reports, or information submitted to the Department shall be
signed and certified.
1. All permit applications shall be signed by either a principal executive
officer or ranking elected official.
2. All reports required by this permit and other information requested by
the Department shall be signed by a person described above or by a
duly authorized representative of that person. A person is a duly
authorized representative only if:
a. The authorization is made in writing by a person described
above and submitted to the Department, and
b. The authorization specifies either an individual or a position
having responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated
facility, such as the position of plant manager, superintendent,
position of equivalent responsibility, or an individual or position
having overall responsibility for environmental matters. (A duly
authorized representative may thus be either a named individual
or any individual occupying a named position.)
Page 16 of 36
Permit No. W A-002928-9
S3. MONITORlNG AND REPORTING: (continued)
3. Changes to authorization. If an authorization under paragraph I.2.b is
no longer accurate because a different individual or position has
responsibility for the overall operation of the facility, a new
authorization satisfying the requirements of I.2.b must be submitted to.
the Department prior to or together with any reports, information, or
applications to be signed by an authorized representative.
4. Certification. Any person signing a document under this section shall
make the following certification: "I certify under penalty of law, that
this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or
supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that
qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information
v submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage
the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering
information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge
and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false information, including the
possibility of fine and imprisonment for willful violations. "
J. Reporting. of Unauthorized Discharges
Unauthorized discharges such as collection system overflows, plant bypasses,
or failure of the disinfection system, shall be reported immediately to the
. Department of Ecology, the Department of Health, Shellfish Program, and the
Bremerton-Kitsap County Health District. The Department of Ecology's
Northwest Regional Office 24-hr number is 206-649-7000, the Bremerton-
Kitsap County Health District's 24-hr number is 360-692-3611, and the
Department of Health's Shellfish 24-hr number is 360-753-5992.
S4. PREVENTION OF FACILITY OVERLOADING
A. Design Criteria
Flows or waste loadings of the following design criteria for the permitted
treatment facility shall not be exceeded.
Average flow for the maximum month:
Influent BOD5 loading for maximum month:
Influent TSS loading for maximum month:
10.1 MGD
18,100lbs/day
22,600 Ibsl day
Page 17 of 36
Permit No. W A-002928-9
S4. PREVENTION OF FACILITY OVERLOADING: (continued)
B.
Plans for Maintaining Adequate Capacity
....,.....~---.~-~
. \
!
I
!
.'
When the actual flow or wasteload reaches 85 percent of anyone of the design
criteria in S4.A. forthree consecutive _monthstor when the projected increases
would reach design capacity within five years: whichever occurs first, the
Permittee shall submit to the Department, a plan and a schedule for continuing
to maintain capacity at the facility sufficient to achieve the effluent limitations
and other conditions of this permit. This plan shall address any of the
following actions or any others necessary to meet this objective.
1. Analysis of the present design including the introduction. of any process
modifications that would establish the ability of the existing facility to
achieve the effluent limits and other requirements of this permit at
specific levels in excess of the existing design criteria specified in
paragraph A above.
2.
,
j 3.
!
,
4.
Reduction or elimination of excessive infiltration and inflow of
uncontaminated ground and surface water into the sewer system.
Limitation on future sewer extensions or connections or additional
wasteloads.
Modification or expansion of facilities necessary to accommodate
increased flow or wasteload.
5, Reduction of industrial or commercial flows or waste loads to allow for
increasing sanitary flow or wasteload.
!
The plan must meet the requirements of WAC 173-240-060, "Engineering
Report," and be approved by the Department prior to any construction. The
plan shall specify any contracts, ordinances, methods for financing, or other
arrangements necessary to achieve this objective.
- I
I
J
c.
Notification of New or Altered Sources
The Permittee shall submit written notice to the Department whenever any new
discharge or increase in volume or change in character of an existing discharge
into the sewer is proposed which: (1) would interfere with the operation of, or
exceed the design capacity of, any portion of ~e collection or treatment
system;
Page 18 of 36
Permit No. W A-002928-9
84. PREVENTION OF FACILITY OVERLOADING: (continued)
(2) would increase the total system flow or influent waste loading by more
than 10 percent; (3) is not part of an approved general sewer plan or approved
plans an~ specifications; or would be subject to pretreatment standards under
40 CFR Part 403 and Section 307 (b) of the Clean Water Act. This notice
shall include an evaluation of the system's ability to adequately transport and .
treat the added flow and/or wasteload.
In accordance with Chapter 173-230 WAC, the Permittee shall provide an
adequate operating staff which is qualified to carry out the operation,
maintenance, and testing activities required to ensure compliance with the
conditions of this permit. An operator certified for a Class N plant by the
State of Washington shall be in responsible charge of the day-to-day operation
of the wastewater treatment plant. A Class III operator shall be present at the
facility during all shifts when major operational changes are made to the
treatment process.
85. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF MUNICIPAL FACILITIES
A. Certified Operator
B. 0 & M Manual
The approved operation and maintenance manual shall be kept available at the
treatment plant. All operators are responsible for being familiar with, and
using, this manual. The operation and maintenance manual shall be updated as
needed. Updated portions of the operations and maintenance manual shall be
submitted to the Department for review and approval.
C. 0 & M Program
The Permittee shall institute an adequate operation and maintenance program
for their entire sewage system. Maintenance records shall be maintained on all
major electrical and mechanical components of the treatment plant, as well as
the sewage system and pumping stations. Such records shall clearly specify
the frequency and type of maintenance recommended by the manufacturer and
shall show the frequency and type of maintenance performed. These
maintenance records shall be available for inspection at all times.
Page 19 of 36
Permit No. W A-002928-9
S5. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF MUNICIPAL FACILITIES: (continued)
D. Short-term Reduction
If a Permittee contemplates a reduction in the level of treatment that would
cause an exceedance of permit effluent limitations on a short-term basis for
any reason, and such reduction cannot be avoided, the Permittee shall give
written notification to the Department, if possible, 30 days prior to such
activities, detailing the reasons for, length of time of and the potential effects
of the reduced level of treatment. If such a reduction involves a bypass, the
requirements of Conditions. G5. and S6. apply.
E.
Electrical Power Failure
1
I
,
, ,
The Permittee is responsible for maintaining adequate safeguards to prevent
the discharge of untreated wastes or wastes not treated in accordance with the
requirements of this permit during electrical power failure at the treatment
plant and/or sewage lift stations either by means of alternate power sources,
standby (on-site or portable) generator, or retention of inadequately treated
wastes. The Permittee shall maintain Reliability Class II at the wastewater
treatment plant, which requires primary sedimentation and disinfection.
F.
Prevent Connection of Inflow
The Permittee shall strictly enforce their sewer ordinances and not allow the
connection of inflow (roof drains, foundation drains, etc.) to the sanitary sewer
system.
S6. CONSTRUCTION OR MAINTENANCE-RELATED OVERFLOW OR BYPASS
Bypasses of untreated or partially' treated sewage during. construction or maintenance
shall be avoided if at all feasible.
t
,
i
I
If a construction or maintenance-related overflow or bypass is contemplated, the
Permittee shall submit to the Department, not less than 90 days prior to the
contemplated overflow or bypass, a report which describes in detail any construction
work which will result in overflow or bypass of wastewater. The report shall
contain: (1) an analysis of all known alternatives which would eliminate, reduce, or
mitigate the need for bypassing; (2) a cost-effectiveness analysis of alternatives
including comparative resource damage assessment; (3) the minimum and maximum
duration of bypass under each alternative; (4) a recommendation as to the preferred
alternative for conducting the bypass; (5) the project date of bypass initiation; (6) a
statement of compliance with SEP A; and (7) a request for a water quality
modification, as provided for jn WAC 173-20IA-llO.
Page 20 of 36
Permit No. W A-002928-9
56.
CONSTRUCTION OR MAINTENANCE-RELATED OVERFLOW OR BYPASS
. I
! I
For probable construction bypasses, the need to bypass is to be identified as early in
the planning process as possible. The analysis required above shall be considered
during preparation of the engineering report or facilities plan and plans and
specifications and shall be included to the extent practical. In cases where the
probable need to bypass is determined early, continued analysis is necessary up to and
including the construction period in an effort to minimize or eliminate the bypass.
Final authorization to bypass may be granted after review of the above information, in
accordance with General Condition GS. Authorization to bypass will be by
administrative order.
57. RESIDUAL SOLIDS
Residual solids include screenings, grit, scum, primary sludge, waste activated sludge
and other solid waste; The Permittee shall store and handle all residual solids in such
a manner so as to prevent their entry into state ground or surface waters. The
Permittee shall not discharge leachate from residual solids to state surface or ground
waters.
S8. PRETREATMENT
A. General Requirements
The Permittee shall work cooperatively with the Department to ensure that all
commercial and industrial users of the wastewater treatment system are in
compliance with the pretreatment regulations promulgated in 40 CFR Part 403
and any additional pretreatment regulations that may be promulgated under
Section 307 (b) and reporting requirements under Section 308 of the Federal
Clean Water Act.
B. Discharge Authorization Required
Significant commercial or industrial operations shall not be allowed to
discharge wastes to the Permittee's sewerage system until they have received
prior authorization from the Department in accordance with Chapter 90.48
RCW and Chapter 173-216 WAC, as amended. The Permittee shall .
immediately notify .the Department of any proposed new sources, as defined in
40 CFR 403.3(1<:), from significant commercial or industrial operations.
Page 21 of 36
Permit No. W A-002928-9
j S8. PRETREATMENT: (continued)
, i
!
i
C.
1
, I
General Prohibitions
In accordance with 40 CFR 403.5(a), a nondomestic discharger may not
introduce into the Permittee's sewerage system any pollutant(s) that would pass
. through the treatment works or interfere with their operation or perfonnance.
Cj
i
i
D.
1.
I
l
I 2.
!
i
;
I
i
3.
Specific Prohibitions
In accordance with 40 CFR 403.5(b), the following nondomestic discharges
shall not be discharged into the Pennittee's sewerage treatment system.
Pollutants that create a fire or explosion hazard in the POTW
(including, but not limited to waste streams with a closed cup flashpoint
of less than 140 degrees Fahrenheit or 60 degrees Centigrade using the
test methods specified in 40 CFR 261.21).
Pollutants that will cause corrosive structural damage to the Publicly
Owned Treatment Works (pOTW), but in no case discharges with pH
lower than 5.0 standard units, unless the works are specifically
designed to accommodate such discharges.
Solid or viscous pollutants in amounts that could cause obstruction to
the flow in sewers or otherwise interfere with the operation of the
POTW.
4. Any pollutant, including oxygen demanding pollutants, (BOD, etc.)
released in a discharge at a flow rate and/or pollutant concentration
which will cause interference with the POTW.
5. Heat in amounts that will inhibit biological activity in the -"EOTW
resulting in interference, but in no case heat in such quantities such that
the temperature at the POTW exceeds 400C (1040f) unless the
Department, upon request of the Permittee, approves, in writing,
alternate temperature limits.
6. Petroleum oil, nonbiodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral
origin in amounts that will cause interference or pass through.
7. Pollutants which result in the presence of toxic gases, vapors, or fumes
within the POTW in a quantity which may cause acute worker health
and safety problems.
Page 22 of 36
Permit No. WA-002928-9
S8. PRETREATMENT: (continued)
8. Any trucked or hauled pollutants, except at discharge points designated
by the Permittee.
E. Notification of Industrial User Violations
The Permittee shall notify the Department if any nondomestic user violates the
prohibitions listed in S8.C and S8.D above.
F. Industrial User Survey
If required by the Department, the Permittee shall perform an industrial user
survey, or other activities (e. g., sewer use ordinance and local limits
development), which are necessary for the proper administration of the state
pretreatment program.
S9. ACUTE TOXICITY
A. Effluent Characterization
The Permittee shall conduct acute toxicity testing on the final effluent to deter-
mine the presence and amount of acute (lethal) toxicity. The two acute
toxicity tests listed below shall be conducted on each sample taken for effluent
characterization.
Effluent characterization for acute toxicity shall be conducted quarterly for one
year. Acute toxicity testing shall follow protocols, monitoring requirements,
and quality assurance/quality control procedures specified in this Section. A
dilution series consisting of a minimum of five concentrations and a control
shall be used to estimate the concentration lethal to 50 % of the organisms
(LCSO). The percent survival in 100% effluent shall also be reported.
Testing shall begin within 60 days of the permit effective date. A written
report shall be submitted to the Department within 60 days after each of the
test results are final. A final effluent characterization summary report shall be
submitted to the Department within 90 days after the last monitoring test
results are final. This summary report shall include a tabulated summary of
the individual test results and any information on sources of toxicity, toxicity
source control, correlation with effluent data, and toxicity treatability which is
developed during the period of testing.
i
,
. I
. I
.. I
i
i
. 1
,
,
;
,
. .J
Page 23 of 36
Permit No. WA-oG2928-9
59. ACUTE TOXICITY: (continued)
Acute toxicity tests shall be conducted with. the following species and proto-
cols: .
1) Fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas (96 hour static-renewal test,
method: EPA/600/4-90/027F)
2)
Daphnid, Ceriodaphnia dubia, Daphnia pulex, or Daphnia magna (48
hour static test, method: EPA/600/4-90/027F). The Permittee shall
choose one of the three species and use it consistently throughout
effluentcharactenaation.
B.
Effluent Limit for Acute Toxicity
The Permittee has an effluent limit for acute toxicity if, after completing one
year. of effluent characterization, either:
(1) The median survival of any species in 100% effluent is below 80%, or
(2) Anyone test of any species exhibits less than 65 % survival in 100 %
effluent.
The effluent limit for acute toxicity is no acute toxicity in a test concentration
representing the acute critical effluent concentration (ACEC).
The ACEC means the maximum concentration of effluent during critical
conditions at the boundary of the zone of acute criteria exceedance assigned
pursuant to WAC 173-201A-100. The zone of acute criteria exceedance is
authorized in Section S1.B. of this permit. The ACEC equals 4% effluent.
If no effluent limit is required by subsection B at the end of one year of
effluent characterization, then the Permittee shall stop effluent characterization
and begin to conduct the activities in subsection E.
In the event of failure to pass the test described in subsection C. of this section
for compliance with the effluent limit for acute toxicity, the Permittee is
considered to be in compliance with all permit requirements for acute whole
effluent toxicity as long as the requirements in subsection D. are being met to
the satisfaction of the Department.
Page 24 of 36
Permit No. WA-002928-9
59. ACUTE TOXICITY : (continued)
C. Monitoring for Compliance With an Effluent Limit for Acute Toxicitv
Monitoring to determine compliance with the effluent limit shall be conducted
biannually for the remainder of the permit term using each of the species listed
in 'subsection A above on a rotating basis and performed using 100 % effluent,
the ACEC, and a control. The Permittee shall schedule the toxicity tests in
the order listed in the permit unless the Department notifies the Permittee in
writing of another species rotation schedule. The percent survival in 100%
effluent shall be reported for all compliance monitoring.
Compliance with the effluent limit for acute toxicity means no statistically
significant difference in survival between the control and the test concentration
representing the ACEC. The Permittee shall immediately implement
subsection D. if any acute toxicity test conducted for compliance monitoring
determines a statistically significant difference in survival between the control
and the ACEC using hypothesis testing at the 0.05 level of significance (Ap-
pendix H, EPA/600/4-89/001). If the difference in survival between the
control and the ACEC is less than 10%, the hypothesis test shall be conducted
at the 0.01 level of significance.
D. Response to Noncompliance With an Effluent Limit for Acute Toxicity
lithe Permittee violates the acute toxicity limit in subsection B, the Permittee
shall begin additional compliance monitoring within one week from the time of
receiving the test results. This additional monitoring shall be conducted
weekly for four consecutive weeks using the same test and species as the failed
compliance test. Testing shall determine the Le50 and effluent limit com-
pliance. The discharger shall return to the original monitoring frequency in
subsection C. after completion of the additional compliance monitoring.
If the Permittee believes that a t~st indicating noncompliance will be identified
by the Department as an anomalous test result, the Permittee may notify the
Department that the compliance test result might be anomalous and that the
Permittee intends to take only one additional sample for toxicity testing and
wait for notification from the Department before completing the additional
monitoring required in this subsection. The notification to the Department
shall accompany the report of the compliance test result and identify the reason
for considering the compliance test result to be anomalous. The Permittee
shall complete all of the additional monitoring required in this subsection as
soon as possible after notification by the Department that the compliance test
result was not anomalous.
1
~
;
. I
Cl
!
. ,
j
~
,
!
, 1
I
I
I
S9.
Page 25 of 36
Permit No. W A-002928-9
ACUTE TOXICITY: (continued)
If the one additional sample fails to comply with the effluent limit for acute
toxicity, then the Permittee shall proceed without delay to complete all of the
additional monitoring required in this subsection. The one additional test
result shall replace the compliance test result upon determination by the De-
partment that the compliance test result was anomalous.
If all of the additional compliance monitoring conducted in accordance with
this subsection complies with the permit limit, the Permittee shall search all
pertinent and recent facility records (operating records, monitoring results,
inspection records, spill reports, weather records, production records, raw
material purchases, pretreatment records, etc.) and submit a report to the
Department on possible causes and preventive measures for the transient
toxicity event which triggered the additional compliance monitoring.
If toxicity occurs in violation of the acute toxicity limit during the additional
compliance monitoring, the Permittee shall submit a Toxicity
Identification/Reduction Evaluation (TI/RE) plan to the Department within 60
days after test results are final. The TI/RE plan shall be based on WAC 173-
205-100(2). The TIJRE plan shall address areas where adequate guidance,
procedures, or protocols are not available for implementation of the plan. The
Permittee shall submit a revised TIJRE plan, in accordance with Department
comments, within 30 days after receipt of the Department's comments. 'The
Department will issue an administrative order to require implementation of the
TI/RE in accordance with WAC 173-205-100(3).
E.
Monitoring When There Is No Permit Limit for Acute Toxicity
The Permittee shall test final effluent once in the last summer and once in the
last winter prior to submission of the application for permit renewal. All
species used in the initial acute effluent characterization or substitutes
approved by the Department shall be used and results submitted to the
Department as a part of the permit renewal application process.
F.
Sampling and Reporting Requirements
1. All reports for effluent characterization or compliance monitoring shall
be submitted in accordance with the most recent Department of Ecology
specifications regarding format and content. Reports shall contain
bench sheets and reference toxicant results for test methods. The
effluent and reference toxicant test results shall also be submitted as
electronic files on floppy disks in the Toxicity Standardized Electronic
Reporting Format (TSERF).
Page 26 of 36
Permit No. WA-002928-9
S9. ACUTE TOXICITY: (continued)
2. Testing shall be conducted on 24-hour composite effluent samples.
Samples taken for toxicity testing shall be cooled to 4 degrees Celsius
while being collected and shall be sent to the lab immediately upon
completion. The lab shall begin the toxicity testing as soon as possible
but no later than 36 hours after sampling was ended.
3. Permittees that potentially have ammonia and/or chlorine in the effluent
shall measure total ammonia and/or chlorine from a sample collected
for toxicity testing. All samples taken for toxicity testing shall have
pH, total alkalinity, total hardness, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity
or salinity measured prior to test initiation. .
4. All toxicity tests shall meet quality assurance criteria in the EP A
manual listed in subsection A, or in its update. If test results are
determined to be invalid or anomalous by the Department, testing shall
be repeated with freshly collected effluent. If control performance does
not meet protocol standards for acceptability, the test shall be repeated
with freshly collected effluent.
5. Control water and dilution water shall be laboratory water or pristine
natural water meeting the requirements of the EP A manual listed in
subsection A and of sufficient quality for good control performance.
6. The whole effluent toxicity tests shall be run on an unmodified sample
of final effluent.
7. The Permittee may choose to conduct a full dilution series test during
complian~e monitoring in order to determine dose response. In this
case, the series must have a minimum of five effluent concentrations
and a control. The series of concentrations must include the ACEC.
8. All whole effluent toxicity tests, effluent screening tests, and rapid
screening tests that involve hypothesis testing and do not comply with
the acute statistical power standard of 29 % ~ defined in WAC 173-
205-020 must be repeated on a fresh sample with an increased number
of replicates to increase the power.
9. Acids and bases shall not be added to samples or test solutions unless
pH is outside of the range 6.0 to 9.0. Control of unionized ammonia
toxicity due to pH rise shall only be accomplished by holding test
chambers in a C02 atmosphere.
Page 27 of 36
Permit No. W A-002928-9
S10. CHRONIC TOXICITY
A. Testing Requirements
The Permittee shall test final effluent once in the last summer and once in the
last winter prior to submission of the application for permit renewal. All of
the chronic toxicity tests listed below shall be conducted on each sample. The
results of this chronic toxicity testing shall be submitted to the Department as a
part of the permit renewal application process.
I
!
, j
The Permittee shall conduct chronic toxicity testing on serial dilutions of
effluent in order to determine the lCSO or ECSO. This series of dilutions shall
include the acute critical effluent concentration (ACEC). The A:CEC equals
4 % effluent. The Permittee shall compare the ACEC to the control using
hypothesis testing at the 0.05 level of significance as described in Appendix H,
EP AI 600/4-89/001.
Chronic toxicity tests shall be conducted with the following species and the
most recent version of the following protocols:
Saltwater Chronic Toxicity Test Species
Method
Silverside minnow
Mysid shrimp
Menidia beryllina
Mysidopsis bahia
EPA/600/4-87/028
EP AI 600/4-87/028
B. Sampling and Reporting Requirements
1. All reports for whole effluent toxicity testing shall be submitted in
accordance with the most recent Department of Ecology specifications
regarding format and content. Reports shall contain bench sheets and
reference toxicant results for test methods. The effluent and reference
toxicant test results shall also be submitted as electronic files on floppy
_ disks in the Toxicity Standardized Electronic Reporting Format
(TSERF) .
2. Testing shall be conducted on 24-hour composite effluent samples.
Samples taken for toxicity testing shall be cooled to 4 degrees Celsius
wpile being collected and shall be sent to the lab immediately upon
completion. The lab shall begin the toxicity testing as soon as possible
but no later than 36 hours after sampling was ended.
Page 28 of 36
Permit No. WA-002928-9
510. CHRONIC TOXICITY: (continued)
3. Permittees that potentially have ammonia and/or chlorine in the effluent
shall measure total ammonia and/or chlorine from a sample collected
for toxicity testing. All samples taken for toxicity testing shall have
pH, total alkalinity, total hardness, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity
or salinity measured prior to test initiation.
4. All toxicity tests shall meet quality assurance criteria in the EPA
manual listed in subsection A., or in its update. If test results are
determined to be invalid or anomalous by the Department, testing shall
be repeated with freshly collected effluent. If control performance does
not meet protocol standards for acceptability, the test shaJl be repeated
with freshly collected effluent.
5. Control water and dilution water shall be laboratory water or pristine
natural water meeting the requirements of the EP A manual listed in
subsection A. Dilution water for toxicity testing shall be of sufficient
quality for good control performance.
6. The whole effluent toxicity tests shall be run on an unmodified sample
of final effluent.
7. The Permittee may choose to conduct a full dilution series test in order
to determine dose response. In this case, the series must have a
minimum of five effluent concentrations and a control. The series of
concentrations must include the ACEC. The ACEC may either
substitute for the effluent concentration that is closest to it in the
dilution series or be an extra effluent concentration.
8. All whole effluent toxicity tests that involve hypothesis testing and do
not comply with the chronic statistical power standard of 39 % as
defined in WAC 173-205-020 must be repeated on a fresh sample with
an increased number of replicates to increase the power.
9. Acids and bases shall not be added to samples or test solutions unless
pH is outside of the range 6.0 to 9.0. Control of unionized ammonia
toxicity due to pH rise shall only be accomplished by holding test
chambers in a CO2 atmosphere.
Page 29 of 36
Permit No. W A-002928-9
.. 1 S 11. SEDTh.fENT MONITORING (MARINE)
I
,
A.
Sediment Sampling
. ,
.
I
!
,
Following Department approval of the Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan,
sediments will be collected and analyzed. No later than June 30, 1998, the
Permittee shall submit to the Department, a Sediment Data Report containing'
the results of the sediment sainpling and analysis.
.j
i
\
B.
Sediment Data Report
The permittee shall submit a Sediment Data Report confonning with the
approved Sampling and Analysis Plan and the guidance provideg in the
Sediment Source Control Standards User Manual, Appendix B: Sediment
Sampling and Analysis Plan Appendix (Department of Ecology, 1995).
S 12. COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
A.
Dischar~e Locations
,
~
~
, i
The following is a list of combined sewer overflows (CSOs), which are
occasional point sources of pollutants as a result of precipitation events.
Discharges from these sites are prohibited except as a result of and during
precipitation events. No authorization is given by this permit for discharge
from a CSO that causes adverse impacts that threaten characteristic uses of the
receiving water as identified in the Water Quality Standards, Chapter 173-
201A WAC.
I I DISCHARGE
I
I
NO. NAl\1E
002 Trenton
A venue Basin
002a Trenton
A venue Basin
003 Tracy ton
Beach Basin
004 Anderson
Cove Basin
CSO
DESIGNATION
LOCATION
,
47034 08" N
,
1220 36 26" W
,
47034 08" N
,
1220 36 26" W
,
47035 10" N
,
122038 39"W
Outfall #7a
Outfall #7b
Outfall #6
Outfall #9
,
470 34 45" N
,
1220 38 47" W
RECEIVlNG I
WATER
Port Orchard
Bay
Port Orchard
Bay
Port
Washington
Narrows
Port
Washington
Narrows
Page 30 of 36
Permit No. W A-002928-9
DISCHARGE CSO RECEIVING
NO. NAl\tIE DESIGNATION LOCATION WATER
,
'005 Warren Outfall #13 470 35 40" N Port
,
A venue Basin 122037 45" W Washington
Narrows
I' 006 ,
Pacific Outfall #15 47033 43" N Sinclair Inlet
,
Avenue Basin 122037 26" W
,
007 Anderson Outfall #12 47034 43" N Port
,
Cove Basin 122038 11" W Washington
Narrows
I
008 Anderson Outfall #11 470 34 44" N Port
,
Cove Basin 1220 38 '22" W Washington
Narrows
009 Anderson Outfall #lOA 470 34' 44" N Port
,
Cove Basin 1220 38 26" W Washington
Narrows
I
010 Cherry Outfall #3 470 34 45" N Port
,
A venue Basin 1220 37 27" W Washington
Narrows
,
011 Stevens Outfall #'2 47034 57" N Port
,
Canyon Basin 1220 38 07" W Washington I.
Narrows ,I
, i
012 Pacific Outfall #16 470 33 38" N Sinclair Inlet
,
A venue Basin 122037 43" W
,
013 Callow Outfall #17 470 33 15" N Sinclair Inlet
,
A venue Basin 122039 04" W
,
014 Eastpark Outfall #4 470 34 29" N Port
,
Basin 1220 36 58" W Washington
Narrows
,
015 Anderson Outfall #8 470 35 05" N Port
I
Cove Basin 1220 39 00" W Washington
Narrows
..'
,
016 Pine Road Outfall #1 470 34 57" N Port
,
Basin 1220 37 45" W Washington
Narrows
.. ,
i
. ,
;
. I
i
I
.J
Page 31 of 36
Permit No. WA-002928-9
S12. COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS: (continued)
B.
Combined Sewer Overflow Report
No later than May 31 of each calendar year, the.Permittee shall submit an annual
CSO report for the previous calender year to Ecology, for review and approval,
which complies with the requirements of WAC 173-245-090(1). This report shall:
1.
Include details of the past year's frequency and volume of combined sewage
discharged from each CSO site, or group of CSO sites in close proximity,
based on field monitoring. The report shall indicate whether a CSO site or
group of sites has increased over the baseline annual conditon. If any increase
has occurred, the Permittee shall propose a project and s~hedule to reduce that
CSO site or group of sites to or below its baseline conditon.
2. Explain the previous year's CSO reduction accomplishments.
3. List the projects planned for the next year.
C. Combined Sewer Overflow Reduction Plan Amendment
In conjunction with the application for renewal of this permit, the Permittee shall
submit an amendment of its CSO Reduction Plan to the Department for review and
approval. The amendment shall comply with the requirements of W AC173-245-
090(2).
D. Compliance Schedule
In order to achieve the greatest reasonable reduction of combined sewer overflows at
the earliest possible date, the elements of the approved combined sewer overflow
reduction plan shall be accomplished in accordance with the schedule of milestone
dates stipulated in the Order on Consent Number DE 93WQ-N150 and any
amendment(s) thereto.
E. The Permittee shall prohibit discharge of stormwater from new developments into a
sanitary or a combined sewer system.
Page 32 of 36
Permit No. WA-002928-9
GENERAL CONDmONS
G 1. DISCHARGE VIOLATIONS
All discharges and activities authorized by this permit shall be consistent with the
terms and conditions of this permit. The discharge of any pollutant more frequently
than, or at a concentration in excess of, that authorized by this permit shall constitute
a violation of the terms and conditions of this permit.
G2. PROPER OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The Permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facili~es and
systems of collection, treatment, and control (and related appurtenances) which are
installed or used by the Permittee for pollution control.
G3. REDUCED PRODUCTION FOR COMPLIANCE
The Permittee, in order to maintain compliance with its permit, shall control
production and/or all discharges upon reduction, loss, failure, or bypass of the
treatment facility until the facility is restored or an alternative method of treatment is
provided. This requirement applies in the situation where, among other things, the
primary source of power of the treatment facility is reduced, lost, or fails.
G4. NONCOMPLIANCE NOTIFICATION
If for any reason, the Permittee does not comply with, or will be unable to comply
with, any of the discharge limitations or other conditions specified in the permit, the
Permittee shall, at a minimum, provide the Department with the following
information:
A. A description of the nature and cause of noncompliance, including the quantity
and quality of any unauthorized waste discharges;
B. The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times and/or the
anticipated time when the Permittee will return to compliance; and
C. The steps taken, or to be taken, to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence
of the noncompliance.
Page 33 of 36
Permit No. W A-002928-9
. I G4. NONCOMPLIANCE NOTIFICATION: (continued)
!
1
"1
i
In addition, the Permittee shall take immediate action to stop, contain, and clean up
any unauthorized discharges and take all reasonable steps to minimize any adverse
impacts to waters of the state and correct the problem. The Permittee shall notify the
Department by telephone so that an investigation can be made to evaluate any
resulting impacts and the corrective actions taken to determine if additional action
should be taken.
. J
[I
11
~
In the case of any discharge subject to any applicable toxic pollutant effluent standard
under Section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act, or which could constitute a threat to
human health, welfare, or the environment, 40 CFR Part 122 requires that tl?-e
information specified in Sections G4.A., G4.B., and G4.C., above, sh~ be provided
not later than 24 hours from the time the Permittee becomes aware of the
circumstances. If this information is provided orally, a written submission covering
these points shall be provided within five days of the time the Permittee becomes
aware of the circumstances, unless the Department waives or extends this requirement
on a case-by-case basis.
j
i
I
Compliance with these requirements does not relieve the Permittee from responsibility
to maintain continuous compliance with the conditions of this permit or the resulting
liability for failure to compi y.
G5.
BYPASS PROHIBITED
The intentional bypass of wastes from all or any portion of a treatment works is
prohibited unless the following four conditions are met:
I
I A.
,
~- 1
i
i
B.
Bypass is: (1) unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe
property damage; or (2) necessary to perform construction or maintenance-
related activities essential to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act and
authorized by administrative order;
There are no feasible alternatives to bypass, such as the use of auxiliary
treatment facilitles, retention of untreated wastes, maintenance during normal
periods of equipment down time, or temporary reduction or termination of
production;
C. The Permittee submits notice of an unanticipated bypass to the Department in
accordance with Condition G4. Where the Permittee knows or should have
known in advance of the need for a bypass, this prior notification shall be
submitted for approval to the Department, if possible, at least 30 days before
the date of bypass (or longer if specified in the special conditions);
Page 34 of 36
Permit No. W A-Q02928-9
05. BYPASS PROHIBITED: (continued)
D. The bypass is allowed under conditions determined to be necessary by the
Department to minimize any adverse effects. The public shall be notified and
given an opportunity to comment on bypass incidents of significant duration, to
the extent feasible. "Severe property damage" means substantial physical
damage to property, damage to the treatment facilities which would cause them
to become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources
which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a bypass. Severe
property damage does not mean economic loss caused by delays in production.
After consideration of the factors above anq the adverse effects of the
proposed bypass, the Department will approve or deny the requ~st. Approval
of a request to bypass will be by administrative order under RCW 90.48.120.
06. RIGHT OF ENTRY
The Permittee shall allow an authorized representative of the Department, upon the
presentation of credentials and such other documents as may be required by law:
A. To enter upon the premises where a discharge is located or where any records
must be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit;
B. To have access to and copy at reasonable times any records that must be kept
under the terms of the permit;
C. To inspect at reasonable times any monitoring equipment or method of
monitoring required in the permit;
D. To inspect at reasonable times any collection, treatment, pollution
management, or discharge facilities; and
E. To sample at reasonable times any discharge of pollutants.
G7. PERMIT MODIFICATIONS
The Permittee shall submit a new application or supplement to the previous
application where facility expansions, production increases, or process modifications
will (1) result in new or substantially increased discharges of pollutants or a change in
the nature of the discharge of pollutants, or (2) violate the terms and conditions of
this permit.
Page 35 of 36
Permit No. WA-002928-9
G8. PERMIT MODIFIED OR REVOKED
After notice and opportunity for public hearing, this permit may be modified,
terminated, or revoked during its term for cause including, but not limited to, the
following:
~ 1 A. Violation of any terms or conditions of the permit;
!
B. Failure of the Permittee to disclose fully all relevant facts or
misrepresentations of any relevant facts by the Permittee during the permit
issuance process;
C. A change in any condition that requires either a temporary or apermanent
reduction or elimination of any discharge controlled by the permit;
D. Information indicating that the permitted discharge poses a threat to human
health or welfare;
E. A change in ownership or control of the source; or
" I F. Other causes listed in 40 CFR 122.62 and 122.64.
j
" I Permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination may be initiated by the
I Department or requested by any interested person.
J
G9. REPORTING A CAUSE FOR MODIFICATION
A Permittee who knows or has reason to believe that any activity has occurred or will
occur which would constitute cause for modification or revocation and reissuance
under Condition G8. or 40 CFR 122.62 must report such plans, or such information,
to the Department so that a decision can be made on whether action to modify or
revoke and reissue a permit will be required. The Department may then require
submission of a new application. Submission of such application does not relieve the
Permittee of the duty to comply with the existing permit until it is modified or
reissued.
G 10. TOXIC POLLUTANTS
If any applicable toxic effluent standard or prohibition (including any schedule of
compliance specified in such effluent standard or prohibition) is established under
Section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act for a toxic pollutant and that standard or
prohibition is more stringent than any limitation upon such pollutant in the permit, the
Department shall institute proceedings to modify or revoke and reissue the pennit to
conform to the new toxic effluent standard or prohibition.
Page 36 of 36
Permit No. W A-002928-9
G 11. PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED
I I
i I
i
Prior to constructing or modifying any wastewater control facilities, detailed plans
shall be submitted to the Department for approval in accordance with Chapter 173-
240 WAC. Facilities shall be constructed and operated in accordance with the
approved plan.
G12. OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF 40 CFR
All other requirements of 40 CFR 122-.41 and 122.42 are incorporated in this permit
by reference.
G13. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS AND STATUTES
Nothing in the permit shall be construed as excusing the Permittee from compliance
with any applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations.
814. ADDmONAL MONITORING
The Department may establish specific monitoring requirements in addition to those
contained in this permit by administrative order or permit modification.
G 15. REVOCATION FOR NONPAYMENT OF FEES
The Department may revoke this permit if the permit fees established under Chapter
173-224 WAC are not paid.
G16. REMOVED SUBSTANCES
Collected screenings, grit, solids, sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutants
removed in the course of treatment or control of wastewaters shall not be resuspended
or reintroduced to the final effluent stream for discharge to state waters.
G17. DUTY TO REAPPLY
The Permittee must reapply, for permit renewal, at least 180 days prior to the
specified expiration. date of this permit.
" 1.
,
\
. 1
i
. I
".'1
. !
i
!
, j
;. ~
,
;1
~
, iI
~
~
. i
j
1
f
. J
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES.PERl\1IT W A-002928-9
CITY OF BREMERTON
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3
GENERAL INFORMATION . .. .. . .. . ... . . ..... . . . .. ...... .. . . . .. 3
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................. 4
WASTEWATER SOURCES ................................. 4
WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
DESCRIPTION OF THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY.. . . . . .. 5
DESCRIPTION OF THE WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM ....... 6
RESIDUAL SOLIDS ..................................... 6
PERMIT STATUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7
SUMMARY OF INSPECTIONS .............................. 7
EXISTING EFFLUENT LTh1ITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7
SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXISTING PERMIT . . . . . . . .. 8
PROPOSED PERMIT LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
DESIGN CRITERIA . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
TECHNOLOGY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
SURFACE WATER QUALITY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS. . . . . .. 11
SURF ACE WATER QUALITY CRITERIA ....................... 13
CONSIDERATION OF SURFACE WATER QUALITY-BASED LIMITS
FOR NUMERIC CRITERIA ............................ 14
DETERMINATION OF DILUTION RATIOS: ..................... 14
REASONABLE POTENTIAL AND WATER QUALITY-BASED PERMIT
LIMITS DETERMINATIONS ........................... 16
WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY ............................. 18
HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
SEDWENT QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
GROUND WATER QUALITY LIMITATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
MONITORING AND REPORTING ............................ 20
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS ........................... 21
OTHER PERMIT CONDmONS .................................. 22
PREVENTION OF FACILITY OVERLOADING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
RESIDUAL SOLIDS HANDLING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
PRETREATMENT. . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
GENERAL CONDmONS .................'..................... 22
FACT SHEET
City of Bremerton
Permit No. W A-002928-9
Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
PERhflTISSUANCEPROCEDURES ...............................23
PERMIT MODIFICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
RECOMMENDATION FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
REVIEW BY THE PERMITTEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
REFERENCES FOR TEXT AND APPENDICES ........................ 23
APPENDIX A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
APPENDIX B .............................................. 25
APPENDIX C ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
APPENDIX D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
APPENDIX E ............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
APPENDIX F .............................................. 33
APPENDIX G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
FACT SHEET
City of Bremerton
Permit No. W A-002928-9
Page 3
INTRODUCTION
The Federal Clean Water Act (FCW A, 1972, and later modifications, 1977, 1981, and 1987)
established. water qu.ality goals for the navigable (surface) waters of the United. States. One
of the mechanisms for achieving the goals of the Clean Water Act is the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System of permits (NPDES permits), which is administered. by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EP A). The EP A has delegated. responsibility to
administer the NPDES permit program to the State of Washington on the basis of Revised
Code of Washington (RCW) 90.48 which defines the Department of Ecology's authority and
obligations in administering the wastewater discharge permit program.
The regulations adopted. by the State include procedures for issuing permits (Chapter 173-220
Washington Administrative Code 0N AC)), technical criteria for discharges from municipal
wastewater treatment facilities (Chapter 173-221 WAC) and water quality criteria for surface
and ground waters (Chapters 173-201A and 200 WAC). These regulations require that a
permit be issued before discharge of wastewater to waters of the state is allowed.. The
regulations also establish the basis for effluent limitations and other requirements which are
to be included in the permit. One of the requirements 0N AC 173-220-060) for issuing a
permit under the NPDES permit program is the preparation of a draft permit and an
accompanying fact sheet. Public notice of the availability of the draft permit is required at
least thirty days before the permit is issued CWAC 173-220-050). The fact sheet and draft
permit are available for review. Please see Appendix A--Public Involvement of the fact sheet
for more detail on the Public Notice procedures).
This fact sheet has been reviewed by the Permittee and any errors in fact sheets have been
corrected. After the public comment period has closed, the Department will summarize the
substantive comments and the response to each comment. The summary and response to
comments (Appendix G) will become part of the file on the permit and parties submitting
comments will receive a copy of the Department's response. The fact sheet will not be
revised. Changes to the permit will be addressed in Appendix G--Response to Comments.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
City of Bremerton
239 Fourth Street
Bremerton, Washington 98337
Facility
Name and
Address:
Bremerton Wastewater Treatment Plant
1600 Oyster Bay Road
Bremerton, Washington 98312
. Type of
Treatment:
Biofilterl Activated Sludge - Secondary
Treatment System
FACT SHEET
City of Bremerton
Permit No. WA-002928-9
Page 4
Discharge
Location:
Sinclair Inlet, Puget Sound
Latitude: 470 32' 59" N
Longitude: 1220 40' 11" W
The secondary treated effluent is discharged to Sinclair Inlet, Puget
Sound. The effluent is discharged through a 36-inch diameter outfall .
pipe which extends 450 feet offshore and terminates with a 120-foot
long diffuser. The 570-foot long outfall discharges into Sinclair Inlet
approximately 27 feet below Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW), at a
. location west of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS). A diagram
showing approximate location of the outfall discharge is included in
Appendix C.
Water Body
ID Number:
WA-lS-Q040
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. WASTEWATER SOURCES
Bremerton Wastewater Treatment Plant (Facility) receives domestic sewage from
residential and light commercial activities in the City of Bremerton, and Kitsap
County Sewer District Number 1. The facility also receives wastewater discharge
from Harrison Memorial Hospital. In addition, the facility receives domestic and
industrial wastewater from PSNS. The domestic wastewater from PSNS includes
wastewater from on-shore chemical toilet facilities and saline wastewater from toilet
facilities on ships. The industrial wastewater from PSNS includes pretreated
wastewater from the industrial wastewater treatment facility.
2. WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
Primary sources of wastewater received at the facility include domestic sewage from
residential dwellings, and domestic sewage and process wastewater from commercial
facilities in the service area. PSNS is a major industrial source which discharges all
of its domestic wastewater and pretreated industrial wastewater to the facility.
Wastewater sources at PSNS include on-shore chemical toilet facilities, saline
wastewater from toilet facilities on ships, metal finishing facilities, and other
industrial processes. PSNS is in the process of negotiating a State Waste Discharge
Permit with the Department. Also, impacts to the facility from saline wastewater
discharge from PSNS are currently being evaluated by PSNS.
The influent wastewater characteristics (BODS and TSS) for the period of September
1993 through August 1995 are shown in the graphs in Appendix D.
FACT SHEET
City of Bremerton
Permit No. WA-002928-9
Page 5
As part of the monitoring requirement in the permit, the Permittee has also submitted
priority pollutant analysis for the facility influent. The analysis includes metals,
volatile compounds, acid compounds, base/neutral compounds, and pesticides.
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
The liquid stream treatment at the facility includes screening through mechanical bar
screens, grit chambers, primary clarification, secondary biological treatment in a
biofilter and aeration basins followed by secondary clarification, disinfection by
sodium hypochlorite, and dechlorination by sodium bisulfite.
The solids stream treatment components at the facility include a gravity_ thickener,
dissolved air flotation thickener (DAFT), anaerobic digesters, and a centrifuge. The
solids removed in the primary clarifiers (primary sludge) are thickened in the gravity
thickener. The secondary sludge is thickened in the DAFT. The thickened primary
and secondary sludges are digested in two anaerobic digesters operated as primary
digesters. The digested sludge is utilized on permitted forest lands owned by the
City. Some of the digested sludge is dewatered in the centrifuge prior to its
utilization on the forest lands. The recycle streams which include gravity thickener
supernatant, DAFT underflow, and digesters supernatant are returned to the head of
the plant for further treatment.
Some improvements were recently completed at the facility to improve performance
and operation and maintenance of the facility. The cyclone grit removal system for
the primary sludge was removed and replaced with two grit chambers downstream of
the new bar screens in the liquid stream treatment system. The dechlorination system
at the facility has been installed to comply with the fmal chlorine limits in the existing
permit. By August 1, 1996, the headworks will be moved to a new location (northeast
of the primary clarifier no. 1) with new mechanical bar screens. The influent sample
collection station will be located at the new headworks. Due to interference by the
in-plant recycle streams at the existing location, the influent samples are generally not
representative of the facility influent. When the influent sampling station is moved to
the new location, the facility will be able to collect representative influent samples.
An extensive odor control system has been installed at the facility in order to remove
foul odors from various treatment units. The odor control system covers headworks,
grit basins, primary clarifiers, biofilter, aeration basin fulet, primary sludge pump
station, gravity thickener, secondary clarifier scum pits, DAFT, digester complex,
and centrifuge area.
The secondary treated effluent after dechlorination is discharged to Sinclair Inlet,
Puget Sound. The effluent is discharged through a 36-incl1 diameter outfall pipe
which extends 450 feet offshore and terminates with a 120-foot long diffuser. The
570-foot long outfall discharges into Sinclair Inlet at a location west of PSNS. The
outfall diffuser consists of a 120-foot long pipe with twenty (20) 6.5-inch diameter
ports 6.33 feet apart. The diffuser depth is approximately 27 feet below mean lower
low water (NILL W).
F ACT SHEET
City of Bremerton
Permit No. W A-002928-9
Page 6
The plant layout and the outfall location are shown in diagrams included in
Appendix C.
4. DESCRIPTION OF THE WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
The wastewater collection system has been constructed in various phases as a result of
changing regulations coupled with occasional rapid population growth and new
development over the course of nearly 90 years.
Sinclair Inlet Facilities Planning work conducted in mid-1970's indicated that some
irifiltration occurs in existing sewers, although it is not a major component of the
sewage flow and is not cost-effective to remove. Approximately 60 percent of the
sewer system is composed of combined sewers and, consequently, inflow represents a
significant portion of the total sewage flow. Most of the combined sewage (sanitary
sewage combined with storm water) is received and treated at the Facility. Increased
maintenance of the collection system will further allevaite problems with infiltration.
There are 16 combined sewer overflow (CSO) sites in the collection system, which
are composed of 21 structures and 17 outfaIls. As required by WAC 173-245, the
City submitted a CSO Reduction Plan to the Department for review and approval.
The CSO Reduction Plan, October 1992, was approved by the Department on
November 20, 1992. The City is currently implementing this plan, which
recommends a 20-year program to reduce CSOs to not more than one per year at each
CS 0 site in confonnance with WAC 173-245. Storm drainage separation is the
recommended method of CSO reduction for all but two of the CSO sites. This
method will require removing 90 percent or more of the stann drainage currently
conveyed. by the combined sewers.
5~ RESIDUAL SOLIDS
Since June 1992, all biosolids (sludge) generated at the facility have been utilized on
forest lands owned by the City. The .biosolids application/utilization sites are
permitted by the Bremerton-Kitsap County Health District.
The biosolids have been utilized as fertilizer to enhance timber growth, as well as an
amendment to improve overall soil quality. Most of the biosolids utilized at the site
are in liquid form. Smail percentage of the biosolids are dewatered by the centrifuge
at the facility prior to utilization on the forest lands. The centrifuge is used as a
back-up for the normal liquid mode of transport and application. Inclement weather
and equipment down-time are the main reasons for the centrifuge operation.
Monitoring reports for the application/utilization operations are submitted to the
Brernerton-Kitsap County Health District. A copy of the 1994 Annual Report and
Permit Renewal Application with the monitoring data was submitted to the
Department in March 1995.
FACT SHEET
City of Bremerton
Permit No. W A-002928-9
Page 7
The screenings and the grit removed at the facility are transported to the Olympic
View Sanitary Landfill for disposal.
6. PERMIT STATUS
The existing permit for this facility was issued on August 11, 1993, and expires on
June 30, 1996. An application for permit renewal was received by the Department on
January 4, 1996.
7. SIDvIMARY OF INSPECTIONS
The facility received its last Class I inspection on August 28, 1995. A,Class II
inspection was conducted on October 18, 1995. The inspection reports are in the
facility's record file at the Northwest Regional Office (NWRO) of the Department.
8. EXISTING EFFLUENT LIMITS
The existing permit placed effluent limitations on 5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BODS)' Total Suspended Solids (TSS), pH, Fecal Coliform bacteria, chlorine,
copper, and mercury. The effluent limitations as stipulated in Condition Sl.A. of the
existing permit are as follows:
I Parameter Monthly Average Weekly Average r
Biochemical Oxygen 30 mg!I, 2527 lbs/ day 45 mg/I, 3790 Ibs/day I
r
Dernand* (5 day)(BODS) :1
:i
Total Suspended Solids* 30 mg!I, 2527 Ibs/ day 45 mg!I, 3790 Ibsl day
(TSS)
I :~ Colifonn Bacteria 200/100 ml 400/1 00 rnl
shall not be outside the range 6.0 to 9.0
Parameter Monthly Average Daily Average
Total Available (Residual) i
I.
I Chlorine:
Interim Effluent Limitations 0.5 mg!! 1.0 mg!I
~ i
I Parameter Monthly Average Daily Maximum I
I
Total Available (Residual)
Chlorine:
Final Effluent Limitations 0.08 mg!I 0.23 mg!I
6.74 Ibs/day
FACT SHEET
City of Bremerton
Permit No. W A-002928-9
Page 8
! I
Parameter
Monthly Average
Weekly Average
Copper (Total
Recoverable) :
Interim Effluent Limitations
Final Effluent Limitations
146 ug/l
12.31bs/day
16.3 ug/l
1.371bs/day
1.3 ug/l
O.l1lb/day
268 ugll
45 ug/l
Mercury (Total
Recoverable)
I
2.5 ug/l
The monthly and weekly averages for BODS and TSS are based on the arithmetic
mean of the samples taken. The averages for fecal coliform are based on the
geometric mean of the samples taken.
*The monthly average effluent concentration limitations for BOD5 and TSS shall not
exceed 30 mg!lor 15 percent of the respective influent concentrations, whichever is
more stringent. The minimum reduction requirement does not apply during wet
weather months, October through March, inclusively, when the plant flows are
influenced by combined sewage.
The daily average for Total Available (Residual) Chlorine is the arithmetic mean of
the samples taken during a calendar day. The monthly average is the arithmetic mean
of the samples taken during a calendar month. .
9. SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXISTING PERMIT
The facility flows and influent wastewater characteristics (BOD5 and TSS) for
the period of September 1993 through August 1995 are shown in the graphs in
Appendix D. The graphs are based on the monthly. plant monitoring data
submitted by the facility as a requirement of its NPDES permit. For
comparison purposes, the graphs also show the values for the facility design
criteria and 85 % of the design criteria.
A. COMPLIANCE WITH DESIGN CRITERIA
The design criteria for the facility are stipulated in Condition S4.A. of the
existing permit.
As seen from the monthly average flow graph, the facility is generaily
operating below its 85 % design flow capacity. Only twice during the last two
years has the monthly average flow exceeded 85 % of the design capacity. The
increased flows during wet weather months are the result of stonn water
inflows from combined sewers.
F ACT SHEET
City of Bremerton
Permit No. W A-002928-9
Page 9
As stated earlier, approximately 60 percent of the sewer system is composed
of combined sewers and, consequently, inflow represents a significant portion
of the total sewage flow during the wet weather months. A large portion of
the combined sewage is received and treated at the Facility. Storm drainage
separation is the recommended. method of CSO reduction for all but two of the
CSO sites in the CSO Reduction Plan which the City is currently
implementing. This method will remove 90 percent or more of the storm
drainage currently conveyed by the combined sewers.. This should significantly
reduce the influent flows to the facility in the future during wet weather
months.
The influent BOD and TSS graphs (mass loadings in pounds per day) indicate
that the facility was operating above its design capacities for several months.
However, the high BOD and TSS in the influent samples were probably caused
by a problem with collecting representative influent samples at the facility.
The facility's internal recycle streams were returning too close to the influent
sampling station, and thus, artificially raising the influent loading values. This
problem was pointed out in the Fact Sheet for the existing permit. The
influent sampling station has recently been moved to a new location by the
new headworks, and the facility is now expected to be able to collect
representative influent samples.
B. COMPLIANCE WITH EFFLUENT LIMITS:
Current effluent limits for the facility are stipulated in Condition S 1.A. . of the
existing permit.
The effluent wastewater characteristics (conventional pollutants and toxics,
with limits in the existing permit) for the period of September 1993 through
August 1995 are shown in graphic form in Appendix D. The graphs are based
on the monthly plant monitoring data submitted by the facility as a requirement
of its NPDES permit. For comparison purposes, the graphs also show the
effluent limits.
The graphs show that the facility has been consistently in compliance with the
effluent limits for all parameters except chlorine. Non compliance with
chlorine limits occurred only twice during the two year period, one of which is
only slightly above the effluent limit. It should be noted that the effluent
mercury measurements shown as 0.2 PPB are actually less than 0.2 PPB,
which is the method detection limit (MDL).
The existing permit also contains final effluent limits for copper. A schedule
for complying with these limits is stipulated in the Administrative Order
Number DE 93WQ-N229. As required by the order, the City has submitted
an "Effluent Taxies Evaluation Report" to the Department.
FACT SHEET
City of Bremerton
Permit No. W A-002928-9
Page 10
As part of the monitoring requirement in the permit, the Permittee has also
submitted priority pollutant analysis for the facility effluent. The analysis
includes metals, volatile compounds, acid compounds, base/neutral
compounds; and pesticides.
PROPOSED PERMIT LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS
Federal and State regulations require that effluent limitations set forth in a NPDES permit
must be either technology- or water quality-based. Technology-based limitations for
municipal discharges are set by regulation (Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 40 CPR 133,
and Chapters 173-220 and 173-221 WAC). Water quality-based limitations are. based upon
compliance with the Surface Water Quality Standards (Chapter 173-201A WAC), Ground
Water Standards (Chapter 173-200 WAC) or Sediment Quality Standards (Chapter 173-204
WAC). The most stringent of these types of limits must be chosen for each of the
parameters of concern. Each of these types of limits is described in more detail below.
1. DESIGN CRITERIA
In accordance with WAC 173-220-130(1)(a), effluent limitations shall not be less
stringent than those based upon the design criteria for the facility, which are contained
in approved engineering plans, reports, or approved revisions. Also, in accordance
with WAC 173-220-150 (l)(g), flows or waste loadings shall not exceed approved
design criteria.
The design criteria for this treatment facility ;lI'e taken from the construction. plans
(April 1983) prepared by CH2M Hill, and approved by the Department. The de~ign
criteria for the facility are as follows:
Monthly average flow (max. month):
Influent BODS loading (max. month):
Influent TSS loading (max. month):
10.1 MGD
18,100lbs/day
22,600lbs/day
2. TECHNOLOGY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Municipal wastewater treatment plants are a category of discharger for which
technology-based effluent limits have been promulgated by federal and state
regulations. These effluent limitations are given in 40 CPR Part 133 (federal) and in
Chapter 173-221 WAC (state). These regulations are performance standards that
constitute all known available and reasonable methods of prevention, control, and
treatment for municipal wastewater.
The following technology-based limits for pH, fecal coliform, BODS' and TSS are
taken from chapter 173-221 WAC are:
FACT SHEET
City of Bremerton
Permit No. W A-Q02928-9
Page 11
Ill:I: shall be within the range of 6 to 9 standard units.
'1
I
J
. i
Fecal
Coliform
Bacteria:
Monthly Geometric Meal?- = 200 colonies/lOO ml
Weekly Geometric Mean = 400 colonies/IOO ml
BODS:
Average Monthly Limit is the most
stringent of the following:
- 30 mg/L
- may not exceed fifteen percent (15 %) of
the average influent concentration.
Average Weekly Umit = 45 mg/L
. I
I
. i
.
TSS:
Average Monthly Limit is the most
stringent of the following:
- 30 mg/L
- may not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of
the influent concentration.
. I
i
. I
,
Average Weekly Limit = 45 mg/L
I
. ! The following technology -based mass limits are based on WAC 173-220-130(3) (b) and 173-
221-030(11)(b) .
The monthly average effluent mass loadings (lbs/day) were calculated as maximum
monthly design flow (10.1 MGD) x Concentration limit (30 mg/L) x 8.34 (conversion
1 factor) = mass limit (lbs/day).
I
The weekly average effluent mass loadings (lbs/day) were calculated as maximum
I monthly design flow (10.1 MGD) x Concentration limit (45 mg/L) x 8.~4 (conversion
. I factor) = mass limit (lbs/day).
3. SURFACE WATER OUALITY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
In order to protect existing water quality and preserve the designated beneficial uses
of Washington's surface waters, WAC 173-201A-060 states that waste discharge
permits shall be conditioned such that the discharge will meet established Surface
Water Quality Standards. The Washington State Surface Water Quality Standards
(Chapter 173-201A WAC) is a state regulation designed to protect the beneficial uses
of the surface waters of the state. Water quality-based effluent limitations may be
based on an individual waste load allocation (WLA) or on a WLA developed during a
basin-wide total maximum daily loading study (TMDL).
FACT SHEET
City of Bremerton
Permit No. WA-002928-9
Page 12
A. Numerical Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life .
"Numerical" water quality criteria are numerical values set forth in the State of
Washington's Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters (Chapter 173-201A
WAC). They specify the levels of pollutants allowed in a receiving water
while remaining protective of aquatic life. Numerical criteria set forth in the
Water Quality Standards are used along with chemical and physical data for
the wastewater and receiving water to derive the effluent limits in the
discharge permit. When surface water quality-based limits are more stringent
or potentially more stringent than technology-based limitations, they must be
used in a permit.
B. Numerical Criteria for the Protection of Human Health
The state was issued 91 numeric water quality criteria for the protection of
human health by the U.S. EPA (BPA 1992). These criteria are designed to
protect humans from cancer and other disease and are primarily applicable to
fish and shellfish consumption and drinking water from surface waters.
C. Narrative Criteria
In addition to numerical criteria, "narrative" water quality criteria rw AC 173-
201A-030) limit toxic, radioactive, or deleterious material concentrations
below those which have the potential to adversely affect characteristic water
uses, cause acute or chronic toxicity to biota, impair aesthetic values, or
adversely affect human health. Narrative criteria protect the specific beneficial
uses of all fresh CNAC 173-201A-130) and mari~e c:NAC 173-201A-140)
waters in the State of Washington.
D. Antidegradation
The State of Washington's Antidegradation Policy requires that discharges into
a receiving water shall not further degrade the existing water quality of the
water body. In cases w.here the natural conditions of a receiving water are of
lower quality than the criteria assigned, the natural conditions shall constitute
the water quality criteria. Similarly, when the natural copditions of a
receiving water are of higher quality than the criteria assigned, the natural
conditions shall constitute the water quality criteria. More information on the
State Antidegradation Policy can be obtained by referring to WAC 173-201A-
070.
The Department has reviewed existing records and is unable to determine if
ambient water quality is either higher or lower than the designated
classification criteria given in chapter 173-201A WAC; therefore, the
Department will use the designated classification criteria for this water body in
the proposed permit.
J'
FACT SHEET
City of Bremerton
Permit No. W A-002928-9
Page 13
Critical Conditions
E.
Water quality-based effluent limits are derived for the waterbody's critical
condition, which represents the receiving water and waste discharge condition
with the highest potential for adverse impact on the aquatic biota, human
health, and existing or characteristic water body uses.
F.
Mixing Zones
,
!
The Water Quality Standards allow the Department of Ecology to authorize
mixing zones around a point of discharge in establishing surface water quality-
based effluent limits. Both "acute" and "chronic" mixing zones~may be
authorized for pollutants that can have a toxic effect on the aquatic
environment near the point of discharge. The concentration of pollutants at
the boundary of these mixing zones may not exceed the numerical criteria for
that type of zone. Mixing zones can only be authorized for discharges that are
receiving all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention and
control (AKART) and in accordance with other mixing zone requirements of
WAC 173-201A-100.
. 1
I
~
The National Toxics Rule (EP A, 1992) allows the chronic mixing zone to be
used to meet human health criteria.
4. SURFACE WATER OUALITY CRITERIA
The facility discharges to Sinclair Inlet (puget Sound) which is designated as a Class
Class "A" Marine water in the vicinity of the outfall. Characteristic uses include the
following:
water supply (domestic, industrial, agricultural); stock watering; fish migration; fish
and shellfish rearing, spawning and harvesting; wildlife habitat; primary contact
recreation; sport fishing; boating and aesthetic enjoyment; commerce and navigation.
Water quality of this class shall meet or exceed the requirements for all or
substantially all uses.
Applicable criteria are defined in chapter 173-20 1A WAC for aquatic biota. In
addition, U. S. EP A has promulgated human health criteria for toxic pollutants (EP A
1992). Water Quality Criteria for this waterbody are summarized below:
Fecal Coliforms:
Dissolved Oxygen:
Temperature:
pH:
14 colonies/1oo mL maximum geometric mean
7 mg/L minimum
13 degrees Celsius maximum
7.0 to 8.5 standard units
FACT SHEET
City of Bremerton
Permit No. W A-002928-9
Page 14
Turbidity:
Toxics:
Less than 5 NTU above background
No taxies in toxic amounts
5. CONSIDERATION OF SURFACE WATER OUALITY-BASED LL\1ITS FOR
NUMERIC CRITERIA
Pollutant concentrations in the proposed discharge exceed water quality criteria with
technology-based controls which the Department has determined to be AKART. A
mixing zone is authorized in accordance with the geometric configuration, flow
restriction, and other restrictions for mixing zones in chapter 173-201A WAC and are
defined as follows:
a. In estuaries, mixing zones, singularly or in combination with other mixing
zones, shall:
(i) Not extend in any horizontal direction from the discharge port(s) for a
distance greater than two hundred feet plus the depth of water over the
discharge port(s) as measured during mean lower low water; and
(ii) Not occupy greater than twenty-five percent of the width of the
waterbod y as measured during mean lower low water.
b. In estuarine waters, a zone where acute criteria may be exceeded shall not
extend beyond ten percent. of the distance established in a. above, as measured
independently from the discharge port(s).
The vertical limitations for both chronic and acute zones is the depth of water over
the discharge port(s) as measured during mean lower low water.
6. DETERMINATION OF DILUTION RATIOS:
The mixing zone boundaries for the facility discharge are depicted in Condition S 1.B.
of the permit.
The dilution ratios of receiving water to facility effluent that occur within the mixing
zones at the critical conditions have been determined by the use of UDKHDEN
model. The modeling analysis was conducted by CH2M Hill, the Permittee's
consultant.
The dilution ratios for the facility effluent under critical conditions for aquatic life
criteria are predicted to be: (i) Receiving Water:Facility Effluent of 69: 1 for the
chronic zone boundary; and (ii) Receiving Water:Facility Effluent of 25:1 for the
acute zone boundary.
FACT SHEET
City of Bremerton
Permit No. WA-002928-9
Page 15
I
I
\
The chronic dilution ratio is based on the existing maximum month flow of 9.8 MGD,
and the receiving water conditions of maximum stratification with 50th percentile
current speed of 4 em/second (assumed), at mean lower low water (MLLW). The
acute dilution ratio is based on the existing maximum daily flow of 19.2 MGD, and
the receiving water conditions of maximum stratification with current speed of 0
em/ second (assumed), at mean lower low water (MLL W).
~ ,
I
The original dilution analysis was submitted by the Permittee with the last permit
application. The dilution ratio in the acute mixing zone boundary in the proposed
permit is lower (25: 1 as compared to 31: 1) for some taxies and higher (25: 1 as
compared to 18:1) for the others. This is due to the fact that the Department's
current Permit Writer's Manual allows the use of daily maximum flows_ for modeling
in the acute zone boundary. For the existing permit, peak hourly flow was used for
some taxies, and the maximum month flow for the others, to determine the acute zone
dilution ratios. Because the daily maximum flow falls somewhere in between these
flows, the dilution ratio in the proposed permit for the acute zone boundary is lower
for some taxies and higher for the others.
j
The dilution ratios for human health criteria are based on annual average design flow
(7.6 MGD) for carcinogens, and maximum month flow for the past three years (9.8
MGD) for non-carcinogens. Chronic design conditions are used for both initial
mixing and far-field mixing calculations. The dilution ratios are based on the
receiving water conditions of maximum stratification with 50th percentile current
speed of 4 em/second (assumed), at mean lower low water (MLLW). The
Department's Permit Writer's Manual recommends use of ambient density profile that
results in average mixing, for modeling. However, the modeling was conducted for
maximum and minimum stratification conditions only. The dilution ratios selected are
based on the maximum stratification, which would be more conservative than the ones
based on the density profile that results in average mixing. Based on the modeling,
the predicted dilution ratios are (i) 74: 1 for carcinogens, and (ii) 69: 1 for non-
carcinogens. The dilution ratio of 74: 1 for the annual average design flow of 7.6
MGD (for carcinogens) was taken from the dilution analysis of October .29, 1992,
submitted by the permittee with. the previous permit application.
- i
g
~I
, ~
The predicted dilution ratios for aquatic life criteria and human health criteria are
summarized in the table below:
Acute Chronic
Aquatic Life 25:1 69:1
Human Health, 74:1
Carcinogen
1 Human Health, 69:1
,I
Non-carcinogen
F ACT SHEET
City of Bremerton
Permit No. W A-002928-9
Page 16
7. REASONABLE POTENTIAL AND WATER OUALITY-BASED PERMIT LIMITS
DETERMINATIONS
[,
Pollutants in an effluent may affect the aquatic environment near the point of
discharge (near field) or at a considerable distance from the point of discharge (far
field). Toxic pollutants, for example, are near-field pollutants--their adverse effects
diminish rapidly with mixing in the receiving water. Conversely, a pollutant such as
BOD is a far-field pollutant whose adverse effect occurs away from the discharge
even after dilution has occurred. Thus, the method of calculating water quality-based
effluent limits varies with the point at which the pollutant has its maximum effect.
The derivation of water quality-based limits also takes into account the yariability of
the pollutant concentrations in both the effluent and the receiving water.
A. Conventional Pollutants
(i) Temperature--Under critical conditions there is no predicted violation of the
Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters. Therefore, no effluent limitation
for temperature is placed in the proposed permit.
(ii) pH--Because of the high buffering capacity of marine water, compliance
with the technology-based limits of 6 to 9 will assure compliance with the
Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters.
(ill) Fecal Coliform--Under critical conditions there is no predicted violation of
the Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters with the technology-based
limit. Therefore, the technology-based effluent limitation for fecal coliform
bacteria is placed in the proposed permit.
B. Toxic Pollutants
Federal regulations (40 CFR 122.44) require NPDES permits to contain ~
effluent limits for toxic chemicals in an effluent whenever there is a reasonable
potential for those chemicals to exceed the surface water quality criteria. This
process occurs concurrently with the derivation of technology-based effluent
limits. Facilities with technology-based effluent limits defmed in regulation
are not exempted from meeting the Water Quality Standards for Surface
Waters or from having surface water quality-based effluent limits.
A reasonable potential analysis (please see Appendix E) was conducted for the
taxies r:vv AC 173-201A-G40) to determine the potential to exceed the water
quality criteria for aquatic life. This would determine whether or not effluent
limitations for these parameters would be required in this permit. The analysis
was conducted using procedures given in EPA, 1991.
FACT SHEET
City of Bremerton
Permit No. WA-002928-9
Page 17
The dilution ratios used in the reasonable potential calculations are shown in
the table in the "Determination of Dilution Ratios II section above.
\
; j
No valid ambient background data is available for any of the toxics, and
therefore, background concentrations for all the toxics were assumed zero. In
the future, the Department may conduct ambient monitoring in Sinclair Inlet to
determine metals concentrations.
~ -~
1
. f
q
As noted in the comment column of the reasonable potential analysis, some of
the compounds show values below method detection limits (MDLs). All
MDLs are very low. Therefore, reasonable poten~ analysis was not
conducted for these compounds. It should be noted that in the priority
pollutant analyses, none of these compounds were detected in the influent,
effluent, and sludge.
-- -~
!
The reasonable potential analysis shows that only chlorine has a reasonable
potential to cause a violation of the Water Quality Standards. Effluent limits
were calculated for chlorine using methods from EPA, 1991 as shown in
Appendix F.
The resultant effluent limits, which are stipulated in Condition S l.A. of the
proposed permit, are as follows:
'Parameter Monthly Average Limit Daily Maximum Limit
Total Residual Chlorine 0.13 mg/L 0.37 mg/L
It should be noted that during the development of the existing permit, copper
and mercury showed reasonable potential to violate water quality criteria for
aquatic life. This was due to inadequate data base for the effluent metals.
The water quality-based effluent limits for copper and mercury were calculated
for and stipulated in the existing permit. Based on the effluent metals data
currently available for the facility, neither copper nor mercury has a
reasonable potential to violate water quality criteria for aquatic life.
Therefore, no limits are specified for these pollutants in the proposed pennit.
The Department had issued an Administrative Order to the City in August
1993, to require the City to comply with the final copper limits in the existing
permit by August 1, 2003. Because copper in the effluent is no longer a
concern based on the reasonable potential analysis, this Order will be
rescinded by the Department.
FACT SHEET
City of Bremerton
Permit No. W A-002928-9
Page 18
~ I
I
I
8.
WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY
The Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters require that the effluent not cause
toxic effects in the receiving waters. Many toxic pollutants cannot be detected by
commonly available detection methods. However, toxicity can be measured directly
by exposing living organisms to the wastewater in laboratory tests and measuring the
response of the organisms. Toxicity tests measure the aggregate toxicity of the whole
effluent, and therefore this approach is called whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing.
Some WET tests measure acute toxicity and other WET tests measure chronic
toxicity .
Acute toxicity tests measure mortality as the significant response to the JOxicity of the
effluent. Dischargers who monitor their wastewater with acute toxicity tests are
providing an indication of the potential lethal effect of the effluent to organisms in the
receiving environment.
Chronic toxicity tests measure various sublethal toxic responses such as retarded
growth or reduced reproduction. Chronic toxicity tests often involve either a
complete life cycle test of an organism with an extremely short life cycle or a partial
life cycle test on a critical stage of one of a test organism t s life cycles. Organism
survival is also measured in some chronic toxicity tests.
Accredited WET testing laboratories have the proper WET testing protocols, data
requirements, and reporting format. Accredited laboratories are knowledgeable about
WET testing and capable of calculating an NOEC, LCSO' ECSO' rcSO' etc. Ecology
recommends that Permittees send a copy of the acute or chronic toxicity sections(s) of
their permits to their laboratory of choiCe.
. An effluent characterization for acute and chronic toxicity was conducted during the
current permit term. Acute toxicity was measured during this effluent
characterization. However, the Permittee has recently installed effluent dechlorination
system as required by the permit, which could result in decrease in effluent toxicity.
Therefore, the Permittee is required to repeat the effluent characterization for acute
toxicity. If acute toxicity is measur'ed during effluent characterization at levels that,
in accordance with WAC 173-20S-0S0(2)(a), have a reasonable potential to cause
receiving water toxicity t then the proposed permit sets a limit on the acute toxicity.
The proposed permit then requires the Permittee to conduct WET testing in order to
monitor for compliance with the acute toxicity limit. The proposed permit also
specifies the procedures the Permittee must use to come back into compliance if the
limits are exceeded.
I
, J
I
I
I
I
I
n
I
I
FACT SHEET
City of Bremerton
Permit No. W A-002928-9
Page 19
The WET tests during effluent characterization indicate that no reasonable potential
exists to cause receiving water chronic toxicity, and the Permittee will not be given a
chronic WET limit and will only be required to retest the effluent prior to application
for permit renewal in order to demonstrate that chronic toxicity has not increased in
the effluent.
If the Permittee makes process or material changes which, in the Department's
opinion, results in an increased potential for effluent toxicity, then the Department
may require additional effluent characterization in a regulatory order, by permit
modification, or in the permit renewal. Toxicity is assumed to have increased if
WET testing conducted for submission with a permit application fails to meet the
performance standards in WAC 173-205-020, "whole effluent toxicity p.erfonnance
standard". The Permittee may demonstrate to the Department that changes have not
increased effluent toxicity by performing additional WET testing after the time the
process or material changes have been made.
Under certain circumstances, limited number of dilutions are required for acute
and chronic WET testing. However, as stated in Conditions S9.F.7. and
SlO.B.7., the permittee may choose to run the full dilution series. It is strongly
recommended th~t the permittee run the full dilution series in order for better
evaluation of the results. .
9.
HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA
As required by the existing permit, the permittee has submitted effluent analysis for
the priority pollutants. The analysis includes most chemicals of concern with human
health criteria. The facility's high priority status is based on: (i) status as a major
discharger, and (ii) knowledge of data indicating regulated chemicals occur in the
discharge.
. A determination of the discharge's potential to cause an exceedance of the water
quality standards was conducted as required by 40 CFR 122.44(d). The reasonable
potential determination was performed with procedures given in the Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-Based Toxies Control (EPA/505/2-90-001) and the
Department's Permit Writer's Manual (Ecology Publication 92-109). The reasonable
potential analysis is included in Appendix E.
As noted in the comment column of the reasonable potential analysis, most of the
compounds show the values below method detection limits (MDLs). All MDLs are
very low. Therefore, reasonable potential analysis was not conducted for these
compounds. It should be noted that in the priority pollutant analyses, very few
compounds were detected in the influent, effluent, and sludge. Some of the
compounds were detected in the influent and the sludge but not in the effluent.
F ACT SHEET
City of Bremerton
Permit No. W A-002928-9
Page 20
Based on the concentrations of these compounds found in the influent and the sludge,
and the MDLs used for the effluent, none of these compounds would exceed human
health criteria with the chronic dilution ratios of 74: 1 for carcinogens and 69: 1 for
non-carcmogens.
The reasonable potential analysis shows that none of the pollutants have a reasonable
potential to cause a violation of the water quality standards based on human health
criteria. Because of sampling results below MDLs, there is uncertainty about arsenic
in the reasonable potential analysis. The reasonable potential calculation for arsenic
was conducted with the 50th percentile concentration of 50 ug/L. However, the
actual 50th percentile concentration is less than 50 ug/L.. As noted in the comment
colul1lIl, 93 out of 94 analyses show arsenic concentrations below MDLs. The MDLs
in 92 analyses were 50 ug/L. In order to better evaluate human health criteria for
arsenic, Condition S2.C. (TOXICS) of the proposed permit requires the permittee to
monitor for arsenic in the effluent at a much lower detection limit of 1 ug/L by
Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption (GF AA) method. Based on the results of the
analyses during this permit term, human health criteria limits for arsenic will be
evaluated during the next permit cycle.
10. SEDIMENT OUALITY
The Department has promulgated aquatic sediment standards (Chapter 173-204 WAC)
to protect aquatic biota and human health. These standards state that the Department
may require Permittees to evaluate the potential for the discharge to cause a violation
of applicable standards 0NAC 173-204-400).
As required by the existing permit, the permittee has submitted a Baseline Sediment
Monitoring Plan. The Department's Sediment Management Unit (SMU) has reviewed
the plan and recommended conditional approval of the plan. :Minor revisions in the
plan will be required as provided in the comments from the SMU. As specified in
Condition S 11. of the proposed permit, the permittee is required to conduct sediment
sampling and analysis as described in the approved plan.
11. GROUND WATER au ALITY LIMIT A TrONS
This Permittee has no discharge to ground and therefore no limitations are required
based on potential effects to ground water.
12. MONITORING AND REPORTING
Effluent monitoring, recording, and reporting are required (WAC 173-220-210 and 40
CFR 122.41) to verify that the treatment process is functioning correctly and the
effluent limitations are being achieved.
The monitoring and testing schedule is detailed in the proposed permit under
Condition S2. Specified monitoring frequencies take into account the quantity and
J
. I
.\
i
, ,
13.
. ~
FACT SHEET
City of Bremerton
Permit No. W A-002928-9
Page 21
variability of discharge, the treatment method, past compliance, significance of
pollutants, and cost of monitoring. The required monitoring frequency is fairly
consistent with agency guidance given in the current version of the Department Permit
Writer's Manual for activated sludge plants with greater than 5 MGD average design
flow. In order to keep track of process efficency, and for the purposes of
troubleshooting in case of noncompliance and/or plant upsets, the proposed permit
also requires process monitoring.
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
The City has numerous combined sewers in its collection system. During
precipitation events, the excess combined sewage overflows into the re(!eiving water
body, rather than conveyed to the facility, if the capacity of combined sewer is
exceeded.
There are 16 combined sewer overflow (CSQ) sites in the collection system, which
are composed of 21 structures and 17 outfalls. Condition 12. in the permit includes a
list of the CSO outfalls.
RCW 90.48.480 requires Ecology to work with local governments to develop
reasonable plans and compliance schedules for the greatest reasonable reduction of
CSO's. Chapter 173-245 WAC established a procedure and criteria for implementing
RCW 90.48.480. In accordance with these laws, the City submitted the fmal
"Combined Sewer Overflow Reduction Plan" to the Department in October 1992,
which was approved on November 20, 1992. The plan includes improvement types
and implementation schedules for the ultimate goal of greatest reasonable reduction of
CSOs as defined in WAC 173-245-020(22).
Conditions S12.B. and C. of the permit requires the City to submit the reports that
are required by WAC 173-245. The City and the Department have entered into an
Order On Consent (No. DE 93WQ - 150), which stipulates a compliance schedule for
all the CSQ reduction projects.
As required by the Order On Consent, the City has completed improved flow
monitoring at each overflow site. Other improvements for the overflow sites are
planned for the future. The City also completed the Warren Avenue Basin Separation
project in October 1995. Construction of Phase I of the Callow Avenue Basin project
has been completed. The remainder of the project is planned to be completed during
this permit term.
FACT SHEET
City of Bremerton
Permit Nq. W A-002928-9
Page 22
OTHlili PERMIT CONDmONS
1. PREVENTION OF FACILITY OVERLOADING
Overloading of the treatment plant is a violation of the terms and conditions of the
permit. To prevent this from occurring, RCW 90.48.110 and WAC 173-220-150
require the Permittee to take the actions detailed in Condition S4.B. of the proposed
permit
2. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M)
-
The proposed permit contains condition S5. as authorized under RCW 90.48.110,
WAC 173-220-150, WAC 173-230, and WAC 173-240-080. It is included to ensure
proper operation and regular maintenance of equipment, and to ensure that adequate
safeguards are taken so that constructed facilities are used to their optimum potential
in terms of pollutant capture and treatment
3. RESIDUAL SOLIDS HANDLING
To prevent water quality problems the Permittee is required in permit condition S7. to
store and handle all residual solids (grit, screenings, scum, sludge, and other solid
waste) in accordance with the requirements of RCW 90.48.080 and State Water
Quality Standards.
The final use and disposal of sewage sludge from this facility is regulated by U.S.
EP A under 40 CFR 503. The disposal of other solid waste is under the jurisdiction
of the Bremerton-Kitsap County Health Department.
4. PRETREATMENT
Since the pretreatment program has not been delegated to the permittee, the
pretreatment condition S8. in the proposed pennit is a standard condition derived
from the Federal Regulation40 CFR 403.5.
GENERAL CONDmONS
General Conditions are based directly on state and federal law and regulations and have been
standardized for all individual NPDES permits issued by the Department.
FACT SHEET
City of Bremerton
Permit No. W A-002928-9
Page 23
PER.l\tIIT ISSUANCE PROCEDURES
1. PERMIT MODIFICATIONS
The Department may modify this permit to impose numerical limitations, if necessary
to meet Water Quality Standards, Sediment Quality Standards, or Ground Water
Standards, based on new information obtained from sources such as inspections,
effluent monitoring, outfall studies, and effluent mixing studies.
The Department may also modify this permit as a result of new or amended state or
federal regulations.
2. RECOMMENDATION FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE
The proposed permit meets all statutory requirements for authorizing a wastewater
discharge, including those limitations and conditions believed necessary to protect
human health, aquatic life, and the beneficial uses of waters of the State of
Washington. The Department proposes that this permit be issued for 5 years.
3. REVIEW BY THE PERMITTEE
The proposed permit was reviewed by the Permittee for verification of facts. Only
factual items were corrected in the draft permit and fact sheet.
REFERENCES FOR TEXT AND APPENDICES
(1) National Toxics Rule, Federal Register, V. 57, No. 246, Tuesday, December
22, 1992.
(2) Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control,
EPA/505/2-90-001, EPA, 1991.
(3) Permit Writer's Manual, Department of Ecology, January 1996.
(4) Wastewater Comprehensive Plan - Final Draft, City of Bremerton, April,
1992.
FACT SHEET
City of Bremerton
Permit No. W A-002928-9
Page 24
APPENDIX A
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT INFORMATION
The Department has tentatively determined to reissue a permit to the applicant listed on page
1 of this fact sheet. The permit contains conditions and effluent limitations which are
described in the rest of this fact sheet.
The Department has published a Public Notice of Draft (PNOD) on in the Bremerton Sun to
inform the public that a draft permit and fact sheet are available for review. Interested
persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the draft permit. The draft permit,
fact sheet, and related documents are available, for inspection and copying between the hours
of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. weekdays, by appointment, at the regional office listed below.
Written comments should be mailed to:
Water Quality Permit Coordinator
Department of Ecology
Northwest Regional Office
3190 160th Avenue SE
Bellevue, W A 98008-5452.
Any interested party may comment on the draft permit or request a public hearing on this
draft permit within the thirty (30) day comment period to the address above. The request for
a hearing shall indicate the interest of the party and the reasons why the hearing is
warranted. The Department will hold a hearing if it determines there is a significant public
interest in the draft permit 0N AC 173-220-090). Public notice regarding any hearing will be
circulated at least thirty (30) days in advance of the hearing. 'People expressing an interest in
this permit will be mailed an individual notice of hearing 0NAC 173-220-100).
The Department will consider all comments received within thirty (30) days from the date of
public notice of draft indicated above, in formulating a final determination to issue, revise,
or deny the permit. The Department's response. to all significant comments is available upon
request and will be mailed directly to people expressing an interest in this permit.
Further information may be obtained from the Department by telephone, (206) 649-7201, or
by writing to the address listed above.
FACT SHEET
. City of Bremerton
Permit No. W A-002928-9
Page 25
APPENDIX B
GLOSSARY
Acute Toxicity-- The lethal effect of a compound on an organism that occurs in a short
period of time, usually 48 to 96 hours.
Ambient Water Quality-- The existing environmental condition of the water in a receivmg
water body.
Ammonia--Ammonia is produced. by the breakdown of nitrogenous materials in wastewater.
Ammonia is toxic to aquatic organisms, exerts an oxygen demand, and contriQutes to
eutrophication. It also increases the amount of chlorine needed to disinfect wastewater.
Best Management Practices (BMPs)--Schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices,
maintenance procedures, and other physical, structural and/or managerial practices to prevent
or reduce the pollution of waters of the State. BMPs include treatment systems, operating
procedures, and practices to control: plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste
disposal, or drainage from raw material storage. BMPs may be further categorized as
operational, source control, erosion and sediment control, and treatment B.MPs.
BODs--Determining the Biochemical Oxygen Demand of an effluent is an indirect way of
measuring the quantity of organic material present in an effluent that is utilized by bacteria.
The BODS is used in modeling to measure the reduction of dissolved oxygen in a receiving
water after effluent is discharged. Stress caused by reduced dissolved oxygen levels makes
organisms less competitive and less able to sustain their species in the aquatic environment.
Although BOD is not a specific compound, it is defmed as a conventional pollutant under the
federal Clean Water Act.
Bypass-The intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility.
Chlorine--Chlorine is used to disinfect wastewaters of pathogens harmful to human health.
It is also extremely toxic to aquatic life.
Chronic Toxicity-- The effect of a compound on an organism over a relatively long time,
often 1/10 of an organism's lifespan or more. Chronic toxicity can measure survival,
reproduction or growth rates, or.other parameters to measure the toxic effects of a compound
or combination of compounds.
Class 1 Inspection--A walk-through inspection of a facility that includes a visual inspection
and some examination of facility records. It may also include a review of the facility's
record of environmental compliance.
F ACT SHEET
City of Bremerton
Permit No. W A-002928-9
Page 26
Class 2 Inspection--A walk-through inspection of a facility that includes the elements of a
Class 1 Inspection plus sampling and testing of wastewaters. It may also include a review of
the facility's record of environmental compliance.
Clean Water Act (CW A)--The Federal Water Pollution Control Act enacted by Public Law
92-500, as amended by Public Laws 95-217, 95-576, 96-483, 97-117; USC 1251 et seq.
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)-- The event during which excess combined sewage flow
caused by inflow is discharged from a combined sewer, rather than conveyed to the sewage
treatment plant because either the capacity of the treatment plant or the combined sewer is
exceeded.
Composite Sample--A mixture of grab samples collected at the same sampling point at
different times, formed either by continuous sampling or by mixing discrete samples. May
be "time-composite"(collected at constant time intervals) or . "flow-proportional" (collected
either as a constant sample volume at time intervals proportional to stream flow, or collected
by increasing the volume of each aliquot as the. flow increased while maintaining a constant
time interval between the aliquots..
Construction Activity--Clearing, grading, excavation and any other activity which disturbs
the surface of the land. Such activities may include road building, construction of residential .
houses, office buildings, or industrial buildings, and demolition activity.
Critical Condition-- The time during which tlJ.e combination of receiving water and waste
discharge conditions have the highest potential for causing toxicity in the receiving water
environment. This situation usually occurs when the flow within a water body is low, thus,
its ability to dilute effluent is reduced.
Daily Maximum Discharge Limitation-- The greatest allowable value for any calendar day.
Dilution Factor--A measure of the amount of mixing of effluent and receiving water that
occurs at the boundary of the mixing zone. Expressed as the inverse of the effluent fraction.
Engineering Report--A document which thoroughly examines the engineering and
administrative aspects of a particular domestic or industrial wastewater facility. The report
shall contain the appropriate information required in WAC 173-240-060 or 173-240-130.
Fecal Coliform Bacteria--Fecal coliform bacteria are used as indicators of pathogenic
bacteria in the effluent that are harmful to humans. Pathogenic bacteria in wastewater
discharges are controlled by disinfecting the wastewater. The presence of high numbers of
fecal coliform bacteria in a water body can indicate the recent release of untreated
wastewater and! or the presence of animal feces.
FACT SHEET
City of Bremerton
Permit No. W A-002928-9
Page 27
Grab Sample--A single sample or measurement taken at a specific time or over as short
period of time as is feasible.
Industrial Wastewater--Water or liquid-earned waste from industrial or commercial
processes, as distinct from domestic wastewater. These wastes may result from any process
or activity of industry, manufacture, trade or business, from the development of any natural
resource, or from animal operations such as feed lots, poultry houses, or dairies. The term
includes contaminated storm water and, also, leachate from solid waste facilities.
InIlitration and Inflow (Ifn--"Inflltration" means the addition of ground water into a sewer
through joints, the sewer pipe material, cracks, and other defects. "Inflow" means the
addition of rainfall-caused surface water drainage from roof drains, yard d~s, basement
drains, street catch basins, etc., into a sewer.
Mixing Zone--An area that surrounds an effluent discharge within which water quality
criteria may be exceeded. The area of the authorized mixing zone is specified in a facility's
permit and follows procedures outlined in state regulations (chapter 173-201A WAC).
Monthly Average Discharge Limitation-- The average of the measured values obtained over
a calendar month's time.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)-- The NPDES (Section 402 of
the Clean Water Act) is the Federal wastewater permitting system for discharges to navigable
waters of the United States. Many states, including the State of Washington, have been
delegated the authority to issue these permits. NPDES permits issued by Washington State
permit writers are joint NPDES/State permits issued under both State and Federal laws.
pH--The pH of a liquid measures its acidity or alkalinity. A pH of 7 is defined as neutral,
and large variations above or below this value are considered harmful to most aquatic -life.
State Waters--Lakes, rivers, ponds, strearns,.inland.waters, underground waters, salt waters,
and all other surface waters and watercourses within the jurisdiction of the state of
Washington.
Stormwater-- That portion of precipitation that does not naturally percolate into the ground or
evaporate, but flows via overland flow, interflow, pipes, and other features of a storm water
drainage system into a defined surface' water body, or a constructed infiltration facility.
Technology-based Effluent Limit--A permit limit that is based on the ability of a treatment
method to reduce the pollutant.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)-- Total suspended solids is the particulate material in an
effluent. Large quantities of TSS discharged to a receiving water may result in solids
accumulation.
FACT SHEET
City of Bremerton
Permit No. W A-Q02928-9
Page 28
Apart from any toxic effects attributable to substances leached out by water, suspended solids
may kill fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms by causing abrasive injuries and by
clogging the gills and respiratory passages of various aquatic fauna. Indirectly, suspended
solids can screen out light and can promote and maintain the development of noxious
conditions through oxygen depletion.
Water Quality-based Effluent Limit--A limit on the concentration of an effluent parameter
that is intended to prevent the concentration of that parameter from exceeding its water
quality criterion after it is discharged into a receiving water.
Upset--An exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance
with technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable
control of the Permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by
operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, lack of preventative maintenance,
or careless or improper operation.
FACT SHEET
City of Bremerton
Permit No. W A-002928-9
Page 29
APPENDIX C
(i) W ASTEW A TER TREATMENT FACILITY LAYOUT
riD OUTFALL LOCA nON
i
!
"'-'
"'iI
, 1
i
I
.1
f,'
I,
i1r
!
:
i
!
,
!
" !;
i
. !
j
1
l
.,<--_1
1
1
1
HI
--
;'~~~'."~)~l~~\-: ~-h: ~f"!Jri') .~~5)h:lfJ.i)9~N' \ r~u. .~- 1
I-;'Ii, ~,~ <~ p~ll )J.~.\\\ f{" Ie::,. ,,'.,.... ',' J,r.. ~" ,...
':t~ ':~. ~t,~}\ ~~\ ~.J{ .. .... :)\'1 ~,,'. j,~)\ P,' Il.. ..~ III. ~l ,. I ~r
~j ~ al!l~ '"T\~'~;'~~: · .... ~~i J"'" .,:\~;~ I IF: -, ~~> {'JlLDSeJi'
'. r'.: .1 ~'il ..:.l'r j . ~J~,.. -. ..it'., ....,,.;."'\1, I \ It". T 11
,: ~-1 ...., ., ~ Po ';; Ov."~ Bov '.\.,,;>," :::e .}. ". '. I~:~ " .!),..~ .
f:. , ~ ~. ~"',: '/ J:.:-- · \'.!'_ ~~_....., <; ~ ~ ~ __' I " U _
,In ! '-: j oJ ,i ~ ;. .1~ ,\0, . ~ ." .",~ .. J ' .
~~.;;~. 't,.~.\\..... ..~ .\ . ~~l u\,U ~ "1 I~ . .
UIP'\~~Ii'.!)-)"lr"A1!,TM.10'7~~J"''':'''" .~... .~~ J . " ~~. . ... ~
I;~ lSj~J~7.df~~\~ ~~ "-:~ .;-~... t:- ~i ';! ...l~, I ", . .
~ ~~~~~~: r~~~:~'Jl~f::~'c.r1~-*f~"'::' :~l ::;1' ,. t ~~~.m- 'I~-"
~~~ ..~.=~f.";'r~.. :r'_."'"'1.~ .~M\\:a. "~ji ... I~ I .. fooO
~7 1)1 . ~~~ ~ ..w~~ t'\v . ~ !\ = ~'I ~ ',.i . \ _ ( "
. . .2: !_:: t; r t. '{ ...~...::/!~~~ .. :' r( U.I 'Ii ~ )!tf~ : .'r' , ~~\~ UW~.
7/; ~,,"\' L: /../:: :ll ~....+ \. \v~.., I :. I ,). ~ ..... l._\~l .' i ~ , '"" '""\l 4 ;,
V\'.'~l' ,- ;r--_ !\~~~ ~\ ~, ~~. ~ ,,~tll rr \ 6'~.. )::. ~ ... _ 1) ~
;j. '::; \ ~~' ",,"~,'::, ~ I .. ~,~ ~ :,!,)(', .L",:"' '::' I t-J ),; . .~ ~ I ~~
)~, ~'~" " ...~ li.,..r~~r1 ';.!,If) !!!Jt 1,1..I/~~ [, ,,_,
::\" ,1; , _j.:6 .....,~>#- "~~' - ~ \~ . - \ ~'\'J '~; 1tf.; ili'''~ ~
, < '(,'~i0 :, ~ ~~, .~, ~t" t .. "'< 1."'"1;1" ,J · ' ~.. 1:\ '1lMdl.' ,
t ~. -'\\N~~. PT."''':~ ..1.')~:~\r~~"'I~:r..:;; v~I~;,.~,.., I'~C -'rr':-."
~ ~l))" LV ~~ \ .I-\\'\'1~11~ ~. III :. '.
., .; 'i.~' ~.\\ lp.!. '11~ 1IIQL ~ : I
',,, \\\::' - orp ~~rd)l., rtl.i ",~'~ ",',~ ." ...', ", ; . J ~
, r'ht8~\ :1,.~,JAlfl~J ',.41.~ "'\1, . .;.%"'~.\. '- ._._./
1', jO l\~'------ flit, r~' .'7 \,x''''
I 1 ' I ) 7"/1U14,...,.,A.Jr,,~ -"~i~ (.~. " , '\
~) ,) ::;~f. · r,(" ;r, ~ I'" . ,./ '. '....<;., J
,,",'0::::;''-:/,.) - ~-...'::---./ j./--,~ ~ ./ \ '.:"', ~.__
f' .),...:.i ~ ...........h~Jl... ~l ~ I ~ /JC#.MUfIetI -........1'1I......,..... '\', :~......
~ ':. - ...{ j..f{ /J~ . ,..,..."............,. ~.8II.rI"1 A& .. '")... ~ '\
.P~/ \~~- ~~-. if:... r Dr-.................. CIID~ '...;.r ',~ "\
i<'. -- \\\~,t. ~' ~. r \ /' I " "
) ~}).. .~f~'~' 'V'.. ~ 1. tt. I ",',
7. ~fkJ7~\r'T,;D":' ~~ ! "'.. >-
~t';fi'a U U" I V" + - · ~_,
~~~ '~A ~',~} ~~!~. ~!~:'~ ..,. Ll.
,l""'::""-~'~ ,~' ~. ...., ~. ',~ """'yil ,J"1lIIUl
.~~ ~:..~ ~ _ 7 ..." 1JjJ:~~ .:~~ ~ I
~.;=~.~ ~ .- . ~ . <~/'I\ -~~~.
lij ; ~-L:_~ ..... . . . h' ~l\..l~ ( , "
;\' ~+-~ ".......'" .III i IITIf ... 11IIO I.. IiVlllM&IIIIl:' IIIl3m9
h."'- . - ~-., . .-- . 'J:.ik,l.l \,7"" IJ l C(CUMnrar '" ennu S SMCn
· -,..~,:,- ': .......... ~~.g~/i 1J~1I I SCAlE l:~-IlXD
, ::,...;;-:"""~.,;;'f., ..... ..' ~~ ~ I ~. ....
~'"I" ~ . =.~)::l%~~l~? ..... ~.... ~ f.. - __
,:::;;.';~::~'~::;~:.~.:.: ';'~~~i;":~;;';~. ." .,:':'," " :-- 0.' v~4S ,..., fS4Q"fI4."""'- "'a~
o.%\\7'i"ii:-tliit """"00.""'."",.. .".'. . ~ . ,
":."~}:~'cT' ~'J;~'::~:Z-~l--tl.~~:; \j;' ~ .:~~.~:,. . · .' ~~ 4.~FMIif ,..,.
';I~~t~~.,t'!'::~'I'.".'\\!:;~~~~.4~f" .... ~ . w). p:r1 ~. . ~ .411."'~,.,..,. -4"'-.I"P~
~~:W.::.:.:;t,;::,!::,: :'" J'~ ...,.~..,. " . ~:i~ 7 '\"" t~)~;.. ~ (~._,. "&.A-""
'~N.;r..,. '..-1 "'" ~_'l \ " '1
; ., fItItIV ~t:~'~., .. P". , 1!Ii~"f'1 ^ 5-<6..&(,...., wOil4......m-
--~ -"--'_..._U'". . \. ',"" ""lI!r,.. '. _
I ,
,.....~ -'"
FACT SFIEET
City of Bremerton
Permit No. W A-002928-9
Page 30
APPENDIX D
INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS GRAPHS
~
.;
..
..
i
::I
t.
-I
~g
..oe
>0
""..
~;
i~
r
z
"
...
15
al
\l;
~
~
Odd '!!:11N'JnUHf JDYVJ^'t
~
~
ci
c
..
~
...
::I
Ii.
z,.
-..
...~
h
....
>0
.....
i!
i!i~
i'"
z
o
Ii:
...
:E
..
lli
i
~
,.
t;81lfl
I: ~""r.
'51lf~
i:~
~:
0'
~ ;;'
8 ~:
; i:
.. ~I
! VI
8 i:
. o.
r o.
~ #..
:1:.
IIIIIi
,-
IIIIi
..
..
....
..
--
.
iii
IIIIIIi
iii
!
I
~:
I.'
i~ ~:
8 ;.
-: I'
~ :3:
i !:
II c!.
C 01
i .,.,
~ ~f
I _J
i
1-
=
..
1"-
i ...
i ~
.-
...
~
~
~ ~
;tI/IH'
911'/1ft
Isn!t
98111~
,ATm
Hlflfll
,,1I1f11
HUttOl
HUIII!I e
~
.Sflll
.""IfL
Ufl/V
.'11''''
twlf"
tt;l'&rt
Will:
Will
tllUll
UIIIII
tK/1fOI
[61UG
~
981tf8
'811ft
9511101
'811';
98fl,t
18I'lft
gllft,t
,"111
t81lftl
Ul1111
HlfIfO'
~"" ~
~
"511"
..81"t
HI 110
Htflfg
"81""
..9'"[
.~1tr
,.811ft
t&'Hll
rBl'Hlr
[BlUell
EIII/6
.;
..
...
i
::I
Ii
Ill:
..",
~~
~c
~~
oeo
.....
U
!i~
r
z
o
l-
I<
!
\l;
l
ci
Ii!
i
::I
~l
...~
ai
>0
""...
~~
n
r
f
!l
f
:J
f
I
I
, .
~
!:! ! ~ ~
ndd 'UI1H;lnl}:f1 J'D"t'1fJI\Y
f
!l
!
J
---,
1
I I
I J
I
: J
;sa
z
o
!5
al
15
; I
1
I
::
g
!'
!!
'81118
-Ul1ll
'BlI/Cl
'BJI',
""lft
'1ll'1It
'811ft
111'"
HII lit I
..,1111
ttll'ltOt
Wlfl!l l!
~
HI/III
HlIl1l
Hfl/D
HI1111
Hflrt
"'Ut
.slUt
HlIII
nll111
t.ftlll1l
t81lm.
[8'''8
'AfU.
''''''l
981lfO
'Afll'
'81""
18I'''t
,Wlrl
18111'
H/HU
Hl/HII
HVHOt
tN'If' =:
<'l
HVHlJ
t<</lll
HlIID
tW1'"
",11"
.-81lft
Wlft
9-81"1
tftllfU
till 11 I I
t81110'
t81lfl!l
~
!
i
~E
!;;
~~
~g
ii
~Q
i
~
I
~
ci
i
i.
~~
"Ii
@~
..0
ii
ii
z.
I
lli
r
'I!!I'III"'!I!l~!. "'''10
,
~
N
'"
'IJItlt
~
J
.-
-
98111'
'11111
,.,,,.
'811ft
Iw"t
IIIIft
Hllltl
."'''''1
....,'rol
..
I-
..
~
1--
i'"
",111 I!
<'l
tR11"
K1Ul
",II'
"III'
HlI"
Hllft
Hltft
WHI
tl/lltl
U"'''I
~"III'i~II'III!!l1f to"/O'
_ tol\ll
,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
OU 'I!11N'1n1HJ '''V1I11'lV
r
'81111
,fll'l
~
...
:'l I
. I
~
J
181'"
! 1 _n J
I ,
'811"
III""
'''lit
'81Hl
'If'"
HIli! I
Hlfllll
'..J
Hilmi
,..,,,. ~
c
.81111 0
,...
HlfHt
HlI"
HIli'
HI1'"
t81lft
H111E
H1111
tilliE'
tWit II
~
~
~
'111l1l'~,""II!I!l'
rwmn r!I'I'!'!"Il'I!'IT'll!~TT~i
n___ M' __._
~~!,~
1:8111'
1:811101
I
'81'"
'''Ul
IBlII.
;
OSlU';
I
:l
I.
...~
lJC
m:i
>e
il
~i
i
!
J
O"IIt
0111'1'
.II.'!
."HI
""11t'
,..,UlI
",1"'1
~,~
HI"I \!!
...-- !
..~.,.
HlHI
.,""
"'v,
HI"t
..... ...
z
I
I
t<<IIII:
HInt
HIli'
_ tlll1t'
"lllI'I~!!I'~IIIIII'II!IIIM~ "1\11'
n\'II!l!!IIIl!il"'."~~~ tOl'/O'
u,,,,
~
R
I
=
ill
~
:
J.N1jVJ..I 'l.I\O"'nI !'It t!J'f'V1,^Y
I
l&fl1l
;
'Wtfl
5
~
Ie
i
I..
i!
lJl
b
ii
i
!
J.
11V""
'lfi"
'''H'
'''''I:
It/Hl
1"111
Hlfl,rl
Hliftl
Hft,,:n
,III''''!'''
Wir' =
c
o
HI'IO
Wilt
_ ...,,,,
oJ
"'''t
......H,.
Z
D
..
I<
i
lli
......,'r
",tll
.....,1
ttlfHU
tlllH'
tBl'fI"
UtilI
!! ~ __t ~ ~ _.J~_._= ! __~_"'._.
i
~
o
UOI
S!
"'''
.."
....
"0
~I-
....
::=
..~
~~
o
~
i
z
o
l-
i
!li
i
~
..
95tH!
951lfl
-
....
j
r r=~ =l
I '
I j
98fl19
95111~
,SIll,.
''''1ft
IlVlIl:
96ftfl
t8llfll
.811(11
tSftfOI
, IIIIi
,
"tiT.,! ~
~
t-51wr
--
<
ttJ/lIl
t8TlfD
......
t81lf~
.6111.
,.grtlt
t51t1t
'51'"
unltl
[5f1fl ~
nfl/Ol
g g g e ~ g ~ g g ~ 0
i_tR1115
~
9
..
w
"
:=:
.....
>-
....
.."
~~
Zl-
0..
l!1l
H
Z
o
Ii:
...
:i
w
..
..
1" DOH" "l'YlfO,fnu::y ,...:)),1 JD'flJ1.....V
I
I
,
I
1
I
.1
, I
"
"
~
III
~I
~I
j,
~I
II
1;1
~I
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
1--
~
!
a
i
,l;
!"
95f111
!isn't
9G'''V
..,
9&1t/9
tIS'".
9t;1I/[
!I,lfl
9STl1I
.';1"ll
~11l1
.!lVllot
tSl.,5 r!
:!
HVHI
"81lf(
"'I'.
t!.Ilf;
."fl/.
.s'"t
H!;flfl
Hi'''1
[&llIll
(6ft'I'
(1;11101
U1115
I
~
..
..
Z
E..
Oil
....
;I;~
u"
w"
"..
~o
.......
~~
....
~~
0'"
~
i
z
o
....
0:
..
l!
..
lli
e
d
I
~ "
d
!
J
..
"
I .
w.u "lVnOlnv JHfYO'''':J JDYV1^Y
.
d
"
d
N
d
I
:i
"
o
;;;
'"
..
..
z..
~!
x..
u"
....
"0
~....
~a
"-
~li:
.....
0",
i
Z
o
.,.
0:
~
lli
_ Uflll
-"8/1"
''''11'
-
..-
:-.1
! --
( ....
~ ..
..
--
..
r'II'II'III\l!II"': to/I/O'
... [8'1"5
,.;
'8f1"
'81tH
111111
'1IfH'
'111".
'111m:
'llIlfl
'1111'1
"lVllll
tll1l1l1
t81I1DI
"81111 I!
~
tel'"
tIII}lfl
HlIII
"""9
.I1l1t
HIIII:
..,.,t
.&1111
l:81lftl
tIlVVI'
[entol
Ufll8
d
'81111
'81If"
~81Ut
981l1t
"l/III
"SWll
"1'11111
""lrol
.'"I ItI =
4
.,81111 10
.81 1ft
HIli.
""HI
.,.,.,.
tell'!:
""Hlt
.8f1tl
Ufllfl
tll11111
~
"
[
e
.
r
ri.
[
o
u
~
~
~
8"
lI!~
~"
b~
...."
~:;
:~
~t
..'"
~
Z
o
l!
i
I
!
!
J
..e.rlfl
'!II! I''''IIII!I!II!~II!III'IIIII'III'''!~ tOIl"
_ U"'t
1~1"1"'~I"r!~'! ~llllllill~!' '!III!"'!II 'I~III'; .,811 If
Z
o
Ie
...
!
lli
~~
~
~
2
:'!
..,. 'KUdO:J nllll!).,IIJ,I\Y A lfUNO"
I
.
e
t I
ri. ~
I !
;
~
'"
>
0"
~=
",-
..."
.."
......
0"
Ii
~~
:I",
..
.t
..
o
i
z
o
....
0:
!
..
..
n/l1ll
r!I~"~I~1111'1!11!1!!!!i!IIIIIII!!i!II!III~111I r lil"r~'11 I!, ~:I!"I~I~il~!! Ill'lr [Sf 1 ~OI
''\1'~mm~",'1 u.ttr;
~
!!
!"
~
~
'''1111
'SlIft
'81'"
IItltg
'8111"
''''lft
'1JIItt:
'Wilt
HUltll
"5111I1
HIlmi
...'1t8 r!
4
D
..",,,.
ttrtHl
"BItt..
.'fIfI
ttltllll
l:81utt
r:tI'UO,
[Bllllj
nfl"
nT"f
'11111'
'81"'ll
.1111.
'1111t
'l;/ltl
""'11
U'''l'
HI,lnl
",IrOl
"rue t'
~
..tlf.,1
HI"l
Kf'"
HI"'ll
HIli'"
U..'If[
Ki'IFI
Wtrl
U/"tl
(
~
I
i
liE
lil_
:i!l
;!..
00
........
-..
~!
~~
..",
~
z
i
i
z
o
....
0:
!
0:
..
(
~
;
;
~
1;,
lil.
..-
..."
~SI
ge
U
n
..
=
o
i
z
o
Ii:
i
lli
I
.illI'
. i
~ I
I i
I
,trl'l
litll'
'''''1
"'1 It
..,.,.
'''"t
~"UI
W"tl
HlrI'1I
"""01
....,,,, I!
4
C
HVIII
HI."'l
.....,.
""1"
.51".
.. lit
ll"~"!~ ":' '11I1"II"m" IIM'IiI! II'I~
KII'1
HI'"
tltlHr:1
-II1IHI
(111101
u",,,
d ~ d ~ ~ ~ d ~
o 0 0 0
""" ......":JIIJ" Ivil lont),I\Y A1H.f.HOft'
=
~
~I' i ,11IIIII(
I I., il: ~
I, I,~
il,l I~
~111I111I!"IIIII~"I'I"I!I'IIIII"rllll"'IIIII!I'''11111111~
. . I
I : ..
I ' ...-
, -
=;
..
..
..
-
..
l"'II~I"!lI"III!I'lllrll'j
~
~
~
--
r
'811ft
'81 lit
'811"
tlltllt
'II""
.11I1111:
Wlllft
Wmlll
...,IIEI
Hllfll
Hllrol
HIII/' ~
Hl1"
WII'l
HI I"
Hltl1l
HI""
Hi/lit
"I,r
Hrlll
t.....1't1
tmlHI
tllllOI
ntH8
- ft . ~ . ~ ~ " N - 10
o 0 0 0 0 d 0 ~ 0
I
FACT SHEET
City of Bremerton
Pennit No. WA-002928-9
Page 31
APPENDIX E
REASONABLE POTENTIAL CALCULATIONS FOR TOXIeS
The reasonable potential calculations performed for the toxics are shown in Tables 2 and 3
below. Table 2 shows the reasonable potential calculations for aquatic life criteria, and
Table 3 shows the reasonable potential calculations for human health criteria. The procedure
and calculations in the statistical analysis in the spreadsheet are performed as per the
procedure in Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Taxies Control, US EP A,
March 1991 (EPA/505/2-90-001) (section 3.3, page 55).
The dilution factors used in the calculations are taken from the mixing study s~bmitted by the
permittee. The input (effluent) variables for the calculations for all parameters are based on
the monitoring data submitted by the permittee. Table 1 below lists the input variables for
ammonia, chlorine, cyanide, and metals, used for the reasonable potential analysis for the
aquatic life criteria evaluation.
Table 1
Parameter Number of Maximum 90th Coefficient Comments
Samples Concentration nmeat.dmtion of
(ug/L) (ug/L) Variation
Amrnonia- N 111 21,000 16,000 0.384
(NH3- N)
Chlorine 60 1,200 0.7
Cyanide 50 0.015 0.011 0.6 40 samples
< 0.005
uo/L
.. C>
Arsenic 94 < 250 < 50 0.6 92 samples
< 50 ug/L
,I Cadmium 107 < 15 < 3 0.60 104 samples
< 3 ug/L
I, 0.60
i Chromium 107 < 25 < 5 105 samples
! < 5 ug/L
I Copper 107 34 23 0.393
Lead 107 < 250 < 30 0.60 98 samples
< 30 ug/L
Mercury 107 < 1 < 0.2 0.60 104 samples
< 0.2 ug/L
F ACT SHEET
City of Bremerton
Permit No. W A-002928-9
Page 32
Nickel
107
< 100
< 20
0.60 106 samples
< 20 ug/L
0.6 7 samples
< 20 ug/L;
86 samples
< 50 ug/L
0.456
Selenium
94
< 100
< 50
I Zinc
107
87
29
Note: (i) Coefficient of Variation is assumed 0.6 for parameters with most values below
detection limit.
(ii) 90th percentile values for ammonia, cyanide and metals were used in the
reasonable potential calculations. -
(iii) The maximum concentration and the coefficient of variation for chlorine are
based on randomly selected values from the 1994 monitoring data. A total of 60
sample values (five fro{I1 each month) were selected for calculations. 90th percentile
value for chlorine was not calculated. because only small number of samples were
selected from a very large data base.
As shown in Table 2 below, of the parameters considered in the reasonable potential
calculations, only chlorine has a reasonable potential to violate water quality standards for
aquatic life criteria. Water quality-based effluent limits for chlorine are calculated in
Appendix F.
The reasonable potential analysis in Table 3 shows that none of the pollutants have a
reasonable potential to cause a violation of the water quality standards based on human health
criteria. Because of sampling results below MDLs, there is uncertainty about arsenic in the
reasonable potential analysis. The reasonable potential calculation for arsenic was conducted
with the 50th percentile concentration of 50 ug/L. However, the actual 50th percentile
concentration is less than 50 ug/L. As noted in the comment column, 93 out of 94 analyses
show arsenic concentrations below MDLs. The :MDLs in 92 analyses were 50 ug/L. As
stated. earlier in this Fact Sheet, in order to better evaluate human health criteria for arsenic,
Condition S2.C. (TaXICS) of the proposed permit requires the permittee to monitor for
arsenic in the effluent at a much lower detection limit of 1 ug/L by Graphite Furnace Atomic
Absorption (GFAA) method. Based on .the results of the analyses during this permit term,
human health criteria limits for arsenic will be evaluated during the next permit cycle.
REASONABLE POTENTIAL CALCULAT~s PmtNo. WA.002928-9
( t. l".t:" .t.) Bremerton WWTP
aqua IC he cn erla Appendix E, Table 2
Max concentration at State Water Quality Con
edge of... Standard
4/15/969:06 AM
BR.XL W
, I
e 1
PARAMETER
Ammonia - N
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chlorine
Chromium (Hex)
Copper
Cyanide
Lindane
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
l Zinc
I
Aldrin
i Chlordane
I.
I DOT (and metabolites)
I
Dieldrin
, Endosuffan
I
1 Endrin
, j
Heptachlor
Pentachlorophenol
PCBs
Toxaphine
Ambient Acute Chronic
Concentr Mixing Mixing
ation Zone Zone Acute Chronic
uglL . ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L
575.17 208.39 5900.00 890.00
1.77 0.64 69.00
0.10 0.04 42.00
47.62 17.25 13.00
0.17 0.06 1100.00
0.83 0.30 2.40
0.00 0.00 1.00
0.01 0.00 0.16
1.03 0.37 210.00
0.01 0.00 1.80
0.69 0.25 74.00
1.77 0.64 290.00
1.03 0.37 90.00
#DIV/O! #OIV/OI 0.71
#OIVlOl #OIV/OI 0.09
#OIV/O! #ON/O! 0.13
#OIV/O! #ON/Ol 0.71
#DIV/O! #OIV/O! 0.034
#DIV/O! #DIV/O! 0.037
#OIVlO! #ON/O! 0.053
#OIV/O! #DIV/O! 13.00
#DIV/O! #DIVIO! 10.00
#OIV/O! #DIV/O! 0.21
0.95
Page 1
36.00
9.30
Probabi
LIMIT Iity
REQ'O? Basis
NO 0.95
NO
NO
7.50 YES
50.00 NO
2.40 NO
Ii:! li:i:llj','{ If NO
.\'.'/.1 Il.'/.'l fill NO
8.10 NO
0.025 NO
8.20
71.00
81.00
0.0019
0.004
0.001
0.0019
0.0087
0.0023
0.0036
7.90
0.03
0.0002
NO
NO
NO
#DIVlO!
. #DIV/O!
#DIV/O!
#DIV/O!
#DIVlO!
#DIV/O!
#DIV/O!
#DIV/O!
#0 IV/O!
, #DlV/O!
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
4/15/969:06 AM
BR.XL W
REASONABLE POTENTIAL CALCULAT~s Pmt No. WA-002928-9
(aquatic life criteria) ABremd~rton WWTP
open IX E, Table 2
Confidence Le
decimal)> 0.95
Max
cone. Coeff
measure Variati
d on
PARAMETER Pn I ugll cv I s n
Ammonia - N 0.97 16000 0.384 0.37 111 0.8987 25 69
Arsenic 0.97 50 0.60 0.55 94 0.8870 25 69
Cadmium 0.97 3 0.60 0.55 107 0.8599 25 69
Chlorine 0.95 1200 0.700 0,.63 60 0.9920 25 69
Chromium (Hex) 0.97 5 0.60 0.55 107 0.8599 25 69
Copper 0.97 23 0.393 0.38 107 0.9020 25 69
Cyanide 0.94 0.011 0.60 0.55 50 1.0421 25 69
Lindane 0.47 0.057 0.60 0.55 4 2.5853 25 69
Lead 0.97 30 0.60 0.55 107 0.8599 25 69
Mercury 0.97 0.2 0.60 0.55 107 0.8599 25 69
Nickel 0.97 20 0.60 0.55 107 0.8599 25 69
Selenium 0.97 50 0.60 0.55 94 0.8870 25 69
Zinc 0.97 29 0.456 0.43 107 0.8884 25 69
Aldrin 0.47 0.048 0.60 0.55 4 2.5853
Chlordane 0.47 0.24 0.60 0.55 4 2.5853
DOT (and metabolites) 0.47 0.048 0.60 0.55 4 2.5853
Dieldrin 0.47 0.048 0.60 0.55 4 2.5853
Endosulfan 0.47 0.048 0.60 0.55 4 2.5853
Endrin 0.47 0.048 0.60 0.55 4 2.5853
Heptachlor 0.47 0.048 0.60 0.55 4 2.5853
Pentachlorophenol 0.47 0.96 0.60 0.55 4 2.5853
PCBs 0.47 0.48 0.60 0.55 4 2.5853
Toxaphine 0.47 0.48 0.60 0.55 4 2.5853
#of
samples
Multiplie
r
Acute
DiI'n
Factor
Chronic
DiI'n
Factor
I
I I
Page 2
4/15/969:06 AM
BR.XL W
REASONABLE POTENTIAL CALCULAT~sPmtNo. WA-002928-9
( t. I..c .t.) Bremerton WWTP
aqua IC he cn ena A d' E T bI 2
oo'n[ IX . a ,
PARAMETER COMMENTS
Ammonia - N Max cane = 90th percentile = 16,000 ug/L
Arsenic Max cone = 90th percentile = < 50 ug/L
92 samples < 50 ug/L
Cadmium Max cone = 90th percentile = < 3 ug/L;
104 samples < 3 ug/L
Chlorine
-
Chromium (Hex) Max Cone = 90th percentile Total Cr = < 5 ug/L
105 samples < 5 ug/L Total Cr
Copper Max cone = 90th percentile = 23 ug/L
Cyanide Max cone = 90th percentile = 0.011 ug/L;
40 samples < 0.005 ug/L
Lindane Max Cone < ROL Of 0.112 ug/L
Lead Max cone = 90th percentile = < 30 ug/L;
98 samples < 30 ug/L. 8 samples < 50 ug/L. 1 sample < 250 ug/L
Mercury Max cone = 90th percentile = < 0.2 ug/L;
104 samples < 0.2 ug/L, 1 sample < 1 ug/L
Nickel Max cone = 90th percentile = < 20 ug/L;
106 samples < 20 ug/L, 1 sample < 100 ug/L
Selenium Max cone = 90th percentile = < 50 ug/L;
I 7 samples < 20 ug/L, 86 samples < 50 ug/L, 1 sample < 100 ug/L
Zinc Max Cone = 90th percentile = 29 ug/L
Aldrin Max Cone < MOL Of 0.048 ug/L
Chlordane Max Cone < MOL of 0.24 ug/L
DOT (and metabolites) Max Cone < MOL Of 0.048 ug/L
~ieldrin Max Cone < MOL Of 0.048 ug/L
Endosulfan Max Cone < MOL Of 0.048 ug/L
Endrin Max Cone < MOL Of 0.048 ug/L
Heptachlor Max Cone < MOL Of 0.048 ug/L
Pentachlorophenol Max Cone < MOL Of 0.96 ug/L
PCBs Max Cone < MOL Of 0.48 ug/L
Toxaphine Max Cone < MOL Of 0.48 ug/L .
Page 3
4/26/9611:38 AM
BMHH.XLW
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ~E.tftn."'1p'1(9N928-9 Bremertcn WvVrP
Appendix E, Table 3
tat Water Quality Contidence L
Standard decimal)>>
I
. !
I
I Parameter ugA. uglL uglL I uglL I uglL I Pn
ARSENIC (inorganic) 0.00 0.60 1##### 0.14 YES 0.95 0.97
I
MERCURY 0.00 0.00 ##### 0.15 NO 0.95 0.97
INICKEL 0.00 0.25 ##### 4600 NO 0.95 0.97
ICY ANIDE 0.00 0.00 ##### 220000 NO 0.95 0.94
CHLOROFORM 0.00 0.10 ##### 470 NO 0.95 0.47
ISIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHAl..A.TE 0.00 0.14 ##### 5.9 NO 0.95 0.47
SHC - GAMMA (LINDANE) 0.00 0.00 ##### 0.063 NO 0.95 0.47
I I I
Ambient
Concentrati
on
Acute
Mixing
Zone
Chronic
Mixing
Zone Acute
Chronic
LJMIT Probabili
REQ'O? ty Basis
Page 1
4/26/96 11: 38 AM
BMHH.XLW
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ~[~vr1GN928-9 Bremerton WWTp
bh~''Tlan "eal1:h ~Titeria) Appendix E, Table 3
C n .
de 0.95
Max
cane. Coeff
measure Variatio
d n
#of
sample
s
Acute
DiI'n
Multiplier Factor
Chronic
DiI'n
Factor
Parameter ugIL I CV I s I n I I I
ARSENIC (inorganic) 50.00 0.60 0.55 94 0.89 ,~r ,'.f:l:: ,1,'," 74
MERCURY 0.20 0.60 0.55 107 0.86 .'.'..:,.i.1.....1 69
NICKEL 20.00 0.60 0.55 107 0.86 .1:i:r:!.r :r 69
CYANIDE O.OOS 0.60 0.55 sa 1.04 .r:r.Y U:r.Y 69
CHLOROFORM 3.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 i:,~ f/:iH 74
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 3.90 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 ,Y,'iJ,TJ.1 74
BHC-GAMMA(UNDAN~ 0.057 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 ,':,',',l,',','l,'1 74
c....~.ft "
,
, .
f. ."
'I
i
~
4/26/96 11 :38 AM
BMHH.XLW
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ~~~vr.f(9t:i928-9 Bremerton WWfP
(hu'man health ~riteria) Appendix E, Table 3
I
I
I Parameter
ARSENIC (inorganic)
COMMENTS
Reasonable Potential Uncertain
Max cone = 50th percentile = < 50 ug/L;
92 samples < 50 ug/L, 1 sample < 250 ug/L
Max cone = 50th percentile = < 0.2 ug/L;
104 samples < 0.2 ug/L, 1 sample < 1.0 ug/L
Max cone = 50th percentile = < 20 ug/L;
106 samples < 20 uglL, 1 sample < 100 ug/L
Max cone = 50th percentile = o.aas ug/L;
40 samples < 0.005 ug/L
Max Cone = Max EffI Cone x 1.0
Max Cone = Max EffI Cone x 1.0
Max Cone = Max Effl Cone x 1.0
Max conc < RDL of 0.112 ug/L
Page 3
4/15/96 2:40 PM
BMHH.XLW
REASONABLE POTENTiAL ~~EUt!:JttAvr1<9t1928-9 Bremerton 'NWTP
(human health crite~;aJ. Appendix E. Table 3
Max concentration at tat Water Quality Confidence L
edge af... Standard decimal)>>
Ambient
Concentrati
on
Acute
Mixing
Zone
Chronic
Mixing
Zone Acute
Chronic
LIMIT Probabili
REQ'D? ty Basis
Parameter ugIL I ug/L I ug/L ug/L I ugIL I Pn
ACROLElN #DIV/OI #DIV/OI ##### 780 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
ACRYLONITRILE #DIV/O! #DIV/Ol ##### 0.66 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
BENZEN E #DIV/O! #DIV/Ol ##### 71 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
BROMOFORM #DIV/O! #DIV/Ol ##### 360 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
CARSON TETRACHLORIDE #DIV/O! #0 IV/O! ##### 4.4 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
CHLOROBENZEN E #DIV/O! #DIV/O! ##### 21000 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
CHLOROOIBROMOMETHANE #OIV/Ol #OIV/O! ##### 34 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE #DIV/O! #OIV/Ol ##### 22 #D IVlO I 0.95 0.47
DICHLOROETHANE 1,2 #OIV/O! #OIV/O! ##### 99 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
1,1 DICHLOROETHYLENE #DIV/O! #OIV/OI ##### 3.2 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
1,3 -OICHLOROPROPYLENE #0 IV/O! #OIV/O! ##### . 1700 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
ETHYLSENZENE #DIV/O! #OIV/O! ##### 29000 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
METHYL BROMIDE #DIV/O! #OIV/O! ##### 4000 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
METHYLENE CHLORIDE #DIV/O! #OIV/O! ##### 1600 #DIVlOI 0.95 0.47
TETRACHLOROETHANE 1,1,2,2 #DIV/O! #OIV/O! ##### 11 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE #DIV/Ol #DIV/O! ##### 8.85 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
TOLUENE #DIV/O! #DIV/O! ##### 200000 #DIVlO I 0.95 0.47
TRICHLOROETHANE 1,1,2 #DIV/O! #0 IV/O! ##### 42 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
TRICHLOROETHYLENE #DIV/O! #DIV/O! ##### 81 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
VINYL CHLORIDE #DIV/O! #OIV/O! ##### 525 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
DICHlOROPHENOL 2,4 #DIV/O! #OIV/O! ##### 790 #DIVlOI 0.95 0.47
2-METHYl-4,6 -DINITROPHENOL #OIV/O! #DIV/O! ##### 765 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
2,4-DINITROPHENOL #DIV/O! #DIV/O! ##### 14000 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
PENTACHLOROPHENOL #DIV/O! #OIV/O! ####If. 8.2 #D IV/O I 0.95 0.47
PHENOL #DIV/O! #DIV/O! ##### 4600000 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
TRICHlOROPHENOL 2.4,6 #DIV/O! #DIV/O! ####If. 6.5 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
ANTHRACENE #DIV/O! #DIVlO! ####If. 11 0000 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
BENZIDINE #DIV/Ol #DIV/OI ##### 0.00054 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE #DIVIO! #DIV/OI ##### 0.031 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
BENZO(a)PYRENE #DIV/O! #DrV/OI ####If. 0.031 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE #DIV/O! #DIV/O! ####If. 0.031 #0 IV/O I 0.95 0.47
BENZO(k) FLUORANTHENE #DtV/O! #DIV/O! ##### 0.031 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER #DIV/O! #DIV/O! ####If. 1.4 #OIVlOI 0.95 0.47
8/5(2 CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER #DIV/O! #DIV/Ol ####If. 170000 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
CHRYSENE #DIV/O! #DIV/Or ####If. 0.031 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
DIBENZO(a,h)ANTHRACENE #DIV/O! #DIV/OI ##### 0.031 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
1,2 DICHLOROBENZENE #DIV/Ol #DIV/OI ####If. 17000 #D IVlO I 0.95 0.47
1,3 DICHLOROBENZENE #DIV/O! . #DIV/O! ####If. 2600 #DIVlOI 0.95 0.47
1,4 DICHLOROBENZENE #DIV/O! #DrV/O! ##### 2600 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
3,3 DICHLOROBENZJDINE #DIV/Of #DIV/O! ##### 0.077 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
DIETHYlPHTHALA TE #DIV/O! #DIV/O! ##### 120000 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
DIMETHYLPHTHAI.A TE #DIV/O! #DIV/O! ##### 2900000 #DIV/ot 0.95 0.47
...--- ..
, .
. - .;
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ~[~vr1GtN928-9 Bremerton'MNTP
cbR~'man "eal~h criteria) Appendix E, Table 3
de 0.95
Max
cone. Coeff
measure Variatio
d n
4/15/96 2:40 PM
BMHH.XLW
#of
sample
s
Acute
DiI'n
Multiplier Factor
Chronic
DiI'n
Factor
Parameter ug/L cv s n
ACROLEIN 5.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
ACRYLONITRILE 5.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
BENZENE 1.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
BROMOFORM 1.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 1.00 . 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
CHLOROBENZENE 1.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
2.59
2.59 -
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
I
I
. j
1.00 0.60 0.55 4
1.00 0.60 0.55 4
1.00 0.60 0.55 4
1.00 0.60 0.55 4
1.00 0.60 0.55 4
1.00 0.60 0.55 4
1.00 0.60 0.55 A
5.00 0.60 0.55 4
1.00 0.60 0.55 4
1.00 0.60 0.55 4
1.00 0.60 0.55 4
1.00 0.60 0.55 4
1.00 0.60 0.55 4
1.00 0.60 0.55 4
0.96 0.60 0.55 4
1.9Q 0.60 0.55 4
1.90 0.60 0.55 4
0.96 0.60 0.55 4
3.80 0.60 Q]5 4
3.80 0.60 0.55 4
0.58 0.60 0.55 4
23.00 0.60 0.55 4
0.58 0.60 0.55 4
0.96 0.60 0.55 4
1.50 0.60 0.55 4
1.50 0.60 0.55 4
0.58 0.60 0.55 4
1.90 0.60 0.55 4
0.58 0.60 0.55 4
1.50 0.60 0.55 4
0.58 0.60 0.55 4
0.58 0.60 0.55 4
0.58 0.60 0.55 4
0.96 0.60 0.55 4
0.96 0.60 0.55 4
0.38 0.60. 0.55 4
2.59
2.59
~
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
PaQe 5
4/15/96 2;40 PM
BMHH.XLW
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ~E~vr-k9N928-9 Bremertcn 'NWTP
(h'llnan health criteria) Appendix E, Table 3
Parameter COMMENiS
ACROLEIN All samples < MDL of 5 ug/L
ACRYLONITRILE All samples < MDL of 5 ug/L
BENZENE All samples < MDL of 1 ug/L
BROMOFORM All samples < MDL of 1 ug/L
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE All samples < MDL of 1 ug/L
CHLOROBENZENE All samples < MDL of 1 ug/L
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE All samples < MDL of 1 ug/L
DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE All samples < MDL of 1 ug/L
DICHLOROETHANE 1,2 All samples < MDL of 1 ug/L
11,1 DICHLOROETHYlENE All samples < MDL of 1 ug/L
11,3 -OICHLOROPROPYLENE All samples < MOL of 1 ug/L
ETHYlBENZENE All samples < MOL of 1 ug/L
METHYL BROMIDE All samples < MDL of 1 ug/L
IMETHYLENE CHLORIDE All samples < MDL of 5 ug/L
ITETRACHLOROETHANE 1.1,2.2 All samples < MDL of 1 ug/L
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE All samples < MDL of 1 ugiL
TOLUENE All samples < MDL of 1 ug/L
ITRICHLOROETHANE 1,1,2 All samples < MDL of 1 ug/L
ITRICHLOROETHYlENE All samples < MDL of 1 ug/L
VINYL CHLORIOE All samples < MOL of 1 ug/L
DICHLOROPHENOL 2,4 All samples < MOL of 0.96 ug/L
2.METHYL-4,6 -DINITROPHENOL All samples < MDL of 1.9 ug/L
2,4-DINITROPHENOL All samples < MDL of 1.9 ug/L
PENTACHLOROPHENOL All samples < MOL of 0.96ug/L
. ,.'1
l =. -
I
! 'c
I.
. PHENOL
TRICHLOROPHENOL 2,4,6
All samples < MDL 0(,3.8 ug/L
All samples < MOL of 3.8 ug/L
,
,
J., .
ANTHRACENE All samples < MOL of 0.58 ug/L
BENZIDINE All samples < MDL of 23 ug/L
BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE All samples < MDL of 0.58 ug/L
8ENZO(a)PYRENE All samples < MOL of 0.96 .ug/L
BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE All samples < MDL of 1.5 uglL
8ENZO(I<) FLUORANTHENE All samples < MDL of 1.5 ug/L
BIS(Z..cHLOROETHYl)ETHER All samples < MOL of 0.58 ug/L
81S(2 CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER All samples < MDL of 1.9 ug/L
CHRYSENE All samples < MOL of 0.58 ug/L
DIBENZO(a,h)ANTHRACENE All samples < MDL of 1.5 ug/L
1,2 DICHLOROBENZENE AU samples < MOL of 0.58 uglL
1,3 DICHLOROBENZENE All samples < MDL of 0.58 ug/L
1,4 DICHLOROBENZENE All samples < MOL of 0.58 ug/L
3,3 DICHLOR08ENZIDlNE All samples < MDL of 0.96 ug/L
DIETHYLPHTHAU\TE AU samples < MDL of 0.96 ug/L
DIMETHYlPHTHA~ TE All samples < MDL of 0.38 ug/L
. ;~.. ,
l""I___ ~
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ~fOOtAvr-t(9N928-9 Bremerton WVIJTP
Appendix E, Table 3
tat Water Quality Confidence L
Standard decimal)>>
4/15/962:47 PM
BMHH.XLW
i.. i1,
!
I
~
I
. i
I Parameter
DI-n-8UTYL PHTHALA. TE
DINITROTOLUENE 2,4
IDIPHENYLHYDRAZINE 1,2
FLUORANTHENE
FLUORENE
IHEXACHLOROBENZENE
. HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE I
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE I
I HEXACHLOROETHANE
,NDENO(1,2,3-<:d)PYRENE
iSOPHORONE
!NITROBENZENE
NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE N
NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE N
IPYRENE
~LDRIN
3HC - ALPHA
,. I . jBHC - BETA
. I :HLOROANE
I
JOT
lOOT METABOLITE (DOE)
JOT METABOLITE (ODD)
JIELDRIN
IENDOSULFAN a
:NDOSULFAN b
=NoOSULFAN SULFATE
IENDRIN
=NDRIN ALDEHYDE
~EPTACHLOR
.lrlEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
~ca -1242
:lca -1254
Irca -1221
-::lca - 1232
:lCB -1248
!,:lCB - 1260
o;,ca - 1016
rOXAPHENE
~"l
1
I
I
I
. .I
J
I
, I
. 'j
. 1
.. ~
Ambient
Concentrati
on
ug/L
. !
~
: I
Acute
Mixing
Zone
ug/L
#DIV/O!
#DIV/O!
#DIV/O!
#DIV/O!
#DIV/Ol
#DIV/O!
#DIV/OI
#DIV/O!
#DIV/O!
#0 IV/O!
#DIV/O!
#DIV/O!
#DIV/O!
#DIV/O!
#DIV/O!
#0 IV/O!
#DIV/O!
#DIV/O!
#0 IV/O!
#DIV/O!
#OIV/O!
#0 IV/O!
#DIV/O!
#DIV/O!
#DIV/O!
#DIV/O!
#DIV/O!
#DIV/O!
#DIVlO!
#DIV/O!
#DIV/O!
#0 IV/O!
#DIV/O!
#DIV/O!
#0 IV/O!
#DIV/O!
#DIV/O!
#DIV/O!
Chronic
Mixing
Zone Acute
ug/L ug/L
-
#DIV/O! #####
#DIV/O! #####
#0 IV/O! #####
#DIV/O! ###11#
#DIV/O! ###11#
#DIV/O! ###11#
#0 IV/O! ###11#
#DIV/O! #####
#OIV/O! #####
#DIV/O! #####
#DIV/OI #####
#DIV/O! #####
#DIV/OI #####
#DIV/O! #iiii#
#DIV/O! #####
#OIV/O! #####
#DIV/O! #####
#0 IV/O! ##11##
#DIV/O! #####
#0 IV/O! ###11#
#0 IV/O! #iiii#
#OIV/O! #####
#DIV/O! #iiii#
#DIV/O! #####
#DIV/O! #####
#OIV/O! #####
#OIV/OI #####
#DIV/O! #####
#DIV/O! #####
#DIV/O! #####
#OIV/O! #iii##
#DIV/O! #####
#OIV/O! #####
#DIV/O! #####
#DIV/O! #####
#DIV/OI #iiiii
#DIV/O! #####
#0 IV/O! #####
Chronic
LJMIT Probabili
REQ'D? rt Basis
ugA. Pn
12000 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
9.1 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
0.54 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
370 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
14000 #DIVlOI 0.95 0.47
0.00077 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
50 #DIV/OI 0.95 . 0.47
17000 #DIV/O! 0.95 0.47
8.90 #0 IV/O! 0.95 0.47
0.031 #OlY/O! 0.95 0.47
600 #OIV/OI 0.95 0.47
1900 #0 IV/O I 0.95 0.47
8.10 #0 IVlO I 0.95 0.47
16 #OIV/OI 0.95 0.47
11 000 #D IVlO I 0.95 0.47
0.00014 #0 IV/O! 0.95 0.47
0.013 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
0.046 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
0.00059. #OIV/OI 0.95 0,47
0.0006 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
0.00059 #OIV/OI 0~95 0.47
0.00084 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
0.00014 .#OIV/OI 0.95 0.47
2 #OIV/O! 0.95 0.47
2 #OIV/OI 0.95 0.47
2 #OIV/OI 0.95 0.47
0.81 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
0.81 #OIV/OI 0.95 0.47
0.00021 #OIVlOI 0.95 . 0.47
0.00011. #0 IV/O I 0.95 0.47
0.000045 #DIV/OI 0.95 0.47
0.000045 #OIV/OI 0.95 0.47
0.000045 #OIV/Ol 0.95 0.47
0.000045 #OIV/OI 0.95 0.47
0.000045 #OIVlOI 0.95 0047
0.000045 #0 IV/O I 0.95 0.47 I
0.000045 #OIVlOI 0.95 0.47
0.00075 #OIV/OI 0.95 0.47
Page 7
4/15/962:47 PM
SMHH.XLW
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ~fWt.:A.vr1<9Ns28-9 Sremerton WlVTP
hh~'~an "ealth criteria) Appendix E, Table 3
C nn .
de 0.95
Max
cone. Coeff
measure Variatio
d n
Parameter ugJl. I cv I s I n I
DI-n-SUTYL PHTHALA.TE 0.96 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
DINITROTOLUENE 2,4 0.38 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
DIPHENYlHYDRAZINE 1,2 1.90 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
FLUORANTHENE 0.58 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
FLUORENE 0.5S 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
HEXACHLOROBENZENE 0.58 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE 0.96 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
HEXACHLOROCYClOPENT ADIENE 0.96 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
HEXACHLOROETHANE 0.96 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
INDENO(1,2,3-cd)PYRENE 0.96 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 -
ISOPHORONE 0.96 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
NITROBENZENE 0.96 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE N 3.80 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE N 0.96 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
PYRENE 0.58 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
ALDRIN 0.048 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
SHC - ALPHA 0.048 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
SHC. BETA 0.048 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
CHLORDANE 0.24 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
DOT . .0.048 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
DOT METABOLITE (DOE) 0.048 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
DOT METABOLITE (ODD) 0.048 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
DIELDRIN 0.048 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
ENDOSULFAN a 0.048 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
ENDOSULFAN b 0.048 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 0.048 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
ENDRIN 0.048 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 0.048 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
HEPTACHLOR 0.048 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 0.048 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
PCB -1242 0.048 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
pca -1254 0.048 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
PCB. 1221 0.048 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
pca - 1232 0.048 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
pca - 1248 0.048 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
pca - 1260 0.048 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
PCB - 1016 0.048 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
TOXAPHENE 0.048 0.60 0.55 4 2.59
# of Acute
sample Dilln
s Multiplier Factor
Chronic
DiI'n
Factor
! !
i .
I
- I
,~ 1
f: .
i.
., ~. .
4/15/962:47 PM
BMHH.XLW
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ~~Ul!1t!A.vr1<StN92S-9 Bremertan WWTP
(human health criteria) Appendix E, Table 3
Parameter
COMMENTS
OI-n-8UTYL PHTHALATE All samples < MOL of 0.96 ug/L
DINlTROTOLUENE 2,4 All samples < MOL of 0.38 ug/L
DIPHENYLHYDRAZ1NE 1,2 All samples < MOL of 1.9 ug/L
FLUORANTHENE All samples < MOL of 0.58 ug/L
FLUORENE All samples < MOL of 0.58 ug/L
HEXACHLOROBENZENE All samples < MOL of 0.58 ug/L
HEXACHLOROBUT AolENE All samples < MOL of 0.96 ug/L
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENT AolENE All samples < MOL of 0.96 ug/L
HEXACHLOROETHANE All samples < MOL of 0.96 ug/L
INDENO(1,2,3-cd)PYRENE All samples < MOL of 0.96 ug/L
ISOPHORONE All samples < MOL of 0.96 uglL
NITROBENZENE All samples < MOL of 0.96 ug/L
NITROSOOIMETHYLAMINE N All samples < MOL of 3.8 ug/L
NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE N All samples < MOL of 0.96 ug/L
PYRENE All samples < MOL of 0.58 ug/L
ALDRIN All samples < MOL of 0.048 ug/L
BHC - ALPHA All samples < MOL of 0.048 ug)L
BHC - BETA All samples < MOL of 0.048 ug/L
CHLORDANE All samples < MOL of 0.24 ug/L
DOT All samples < MOL of 0.048 ug/L
DOT METABOLITE (DOE) All samples < MOL of 0.048 ug/L
DOT METABOLITE (ODD) All samples < MOL of 0.048 ug/L
DIELDRIN All samples < MOL of 0.048 ug/L
ENDOSULFAN a
ENDOSULFAN b
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE
ENoRIN
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE
HEPTACHLOR
HEPTACHLOR EPOX1DE
pca -1242
PCB - 1254
PCB - 1221
PCB - 1232
pca - 1248
[Pca - 1260
pca - 1016
TOXAPHENE
All samples < MOL of 0.048 ug/L
All samples < MOL of 0.048 ug/L
All samples < MOL of 0.048 ug/L
All samples < MOL of 0.048 ug/L
All samples < MOL of 0.048 ug/L
All samples < MOL of 0.048 ug/L
All samples < MOL of 0.048 ug/L
All samples < MOL of 0.048 ug/L
All samples < MOL of 0.048 ug/L
All samples < MOL of 0.048 ug/L
All samples < MOL of 0.048 ug/L
All samples < MOL of 0.048 ug/L
All samples < MOL of 0.048 ug/L
All samples < MOL of 0.048 ug/L
All samples < MOL of 0.048 ug/L
Pace 9
co 1
I
.
; I
F ACT SHEET
City of Bremerton
Permit No. W A-002928-9
Page 33
APPENDIX F
WATER QUALITY-BASED PERMIT LIMIT CALCULATIONS FOR TOXICS
The water quality-based effluent limits for chlorine (with reasonable potential to violate water
quality standards as determined in Appendix E) are shown in table 2 below. The procedure
and calculations in the statistical analysis in this spreadsheet are performed as per the
procedure in Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control, US EPA,
March 1991 (EPA/505/2-90-001) (section 5.4, page 98).
Table 1 below summarizes the calculated effluent limits.
Table 1
Parameter Monthly Average Limit Daily Maximum Limit
Total Residual Chlorine 0.13 mg/L 0.37 mg/L
4/15/96 9:14 AM WATER QUALITY BASED NPDES Pmtt No. W A-002928-9
BR.XL W PERMIT LIMIT CALCULATIONS Bremerton WWTP
Water Water Apoendix F, Table 2
Average
Acute Chronic Ambient Quality Quality Monthly Maximum
DiI'n DiI'n Concentr Standard Standard Limit Daily limit ! I
Factor Factor ation Acute Chronic (AMl) (MOL)
PARAMETER uglL uglL ugll.. ug/l ug/L
CHLORI:NE 2S 69 0.00 13.00 7.50 127.59 371.39
LTA # of
Coeff. LTA Coeff. AML MOL Samples
WLA 'NlA LTA LTA Var. Prob'y Limiting Var. Prob'y Prob'y per
Acute Chronic Acute Chronic (CV) Basis LTA (CV) Basis Basis Month
uglL ug/L uglL uglL decimal I decimal uglL . decimal decimal 1 decimal n
325.00 517.50 104.33 272.92 I 0.60 1 0.99 30 . 1
104.33 0.70 I 0.95 0.99
FACT Sl1EET
Ci.ty of Breroerton
Permit "No. WA-002928-9
Page 34
(CtaJ ~
DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT (DMR) INSTRUCTIONS
To avoid processing delays and the need to resubmit your
DMR's, please comply with the following requirements:
.
.
Enter the monitoring period at the top of the
form. Monitoring periods consist of a calendar
month or months (quarterly reporting). (For
example July 1-July 31, not June 27-July 27.)
. The forms must be received at the Department of
Ecology Northwest Regional Office by the date
specified in your permit. Address the envelope to
the attention of Chris Smith, WPLCS Coordinator,
3190 160th Ave. SE, Bellevue, WA 98008-5452.
.
All entries on the forms must be in ink or
typewritten. The forms must be signed in ink by
the responsible official for the facility or by a
person who has been designated authority to do so
in writing by the responsible official. The
Department must have a record of the designation
letter on file to accept signatures by persons
other than the responsible official.
'I
A'
. Circle permlt violations and provide a written
explanation of the cause of the violation and
remedies used to correct the problem. The number
of violations must be entered on the DMR form
under the "No. Ex" column on the right side of the
DMR form. See the instructions on the back of the
DMR form for details on how to fill in that
column.
. Failure to report the results of tests required by
your permit is a permit violation. If your
facility did not discharge during the monitoring
period, indicate by writing in "ND" for no
discharge. Items that are not required for the
monitoring period (such as tests done once per
quarter) should be labeled "NAil for not
applicable.
If you encounter difficulty using the 'enclosed form, contact
your facility manager. Enclosed are double sided forms.
Keep at least one blank form to photocopy. You are
responsible for keeping forms on hand for use at your
facility.
Questions; contact Chris Smith, WPLCS Coordinator (206) 649-
72J.4.
1_....J..l J.j,.,e,. .llJo.I.,I:./llUJ.,."l;..::J...J
DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT (DMR)
Ilnclude Name/Location if differentl
#696
I 001
DISCHARGE
NUMBER I I
Discharge Location
Lat 410 32' 59" N
Long 1220 40' 11" W
CITY OF BREMERTON
239 4TH STREET
BREMERTON, WA 98337
SAME AS ABOVE"
1600 OYSTER RD. BREMERTON 98312
NAME
ADDRESS
FACILITY
LOCATION
PARAMETER
FLOW
BODS
II
I I
BODS " REMOVAL
TSS
TSS \ REMOVAL
FECAL COLIFORM
pH
WA-00292B9
PERMIT NUMBER
YEAR I. MO
I
MONITORING
DAY I TO
MO IDAY
I
NOTB: Read in,tructtons
before complet1ng th1s form
PERIOD
1 YEAR
I.
.__._----
..... . ..
nnANTI'J'V OR LOADING
--r;":rago t Maximum I Units
::: ==; liiliiJti~T I ~i<ji~ii,.1 MGO
sample He~~t" I ~ Ib/day
l'era1t Recjtiir~i1': I. 1.~j1 :'. I: . j1~~:::'.1
::::::+1 :;ri;:: 1:::::;;,1'"
...:.... ...;....;...;;.. HI I lIb/daY
::::E::::r !::;:~i~: r::tI!~~I'"
~mple 'HeasuJ:.-nt: 1 BU.". .1. ~~~~*~,.::I...
. i>eriidi:. ilequi. ~':~;;t: : L :~H i~ HI:: h i:; ~ ~(,;
~lIIpi~ He~e~t: I **.**~* I .....~..:I ...
i>iadt. ~~":~::,'+:;~. JJ,h~~J~ 1.:..**;;;:.. u~ 1::
_____..QUAJ.ITY OR CONCENTRATION
Mini~~~ AVe~ag'e Maximum I Units I
.**.*** ******* *.**..* 1 *.* I
:,:.::;:;:- .;:':y.:f...;~.'.::...: ...<.:,::;;;.... '..:. .;.:. .:;. . U:.,,;:"' .:;. ;.::..;..:..:....... .
:~Hn'H;t:'.':I.':i.'*hH.'::1 i:'ii:...;t~;l.'.. "
I' : .,,, ,....."- ....
******* mg/L
',' iHilU ':: I,h\:~.>!~ ~ \;. '=: I, ':1 W'/ I I
I * * * * *".. . 1 . _.... I *.". ~ ~. * I " I
. ::. '.:. '.' :;. .::; ;:. .~. : ;.... :. :.; . '.. .'. . '. .::". . ". ..:
:.,"nun:. '.I'}':.:: :';'~~'i.d. 'hii~;l;
I'~~~~*~.* I ,... ....-. I .... '. '" I mg/L I.
" .}.:;~:. :".} .}..:,:,'..;; ,',1 :'. .:;:::,,: .;:k:.. .;::;,;..1 ': :',. ':, f..<. ,:(,.~. .:,.'
;:'k.............. ,.,.,':". "~h :',": ...'" "4'r;'..:: . '.
I..**~**. I -"'1 **.~~** 1 t 1
:;::jJ l ilt:{): Iw;\;fi:.~~if:t,lti h .;;'i't'.::f::
I ***.*~'. r -., 1 ' I #/100 I
. i',-:"",::.:;',:,,,,~,;-:, :". ..". ";.}"". ::::1", ':'. ....:.: :.:'.:.'.;,... ml
1:.....-i.. ......>. ""~' I.............. w '. . .... .:. I........ .'. .. .'.w.' .
1:;:~\h*:*1t:"'I:'::::~*~::~:'I;::: "40~ '.: I sm I
:;.:::,. ':"" .'1"": '\:':'. ..$.:., , ';".: I':'" ',..::,'.
.A:B 0\.:': ;':lr~.*i\'***=:: ::: ",. 9.~.O:' .
. .., .
N l1requency
O. of
Ex Analysis
CONT.:
,:'. Oi/01
01/30
OJ/OT'
'di13o
us/iii ':' . \
I
07/07. I
Sample
Type
MEAS.
24 He
CAL.
24 lIC
CAr..
GRAB
GRAB
NAME/TITLB PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF Ll\W THAT nns TELEP/lONE NUMBER DATE
DOCUMENT AND ALL IITTACIIMENTS WERE
PREPARED UNDER MY DIRECTION OR
SUPERVISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH II SYSTEM
DESIGNED TO ASSURE THAT QUALIFIED
PERSONNEL PROPERLY GATHER AND EVALUATE
TilE INFORMATION SUBMITIED. BASED ON MY
INQUIRY OF TilE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO
MANllGE THE SYSTEM, OR TIIOSE PERSONS
DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR GATHERING TUB ( )
INFORMATION, THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED AREA CODE
TYPED OR PRINTED IS, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOIILEDGB AND SIGNATURB OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
BELIEF, TRUB, ACCURATE, AND COMPLETE. I OFFICER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT
AM AHARE THAT TIIERE ARE SIGNIFICANT YEAR HOtl1ll DATE
PENALTIES FOR SUBMITTING FALSE.
I IlFORMATIotl , INCLUDING TilE POSSIBILITY
OF FlNB AND IMPRISONMENT fOR ~OIlING
VIOLATIONS.
'. GO~~ENT AND EXPLANATION OF ANY VIOLATIONS IRefereoce all attachments bere!
~
* - THE LIMIT DOES NOT APPLY OCTOBER TURU APRIL.
Page
I
of
1
'.~
Paperwork Reduction Act Notice .-
Public reporting burden for this collection of inform:ltion is ~stim:1ted to vary from a iJIlge of 10 hour3 as an aver.1ce
per r~...ponse for ~ome minor f:J.cdities. to 110 hours as an aver:J.ge per response for some major facilities. wllh- a
\\ elghted aver.lge for major and minor f:J.cilities of 18 hourS' per n::sponse. Including time for reviewing instnlctions.
)t::J.rching eXlstlng data sources. gathering and maint<lming the data needed. :lnd completing and reviewing the
collection of inform:J.tlon. Send comments reprding the burden esrim:ue or any ather :J.spect of this collection of
informauon. inducting suggestions for reducing this burden. [0 Chief. Inform:ltIon Policy Branch. PM-223. U.S.
Envlronmemal Protection Agency .+0 I M Srreet. SW. W;1shingto"l. DC 10-+60: md to the Office of [nformanon md
Regulatory Aff:J.lfS. Office of Management and Budget. Washington. DC 20503.
'., General Instructions
l. If form has been partiaily completed by preprinting. disregard insrructions directed at entty of that information
already preprinted.
2. Enter "Permittee Name/Mailing Address (and facility nameilocarion. if different)." "Permit Number." and "Discharge
Number" where indicated. (A separate form is required for each discharge.)
3. Enter d:ltl:s beginning and ending "Monitoring Period' covered by form where indicated..
4. Enter each" Parflmeter" as specified in monitoring requirements of permiL
5. Enter "Sample Measurement" data for each parameter under "Quantity'. and "QuaLity" in units specified in
permit. "A~'erage" is normally arithmetic average (ge~metric average for bacterial parameters) of all sample
measurements far each parameter obtained during "Monitoring Period"; "Maximum" and "Minimum"are normally
extreme high and low measurements obtained during "Monitoring Period." (Note to municipals with se1:ondary
treatment requirement: Enter 30-day average of sample measurements under "Average,'. and enter maximum 7 -day
average of sample 'me;1surements obtained during monitoring period under "Maximum.")
6. Enter" Permit Requirement" for each parameter under "Quantity" and '.Qualiey" as specified in permit.
7. Under "No Ex" enter number of sample measurements during monitoring period that exceed maximum (and/or
minimum or 7~y average as appropriate) permit requirement for each parameter. If none. enter "0:'
8. Enter ,. Frequency of AnaLysis" both as "Sample Measurement'. (actual frequency of sampling and analysis used
during monitoring period) and as "Permit Requirement" specified in permit. (e.g., Enter "COnl." for
continuous monitoring. "117" for one day per week. "1130" for one day per month. "1/90" for one day per quarter. etc.)
9. Enter '.Sample Type" both as "Sample Measurement" (actual samplf: type used during monitoring period)
:J.nd as "Permit Requirement." (e.g., Enter '.Grab" for individual sample, "J.4HC'" for 24-nour composite. "N/A"
for continuous monitoring, etc.)' .
10. Where violations of pennit requiremeius a~ reponed. attach a brief explanation to describe cause and corrective
o.ctions taken. and n::fcrencc each violation by date.
II. If "no disch:u-ge'. occurs during monitoring period. enter "No Discharge" across form in place of data entry.
12. Enter "NameiTitle of Principal E.tecutive Officer'. with "Signature of Principal Executive Officer of Authori:ecl
Agem." "Telephone Number," md "Date" at bonom of form. .
, . .
13. Mail :iigned Report to Oftice(s) by darc(s) 'spedfied in permit. Retain copy for1ourrecords.
14. More detailed insr:ructions for use of this Discha;.gl! Monitoring Reporr (DMR) form may be obtained from Officel")
specified in permIt.
Legal Notice
This report is n:quired by law (33 U.S.C. \318; 40 e.ER. 1".:.5.17). Failure to report or failure to report truthfully -.::111
result in civil penalties not to exceed S 10.000 per day of viol:i11nn: or 10 crimin:!1 penalties not to exceed S25.ooo IXr ,Ll\
of violation. or by Imprisonment for not more than one: ye:lr. or ~~ ~\llh.
EPA Form 3320-1 (Rev. 9-88)
~ i: U1\!-II. .\1 ~ 1-'.: .'
I ~I: -I,. ~.. u.un"I','_'ri1tj~'1I il .jiLtfn.!'lItJ
1'1 i\/.I E
11696
DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT (DMR)
WA- 0.02 92 B 9
PERMIT NUMBER
jd 'I 'RE.C;~:
CITY OF BREMERTON
~J9 .JTIl STREET
BRE1>IERTON. \'lA 9B337
SAt-IE AS ABOVE
1600 OYSTER -RD. BREfvJERTON 98312
YEAR
FACILITY
r.')GiTIO/l
P1\RAMETER
QUANTITY OR LOADING
- I Avetage
Sample Meanuc-ePICu!: I
...**.....
J'rnnil: Rcquirement I ******" I *******
Sample Measuren>ent I ,ooO,o***oO 1*******
Pcronit Requirement I .. *,o.... * * I ... ,o...". ir..
I Sample Measurement I I
'1 Permit Requirement I I
Is"mple Measurement I .1
Peronit Requirement I I
I s~mple Heasurement I I
Permit Requirement I I
., Sample t1easureroent: I I
I Permit Requirement: I I
Sample t1easurement I 1
Permit Requirement I 1
,o,o*
MO
MONITORING
DAY I TO
f'1aximum
Units I Minimum
TOTAL RESIDUAL
CIILOIUHE
***.*....
... I ....***
*******
j,/4MONIJ\ - N
(NH3-N)
I
ut
I
I
I
-I
I 001
DISCHARGE
PERIOD
IYEAR I
I I
o 11
**..****
**.....*......
1l'''''','-T1TLE rR WCI P/\I, EXEaITIVr. OFFICER
I CERTIF\' UNDER PENALTY OF 1.1\101 THl\T TillS
COCUHEtlT /\NO l\I.l. ATTACIIMENTS IlERE
l'IlEP^,iED UNPER MY flIIlECTION OR
SUFERVISION IN IICClJRDANCE WlTlI II SYSTEM
DESIGNED TO ASSURE THAT QUALIFIED
PERSONNEL PROPERLY GATHER AND EVIILUATE
TilE INI'ORHIITION SUBMITTED. BASED ON MY
INQUIRY OF THE PERSON OR PERSONS HHO
MANAGE THE SYSTEM. OR THOSE PERSONS
t'IRECTLY RESPONSIBI,E FOR. GATHERING TilE
INFORHIITION. THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED
IS, TO THE BEST OF MV KNOWLEDGE AND
BELIEI'. TRUE. ACCURATE, AND COMPLETE. I
AM AWARE THAT TIIERE ARE SIGNIFlCI\NT
rENALTIES FOR SUBMITTING fllLSE
INFOR~IATlON. INCLUDUIG TilE POSSIBILITY
Of fINE AND IHPRISOlltlENT fOR KNOIHNG
V lOLI\TIONS .
TYrEll OR I'R IIHEIl
NUMBER I I
Discharqe Location
Lat 470 32' 59" N
Long 1220 40' 11" W
MO
I DAY
I
NOTE: Read instructions
before completing this form
No.
Ex
,- frequencl'
of
IIllaly~is
I
I 07/07
/-
I 01/30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sample
Type
GEAB
24 He
I
II
I;
I
_"J
QUALITY OR rONCENTRATION
Average I-Ma~i~:T~~its I
mg/L I
mg/L f
0.37
REPORT I
I
I
I
j 1
L_-_.__--D
SIGNATURE Of PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OfFICER OR IIUTIlORlZED AGENT
TELEFIlONE tlUMBER
.( )
l\RE/\ CODE
yr.A"
t'IITf.
MOUTH 1'1111'
" .':'U'II-:IIT IINll FXrLJlfIA"'~)II OF AllY VIOlJlTIONS IReference all attachments here)
2
Page
2
at
Paperwork Reduction Act Notice
Pu!1II'- rl::ron1ng burd~n tor this \:(')lIe<:tlon oi InltJnTI:llion 1\ I::stlm:lIed to V:lT:r irom a range of 10 hour3 as J.I] a~eral:e
rer r"'rlln~e IN ,ome minor f:lc.:t1It1es. 10 Illl hours a~ :.m Jverage per response lor some m:lJor i:J.cIIlCes. ....'th.;l
\\ ,",::hl-:,d J "l::rJ:;e tor m:J.lor Jnd mInor iJcilllles 01 I ~ hour,; per n:spome. Includmg nme for n:viewmg mstrUCllom.
~":Jrchln~ ~\I\lmg dJlJ ,uurces. plhering Jnd mJmlJlnlng the dala needed. and completing and reviewing lhe
clJll::c.:wm (11 InINm:lllan. Send comments reprdm!,! the burden esnm:l!e or :my Olher aspect of thiS colleclIon 01
Inll1rmJl1l1n. 1n~luu'n~ ,U;;~":\IIOnS for reduL:lng thIS burden, 10 Chief. Inform:l!Ion Policv Branch. PM.223, U.S.
Fn\"lrnnm~nl:l1 PrOlel'llon :~gt'"ncy ..lOt M Screet. SW. W:1shtng!o." DC 2~OO: :md to the Office of lnformatlon a."d
Rc:;uIJlory :1.n:'llr~. Office 01 \.bnagement and Budge!. Washmgton. DC :20503.
General Instructions
If form has been partially completed by preprinting. disregard instructions directed at entry of that information
already preprinted.
Enter "Permwet! Name/Mailing Address (and facility namellocation. if different)," "Permit Number," and "Discharge
Number'" where indIcated. (A separate form is required for each discharge.)
Enter dales beginning and ending "Monirorrng Period" covered by form where indicated.
Enter each "Parameter" as specified in monitoring requiremen15 of permit.
Enter "Sample ,\-feasuremenr" data for each parameter under "Quantity" and "Quality" in units specified in
permit. "A\'uage" is normally arithmetic average 1geometric average for bacterial parameters) of all sampk
measurements for each parameter obtained during "Monlloring Period"; "Maximum" and "Minrmum" are normally
extreme high and low measurements obtained during "Moniroring Period." (Note to municipals with secondary
treatment requirement: Enter 30-day average of sample measurements under "Average." and enter maximum 7.d:lj
:lverage of sample measurements obtained dwing monitoring period under "Maximum:')
Enter" Permit ReqUIrement" for each parameter under "Quantirv" and "Quality" as specified in permit.
Under "No Ex" enter number of sample measurements during monitoring period that exceed maximum (and/or
mmimum or 7-day average as approprialC:) permit requIrement far each parameter. If none. enter "0."
Enter" Frequency of Analysis" both as "Sample M easu.rement" (actual frequency of sampling and analysis used
during monitoring period) and as "Permit Requ.lrement" specified in permi!. (e.g., Enter "Coni," for
continuous monitoring. "i/I' for one day per week. "/130" for one day per month, "1I9(],' for one day per quarter. etc. I
Enter "Sample T.\"pe" both as "Sample Measurement" (actual sample type used' during monitoring period I
and as "Permit Requirement," (e.g., Enter "Grab" for individual sample. "2-lHC" for 24-hour composl!e. "N/A"
for continuous monitoring. etc.) .
I O. Where v iolations of permit requiremeins are reported. a!!ach a brief explanation to describe cause and correCll \"c:
actions taken. and reference each violation by date.
I.
1
3.
.+.
s.
6.
~
i.
8.
9.
II. If "no discharge" occurs during monitoring period. enter "No Discharge" across form in place of data enrry.
l2. Enter ";\'umeiTirle of Principal E:cecutive Officer" with "Signature of Principal Eucurive Officer ojAllthon:/',1
Al.!ellt." '"Telephone Number," and "Date" atbanom of iorm.
I \ .\ l:1i I SI !;ned Report to Office(s 1 by date(s) specified in pe[T\1it. Retain copy for ytourrecords.
I..L \h're det:.liled In'itruclions for use of rhis Dischar~e Mnnllnrtnf! Report IDMR) form may be obtained from Office\'
specilied In permIt.
Legal T\ otice
ThIS report i~ reqUIred h~ law 133 USe. IJ 18: 40 e.FR 12:: :-1 F:lilure to report or f:lilure to report rruthfull~. ",.
rC'iUll In CIvil penaltie) nOI 10 e,<ceed S 10,000 per d;JY (11 \ In:'IIIo'!l ,'r In ....nmlnJl penalties not to e:<ceed 525.000 r.:r
01 '. lol:llJon. or n\ Irnrn~onmem tor nor more th:m one ye;lr. ,'r "'\ ;1, till
EP.'\ Form JJlO-I rRe..... 9.R81
(Include Name/~ocation if different)
DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT (DMR)
NAME CITY OF BREMERTON 1#696 I WA-00292B9 I I 001 j I Dischar1e Location
PERMIT NUMBER J DISCHARGE NUMBER Lat 4 0 32' 59" N
ADDRESS 239 4TH STREET Long 1220 40' 11" W
BREMERTON. WA 98337 I MONITORING PERIOD j
FACILITY SAME AS ABOVE YEAR I MO I DAY I TO IYEAR I MO IDAY HOTS: Read in,truct~on8
LOCATION 1600 OYSTER RD. BREMERTON 98]12 . " " before complet1ng th1S forn
II --.-'--."__'_'u I QUANTITY OR LOADING
PARAM:ETER
ARSENIC (TR)
INFLUENT
ARSENIC (TR)
EFFLUENT
II
I I
CADMIUM (TR)
INFLU8NT
CADMIUM (TR)
EFFLU8NT
CHROMIUM (TR)
INFLUENT
CHROMIUM (TR)
EFFLUENT
COPPER (TR)
INFLUENT
~verage I Maximum
Units
OIJ-!\.T.~!TI ("Ill. CQNCENTRATION
Minimum I Average I Maximum I Units
*******
*'it*****
Saarple Heasurement
******* I *******
I. =~~z.ri~~~;;~;f~;:~~;.
~~~ ~sur"':""'t I ** ** **.. r;~ ** ~ **
Permit R..q..~r~t.:-I : ~ ~ ~'~i ~: ~' I : ~"i i i 1 ~:i"
Sa""le Heasuremen~ I ******~ I ****~~~ '
Sample ~asurement. I I\- ** ** ** I ** ~ ** **
P~ridt',~~:"-':~;;:~;';:,I(:'H li*- ti :., J l ~ j;:#;':!i'1
., '.~.-..'-',""-'-'
*...*
***
***
***
*......
*..."
...**
i, d,.~~H ~y. it':fi~P6~~:;r::\h h14/i':
******* ...*****. I
iHili:it}/ )f ii~a~~il; I'/i Hi:::'i:r:.
-"'''''. 'l
.***.*. *******
rHiiiH,' 1;'/'~~pri;*':~ljHHii'
1"*******' 'I ",..co ~'" 1 ******* I
:i:l~ iJ:ff~;:\I,k::(~Q~Aa,+I<H j'fii;}.:
I *...*~*** I ..'-~ -,,"- I '....***** I
i;;,l'jlilh::: h{j:~~b~it*::tl:::i l"l-iti:H ,:,
I *..........** I . HC",' - I *...**......... I
'idJJjJ:L;:;ktii~8ti*rl.~ iJUh'.L
I ****.-** "" I ~"'**"'''''''I
';.~~~.~i:i.=i :1{:}:ii~~okf:';'I:.: l~ i~ h., .
I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF LAW THAT THIS
DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACI~,.....S HERE
PREPARED UNDER MY DIRECTION OR
SUPERVISION IN ACCOIlDAtlCE WITII A SYSTEM
DESIGNED TO ASSURE THAT QUALIFIED
PERSONNEL PROPERLY GATHER AND EVALUATB
THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED. BASED ON MY
INQUIRY OF THE PERSON OR PERSONS HHO
MANAGE THE SYSTEM, OR THOSE PERSONS
DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR GATHERING TUB
INFORMATION, THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED
IS, TO THE BEST OF MY kNOWLEDGE AND
BELIEF, TRUE, ACCURATE.. AND COMPLETE. I
AM AWARE THAT TIIERE ARE SIGNIFI-CANT
, PENALTIES FOR SUBMITTING FALSE
INFORMATION. INCLUDING TilE POSSIBILITY
OF FINE AND IMPRISONMENT FOR KNOWING
VIOLATIONS.
NAME/TiTLE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TYPED OR PRINTED
( )
SIGNATIlRB OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE I AREA CODE
OFFICER OR AI1fHORIZED AGBHr
- -- ---- --- -- ,- --- -_. ,....
.- ,-". -- . ~--,-- ~--,_._---
I, tOI1MENT AND EXPl.ANATION OF ANY VIOLATIONS (Reference all at~acluaen~B bere)
s'
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mgfL
mg/L
mg/L
TELEPHONE NUMBER
I' " .
.,
I
I
I: .
I ,
I ,." ., "
";-."';;;' ".
",. ;'. ....
No.
Ex
Frequency
of
Analysis
sample
Type
I iJi 16&' I 24 HC
I I
~/tiij .:' 124 HC
I oVtid I :l4 HC
I I
I 01160 124 He
I ,
I dli~o. I 24 He
I I
I oind . I 24 HC
I I
, oi/60 ." 24 HC
I -
DATE
YEAR
MOtu"
D1ITE
Page
of
1
.~
Paperwork Reduction Act Notice--
Publi..: repomng burden for this collection of information is ~stim:J.[ed to vary from a r:mge of 10 haur3 as an aver:ll::e
per re~ponse for ~ome minor facilities. to 110 hours as an average per response for same major r:lcilities. wah- a
\~ ell;hted :J.verJge for major ;.md mInor fJcilities of 18 hours pet' response. including time far reviewmg instructions.
)c:1rchlng eXisting data sources. g:uhering and maintaimng the dOlt:l needed. and completing and reviewing the
collectltln (1f infonn:mon. Send commentS regarding the burden esrim:lte or any other aspect of this collection of
iniormatlon. including suggestions for reducing this burden. to Chief. Inform:ltion Policy Branch. PM-22J. U.S.
Envlronment:ll Protet.:tlon Agency, ..0 I M Street. SW. Washingro.,. DC :0460: :md to the Office of Informauon and
Regulatory AffJlrs. Office of Management and Budget. Washington. DC 20503.
"~. General Instructions
l. If form has been partially completed by preprinting. disregard instructions dirCl:ted at entry of that information
already preprinted.
2. Enter ,. P ermirree Namel Mailing Address (and facility namel1ocation. if different)." "Permit Number," and ,. Discharge
Number" where indicated. (A separate fonn is required for each discharge.)
3. Enter dates beginning and ending "Monitoring Period. covered by fonn where indicated.
4. Enter each '.Parilmerer" as specified in monitoring requiremenu of permit.
5. Enter "Sample Measurement" data for each parameter under "Quantiry" and "Qualiry" in units specified in
permit. "A\'erage" is normally arithmetic average (ge~metric average for bacterial parameters) of ail sample
measurements for each parameter obtained during "Moniroring Period'.; '.Ma:timum" and "Minimum" are normally
exrreme high and low measurements obtained during "Moniroring Period." (Note to municipals with secondary
treatment requirement: Enter 30-day avemge of sample measurementS under "Average.'. and enter maximum 7-day
avemge of sample 'measurements obtained during monitoring period under "Maximum.")
6. Enter" Permir Requiremenr" for each parameter under "Quantiry'. and "Quality'. as specified in pennit.
7. Under "No E.r." enter number of sample measurements during monitoring period that exceed maximum (and/or
minimum or 7 -day average as appropriau:) pennit requirement for each parameter. If none. enter "0".
8. Enter '. Frequency of Analysis'. both as '.Sample Measuremenr" (actual frequency of sampling and analysis used
during monitoring period) and as "Permir Requirement'. specified in permit. (e.g., Enter "Cont." for
continuous monitoring. '.1/7" for one day per weelc. "1130'. for one: day per momh. "lI9(]. for one day per quaner. etc.)
9. Enter '.Sample Type" both as '.Sample Measurement" (actual sampl~ type used during monitoring period)
and as "Permir Requirement," (e.g.. Enter "Grab" for individual sample, "'24HC' for 24-hour composite. "NIA"
for continuous monitoring, etc.)' .
10. Where violations of permit requirements ~ reponed. attach a brief explanation to describe cause and corrective
:lctions taken. and reference each violation by date. .
11. If "no discharge" OCCU13 during monitoring period. enter "No Discharge" across fonn in place of data enrry.
l:!. Enter "Name/TIlle of Principal E~ecurive Officer" with "Signarure of Principal E~ecurive Officer of Aurhori:ec.l
Agent." "Telephone Number," and "Date" at bonom of form. .
. - .
13. Mail signed Repon to Office(s) by date(s} 'spedfied in permit. Retain copy for10ur ~cords.
14. More detailed instructions for use of this DiscJrarg~ Monitoring ReportfDMR) fonn may be obtained from Office\s I
specified in penn it.
Legal Notice
This report is required by law (33 U.S.C. 1318; 40 C.F.R. 125.271. Failure to repoa or failure to report truthfully -::111
result in civil penalties not [0 exceed 510.000 per day of violallnn: or in criminal penalties not to exceed $25.000 pl:r ,!:l\
of violation. or by imprisonment for not more than one ye:1r. C1r r.~ r.lllh.
EPA Form 3320-1 (Rev. 9.88)
(lllclucle Name/Locat iOIl if dit terentl
NAME
ADDRESS
CITY OF BREMERTON
:239 4TH STREET
BREMERTON. WA 98337
SAME AS ABOVE
1600 OYSTER RD. BREMERTON 98312
FACILITY
LOCATION
PA.R.AMETER
COPPER (TR)
EFFLUENT
LEAD (TR)
INFLUENT
I
I I
LEAD (TR)
EFFLUBNT
MERCURY (TR)
INFLUBNT
MERCURY (TR)
EFFLUENT
NICKEL (TR)
INFLUENT
NICKEL (TRI
EFFLUENT
--
OUANTITY OR LOADING
Ayerage
Sample Heasurement
Permit Jl~i~ed.eb.t::':
*******
.a~h:~
....~,.;
......,,-~
----'
Discharge Location
Lat 470 32' 59" N
Long 1220 40' 11" W
MO
NOTS: Read inftructioos
before completing this form
<l;OMMEIO" /\ND EXPLJlNATION OF ANY VIOLATIONS (Reference all atta<:hmeots here)
Sample MeasurellleDt:
***....**
*HJ:..:.
PenJt: ~lL~'l.Ai
. . . .
8aJnple Heasur_t.
*.*****
Pe~t; lieqtii, :.~,' ,,:':'~(l /l H:~ l'l," I .hh ::lJiJ'
8aJnple Heasure-..t
******...
Peiwit:'~',-;::hf,::;l iHHJ~, I,~i{;;ltrn
Sample Measurement
"~i; j.;q;.ir~p
..*....
H~:liH
DISCHARGE MONITORING
REPORT (DMR)
, 001
~E
mx.BER I I
I frequency
of
Analysis
,
I 01/60
I
I ch/5o
I
I ai/50
I
, oiJiio
;,.
ai/60
Sample Heasur_t.
**.*.**
11696
WA-0029289
PERMIT NUMBER
,..,
6060':
p~~t Ii~h~~fi~l,: it ~t:l';i
Sample Heasuremeut
*.*****
YEAR
MONITORING PERIOD
DAY I TO IYEAR I MO /DAY
f
HI oiJ.~o
. I I I I I I 1._ I
-
. - - - - -'-.-' r-.' -
NAME/TITLE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF LAH THAT THIS TEL8PHONB NUMBER DATE
DOCUMENT AN[) ALL ATTACHMENTS HERE
PRE~ARED UNDER MY DIRECTION DR
SUPERVISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH A SYSTEM
DESIGNED TO ASSURE THAT QUALIFIED
PERSONNEL PROPERLY GATHER AND EVALUATB I J
THE INFORMATION SIJBMITTED. BASED ON MY
INQUIRY OF THE PERSON OR PERSONS HHO
MANAGE THE SYSTEM, DR THOSE PERSONS
DIRECTLYRESPONSIflLE FOR GATIIERING THB ( )
INFORMATION, THE INFORMATION SUBMITTBD AREA CODE
TYPED OR PRINTED IS. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGB 1IND SIGNATURB OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
BELIEF. TRUE. ACCURATE, AND COMPLETE. 1 OFFICER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT
AM AHARE THAT TIIERE ARE SIGNIFICANT Y EAJl HOIO"II DATE
PENALTIES FOR SUBMITTING FALSE
INFOllMATlON. INCLUDING TilE POSSIBILITY
OF FINE AND IMPRISONMEIO" FOR /(NOWING
VIOLATIONS.
. pe~i:lteqti~~:~~i;,Ji * ~ ~Ai'i.
Maximum
~P~~TY PH CONCENTRATION
Minimum I Av~~~';~'l;~ximum , Units f ~~.
iiii;i;; IHn~illii; ,ii;;;;i, I mg/L Ii
..*~~*~~*. ..... . ..... J .u*~.~..~~. j mg/L I
''''''. ..:.'.?- ::::':~::':".... , :........ .':': .... ~.:...; ., ,....' ~ . ".','.:"'~'::'~.",.:.,:
:'HI'UU;::" ):"'fiiioRTf! (it Hit'n':: '::
~~it~.~I\~'~~iili~;lii;t;ii .1 "./L I..
......./ "O/L 10'
Units
*******
~:.~;i4ait
***
*******
***
ih ~ U~::::
**.***.
**.
*..****
***..**
*.*
.....*.
~:J i ~1f~n i' 't;i,:ki!pbftt ::.
**....*
.diiHf
, .......
W,.it~~oit~: f: lt1f~~l
mg/L
...
.......
i:liHliii
:iH:ia~}
**....... I ...
.... * itltilY
..**..*
.*....***
mg/L
O::H'll:l'W:t j I /:i:k~W6fi+\'r::: t i l~:t ~ f:
.*.****
:i' i.~~lU:t
.**
.......
.*****...
mg/L
',:.I:; i *iH:;:. ':b.iik~oa;f,':i:LH ~J~ i ~:
Page
2
ot
J
,~.
Paperwork Reduction .l\ct Notice ..-
Publil: repomng burden for this collection of infonn:l.tion is ~stim:lted to VJIY from a r.mge of 10 hour3 as an aver.tt:e
. per r~...ponse for ~ome minor fJcdities. to 110 hours as an aver:lge per response for some major fJcilities. wuh- a
\\elght~d J. ver:J.ge for. major and minor facilities of 13 hours pet' response. including time for reviewmg instructions.
)~:J.rch in g e:ustlng dJt:J. sources. gJthenng ,md maintaming the dat:l needed. and completing and rev1ewing the
collect Inn (1f infonn:mon. Send commentS reg:J.rding the burden esnm:lte or any other aspect of this cc: ,.:ction of
informatlon. including suggestions for redUCIng: this burden. to Chief. Inform:ltion Policy Branch. PM- .13. U.S.
F.nvlrnnmem:J.l Protet.:llon Agency ~O I M Street. SW, Washing-to.,; DC ::'Q...+60~ and to the Office of Info~auon and
Regulatory AffaIrs. Office of Management and Budget. Washi;gton. DC 20503.
'-, General Instructions
1. If form has been partially completed by preprinting. disregard instructions direr:red at entry of that information
aiready preprinted.
2. Enter" Permittee Name/Mailing Address (and facility namellocaaon. if different)." "Permit Nrunber," and "Discharge
Number" where indicated. (A separarc form is required for each discharge.)
3. Enter dOltes beginning and ending "Monitoring Period. covered by fonn when: indicated.
4. Enter each '~Partlmeter" as specified in monitoring requiremencs of penniL
5. Enter "Sample Measurement" data for each parameter under "Quantity" and "Quality" in units specified in
permit. "A\'erage" is normally arithmetic average (ge~metric average for bacterial parameters) of all sample
measurements for each parameter obtained during "Monitoring Period"; '.Maximum" and "Minimum'. ai'enonnally
extreme high and low me:lsurementS obtained during "Moniloring Period." (Note to municipals with sei:ondary
treatment requirement: Enter 30-<fay aver:Jge of sample measurements under "Average," and enter maximum 7-day
:l.vemge of s:lmple 'measurementS obtained during monitoring period under "Maximum.'.)
6. Enter" Permit Requiremem" for each parameter under '.Quantity" and "Quality" as specified in pennit.
7. Under "No E.t" enter number of sample measurements during monitoring period that exceed maximum (and/or
minimum or 7 -<fay average as appropril1te) pennit requirement for each parameter. If none. enter "0."
8. Enter .. Frequency of Analysis" both as "Sample Measurement" (actual frequency of sampling and analysis used
during monitoring period) and as "Permit Requirement" specified in permit. (e.g., Enter "COllt." for
continuous monitoring. "111 for one day per week. "1 r 30" for one day per month. "119(]" for one day per quaner. etc.)
9. Enter ,. Sample Type" both as "Sample Measurement" (actual sampl~ type used during monitoring period)
and:lS "Permit Requirement." (e.g., Enter "Grab" for individual sample, "24HC" for 24-l1our composite. "N/A"
for continuous monitoring. etc.)' .
10. Where violations of pennit requirements ~ reponed. attach a brief explanation to describe cause and corrective
actions taen. and reference each violation by date.
II. If '.no disch:lrge" occurs during monitoring period. enter "No Discharge'. across form in place of data entry.
11. Enter "NameiTitle of Principal E.tecutive Officer" with "Signature of Principal E.tecut;ve Officer of Authori:ecl
Agent," "Telephone Number," JDd "Dale" at bottom of form. .
. .
13. M:1il signed Report to Office{s) by dace(s) .spedfied in pennix. Retain copy for your records.
14. More detailed instrUctions for use of this DiscJrargf! Monitoring Reporr (DMR) form may be obtained from Office!'i)
specified in permit. .
Legal Notice
This report is required by law (33 U.S.c. Uta; 40 C.F.R. 1:5.17). Failure to report or failure to report trUthfully ,,::n
result in civil penalties not to exceed 510.000 per d:lY of violallon: or in crimin:1! penalties not to exceed 525.000 pl:r ,:.1\
of viol<:1tion. or by imprisonment for not more than one ye:lr. or l"I~ hOlh.
EPA Form .3.320-1 (Rev. 9.88)
'ERMITIEE NIIJ-IE/I\ODRESS
Include ~ame/Location it differentl
DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT (DMR)
lAME
lDDRESS
WA-00292B9
PERMIT NUMBER
I 001
DISCHARGE
CITY OF BREMERTON
239 4TH STREET
BREMERTON. WA 98337
SAME AS ABOVE
1600 OYSTER RD. BREMERTON 98312
fl696
MONITORING
PERIOD
I YEAR
I
~ACILITY
.OCATION
YEAR
DAY
TO
MO
HLOiBER I I
MO I DAY
I
Discharge Location
Lat 470 32' 59" N
Long 1220 40' 11" W
NOTB: Read instructions
before completing this form
1 OUANTITY 0>> T.nADING QUALITY OR CONCE;-RATION
PARAMETER I I Ave~age I Maximum I Units I Minimum I Average I Maxi~um I Units I
ZINC (TR) SaDple Measuremeut I *****.ir , *****.*'- . *~~..., ******* I . 1 *..**** I mg/L
INFLUENT I PBnIdt.'R-'';r~t;''1 /:!;;' .'. ':''':1 . . : '.' ;.' 1.>:t:";":~;;~:}:;"~';':.:I.':'.' ".:::.. ;...:.::.; ".1.:.:;=:;':;':'-':.':.' .:,.t:}::.
. . ~~~'" . ';. '. ,:*****1\"*:': .******* ;:;ii;:~'*.*..**.:';,.: "';:;:;;R,RPOR'r. ..,..."*..,.* *-', .
ZINC (TR) I s.aq>le Measurement I ~UU~* I UU**. .:* *~"".*.* '1' . ,....... '.~~***~*.I mg/L
EFFLUENT . . ..... ..,;.,' ,.'.':'. ...... :: : :.;..;;;....; ...,:.;::, . .: . ..:,......,.: .,.....:.....: .. ..;.;.'".
~I:;' ~~~I:;.:I "=* ~ ** *...xl ** *..t....... * fH* h..~: !::if,::, iiPORT": I :.. H ~ *_..:
CYANIDE I Sa~le -Hea~~t I *.*~*** 1 ******"* *"** **~****"I~. I ******* ~ mg/L
ItlFLURNT Pendj:, RegtiL t 1 ...:...:;. ...;." ..': I' ::........ :.:.....:,...~:...:....:.:.:::::::.:;I.~;:...:;.k..,. ...:;:;:..;:. I. .:::'':~..::,'':. ::.:::::;:i.':'
'.:. .'.: .': :;":.,\. ~::;. .::(; *.... .*::~: *.*.. ir ** U,:,i,* ** .*'j;: j<'i.;RBPOR.T' .;.**.. * * ,.j,..
CYAlfIDB I Saluple Hea...:u:ement I ******* I ******* *** ******* " , ******* I mg/L
.. . " .... . n" .' _.,". :-..:-:.;.;_..; :':.:..:.;.; : . ..:.. . ..... .....::. .','"
EFFLUENT Pendt ~ement I::;l*~~~';.~ I ~i~*-irn;;;~a*j:t;h;'IiEP6RT l'::i..~***.;.*.
I Saa>ple Heasuremeut " I . ,
Pendit. R ,. r....eut ':/10..:.' . ...:'.:; "'. ":.. :. ::.... \.;;".;,:,::\.} .,\.:' j,.': :g,..~ /:,: ',;' "::W., ',': )f:'?!. . ::'.:.::::k
~ .1....,... ..1......... .......................1..............1... .-......
I SalDpIe He"':""':'t "" ..........,. '. I . ....... .......:,.... .....: .,.... '..
I Pendil: RequL~.. ...,.~ h++~. ..: ..:)i::;:" I .:, .,,:'1 !,(::tV+:f:jt':,":i; I ;,~t::.:..::.~L.::::;,:;,::: I::' ::;::
f ::: == I ,I ti, ".I , I
~AME/TITLE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF LAW THAT THIS
DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS WERE
PREPARED L..uGR MY DIRECTION OR
SUPERVISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH A SYSTEM
DESIGNED TO ASSURE THAT QUALIFIED
PERSONNEL PROPERLY GATHER AND EVALUATE
11IE INFOIIW;T10N SUBHITTED. BASED ON MY
INQUIRY OF THE PERSON OR PERSONS MHO
MANAGE TilE SYSTEM. OR THOSE PERSONS
DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR GATHERING THE
INFORMATION, THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED
IS. TO TIlE BEST Of MY KNOWLEDGE AND
BELIEf, TRUE, ACCURATE, AND COMPLETE. I
AM AWARE THAT TIIERE ARE SIGNIFICIINT
PENALTIES FOR SUBMITTING FALSE
INFORMATION, INCLUDING TilE POSSIBILITY
OF FINE AND IMPRISONMENT FOR kNOHING
VIOWlTIONS.
SIGNAroRE Of PRINCIPAL EXEcurIVB
OFFICER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT
TYPED OR PRINTED
MENT AND EXPWUIATION OF ANY VIOLATIONS (Reference all attachments herel
TELEPHONE NUMBER
( )
AREA CODE
No.
Ex
I Frequency
of
Analysis
I
I 01/60
1
~/'O
1 DilDO
I
, 01/60
I
I
I
I
I
I
YEAR
Page
3
Sample
Type
24 HC
24 He
GRAB
GRAB
DATE
HOIrr" DATE
ot
3
Paperwork Reduction Act Notice ..--
Public reponing burden for this collection of inform:uion is eSlim:llcd to VJIY from a rnnge of I D hour:! as an aver:lge
per r~"ponse for ~ome minor f:lcilities, to tlO hours as iln ilverage per response for some m:ljor f:lcilities.. wllh- a
\\ elghted :lver:lge for major and mlOor facilities of 18 hours per response. Including nme for reviewing instructions.
~~Jrching e~\Isllng d;ua sources. g:llhering and muinl..1lning the data needed. and completing and reviewmg the
collection of inform:llJon. Send comments reprding the burden esnmate or any other aspect of this collecllon of
iniormatlon. induding suggestions for reducing this burden. to Chief. Informallon Policy Branch. PM-22J, U;S.
EnvIronmental PrOlel:1\On Agency 401 M Street. SW. Washingto'1. DC ~Q...I60; and to the Office of lnformauon and
Regulatory AffJlr5. Office of Management and Budget. Washington. DC 20503.
"~I General Instructions
1. If form has been partially completed by preprinting. disregard instructions directed at entry of that information
already preprinted.
2. Enter "P'ermirru Name/Mailing Address (and faciliry namellocation. if different)," "Permit Number," and "Discharge
Number" where indicated. (A separate fonn is required for each discharge.)
3. Enter dates beginning and ending "Monitoring Period"' covered by fonn where indicated.
4. Enter each "Parameter" as specified in monitoring requiremenu of penniL
5. Enter "Sample Measurement" data for each parameter under "Quantity" and "Quaii!y" in units specified in
permit. .. A~'erage" is normally arithmetic average (ge.omctric average for bacterial parameters) of all sample
measurements for each parameter obtained during "Monitoring Period"; "MtUimum" and "Minimum" arc normally
extreme high and low measurements obtained during "Monitoring Period." (Note to municipals with secondary
treatment requirement: Enter 30-day avernge of sample measurements under "Average,'. and enter maximum 7 -day
average of samp.le 'measurements obtained during monitoring period under "MtUimum.")
6. Enter-"Permit Requirement" for each parameter under "Quantity" and "Qualiry"as specified in permit.
7. Under "No Ex" enter number of sample measurements during monitoring period that exceed maximum (and/or
minimum or 7-day average as appropriate) pc:lTI1it requirement for each parameter. If none. enter "0,"
8. Enter "Frequency of Analysis" both as "Sample Measurement" (actual frequency of sampling and analysis used
during monitoring period) and as "Permic Requ.irement" specified in permit. (e.g., Enter "Cant." for
continuous monitoring. "J Ii' for one day per week. "1/30" for one day per month. "1/90" for one day per quarter. etc.)
9. Enter "Sample T:,'pe" both as "Sample Measurement" (actual sampl.~ type used during monitoring period)
and as "Permit Requirement," (e.g.. Enter "Grab" for individual sample, "24HC" for 24-hour composite. "N/A"
for continuous ~onitoring. etc.) .' .
10. Where violations of permit requirements ar,? reponed. attach a brief explanation to describe cause and correctlve
actions taken. and reference each violation by date.
11. If "no discharge" occurs during monitoring period. enter "No Discharge" across fonn in place of data enrry.
12. Enter "Name/Title of Principal Executive Office.r" with "Signature of Principal Executive Officer of AUlhori:eJ
Agent." "Telephone Number," and "Date." at bonom of form. .
13. Mail signed RepoJ1 to Oftice(s) by d.ate(s) specified in permit. Retain copy for your records.
14. More detailed instructions for use of this Discharg~ Monitoring Reporr (DMR) form may be obtained from Officel ~)
spt:citied in permit.
Legal Notice
This fepOrt i:s required by law (33 U.S.c. 1318; 40 C.F.R. I ~5.~7). Failure to repoe! or failure to report: trUthfull: ~':lll
re~ult in civil penaltie~ not to exceed SID.DOO per day of \'\Olallon: or 10 Criminal penalties noc co exceed 525.000 per ,~.I\
of vlol:lllon. or by imprisonment for not more than one year. Of ~~ r-I)(h.
EPA Form 3J20-1IRev. 9-88)
'"~"I
i
n
!]
]
fl
']
[]
']
n
d
n
il
r~1
~
,
u
'J
I
d
~.J......
.
~I
d
n
; I
U
.il
,
. I
L,J
I
,J
Appendix B
Beach Main Hydraulic Profile
CDIVI
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005
-
-
,-
-
-
""'.-,
",,,,..,J
"."..."..',..."
,-, "",
,..,,'
,,,-,,,,
,.,,"," ""....
".,,~""",,""
260-
Jj .7onj
250 ~-=- Jj..
240
TRACYTON BEACH
BASIN
230
220
210-
200-
190-
180-
170-
160-
t
$l
<C
5
'"
g
-0
J1
o
<fl
U
o
1:
~
i
150-
1\0-
o
;:;-
<;!
i
~
-&
w
~
~
0.:
100-
90-
80
w
~
C1
E
g
,:;
E
......
'"
::::.
E
Ii
~
0..
'"
~
~
o
u
'"
I
'"
I
.",
IZ
-\ ,~ -
), ~ HGl FOR 2,300 GPM
/ ~W TO CE:-1
\./\1
__ 1 ~ HGl FOR 4,000 GPM
/ ,.r \ FLOW TO CE-1
/ -,'
- I
\
I-
I
I
I
\
TO CONVEY
MODIFICATI~N~O EB-2
PIPING FROM OF- _,
FLOWS _
f ~
// \
---- \
/ .~
~ ~~~O~~rws \\..Lr).- _ <~.~ \_ -
m"-' rr /""_,! \
-~,~ ~
".-"- ----'\:"B--.2" CA~PAp STATION
--== ~ PUM .
= . -
~
\ - ~OOJ- 1
\ Jj.. -\
-' -'
PINE ROAD \
\ BASIN
\ - - -\
\
\
~
Jj..
-,/
/
/
/
~
~
r~
i:::= .
Jj..
EAST PARK
BASIN
CHERRY AVENUE
BASIN
,/
/
/
/
/ -,/
~ ,///
,/ ~rlNG MODIFICATIONS -'
TO DIVERT FLOWS
DOWNSTREAM OF OF-3
\ /"
\...r'/-
/ \.
\
\
\
CANYONr
STEVENS
BASIN
[\
l'-
"
\-'
\
\
I
\
I
\
\
\ REDIRECT FLOWS DIVERTED
FROM STEVENS CANYON TO
\\..nI:..KKl t\vt.NUI:.. b~\.ij{""" \U
STEVENS CANYON ~
~
~~~ \\
~ ~""'"~ /'\"
" / ~
'"'" RIM 1 gsj./ :?W"-."
_ "",,~/EL 153.6
---
"-
"-
"-
"-
~"'"
\\
~
,
- __ 260
__ 250
_- 240
__ 230
-220
_210
_200
_190
-180
-170
_160
-150
_140
-~
~
EL 119.1
120
~
118.
~110
.QE::Th
TRENTON AVENUE
BASIN
--
-
PIPING MOOIFICATIONS
TO CONVEY FLOW FROM
!,;TJ:YFN!'; C-A"'VON .I{'
MANEITE AND INCREASE
'" C/lPACI1Y FROM PINE
ROAD BASIN TO
~
~~~~N~SO"-
FACILl1Y
, \
. \
"
~.
-~
~ E EXISTING
~ REPLACe". HiGHER
"~WI~ MEA~ WATER
../ ~E 121.6 _
'Jle" _ ~ EAN LOWER
eOW WATER
,00'
16"
ASSUMES 4,000 GPM
_ c:'10W-10--("C'_1
20"~
24"
-\
2-4::--
~;l:;50) 2,300 GPM lllL-
~SSUMro CE-1 '7
FL~W ~ .r:-.
CONNECTIO~p~~N (d:Asrdr,S" r23QO)
INVERTED 'C.:.? _
- -~
~FECT TO
SEE ABOVE
HGL
INSTALL 16" PIPE
I u \..VI~VI:'.. '( fLUW::i
FROM TRENTON
I...""EASE
CAPACITY
PUMP STATION
EB-6 AND
~lvKAI,.jI:..
MEAN LOWER ~
LOW WATER
EL 109.6
~ TREATEO EFFLUENT
TO PORT WASHINGTON
NARROWS
?
~
EAST BREMERTON BEACH MAIN PROFILE
- - . - -
(APPROXIMATE HORIZONTAL SCALE 1'~1 ,000 fEEf)
..--
,...,."..-".......,.. ".""",.-','"
..,.-,.
.,~,,,.,,--",,.....-
...._....
~M
"...""" L..,..."""""",.""".""".-., .",."",""...,,...,,',.,"'"
""'"'''''''''''''.-..'''''''''''''...''''.'''''
_100
~P STATION
MODIFICATIONS
TO CONVEY
EillWS TO EB- 2
-90
ll2Ie:~ -
GROUND ELEVATIONS BETWEEN BASINS
REPRESENT THE GROUND ELEVATIONS ON
LEBO BOULEVARD AND WHEATON WAY.
-
_80
LEGEND
~');:::\.) FLOW IN PIPE
4,500 FLOW PRODUCED IN BASIN
\-J
~ _ HYDRAULIC GRADELlNE (HGL)
N01E: ALL FLOWS ARE IN GPM
-"".......-..'
Jan 2001
-"....".
CITY Of BREMERTON
CSO REDUCTION fACILITY PLAN
EAST BREMERTON - PROPOSED
CONVEYANCE MODiFiCATiONS
Figure
7-2
."."....""....".....",,-
""lL'"",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
------
'1
f]
n
]
p1l
u
']
[]
:J
, I
~J
:)
U
.
nax
C
Appendix C
Port Blakely Sanitary Sewer Evaluation
CDIVI
P:\Bremerton\Comp PlanlAmern:lmentI7PROJDOC\oRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005
CDNI
P.O. Box 3885 (Zip 98009-3885)
11 B 11 N.E. 1 st Street. Suite 201
Bellevue. Washington 98005-3033
tei: 425453-8383
fax: 425 646-9523
March 28, 2003
Elizabeth Wilson
Project Manager
Port Blakely Communities
177512th Avenue NW, Suite 101
Issaquah, W A 98027
Subj~t:
Port Blakely Sanitary Sewer Evaluation
Project Summary Letter
Dear Elizabeth:
This letter summarizes the anticipated discharge flows (Task 1) from Phase I of the Port
Blakely development (the development) located west of Bremerton, Washii1gton. Anticipated
discharge flows from full build-out of the development are also summarized in this letter. As
well as a project status summary. Included with this letter are population and zoning
planning information, flow projection planning information, and flow calculations. Flows
associated with both residential and industrial users Viere incorporated to calculate average
and peak instantaneous flow rates from the development.
Population and Zoning Planning Information
This analysis took into account both Phase I of the development and the future .full build-out
of the development. Phase I would include 1/2 build-out for both residential and commercial
properties, which would result in approximately 450 single-family residences and 1,250,000 ft2
of commercial space on 100 acres. The commercial space would be split into Y2light industrial
and Y2 business park. This assumption was based upon the maximum development
. permissible given the exiSting traffic conditions. It is understood that Phase I may be further
limited by the existing capacity of the wastewater system. Analysis of the full build-out
discharge flows assumed a total of 1000 single-family residences and 2,350,000 ft2 of
commercial space on 300 acres.
Four separate discharge flows (case's 1-4) were calculated for analysis of Phase I and full
build-out. In each discharge flow analysis both an average and a peak instantaneous flow
rate were calculated. The average flow estimates the average daily flow rate that the
conveyance system would experience, while the peak instantaneous flow gives an estimate of
the maximum flow rate that the conveyance system would experience. The peak
instantaneous flow is calculated by applying a peaking factor to the average daily flow,
c:onsulting . engineering. c:onstruc:tion . operations
CDNI
Elizabeth Wilson
March 28, 2003
Page 2
Case 1 utilized information from the most recent version of the City of Bremerton Wastewater
Comprehensive Plan and the 1990 census. Residential sanitary sewage flow was set at 80
gallons per capita per day (gpcd), which is a typical value for the Pacific Northwest and
consistent with average residential water use in the City of Bremerton. An average unit flow
of 1800 gallons per acre per day (gpad) was used for commercial sanitary sewage floW. This
unit flow number was developed from the City's water utility records and used in both the
1995 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan and the most recent Wastewater Comprehensive Plan.
An infiltration allowance (i.e. defective pipes, leaking joints) of 500 gpad was applied in
calculation of the total flow rate and is intended to include both infiltration and inflow. This
infiltration allowance was used in previous City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plans and
previous Port Blakely Development project calculations. A population density of 2.43 persons
per dwelling from the 1990 census data was also incorporated in calculation of this flow rate.
In order to calculate the peak instantaneous flow rate for Case 1 a peaking factor of 3.0 was
used. TIris peaking factor was determined from a peaking factor curve developed by the
Bureau of Engineering of the City of Los Angeles and was also used in the 1995 Bremerton
Wastewater Comprehensive Plan.
Case 2 is similar to Case 1 and used information from the most recent version of City of
Bremerton Wastewater Comprehensive Plan to calculate discharge flows from the
development; however, case 2 used 2000 census data instead of the 1990 census. This was
done to account for an estimated decrease in population over the past 10 years. Population
density in the Bremerton area reduced from 2.43 persons per dwelling in 1990 to 2.23 persons
per dwelling in 2000.
The third case used information obtained in the Washington State Department of Ecology
Criteria for Sewage Works Design (Orange Book) and the City of Bremerton Wastewater
Comprehensive Plan to calculate flow rates. The residential sanitary sewage flow from the
Orange Book is 100 gpcd. Use of the per capita flows from the orange book is intended to
cover normal infiltration and inflow for systems built with modem construction techniques;
thus, a separate unit flow for infiltration was not used in this analysis. An average unit flow
of 1800 gallons per acre per day (gpad) was used for commercial sanitary sewage flow. The
peaking factor for Case 3 is 3.8 and was obtained from Figure C1-1 of the Orange Book. Case
3 also used the 1990 population density of 2.43 person per dwelling to calculate discharge
flows.
Case 4 is the same as Case 3 and used a combination of information from the Orange Book
and the City of Bremerton Wastewater Comprehensive Plan to calculate discharge flows.
However, the 2000 census data was used in place of the 1990 census data to account for the
estimated decrease in population density in the Bremerton area.
ClIVI
Elizabeth Wilson
March 28, 2003
Page 3
Discharge Flow Summary
UtiliZing the information from above, an average daily flow and a peak instantaneous flow
were calculated for 4 different cases of both Phase I and full build-out of the development.
Table 1 below, summarizes the anticipated discharge flows from the development.
Table 1 - Discharge Flow Summary
Average Flow Peak. Instantaneous
Flow
(GPM)
(GPM)
Phase I - Case 1 131.1 324.6
Phase I - Case 2 126.3 309.6
Phase I - Case 3 111.8 424.9
Phase I - Case 4 105.6 401.1
Full Build Out - Case 1 306.6 711.5
Full Build Out - Case 2 295.5 678.1
Full Build Out - Case 3 236.2 897.5
Full Build Out - Case 4 222.3 844.7
In Cases 3 and 4 of Phase I and full build-out, the peak instantaneous flow is significantly
higher than Cases 1 and 2. The reason for this is the peaking factor from the orange book is
higher than the peaking factor used in Cases 1 and 2; furthermore, the average flow includes
an infiltration allowance that cannot be separated out individually. Thus, the infiltration flow
is multiplied by the peaking factor and gives a "false" peak instantaneous flow.
Alternative Phasing Projections
The amount of development associated with the first phase of the project may be decreased
based upon the existing capacity of the wastewater conveyance and treabnent systems. The
values stated above are the maximum values anticipated. The attached spreadsheets will
allow Port Blakely to predict discharge flows associated with different levels of development.
CDM
Elizabeth Wilson
March 28, 2003
Page 4
It was intended, as part of Task 2 of this project, to analyze wastewater conveyance and
treatment capacity to develop possible routing and upgrades to support Phase 1.
Initial feedback from discussions with the City indicate that it may be possible to
accommodate the flows from phase I development within the existing City wastewater
infrastructure. However, this feedback is based primarily on anecdotal evidence and not
actual flow measurements or modeling studies. CDM understands that both Port Blakely and
the City of Bremerton would like assurances on capacity prior to development. CDM
obtained the model of the City's system, but the areas of interest are not completely modeled.
The model has not been calibrated to actual flows. At this time, the model can not be used to
predict accurate flow capacities. The City is interested in working with Port Blakely to install
flow meters at key pump stations to verify system capacity. Port Blakely should discuss flow
meter installation directly with Gene Sampley at the City of Bremerton. CDM would also be
able to modify the existing model to produce theoretical values. If you would like to discuss
modifying CDM's existing scope to include this modeling please let us know. The
Comprehensive plan update has not yet been completed and is currently on hold. There is
still time for Port Blakely's plans to be included in the Comprehensive Plan as Port Blakely
wishes and is agreed to by the City of Bremerton.
If you have any questions concerning the above information or the project in general, please
do not hesitate to call us at (425) 453-8383. We will not continue with any additional Port
Blakely work until directed by you.
Very truly yours,
~J_\ \JGlU ~)~
Stacey A. Van 1'lorman, P.E.
Project Manager
Camp Dresser & McKee Ine.
cc: John Poppe, City of Bremerton
Gene Sampley, City of Bremerton
Andrew Carson, CDM Bellevue
File 4.01
ATTACHMENTS
Phase 1 . Case 1
Assumptions:
Residential Sanitary Sewage Flow =
Commercial Sanitary Sewage Flow =
Infiltration Allowance =
Peaking Factor =
Population Density =
Total Area Developed =
80 gallons per capita per day (gpcd
1800 gallons per acre per day (gpad
500 gallons per acre per day (gpad
3
2.43 personsldwellin~
100 acres
Zoning Information:
Number of Family Units =
Commercial Space =
450 dwellings
1,250,000 rr
Flow Calculations I Formulas
Residential Flows:
(Number of Residential Units). (Population Density) . (Residential Sanitary Sewage Flow) = Daily Flow in Gallons
Commercial Flows:
(Square Footage of Commercial Space). (Commercial Sanitary Sewage Flow) = Daily Flow in Gallons
NOTE: Commercial Flows Indude Retail Flows
Infiltration Flows
(Total Area Developed). (Infiltration Allowance) = Tota/lnfiltration Flow in Gallons
Total Flow:
(Residential Flows)+ (Commercial Flows) + (Infiltration Flows) = Total Flow in Gallons
Peak Instataneous Flow
(Residential Flows + Commercial Flows). (Peaking Factor) + (Infiltration Flows)= Peak Flow in Gallons
Flow Calculations:
Residential Flows:
87,480 gallons per da)
60.8 gallons per minute
Commercial Flows:
51,653 gallons per da)
35.9 gallons per minute
Infiltration Flows
50,000 gallons per da)
34.7 gallons per minute
Average Flow:
189.133 gallons per da)
131.3 gallons per minute
Peak Instataneous Flow
467,399 gallons per da)
324.6 gallons per minute
Phase 1 - Case 2
Assumptions:
Residential Sanitary Sewage Flow =
Commercial Sanitary Sewage Flow =
Infiltration Allowance =
Peaking Factor =
Population Density =
Total Area Developed =
80 gallons per capita per day (gpcd
1800 gallons per acre per day (gpad
500 gallons per acre per day (gpad
3
2.23 personsldwellinf
100 acres
Zoning Information:
Number of Family Units =
Commercial Space =
450 dwellings
1,250.000 tt2
Flow Calculations I Formulas
Residential Flows:
(Number of Residential Units) . (Population Density) . (Residential Sanitary Sewage Flow) = Daily Flow in Gallons
Commercial Flows:
(Square Footage of Commercial Space) . (Commercial Sanitary Sewage Flow) = Daily Flow in Gallons
NOTE: Commercial Flows include Retail Flows
Infiltration Flows
(Total Area Developed) . (Infiltration Allowance) = Total Infiltration Flow in Gallons
Tolal FlOw:
(Residential Flows)+ (Commercial Flows) + (Infiltration Flows) = Total Flow in Gallons
Peak Instalaneous Flow
. (Residential Flows + Commercial Flows) . (Peaking Factor) + (Infiltration Flows)= Peak Flow in Gallons
Flow Calculations:
Residential Flows:
80,2eo gallons per da~
55.8 gallons per minute
Commercial Flows:
51,653 gallons per da~
35.9 gallons per minute
Infiltration Flows
SO,OOO gallons per da~
34.7 gallons per minute
Tolal Flow:
181,933 gallons per da~
126.3 gallons per minute
Peak Jnslalaneous Flow
445,799 gallons per da~
309.6 gallons per minute
Phase 1 - Case 3
Assumptions:
Residential Sanitary Sewage Flow =
Commercial Sanitary Sewage Flow =
Infiltration Allowance =
Peaking Factor =
Population Density =
Total Area Developed =
100 gallons per capita per day (gpcd
1800 gallons per acre per day (gpad
o gallons per acre per day (gpad
3.8
2.43 personsldwellin~
1 00 acres
Zoning Information:
Number of Family Units =
Commercial Space =
450 dwellings
1,250,000 If
Flow Calculations I Formulas
Residential Flows:
(Number of Residential Units) . (Population Density) . (Residential Sanitary Sewage Flow) = Daily Flow in Gallons
Commercial Flows:
(Square Footage of Commercial Space) . (Commercial Sanitary Sewage Flow) = Daily Flow in Gallons
NOTE: Commercial Flows include ReteR Flows
Infiltration Flows
(Total Area Developed) . (Infiltration Allowance) = Total Infiltration Flow in Gallons
Total Flow:
(Residential Flows)+ (Commercial Flows) + (Infiltration Flows) = Total Flow in Gallons
Peak Inslalaneous Flow
(Residential Flows + Commercial Flows) . (Peaking Factor) + (Infiltration Flows)= Peak Flow in Gallons .
Flow Calculations:
Residential Flows:
109,350 gallons per da)
75.9 gallons per minute
Commercial Flows:
51,653 gallonsperda)
35.9 gallons per minute
Infiltration Flows
gallons per da)
0.0 gallons per minute
Total Flow:
161,003 gallons per da)
111.8 gallons per minute
Peak Inslataneous Flow
611,811 gallons per da)
424.9 gallons per minutE
Phase 1 - Case 4
Assumptions:
Residential Sanitary Sewage Flow =
Commercial Sanitary Sewage Flow =
Infiltration Allowance =
Peaking Factor =
Population Density =
Total Area Developed =
100 gallons per capita per day (gpcd
1800 gallons per acre per day (gpad
o gallons per acre per day (gpad
3.8
2.23 personsldwellin~
100 acres .
Zoning Information:
Number of Family Units =
Commercial Space =
450 dwellings
1,250,000 If
Flow Calculations I Formulas
Residential Flows:
(Number of Residential Units) . (Population Density) . (Residential Sanitary Sewage Flow) = Daily Flow in Gallons
Commercial Flows:
(Square Footage of Commercial Space) . (Commercial Sanitary Sewage Flow) = Daily Flow in Gallons
NOTE: Commercial Flows indude Retail Flows
Infiltration Flows
(Total Area Developed) . (Infiltration Allowance) = Total Infiltration Flow in Gallons
Tolal Flow:
(Residential Flows)+ (Commercial Flows) + (Infiltration Flows) = Total Flow in Gallons
Peak Instalaneous Flow
(Residential Flows + Commercial Flows) . (Peaking Factor) + (Infiltration Flows)= Peak Flow in Gallons
Flow Calculations:
Residential Flows:
100,350 gallons per da}
69.7 gallons per minute
Commercial Flows:
51,653 gallons per da}
35.9 gallons per minute
Infiltration Flows
gallons per da}
0.0 gallons per minute
Tolal Flow:
152,003 gallons per da}
105.6 gallons per minute
Peak Instalaneous Flow
577,611 gallons per da}
401.1 gallons per minute
.,
Full Build Out - Case 1
Assumptions:
Residential Sanitary Sewage Flow "
Commercial Sanitary Sewage Flow "
Infiltration Allowance"
Peaking Factor"
Population Density "
Total Area Developed "
80 gallons per capita per day (gi:>cd)
1800 gallons per acre per day (gpad)
500 gallons per acre per day (gpad)
3
2.43 persons/dwelling
300 acres
Zoning Information:
Number of Family Units"
Commercial Space '"
1000 dwellings
2,350,000 tf
Flow Calculations I Formulas:
Residential Flows:
(Number of Residentia/ Units) . (Popu/ati9f1 Density) . (Residential Sanitary Sewage Flow) '" Daily Flow in Gallons
Commercial Flows:
(Square Footage of Commercial Space) . (Commercial Sanitary Sewage Flow) '" Daily Flow in Gallons
NOTE; Commerr:ial Flows include Retail Flows
Infiltration Flows:
(Total Area Developed) . (Infiltration Allowance) " Tota/lnfiltration Flow in Gallons
Total Flow:
(Residential Flows)+ (Commercial Flows) + (Infiltration Flows) '" Total Flow in Gallons
Peak Instataneous Flow:
(Residential Flows + Commercial Flows) . (Peaking Factor) + (Infiltration Flows)'" Peak Flow in Gallons
Flow Calculations:
Residential Flows:
194,400 gallons per day
135.0 gallons per minute
Commercial Flows:
97,107 gallons per day
67.4 gallons per minute
Infiltration Flows:
150,000 gallons per day
104.2 gallons per minute
Total Flow:
441,507 gallons per day
306.6 gallons per minute
Peak Instataneous Flow:
1,024,522 gallons per day
711.5 gallons per minute
Full Build Out - Case 2
,Assumptions:
Residential Sanitary Sewage Flow =
Commercial Sanitary Sewage Flow =
Infiltration Allowance =
Peaking Factor =
Population Density =
Total Area Developed =
80 gallons per capita per day (gpcd)
1800 gallons per acre per day (gpad)
500 gallons per acre per day (9pad)
3
2.23 persons/dwelling
300 acres
Zoning Information:
Number of Family Units =
Commercial Space =
1000 dwellings
2,350,000 tr
Flow Calculations J Formulas:
Residential Flows:
(Number of Residential Units) . (Population Density) . (Residential Sanitary Sewage Flow) = Daily Flow in Gallons
Commercial Flows:
(Square Footage of Commercial Space) . (Commercial Sanitary Sewage Flow) :: Daily Flow in Gallons
NOTE: Common:ial Flows include Retail Flows
Infiltration Flows:
(ToIal Area Developed) . (Infiltration Allowance) :: Total Infiltration Flow in Gallons
Total Row:
(Residential Flows)+ (Commercial Flows) + (Infiltration Flows) = Total Flow in Gallons
Peak Inslataneoos Flow:
(Residential Flows + Commercial Flows) . (Peaking Factor) + (Infiltration Flows)= Peak Flow in GaHons
Flow Calculations:
Residential Flows:
178.400 gallons per day
123.9 gallons per minute
Commercial Flows:
97,107 gallons per day
67.4 gallons per minute
Infiltration Rows:
150,000 gallons per day
104.2 gallons per minute
Total Flow:
425,507 gallons per day
295.5 gallons per minute
Peak Instalaneous Flow:
976,522 gallons per day
678.1 gallons per minute
Full Build Out - Case 3
Assumptions:
Residential Sanitary Sewage Flow =
Commercial Sanitary Sewage Flow =
Infiltration Allowance =
Peaking Factor =
Population Density =
Total Area Developed =
100 gallons per capita per day (gpcd)
1800 gallons per acre per day (gpad)
o gallons per acre per day (gpad)
3.8
2.43 persons/dwelling
300 acres
Zoning Information:
Number of Family Units =
Commercial Space =
1000 dwellings
2,350,000 tr
Flow Calculations I Formulas:
Residential Flows:
(Number of Residential Units) . (Population Density) . (Residential Sanitary Sewage Flow) = Daily Flow in Gallons
Commercial Flows:
(Square Footage of Commercial Space) . (Commercial Sanitary Sewage Flow) = Daily Flow in Gal/ons
NOTE: (::ommercial Flows include Ralai/ Flows
Infiltration Flows:
(Total Area Developed) . (Infiltration Allowance) = Total Infiltration Flow in Gallons
Tolal Flow:
(Residential Flows)+ (Commercial Flows) + (Infiltration Flows) = Total Flow in Gal/ons
Peak Instataneous Flow:
(Residential Flows + Commercial Flows) . (Peaking Factor) + (Infiltration Flows)= Peak Flow in Gal/on
Flow Calculations:
Residential Flows:
243,000 galions per day
168.8 gallons per minute
Commercial Flows:
97,107 gallonsperday
67.4 gallons per minute
Infiltration Flows:
gallons per day
0.0 gallons per minule
Total Flow:
340,107 gallons per day
236.2 gallons per minute
Peak Instataneous Flow:
1,292,408 gallons per day
897;5 gallons per minute
Full Build Out - Case 4
Assumptions:
Residential Sanitary Sewage Flow =
Commercial Sanitary Sewage Flow =
Infiltration Allowance =
Peaking Factor =
Population Density =
Total Area Developed =
100 gallons per capila per day (gpcd)
1800 gallons per acre per day (gpad)
o gallons per acre per day (gpad)
3.8
2.23 persons/dwelling
300 acres
Zoning Information:
Number of Family Units =
Commercial Space =
1000 dwellings
2,350,000 It!
Flow Calculations I Formulas:
Residential Flows:
(Number of Residential Units) . (Population Density) . (Residential Sanitary Sewage Flow) = Daily Flow in Gallons
Commercial Flows:
(Square Footage of Commercial Space) . (Commercial Sanitary Sewage Flow) = Daily Flow in Gallons
NOTE: Commercial Flaws include Retail Flaws
Infiltration Flows:
(Total Area Developed) . (Infinration Allowance) = Totallnfinration Flow in Gal/ons
Tolal Flow:
(Residential Flows)+ (Commercial Flows) + (Infiltration Flows) = Total Flow in Gal/ons
Peak Inslalaneous Flow:
(Residential Flows + Commercial Flows) . (Peaking Factor) + (Infiltration Flows)= Peak Flow in Gallon
Flow Calculations:
Residential Flows:
223,000 gallons per day
154.9 gallons per minute
Commercial Flows:
97,107 gallons per day
67.4 gallons per minute
Infiltration Flows:
gallons per day
0.0 gallons per minute
Tolal Flow:
320,107 gallons per day
222.3 gallons per minute
Peak Inslalaneous Flow:
1,216,408 gallons per day
844.7 gallons per minute
\
Appendix B
Sanitary Flow Peaking Factor Curve
The peaking factor curve shown in Figure B-1 was developed by the Bureau of
Engineering of the City of Los Angeles.1 .
,.
1
ary of Los Angles, Bureau of Enginoeting. ASCE-Monuais and R<para on Engin<<ring Practice No.37, "Design and
Construction of Sanitary and Storm ScM:r." 1979.
l002100F.5EM
3126192
B-1
QUANTITY OF SANITARY SEWAGE
..,
... ~. 4
3 --'. 3
ctor
2--1 . - 2
I
;I
/
-zL,
----'_,_u.
I
-----
u
..
..
..
..
Q. -
::
.. 1
o
:g 0.8
~ .0.6
..
4.
--. 1
., ,io
V
/
/
0.04/
0.3
0.8 B
0.6 .~
~
0.4 ::;:
..
..
. 0.3 a..
1/
/
;I
V
/
or
0.2 ---- ....,.. - - - - -. 0.2
----
)
;.1
~
,-
0.1 "-~01
0.1 0.2 030." 0.60.8 1 .
Aver.&e tlow, in cu ft per see
,-
-=----
10
8
6
.. S
0
U "
~
oM:
.. 3
..
. a...
2
.- ,-
l/
/
/
;I
/
?-------
---
~_~dl~-
I
--==-.1- -'_ 1::t J -r- - -/- -
F;actor ---.1_
-- '--n-
1
1 2
6 8 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
Avefll',. tlow. in cu ft per see
Ratio o.f peak flow to avenge daily flow
(CCsX1.7=c:u m/min.)
1
400 600 1 000
3 '"
200
..
11..000
. 3000
2000
:' .
,-:
1000
800
600
500
400
300
200
u
..
...
;;
100 CI.
80' =:
:::J
..
60 .s
50 J
40 JtC
...
30 ..
a...
20
10
8
6
S
"
3
2
Figure B-1
SANITARY FLOW
PEAKiNG FACTORS VS.
DAILY FLOW CURVE
B-2
G2-6
December 1998
Criteriafor Sewage Works Design
should be based on planning projections derived from an official source. Any
deviations should be based on sound engineering judgment substantiated in the
engineering report.
Table G2-1. Design Basis for New Sewage Works
Flow
Flow. BOD 55 Duration
Discharge Facility Design Units (gpd) (Iblday) (Iblday) (hr)
Dwellings per person 100 0.2 0.2 24
Schools with showers and cafeteria per person 16 .04 .04 8
Schools without showers and with per person 10 .025 .025 8
cafeleria
Boarding schools per person 75 0.2 0.2 16
Motels at 65 gaVperson (rooms per room 130 0.26 0.25 24
only)
Trailer courts at 3 persons/traller per trailer 300 0.6 0.6 24
Restaurants per seat 50 0.2 0.2 16
Interstate or through-highway per seat 180 0.7 0.7 16
restaurants
Interstate rest areas per person 5 0..01 0.01 24
Service stations per vehicle serviced 10 0.01 0.Q1 16
Factories per person per 8-hr shift 15-35 0.03-0.07 0.03-0.07 Operating
period
Shopping centers . per 1,000 sq It ot ultimate 200-300 0.01 .' 0.01 12
floor space
Hospitals per bed 300 0.6 0.6 24
Nursing homes per bed 200 0.3 0.3 24
Homes for the aged per bed 100 0.2 0.2 24
Doctor's office in medical center per 1,000 sq ft 500 0.1 0.1 12
Laundromats, 9 to 12 machines per machine 500 0.3 0.3 16
Community colleges per student and faculty 15 0.03 .0.03 12
Swimming pools per swimmer 10 0.001 0.001 12
Theaters, drive-in type per car 5 0.01 0.01' 4
Theaters; auditorium type per seat 5 0.01 0.01 12
Picnic areas per person 5 0.01 0.01 12
Resort camps. day and night, with
limited plumbing per campsite 50 0.05 0.05 24
Luxury camps with flush toilets per campsite 100 0.1 0.1 24
"Includes normal infiltration
G2~1.3 In-Plant Piping and Channels
AIl piping and channels should be designed to carry the maximum expected flows. The
incoming sewer should be designed for free discharge. Bottom comers of the channels
should be filleted and pockets and corners where solids. can accumulate should be
eliminated. Isolation gates should be placed in channels to seal off unused sections where
sewage solids might accumulate.
CI-6
December 1998
Criteria/or Sewage Works Design
Cl-3.2.2 Collection Sewers
Collection sewers (that is, laterals and submains) shall be designed for the
':Jltimate development of the tributary areas.
"':;:,
Ii
Cl-3.2.3 Trunk and Interceptor Sewers
Selection of the design period for trunk and interceptor sewers should be based
on an evaluation of economic, functional, and other considerations. Some of
the factors that should be considered in the evaluation are:
.
Possible solids deposition, odor, and pipe corrosion that might occur at
initial flows.
Population and economic growth projections and the accuracy of the
projections.
Comparative costs of staged construction alternatives.
Effect of sewer sizing on land use and development.
.
.
.
i (
Cl-3.3 Design Basis
Sewer systems shall be designed on the basis of per capita flows forthe design period in
conjunction with a peaking factor, or approved alternative methods. Design calculations
for trunk and interceptor sewers shall be submitted to the local jurisdiction for approval.
Larger systems should have hydraulic modeling performed. Replacement mains or
rehabilitation of existing mains shall be designed on the basis of measured flows with
projections for the design period as applicable. Documentation shall be submitted for
approval of the authorized entity and/or Ecology. Documentation of the alternative
method shall be provided upon request.
Cl-3.3.1 Design for Average Daily Flow
Designing for average daily wastewater flows for new systems should be based
on per capita flows in Table G2-1. These figures are assumed to cover nonnal
infiltration, but an additional allowance should be made where conditions are
unfavorable. If there is an existing water system in the area, water
consumption figures can be, used to help substantiate the selected per capita
flow.
New sewer systems may be designed by methods other than on the basis of per
capita flow rates. Alternative methods may include the use of per capita flow
rates based on water consumption records, actual measured flows for the
agency,. or other methods. Documentation' of the alternative method used shall
be provided to Ecology for review and approval.
r
Cl-3.3.2 Peak Flow
Generally, the sewers shall be designed to carry at least the peak hourly flow
when operating at capacity. Peak hourly flow should be the design average
daily flow in conjunction with a peaking factor in
Figure C 1-1, Ratio of Peak Hourly Flow to Design Average Flow, which is
extracted from "Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities, 1990
Edition (10 States Standards)." The peaking factor shall not be less than 2.5.
An agency may use a local peaking factor curve, which is based upon actual
local flow data.'
Sewers
December 1998
Cl-7
Ratio of Q
peak hourly!
Q design
average
10.0 I
8.0 +
::~ . ===
::::________I
2.0 ----------
1.5 ~I_I~--I-I-L_L
-- -
-- -
-- -
-- -
-- -
-- -
-
-- ~:::: -
-- --
====I==[[[]-I___=
-
-- - - -
]1::
1.0
0.1
0.2
I '
0.3' 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 7.0 10.0
Population (in thousandS)
20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 70.0 100.0
LEGEND
Source:
Fair, G.M. and Gayer. J.e. Water
Supply and Wastewater Disposal,
FIrSt Ed.. John ~ and Sons, Inc.,
New York (1954). p. 136.
Q peak hourly
Q design average
Q peak hourly
Q design average
P
18 +V'P
4 +v'P
= Maximum rate of wastewater lIow (peak hourly flow)
= Design average daily wastewater flow .
Population in thousa~ds
Figure C1-1. Ratio of Peak Hourly Flow to Design Average Row
Cl-3.3.3 infIltrationlInflow
Use of the per capita flows (see Table G2-1) and the peaking factor (see
Cl-3.3.2) is intended to cover normal I1I for systems built with modem
construction techniques_ However, an additional allowance should be made for
I1I with existing conditions such as high ground water, older systems, or a
nwnber of illicit connections. III allowances for existing systems should be
made from actual flow data to the greatest extent possible.
Cl-3.4 Design Factors
The design engineer shall utilize current design criteria. At a minimum, the design of
gravity sanitary sewers will include the following:
Peak sewage flows from residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial
sources.
.
III.
.
Topography and depth of excavation.
Treatment plant location.
Soils conditions.
Flow impacts from upstream pump stations, if applicable.
.
../
"1
J
LJ
~
11
~
d
.~
I
u
,
d
I
I
j
Doendix
I j
o
Appendix D
Plant Capacity Rerating Study
CONI
P:\Bremerton\Comp PlanlAmendment\7PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005
City of Bremerton
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant
Rerating Study
DRAFT
Prepared for
City of Bremerton, Washington
Prepared by
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
July 2001
Bremerton WWTP
CERTIFICATE OF ENGINEER
This report was prepared under the supervision and direction of the undersigned, whose seal
as a licensed professional engineer is affixed below.
Camp Dresser & McKee. Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental. Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Summary ......................................... .......... .................................................... ES-1
Influent Load Characteristics....... ................................................................. ES-2
Unit Process Historical Performance ............................................................ ES-1
Capacity Evaluation................ .................................................. '.' ...... ........... ES-3
1
I
. I
SECTION 1 - INFLUENT LOAD CHARACTERISTICS
Introduction.............................. ....................... .......... ..... ................. ................ 1-1
Influent Wastewater Characteristics ..................... ......... ...................... ........... 1-1
Historical Wasteload Characteristics........................................................... 1-1
Influent Flow.......................... .................................................................... 1-1
Influent BOD and TSS.. ......................... ..... ............... ........................... ..... 1-2
Seasonal Influence On Flows and Loads .................................................... 1-4
Historical Flows and Loads ...................... ....... ........ ...... .................... ........... 1-5
Current Influent Flow Characteristics .... ........ ........ .... ................................... 1-6
Diurnal Flow Peaking.... ........................ ......... ........... ................................. 1-6
Current Influent BODs and TSS Characteristics .......................................... 1-7
Current Wastewater Characteristics............................................................ 1-9
SECTION 2 - OPERATIONAL HISTORY
Introduction............................. ........................................................................ 2-1
Primary Treatment Process Performance ...................................................... 2-1
Historical BOD5 and TSS Removals ........ ..... ............................................... 2-1
Overflow Rate.... .......... ................................................................................ 2-2
BODs Removal.................... ............................................. ............. ......... ..... 2-3
TSS Removal......................... ....... ........... ...................... .............................. 2-9'
Secondary Treatment Process Performance................................... .......... ..... 2-13
Aeration Basin Organic Loading .................................................................. 2-15
Food-to-Microorganism Ratio (F/M) ......... ....... ..... ... ..... ................... ............. 2-17
Secondary Clarifier Overflow Rate........ ............ ............. .............................. 2-19
Secondary Clarifier Solids Loading Rate ..................................................... 2-23
Plant Effluent Quality Evaluation.................................................................... 2-26
Plant Effluent Monthly Average Data Evaluation ......................................... 2-26
Plant Effluent Weekly Average Data Evaluation .......................................... 2-27
SECTION 3 - CAPACITY EVALUATION
Introduction. .............. .......... .... .......... ............... ............................................... 3-1
Discharge Requirements .......................... ................ ...... ..... ..-............. .., ........ 3-1
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
TOC 1 of4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 3 - CAPACITY EVALUATION (cont)
Current Wastewater Characteristics.... ......................................... .................. 3-1
Solids Balance.............:. ................................................................................. 3-2
Process Assumptions.................;..................................................... ...... ..... 3-2
System Reliability/Redundancy Requirements................. .............................. 3-4
Unit Process Capacity Analysis ..................... ........ .......... ....... ... ... ..... .... ..... .... 3-5
Screening..................................................................................................... 3-5
Grit Removal.................................................................. ................. ........ ..... 3-7
Primary Treatment.................... .................................................................... 3-7
Secondary Treatment.................................................................................. 3-8
Secondary Treatment Capacity Model...................................................... 3-8
Wastewater Characteristics............... ..................................................... 3-9
Model Kinetic Constants.................. ............. .......................................... 3-9
Clarifier Settling Model........................................................................... 3-10
Nitrification Safety Factor................. ....................................................... 3-10
Secondary Process Capacity Determination............................................. 3-11
Disinfection.................................................................................................. 3-12
Flotation Thickening......... ............ .............. ....... ............. .............................. 3-13
Gravity Thickening.................................................................. .... ........... ...... 3-13
Anaerobic Digestion......... ...... ...................................................................... 3-14
Treatment Plant Capacity....... ............................... ....... ..... ...... ... ..... .... ....... .... 3-14
SECTION 4 - WWTP RERATING
Introduction............................ ................................. ........................................ 4-1
DOE Rerating Procedure................................................................................ 4-1
Rerating Results ...... ............... ........ ......... ................. .......... ......... ................... 4-2
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
in Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
TOC2of4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
Table Number
, 1
,
I
. I
ES-1
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5
1-6
1-7
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-8
2-9
2-10
2-11
2-12
2-13
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
3-10
3-11
3-12
I
. !
Title
Unit Process Capacity
Influent Wasteload Characteristics Annual Averages
Historical Influent Flows and Loads
Influent Flow Characteristics
2000 Influent Diurnal Flow Statistics
Influent 80D5 Characteristics
Influent TSS Characteristics
Current Influent Wastewater Loads
1997 - 2000 Primary Clarifier Performance Statistics
Primary Clarifier Daily Average Overflow Rates
Annual Primary Clarifier BOD5 Removal
Primary Effluent BOD5 Summary
Annual Primary Clarifier TSS Removal
Primary Effluent TSS Summary
Aeration Basin Organic Loading
Aeration Basin F 1M Ratio
Secondary Clarifier Overflow Tate
Secondary Clarifier Solids Loading Rate
Plant Effluent Monthly Average BOD5
Plant Effluent Monthly Average TSS
Plant Effluent 7 -day Average BOD5 and TSS
Current NPDES Permit Limits
Solids Balance Model Performance Variables
Solids Balance Results at 1.0-mgd Influent Flow
Guidelines for Classifying Sewage Works
Reliability Classification - Unit Process Requirements
Electric Power System Reliability
Primary Treatment Re-rated Capacity
Assumed Wastewater Characteristics Used in Model
Kinetic Coefficients Used in Activated Sludge Model
Secondary Treatment Capacity Analysis Alternative Results
Disinfection Process Loading Characteristics
Unit Process Capacity Analysis
Paqe
ES-4
1-2
1-5
1-6
1-8
1-9
1-9
1-10
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-8
2-9
2-15
2-16
2-18
2-20
2-24
2-26
2-27
2-28
3-1
3-3
3-4
3-4
3-6
3-5
3-8
3-9
3-9
3-12
3-13
3-15
Camp Dresser & McKee, lne.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
TOC3of4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES I
. I
Fiqure Number Title Paqe i I
1-1 Average Annual Flow Rates 1-3
1-2 1994 - 2000 Annual Plant Flow vs. Annual Rainfall 1-3
1-3 Average Annual Influent BOOITSS Mass 1-4
1-4 2000 Influent Flow Evaluation 1-7
1-5 2000 Influent Flow Diurnal Pe.aking Factor 1-8
2-1 1997 - 2000 Primary Clarifier Overflow Rate 2-3
2-2 1997 - 2000 B005 Removal 2-4
2-3 1997 - 2000 Primary B005 Removal vs. Overflow Rate 2-5
2-4 1998 - 2000 Primary B005 Removal vs. Overflow Rate 2-6
2-5 1998 - 2000 Primary B005 Removal vs. Peak Day
Overflow Rate 2-6
2-6 1998 - 2000 Primary Effluent B005 vs. Overflow Rate 2-7
2-7 1997 - 2000 Primary Effluent B005 Concentration 2-8
2-8 1997 - 2000 TSS Removal 2-10
2-9 1997 - 2000 Primary TSS Removal vs. Overflow Rate 2-10
2-10 1998 - 2000 Primary TSS Removal vs. Overflow Rate 2-11
2-11 1998 - 2000 Primary TSS Removal vs. Peak Day Overflow
Rate. 2-11
2-12 1998 - 2000 Primary Effluent TSS vs. Overflow Rate 2-12
2-13 1998 - 2000 Primary Effluent B005 vs. TSS 2-13
2-14 1997 - 2000 Primary Effluent TSS 2-14
2-15 1998 - 2000 Primary Effluent TSS 2-14
2-16 1997 - 2000 Aeration Basin Organic Loading 2-16
2-17 1997 - 2000 AB Loading vs. Effluent B005 2-17
2-18 1997 - 2000 Aeration Basin F/M Ratio 2-18
2-19 1997 - 2000 Aeration Basin F/M Ratio vs. Effluent B005 2-19
2-20 1996 - 2000 Secondary Clarifier Overflow Rate 2-20
2-21 Secondary Clarifier Overflow Rate vs. Effluent TSS 2-21
2-22 1996 - 2000 Secondary Clarifier Peak Day OFR 2-22
2-23 Secondary Clarifier Peak Overflow Rate vs. Effluent TSS 2-22
2-24 1997 - 2000 Secondary Clarifier Solids Loading Rate 2-23
2-25 Secondary Clarifier Solids Loading Rate vs. Effluent TSS 2-25
2-26 Secondary Clarifier Peak Solids Loading Rate vs. Effluent
TSS
3-1 Secondary Clarifier Solids Loading Diagram 3-10
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
TOC4of4
/':
Bremerton WWTP
Executive Summary
SUMMARY
. .\
The City of Bremerton's Westside wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) was originally
designed for a maximum month flow rate of 10.I-mgd. The capacity of the treatment
plant is based on the characteristics of the flows and loads that it receives. The City's
treatment plant is unique in that it receives flows from the combined sewer system
resulting in increased wet weather flows and high peaking factors. This results in a more
dilute wastewater, which changes the capacity characteristics ofthe treatment plant.
~ I
~
\
, ,!
The treatment plant was designed for a maximum month influent flow of 10.I-mgd at a
BODs concentration of215 mg/L and a TSS concentration of268 mglL. These
wastewater concentrations are comparable to the concentrations received today at the
treatment plant during the dry season. The maximum month flow occurs during the wet
season. A detailed analysis of the plant flows and loads for the period between 1997-
2000 show that the BODs and TSS concentrations are 131 mgIL and 146 mgIL,
respectively, at the maximum month flow. Xherefore, the treatment plant needs to be
rerated to provide a plant capacity under the actual maximum month wastewater
characteristics.
" '-~
I
!
j
The Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) outlines in the Criteria for Sewage
Works Design (Orange Book) the requirements for re-rating a municipal wastewater
treatment plant. Section Gl-5.4.2.A defines.two methods for rerating a facility. These are
the Standard Facility Rerating and the Nonstandard Facility Rerating. The City desires to
rerate the treatment plant under the Standard Facility Rerating classification.
~
!
"
, ,
The capacity ofthe treatment plant is defined in the NPDES permit at a maximum month
flow of 1O.I-mgd. The actual capacity of the treatment plant is a maximum month
average daily flow of 14.1-mgd. The maximum daily primary clarifier overflow rate of
1400 gpd/:az limits the plant capacity. This value is higher than the Orange Book
standard of 1200 gpd/ft2, but was selected based on the historical performance of the
system.
Another critical design criterion that must be considered is the maximum hydraulic flow
that can be sent to the secondary process. The maximum daily secondary flow that can
be adequately treated is 22.8-mgd. This is based on the peak secondary clarifier overflow
rate of 1200 gpd/ft2. This criteria is based on the design standard specified in the Orange
Book and was confirmed with historical operating data. On each ofthe occurrences that
the permit limits were exceeded, this design criterion was also exceeded.
The treatment plant receives flows greater than 22.8-mgd as maximum daily flows and on
rare occasions as a daily average flow. During these periods, the influent wastewater is
dilute resulting in primary effluent BODs and TSS concentrations in the range of 50-75
mgIL. Forcing these high flows to the secondary system degrades the effluent quality by
flushing solids from the secondary clarifiers. The best alternative that will produce the
best effluent quality is to maximize the flow to the secondary system to 22.8-mgd and
blend the primary effluent flows greater than 22.8-mgd with the secondary effluent prior
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
ES-1
Bremerton WWTP
Executive Summary
to disinfection. The treatment plant currently has the capability to provide this blended
effluent. This process alternative will provide an effluent that will meet the effluent
discharge standards specified in the NPDES permit.
INFLUENT LOAD CHARACTERISTICS
An analysis ofthe influent flows and loads was performed for the period, 1987 - 2000.
The past four years of data, which is the period that the treatment plant has back been
under City operation, was determined to be the most representative of the influent flows
and loads of the service population. This data was analyzed to determine the current
system wastewater characteristics. The following conclusions were made:
· The influent wastewater is municipal in composition with the average dry weather
per-capita flow at 125 gal/capita/day. The average BODs load is at 0.20
lbs.lcapita/day and the average TSS load is at 0.20 lbs.lcapita/day.
. The maximum peaking factor experienced at the treatment plant exceeds 5.0,
which is over twice the typical value of2.38 for a city of this size. This is due to
the combined sewer system.
. The plant influent flow currently averages 6.50-mgd on an average annual basis.
The average dry season flow is 4.75-mgd and the average wet season flow is 7.71-
mgd. The maximum month flow from which the plant design is based is 11.3-
mgd, which is 112% of the maximum month design flow, however, the dry
weather flow is only 62% of the dry weather design flow. This difference is due
to the high flows that are received during rainfall events. In addition, the City's
combined sewer overflow (CSO) reduction program contributes significant flow
to the WWTP that was previously discharged.
. The plant influent BODs loading currently averages 7,638 lbs/day with a
maximum month loading of 8,936 lbs/day. The design average BODs load is
11,300 lbs.lday and the design maximum month is IS, 1 00 lbs.lday. The current
loads are 68% of the average load and 49% of the design maximum month load.
. The plant influent TSS loading currently averages 7600 lbs.lday with a maximum
month loading of 9424 lbs.lday. The design average TSS load is l1,300 lbs.lday
and the design maximum month is 22,600 lbs.lday. The current loads are 67% of
the average load and 42% of the design maximum month load.
This analysis shows that the treatment plant is at 68% of the design based on average
flows and loads. However, high flows created by the combined sewer system are
experienced at the treatment plant during rain events. These cause the current maximum
month design flow to be exceeded.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
ES-2
Bremerton WWTP
Executive Summary
I
, I
,
UNIT PROCESS HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE
The performance of the primary and secondary treatment processes and the quality of the
plant effluent for the years 1996 through 2000 were evaluated to determine the operating
characteristics of the system. This analysis consisted of a detailed evaluation of the
operating data for the primary and secondary treatment processes and the plant effluent.
Most of the emphasis on effluent quality and performance was given to the period of
1997 through 2000. This was the period of time when the plant has operated free of
significant recycle streams and the laboratory database was the most complete. The
following conclusions were made:
. Percent BODs and TSS removal is not a good design variable due to the
characteristics of the system. The influent concentrations become very dilute
during high flow periods resulting in low removal rates in the primary process.
The primary effluent concentrations tend to stay in the range of 50 - 75 mg/L
during high flow periods when the removal rates become very low.
. The aeration basins have performed well within the design organic loading rate of
120-1bs/day/1000 fe.
. The critical process parameter to the successful performance of the secondary
process has been the secondary clarifier overflow rate. The peak hydraulic
overflow rate of 1200 gpdlft? cannot be exceeded without a high probability of
loss of excess solids and poor effluent quality.
. The treatment plant has performed will over the past 5-years based on monthly
and weekly effluent BODs and TSS permit standards. There have been seven
times when permit standards have been exceeded: two for monthly TSS, two for
weekly BODs and three for weekly TSS. These exceedances have occurred
during three separate events. Each of these three events was caused by peak
flows greater than 22.8-mgd to the secondary process resulting in the flushing of
solids from the secondary process.
The performance of the treatment plant has continued to improve since the City began
operation of the treatment plant in 1996. This is due to the reduction of recycle streams,
improved maintenance of the facility and optimization of the unit processes based on
operational experience.
CAP ACITY EVALUATION
Each unit process in the treatment plant was evaluated to determine a dry season and a
wet season capacity. The unit process capacities have been summarized in Table ES-l.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Ine.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
ES-3
Bremerton WWTP Executive Summary
Table ES-1
City of Bremerton WWTP
Unit Proce is Capacity
Rated Capacity
Unit Process Maximum Month Limiting Units
Flow Condition
(mgd)
Screening 30 Screen Capacity mgd
Grit Removal 30 Hydraulic mgd
Capacity
Primary Treatment 14.1 Overflow Rate gpdlft2
Secondary 14.2 Overflow Rate gpd/fr
Treatment
Disinfection 30 Basin hrs
Detention Time
Gravity Thickening 15.2 Solids Ibs/day/fr
Loading
Flotation Thickening 16.7 Solids Ibs/day/fr
Loading
Anaerobic Digestion 14.9 Hydraulic days
Detention Time
The limiting dry season unit process is anaerobic digestion. This is based on the revised
hydraulic detention time standards that were implemented with the EP A 503 regulations
to ensure adequate pathogen kill for land application of the treated biosolids. This new
criteria is more stringent that the original design criteria.
The limiting wet season unit process is the primary treatment process at 14.1 mgd. This
process is limited based on the average day overflow rate. The rate specified in the
Orange Book is 1200 gpd/ft2, but a rate of 1400 gpd/ft2 was used for this evaluation. This
higher value is based on the historical performance of the primary clarifiers at these
higher overflow rates.
The design maximum month condition as specified in the NPDES permit is based on the
wet season design criteria. Therefore, the treatment plant should be rerated to a
maximum month capacity of 14.1-mgd.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
ES-4
Bremerton WWTP
Section 1 - Influent Load Characteristics
INTRODUCTION
> !
. ,
!
j
The City of the Bremerton took over operations of the treatment facility from a contract
operator in December 1995. Since that time, the City has optimized the operation of the
treatment plant to maximize the treatment capability during wet weather events. In
conjunction with the optimization of the treatment plant, the City has improved the capacity
of the pumping stations in an effort to minimize Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs). The
result ofthese efforts is a reduction in CSOs and an increase in the volume of water that is
pumped to the treatment plant for treatment.
\
!
i
, .J
In addition to the City's work to minimize CSOs, there has been a concerted effort to
minimize plant recycle streams. Prior to 1997, plant recycle streams contaminated the
influent sample as they were introduced before the influent sample was taken. Since that
time, the sample has become representative of the actual influent flows and loads due to the
reduction of in-plant recycle streams and the construction of a new headworks allowing for
an influent sample to be taken before the recycle streams are introduced into the plant flow.
This section summarizes the analysis of influent flows and loads that was performed.
I
I
, I
INFLUENT WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
I
I
I
. !
The influent wastewater can be characterized to many levels of detail. The parameters of
plant flow, BODs and TSS were used in this evaluation. Each ofthese variables has been
evaluated for the 14-year period between 1987 and 2000. A more detailed analysis has been
performed for the years 1997 through 2000, This was done because this data is most
representative ofthe actual wastewater characteristics because it is not contaminated by the
plant recycle streams.
Historical Wasteload Characterization
Plant records for each of the 14 years between 1987 and 2000 have been evaluated and the
results summarized for each of the three parameters. Table 1-1 summarizes the average
annual values for each of these parameters.
Influent Flow
Figure 1-1 shows the average annual daily flow for each of the 14 years. This plot shows
that the flow decreases from an average annual value of 7 .1-mgd in 1987 to between 5.2 and
5.9-mgd between the years of 1988 through 1994. The average annual flows then increased
to between 6.1 and 6.9-mgd for the years 1995 through 1999. The increased average annual
flow in these years is due to higher than normal rainfalls. The normal rainfall for the City of
Bremerton is 51.65 inches. The rainfall for these years was 55.57,54.44 and 58.93 inches,
respectively. The average annual flow dropped to 5 .15-mgd in the year 2000 when a dry
year was experienced with only 33.39 inches of annual rainfall.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 1-1
Bremerton WWTP
Section 1 - Influent Load Characteristics
Another factor that has contributed to higher flows to the treatment plant in the years
following 1997 is the improved pump station operation. Improved pump station operation
has allowed more flow to be pumped to the treatment plant during wet weather events
resulting in more wastewater being treated at the treatment plant and less flow escaping the
collection system through the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) outfalls.
Table 1-1
Bremerton WWTP
Influent Wasteload Characteristics
Annual Averages
Average BODs TSS
Annual Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave.
Flow Conc. Load Conc. Load
(mgd) (mg/L) (Ibs.lday) (mg/L)' (Ibs./day)
1987 7.1 176 9524 268 14712
1988 5:9 173 8350 211 10920
1989 5.4 325 13288 457 18986
1990 5.9 193 8865 332 16032
1991 5.7 248 11145 393 18179
1992 5.9 313 14920 427 20637
1993 5.2 241 10430 302 13413
1994 5.5 252 11243 342 15875
1995 6.6 328 17189 640 34543
1996 6.1 209 10598 291 15958
1997 6.8 150 7797 152 8156
1998 6.6 151 7400 168 8064
1999 6.9 158 7518 151 7868
2000 5.2 178 7266 171 7198
A plot of the annual rainfall to the average annual flow was generated and is shown in Figure
1-2. A regression analysis was performed on this data with the results showing an R2 value
of 0.94. This represents an excellent correlation between annual rainfall and plant flow.
Influent BODs and TSS
Figure 1-3 shows the average annual BOD5 and TSS mass load for each of the 14 years. This
plot shows that the average annual daily BOD5 mass load ranged from 8300 to 17,000
lbs.lday between 1988 and 1996. This plot also shows that the average annual daily TSS
mass load ranged from lO,900 to 34,500 lbs.lday over this same period of time. These high
loads were due to the contamination of the plant influent sample with recycle streams from
the gravity thickener, flotation thickener and other drains within the treatment plant. The
operations staffbegan to minimize the in-plant recycles in 1996 resulting in an influent
sample that was truly representative of the plant influent flow. The new headworks was also
constructed and placed in operations in 1996. This provided for the influent sampler to be
relocated to a point free from the effect of in-plant recycle streams. The new sample point
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 1- 2
Bremerton WWTP
Section 1 - Influent Load Characteristics
Figure 1-1
City of Bremerton WWTP
Average Annual Flow
7.5
70 --E
~
I'
6.5 -"~,,
I,~~
~
'6'
a
e ..
i i~
06.0,- :,
it
C
..
~ 5.5'-
a
l!!
~
5.0.
)-,.
~~ .
~.
1'1
4,5.
4.0 .
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991. 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Figure 1-2
City of Bremerton WWTP
1994 - 2000 Annual Plant Flow ys. Annual Rainfall
7.5
y = 0.0.726x + 2.59
R' = 0.9403
7.0 .
6.5
;g:
:i!
.5 6.0
Q!
..
"
c
~ 5.5
3
{?
5.0 .
4.5'
4.0 .
25
3Q
35
40 45 50
Average Annual Plant Flow (mgd)
55
60
65
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 1- 3
Bremerton WWTP
Section 1 - Influent Load Characteristics
Figure 1-3
City of Bremerton WWTP
Average Annual Influent BODITSS Mass
40000 .
11600 Mass
C1TSS Mass
35000 .
>:
..
~ 30000 .
~
Ul
Ul
a 25000 .
o
lD
'C:
~ 20000 .
~
..
~ 15000 .
..
~
r"_
10000.-
5000 ._-
o.
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
and the minimization of recycle steams provided for an accurate determination of influent
BODs and TSS measurements during the years of 1997 through 2000.
Seasonal Influence On Flows And Loads
These plots demonstrate that the loading data prior to 1997 is not useful for determining the
characteristics of the plant influent for the current service population. For this reason, only
the data collected during the years 1997 - 2000 was used to characterize the influent
wastewater in this study.
The plant influent flows and loads have been characterized as the waste stream enters the
treatment plant for each ofthe permitted seasons and on an annual basis. These conditions
are defined as:
. Average Annual - The annual average loading condition. The maximum month will
represent the maximum 30-day average load that would be experienced at the plant
during the year.
. Dry Season - The dry season is the period of time between May 1 and September 30
each year. This period represents lower flows resulting in a higher concentration of
BODs and TSS.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 1-4
Bremerton WWTP
Section 1 - Influent Load Characteristics
. Wet Season - The wet season is the period of time between October 1 and April 30
each year. This period represents higher flows due to increased infiltration and
inflow due to the combined ~ewers. The permit does not require the effluent discharge
requirement of85% removal during this period of time. This is due to the influence
of the combined sewers on plant flows and the dilution of the plant influent.
All of the flows and loads have been characterized for these conditions. The wastewater
character for each condition was used to determine the capacity of the treatment plant under
the specific loads.
Historical Flows and Loads
1
I
.. ,
The years of 1997 through 2000 is the only period oftime when the sampling of influent
wastewater is representative of the waste generated in the service area. Therefore, a detailed
analysis ofthe influent wastewater was performed for the years 1997 through 2000 on the
parameters ofinfluent flow, BODs and TSS. The year 1996 was not included in this analysis
because there were still higher loads early in the year as the recycle streams were still being
minimized and the headworks was not yet placed into operation. Table 1~2 shows a
summary of the flows and loads for 1996 and the following four years used for the analysis.
The results of this analysis were then analyzed with the representative populations to
determine capita flows and loads and peaking factors. The results of this analysis are
summarized in the following sections.
Table 1-2
City of Bremerton WWTP
Historical Influent Flows and Loads .
Process Flow (mgd) Biochemical Oxygen Demand Total Suspended Solids
Parameter Ave Max. Max. Average Max. Month Average Max. Month
Day Month Day (lbs.) (mg/L) (lbs.) (mg/L) (Ibs.) (mg/L) (Ibs.) (mg/L)
Design 7.6 10.1 29.5 11300 178 18100 215 11300 178 22600 268
1996 6.39 9.85 30.20 10274 206 20523 318 15038 282 53415 857
1997 6.80 10.24 29.30 7797 150 9256 232 8156 152 9511 214
1998 6.61 12.22 28.68 7400 151 8517 191 8064 168 9882 238
1999 6.93 14.04 28.32 7518 158 9307 227 7868 151 9235 218
2000 5.15 7.92 16.48 7266 178 8054 217 7198 171 8484 199
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 1. 5
Bremerton WWTP
Section 1 - Influent Load Characteristics
Current Influent Flow Characterization
The plant influent flow was characterized on a "per-capita" basis for each of the years. The
population figures for the City ofBremerton for the years 1997 through 2000 were obtained
from the State of Washington Office of Financial Management. The "per-capita" flo~ is
determined by taking the average day flow for the calendar year and dividing it by the
population for the year. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 1-3 for the four years
1997 through 2000.
Flow peaking characteristics were evaluated for the plant influent flow for the four-year
study period. For each year, the average, maximum month, maximum week and maximum
day flows were identified. The peaking factor for each of these periods was then determined
by dividing the respective flow by the average flow for the year. These peaking factors were
then averaged for the study period to determine the characteristic peaking factor. The result
of this analysis is also shown in Table 1-3.
Average Annual
Summer Season
Winter Season
Max. Day
4.31
2.21
5.46
Period
Table 1-3
City of Bremerton WWfP
Influent Flow Characteristics
gallons Peaking Factors
per capita Max. Month Max. Week
171 1.73 2.43
125 1.20 1.29
203 2.38 3.33
The results of this analysis are characteristic of treatment plant flows for Northwest cities
located on the west side of the Cascades. The winter season flows are higher than the
summer season flows due to rainfall derived infiltration and inflow (RDll). Summer season
'per-capita" flows typically range from 80 to 130 gal/capita/day. The summer season value
of 125 gal/capita/day is on the high end of this range. This should be expected of the .
Bremerton system due to the potential influence of infiltration in the lines located in the tidal
areas and the influence on flows by the Navy.
Even with these typical results, additional analysis should be done prior to using these
numbers in planning to verify the characteristics of the service population. Modeling the
collection system to confIrm the maximum day and to determine the peak hour flows should
be done to ensure that limitations ofthe collection system are considered in the analysis.
Diurnal Flow Peaking
An important characteristic that must be considered when evaluating the treatment facility is
the diurnal peaking factor. The flows to the treatment plant will increase quickly during a
rainfall event due to the nature of the combined sewer system. The diurnal peaking factor is
calculated by dividing the average daily flow into the maximum daily flow. Figure 1-4 is a
plot of the average daily flow and the maximum daily flow for the year 2000. This plot
shows how the maximum daily flows vary greatly in relation to the average daily flow.
Camp Dresser & McKee. Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental. Inc.
Page 1- 6
Bremerton WWTP
Section 1 - Influent Load Characteristics
-Average Dally Flow
- Max Daily Flow
Figure 1-4
City of Bremerton WWTP
2000 Influent Flow Evaluation
35
. ~
I
11
'. t
~ ~'
30. IJ_
25. -'-r--- I!.-J'~I_
, ,I 1 ~I II
.[20.' I II~:] i' , ,,-- .]il
~ II i I I ! I
LJ. ' I I i
C ! J " , I i I
,"[HJr -4-,-, I JJ~,:
o
1/1
211
311
4/1
5/1
6/1
711
Date
811
9/1
1011
1111
1211
The diurnal peaking factor was calculated for each day. A statistical analysis ofthe year
2000 flow data was performed with the results shown in Table 1-4. A trend plot of these
values is shown in Figure 1-5. The average diurnal peaking factor for the year 2000 was 1.87
with the maximum peaking factor being 5.23. A typical peaking factor for a system of this
size (DOE Orange Book Figure C1-1) is 2.38. This is not to be used as an average value but
as the peak value in design. This typical daily diurnal peaking factor is exceeded 15% of the
time C85-Percentile). The treatment plant must be designed to handle peaking factors of this
magnitude and this peaking factor must be considered when determining the plant capacity.
I
Another variable that must be considered is the minimum diurnal flow that the treatment
plant receives. This is important in the sizing of pumps and other equipment that must
provide adequate flow rates and chemical feed rates during low flow periods. The average
diurnal minimum flow factor is 0.38.
. Current Influent BODs and TSS Characteristics
The influent BODs "per-capita" load and peaking factors were determined using the BODs
evaluations for the years of 1997 through 2000. The BODs loads for 1996 were not used
because they are abnormally high due to the effect of in-plant recycle streams in early 1996.
The "per-capita" load is determined by dividing the populations for the respective year into
the average BODs mass load. The analysis provided an average annual "per-capita" BODs
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 1- 7
Bremerton WWTP
Section 1 - Influent Load Characteristics
Statistic
Max
Min
Ave
2 Percentile
8 Percentile
10 Percentile
25 Percentile
Median
75 Percentile
90 Percentile
92 Percentile
98 Percentile
Table 1-4
City of Bremerton WWTP
2000 Influent Diurnal Flow Statistics
Ave Maximum Minimum
Daily. Daily Daily
Flow Flow Flow
(mgd) (mgd) (mgd)
Daily
Max Flow
PF
Daily
Min Flow
PF
16.48 32.50 6.10
2.83 3.50 0.10
5.15 9.91 2.02
3.68 4.83 1.10
3.86 5.90 1.30
3.90 6.05 1.40
4.13 6.70 1.60
4.57 7.60 1.80
5.49 10.68 2.20
7.02 17.90 3.00
7.45
9.55
5.23 0.64
0.91 0.01
1.87 0.23
1.11 0.07
1.36 0.11
1.40 0.12
1.53 0.19
1.68 0.23
1.92 0.27
2.71 0.31
2.85 0.32
3.81 0.38
19.66
28.54
3.20
4.27
6
Figure 1.5
City of Bremerton
2000 Influent Flow Diurnal Peaking Factor
5.
~ ' ,
, i I i
... 4.
,S
u
..
II.
'"
C
:;;;
..
..
Go
iii
E
::I
is
o ,
1/1/00 2/1/00 3/1/00 4/1/00 5/1/00 6/1/00 7/1/00 8/1/00 9/1/00 10/1/00 11/1/00 12/1/00
Date
Camp Dresser & McKee, rnc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 1- 8
Bremerton WWTP
Section 1 - Influent Load Characteristics
load of 0.201lbs./day of BODs. This is a very typical value for treatment plants. This value
typically ranges from 0.18 to 0.22lbs./capitalday depending on the demographics of the area.
BODs peaking characteristics were also evaluated for the plant influent BODs mass load for
the years of 1997 through 2000. For each year, the average, maximum month, maximum
week and maximum day loads were identified. The peaking factor for each of these years
was then determined by dividing the respective BODs load by the average BODs load for the
year. These peaking factors were then averaged for the study period to determine the
characteristic peaking factor. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 1-5.
Period
Table 1-5
City of Bremerton WWTP
Influent BOD5 Characteristics
Pounds Peaking Factors
per capita Max. Month Max. Week
0.201 1.17 1.44
0.201 1.16 1.38
0.200 1.11 1.38 .
Max. Day
1.93
1.68
1.83
'1
I
i
Average Annual
Summer Season
Winter Season
The influent TSS "per-capita" loads and peaking factors were determined using the same
methodology that was used to determine the BODs characteristics. The result of this analysis
is shown in Table 1-6. The TSS "per-capita" load is 0.200 lbs./capitalday on an average
annual basis. This is also typical of a municipal wastewater treatment plant.
Average Annual
Summer Season
Winter Season
0.200
0.196
0.203
Table 1-6
City of Bremerton WWTP
Influent TSS Characteristics
Peaking Factors
Max.
Week
1.75
1.61
1.68
Max.
Month
1.24
1.21
1.22
Max.
Day
3.12
2.60
2.95
Period
Pounds
per capita
Current Wastewater Characteristics
The current wastewater characteristics were determined by taking the current "per-capita"
flows, loads and peaking factors and applying them to a population of 38,000. This
population was based on an estimated 2% growth rate for the year 2001. The year 2000
population was based on the 2000 Census data for the City of Bremerton of 37,259.
Applying the estimated 2001 population to the calculated wastewater characteristics resulted
in the flows and loads shown in Table 1-7. These are the wastewater concentrations that will
be used to determine the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 1- 9
Chapt<l' 1- lolluent l-oad Charaote'tstiCS
aremerton WWlP
--
-
curreot \0\\\.1"'''- \Naste""p...-- __ s 1ota\ Susoeoded sonds
f\oVol (mgd) 6iOChefl\ica\ Oll,,(len oefl\and jlNera(le Mall. Month"
process Ave Max. MaX, Iweraae Mall. Month" (lbs:) (~) -(lbsI (fl\alL)
(Ibs.) -(fl\(l/L) (Ibs.) (fl\(l/I..)
parameter oa'} Month oa'} 178 22600 268
29.5 11300 178 18100 215 11300
oes\gn 7,6 10.1
'\65 7600 140 9424 174
J\\Jerage 6.50 '\ 1.3 25.9 7638 '\41 8936
J\nnua\ 224 7448 188 90'\2 227
Ory 4.75 5.7 10.5 7638 '\93 8860
season '\3'\ 771.4 120 941.1. '\46
Wet 7.71 1'\ .3 25.9 7600 ,\'\8 8436
se~ ----
1ab\e ,,\.7
Lnad
** Based on popu\ation oi 38,000
page ,\_'\0
camP oresser 8. tv\cKee, inC.
. _ """,,,ociation v.rit\l Ricnv.rine En"ironmentai, inc.
Bremerton WWTP
Section 2 - Operational History
INTRODUCTION
The performance of the primary and secondary treatment processes and the quality ofthe
plant effluent for the years 1996 through 2000 were evaluated to determine the operating
characteristics of the system. This analysis consisted of a detailed evaluation of the operating
data for the primary and secondary treatment processes and the plant effluent. Most of the
emphasis on effluent quality and performance should be given to the period of 1997 through
2000. This was the period of time when the plant has operated free of recycle streams and
the laboratory database was the most complete. Performance data from 1997 was included to
show the improvements in plant performance that have occurred with the removal of the
recycle streams.
PRIMARY TREATMENT PROCESS PERFORMANCE
An evaluation of the historical performance of the primary treatment process was done to
determine performance criteria to evaluate the solids handling and secondary treatment
processes. This evaluation provides the basis for determining the effluent quality that can be
expected from this process under varying hydraulic loading conditions. The evaluation of
historical performance is discussed in the following sections.
Historical BODs And TSS Removals
The removal rates for BODs and TSS for the four-year study period are shown in Table 2-1.
This table shows that these removals occurred at average day overflow rates ranging from
281 to 2915 gpd/fe. Typical average day design values for primary treatment overflow rates
range from 900 to 1200 gpd/ft2 with a peak overflow rate between 2000 and 3000 gpd/ft2,
depending on the flow characteristics. This system was designed for a daily overflow rate of
1140 gpd/ft2 and a peak overflow rate of3310 gpdlft2 at peak flow.
BODs removal rates in primary treatment typically range from 25 to 40 % removal,
depending on the type of waste. This system was designed for an average BODs removal
rate of 30%. The average percent BODs removal for the study period was 23%, with the
median BODs removal rate of30%. The BODs removal was 28% or better 60% of the time.
This is on the lower end ofthe typical range. This is most likely due to the relatively high
concentration of soluble BODs (SBODs) entering the treatment plant. One of the factors
contributing to the high SBODs is the septicity that occurs in the collection system during the
low flow periods.
Another factor that is unique to this treatment plant is that the BODs removal rates are
negative over 10% of the time. A closer evaluation showed that this occurs during high flow
periods when the influent BODs concentration is very dilute. There may also be some
flushing of solids from the clarifiers during high flows.
BODs removal rates in the primary process that are lower than design will have an effect on
the capacity of the secondary process. Careful consideration will need to be given to the
primary effluent BODs and TSS loads during the secondary process analysis.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 2-1
Bremerton WWTP
Section 2 - Operational History
Table 2-1
City of Bremerton WWTP
1997 - 2000 Primary Clarifier Performance Statistics
Overflow BOD TSS
Statistic Flow Rate Influent Effluent Removal Influent
(mgd) Effluent Removal
(g pd/ft2) (mg/L) (mg/L) (%) (mg/L) (mg/L) (%)
Max 29.30 2915 377 396 71% 566 903 86%
Min 2.83 281 26 27 -189% 30 36 -728%
Average 6.37 634 159 118 23% 162 87 40%
Count 1461 1461 635 603 603 1093 1050 1046
10 Percentile 4.10 408 88 70 -10% 95 59 6%
25 Percentile 4.43 441 123 85 19% 128 67 38%
40 Percentile 4.79 477 153 102 28% 151 73 48%
Median 5.13 510 166 111 30% 166 77 52%
60 Percentile 5.67 564 179 119 33% 176 81 55%
75 Percentile 6.82 679 195 140 38% 191 88 60%
90 Percentile 9.95 990 217 174 44% 213 106 65%
TSS removal rates typically range from 50 to 65% removal. The average percent TSS
removal for the study period was 40% with the median removal rate at 52%. The system was
designed with a TSS removal rate of 60%. The removal rates are less than 38% over 25% of
the time. This is also lower than expected. This is most likely due to the high overflow rates
that are being experienced during rainfall events and the dilute flows that are received during
wet weather periods.
The historical BODs and TSS removal rates are lower than design. For this reason, the
operating data was evaluated in more detail to determine if the reason for the low removal
rates could be identified. This evaluation is discussed in the following sections.
Overflow Rate
A statistical analysis of the average day overflow rate for the primary clarifiers was
calculated for each year of the study period. These results are shown in Table 2-2. Figure 2-
1 shows a trend plot of the daily average overflow rates. This analysis shows that the
overflow rates have been less than 1200 gpd/ft2 over 90% of the time for each of the four
years. The average overflow rate has been less than 700 gpd/ft2 and the median overflow
rate less than 600 gpd/ff for each of the years. This analysis shows that the low removal
rates are not due to high overflow rates; though low removals may be a problem when high
flows do occur.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 2-2
Bremerton WWTP Section 2 - Operational History
1
!
i
i.
Table 2.2
I City of Bremerton WWTP
, j Primary Clarifier Daily Average Overflow Rates
Statistic 1997 1998 1999 2000 All
Data
Max 2915 2853 2817 1639 2915
Min 383 321 318 281 281
Average 677 658 690 512 634
10 Percentile 450 418 407 388 408
25 Percentile 483 442 441 411 441
40 Percentile 537 467 491 438 477
Median 567 500 537 455 510
60 Percentile 611 572 589 489 564
,J 90 Percentile 710 724 745 546 679
90 Percentile 1005 1105 1246 698 990
, ~
i
v
Figure 2-1
City of Bremerton WWTP
1997 - 2000 Primary Clarifier Overflow Rate
. I
, j
3500
3000 .
i
1
- j
2S00 .-
~
l I
~ 2000.-
i . t
~15a0'-- --- '---f.
~ I I I I
~ : I ," I
o ':~J~~I~l~~~~ ll~ f~,
I
n
!
~!
O.
Jan-97
Jul-97
Jan-98
Jul-98
Jan-99
Date
Jul-99
Jan-OO
Jul-OO
BODs Removal
The BODs removal rates were evaluated for each year of the study period. The statistical
results ofthis evaluation are shown in Table 2-3. Figure 2-2 shows a trend plot of this data
for the study period and Figure 2-3 shows a scatter plot of BODs removal vs. overflow rate
for the four-year study period.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 2-3
Bremerton WWTP
Section 2 - Operational History
Table 2-3
City of Bremerton WWTP
Annual Primary Clarifier BODs Removal
1997 1998 1999 2000
Statistic
Max
Min
Average
Median
Count
55% 67% 71%
-189% -113% -68%
3% 31% 24%
20% 37% 30%
138 154 156
-51% 10% -2%
-11% 29% 18%
9% 35% 26%
20% 37% 30%
27% 39% 32%
31% 41% 35%
36% 46% 41%
10 Percentile
25 Percentile
40 Percentile
50 Percentile
60 Percentile
75 Percentile
90 Percentile
All
Data
54% 71%
-68% -189%
30% 23%
31% 30%
155 603
17% -10%
25% 19%
30% 28%
31% 30%
33% 33%
39% 38%
45% 44%
- % BOD Removal
-10dayave
Figure 2-2
City of Bremerton WWTP
1997 - 2000 BODs Removal
100% .
50% .
0% .
ii
>
o
e
OJ
II: -50%.----
c
o
III
....
-100%'-
-150% .
-200% .
Jan-97
Jan-98
J ul-98
Jan-99
Date
Jul-99
Jan-OO
Jul-OO
Jul-97
Camp Dresser & McKee, inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 2-4
Bremerton WWTP
Section 2 - Operational History
1 ;
~
. I
Figure 2-3
City of Bremerton WWTP
1997 - 2000 Primary BODs Removal vs. Overflow Rate
I
I
, t
80%
.
. .
60% .
.
.
.- J
1
40% .
ii 20%'
>
o
e
..
a: 0%'
Q
o
a:I
:.l!
. -20%'
.
.
.
. . ..
.. . .
... .
.
. .
.
.
. .
.
. ..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. .
.
.
-40% .
.
.
.
I
"
I
, I
. .
..
.
-60% .
.
..
.
...
-80% .
o
500
1000
1500 2000
Overflow Rate (gpd/ft2)
2500
3000
3500
. l
I
I
The plot in Figure 2-2 shows that the BODs removal rates were poor in 1997, but has
continued to improve with each year of operation. There are two factors that account for the
improved removal rates since 1997. First there were periods oftime when the clarifiers were
down for maintenance and coating of the mechanisms. Second, the operation staffstopped
using the gravity thickener and began in-tank thickening of the primary sludge. This has
resulted in the pwnping of thickened sludge directly from the primary tanks to the digesters.
The trend plot in Figure 2-2 shows that the BODs removal rates in 1997 were much lower
than the following years. Because of this, the 1997 data was removed from the plot in Figure
2-3 with a new plot of the 1998 - 2000 data created and shown in Figure 2-4. This plot
shows a much better trend of degrading BODs removals with increased overflow rates.
There are still some periods when poor BODs removal rates occur at low overflow rates.
A third scatter plot was developed plotting the 1998 - 2000 data for BODs removal vs. peak
day overflow rate. This plot is shown in Figure 2-5. This plot shows that the peak day
overflow rate is not the reason for the low BODs removal rates at low flows. An explanation
of this may be due to the septicity that occurs in the collection system creating additional
SBODs during low flow periods that cannot be removed in the primary clarifiers.
The evaluation of performance based on removal rates can be distorted when the influent
concentrations become low due to the dilution of the waste. It is a basis understanding that
the removal rates in the primary process will become lower when the influent concentrations
become lower. For this reason, it is important to evaluate and determine the effluent
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 2.5
Bremerton WWTP
Section 2 - Operational History
60%
Figure 2-4
City of Bremerton WWTP
1998.2000 Primary BODs Removal vs. Overflow Rate
.
.
60% .
40% .
20% . .
iU
>
0
E
&! 0% .
c
0
III
~ ~20% . .
.
.
.
-40% .
-60% .
..
-80% .
0 500
.
.
.
. .
. .. .
. .
. .
. . . .
'" . .
. .
. . .
.
.
.
.
.
1000 1500 2000
Overflow Rate (gpd/ft2)
3000
.
2500
80%
Figure 2-5
City of Bremerton WWTP
1998.2000 Primary BODs Removal VS. Peak Day Overflow Rate
60% .
.
.
.
. . .
. . . ~ .
.
. . .
.. . . . .. . :*
. - . . ... . .
.. .
. . . . .
.
. . .
. . . ..
. . . .
.
. . .
. .. '" . ~
. . .
. . .
. . .
. .
.
. ~
. .
.
..
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Overflow Rate (gpd/ft2)
40% .
iU 20%. -.
>
o
E
..
IZ: 0%.
c
o
III
i1- -20%.
-40% .
-60% .
-80% .
o
Camp Dresser & McKee, fnc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 2-6
Bremerton WWTP
Section 2 - Operational History
I
.,
concentrations that will be observed at higher overflow rates. Figure 2-6 was developed to
evaluate the actual effluent quality to be expected at various overflow rates. This plot shows
the primary effluent BODs vs. the average day overflow rate for the years 1998 - 2000. The
plot shows that with the exception of two days, the primary effluent BODs concentration is
less than 100 mglL at overflow rates greater than 1000 gpdlff.
-[
I
I
Figure 2.6
City of Bremerton WWTP
1998 .2000 Primary Effluent BODs vs. Overflow Rate
350
300 .
.
1
!
; I
:; 250 .
a
.s.
Q
0200 .
III
~
..
"
ffi 150.
?:
]
a: 100.
t
.
..
.. ..
.~~
. .
. .\ ~: : . .
.~. ~~~ ..-
.. .~ :.. ~~... .... . ..... .
~ ..... ... .
.
.
.
.
. .
.
: . . .
. .
.
l
I
50
o.
o
500
1000
1500
Overflow Rate (gpdlfl2)
2000
2500
3000
It is necessary to determine a primary effluent BODs concentration to be used in the
modeling ofthe secondary treatment process. As shown in Figure 2-7, the primary effluent
BODs concentration varies seasonally based on the plant influent flow and primary clarifier
performance. A statistical analysis of the primary effluent BODs concentrations was
performed for each of the four years of the study period with the results summarized in Table
2-4. These results are provided for both the dry season and the wet season. This was done so
that the secondary system can be modeled and a capacity determined for each of the seasonal
operating conditions.
An average BODs removal rate of 30% will be used in the solids balance to determine sludge
production rates. This value was selected because it was equal to the median BODs removal
rate for the past two years and the average BODs removal rate for the year 2000.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 2-7
Bremerton WWTP
Section 2 - Operational History
Figure 2.7
City of Bremerton WWTP
1997 . 2000 Primary Effluent BODs Concentration
450 .
400 .
350 .
::r
a. 300,
g
c
@ 250.
C
..
:::I
15 200.-.
w
~
.~. 150.
It
100'~.
I
:lfJildjl'
~
50.
0.,
. Jan-97
Jul-97
Jan-98
Jul-98
Jan-99
Dale
Jul-99
Jan-DO
Jul-OO
Table 2-4
City of Bremerton WWTP
Primary Effluent BODs Summary
Primary Effluent BODs
Year Cone 'mg/L) Mass (I ls/day)
Ave Max Me Ave Max Me
1997
Dry 202 256 7692 10138
Wet 102 185 5901 10865
1998
Dry 109 123 4154 5188
Wet 84 114 4883 8640
1999
Dry 144 201 5609 7249
Wet 81 172 5058 6638
2000
Dry 149 174 5282 6655
Wet 106 160 4541 5420
Camp Dresser & McKee, inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 2-8
Bremerton WWTP
Section 2 - Operational History
: I
I
I
i
TSS Removal
-1
I
The TSS removal rates were evaluated for each of the years between 1997 and 2000. The
methodology that was used to perform this evaluation was the same as that used in the BODs
evaluation. The statistical results of this evaluation are shown in Table 2-5. Figure 2-8
shows a trend plot and Figure 2-9 shows a scatter plot ofTSS removal vs. overflow rate for
the four-year study period.
Statistic
Table 2.5
City of Bremerton WWTP
Annual. Primary Cia 'ifier TSS Removal
1997 1998 1999 2000
All
Data
I
I
J
Max 72% 86% 82% 82% 86%
Min -728% -100% .349% -25% -728%
Average -6% 47% 40% 55% 40%
Median 30% 54% 50% 58% 52%
Count 147 331 293 I 275 1046
10 Percentile -120% 19% 4% 39% 6%
25 Percentile -17% 44% 35% 50% 38%
40 Percentile 20% 52% 46% 55% 48%
50 Percentile 30% 54% 50% 58% 52%
60 Percentile 37% 57% 52% 60% 55%
75 Percentile 46% 61% 57% 62% 60%
90 Percentile 55% 65% 63% 68% 65%
I
, j
'i
1
i
!
The TSS removal rates were poor in 1997, but have continued to improve with each year of
operation, as did the BODs removal rates. The 1997 data was removed from the plot shown
in Figure 2-9 with the new plot for the 1998 - 2000 data created and shown in Figure 2-10.
This plot shows the trend of degrading TSS removals with increased overflow rates.
;
(,
I
, J
There are a few days when the TSS removal rates still occur at low overflow rates.
Therefore, a third scatter plot was developed plotting the 1998 - 2000 data for TSS removal
vs. peak day overflow rate. This plot is shown in Figure 2-11. This plot clearly shows the
loss of performance with increased overflow rates.
Due to the distortion that occurs in the TSS removal rates when the influent concentrations
become low due to the dilution of the waste, a scatter plot of effluentTSS concentration vs.
overflow rate was developed. This plot is shown in Figure 2-12. This plot shows the data for
the years 1998 - 2000.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmenta', Inc.
Page 2-9
Bremerton WWTP
Section 2 - Operational History
- % TSS Removal
-10-day Ave
Figure 2-8
City of Bremerton WWTP
1997 - 2000 TSS Removal
100%
I --
I,
iii -100% . .'- -.I~ -
>
0
E
&! -150%' r--. 1-
en
en
....
"a'I- -200% .
-250% .
-300% .
-350% .
-400% .
Jan-97 Jul-97 Jan-98 Jul-98 Jan-99 Jul-99 Jan-OO JuJ-OO
Date
Figure 2-9
City of Bremerton WWTP
1997 - 2000 Primary TSS Removal vs. Overflow Rate
100% -
50%
0%
c;
€i
E
&! -50% .
en
~
it
-100%
-150%
-200%
0
..~. .... .. .. .
. .....
.... . .
.. ~,. .
,... w. ....t ....
. #l'." .: ~ .....
· .. · It"t ·
... . . ,. +1#...,.
... \<P .. ...
. ... +.. .. .
~. .
.
..
.
.
.
,
.
.. . .
.
. . ..
. \
. ~~ .
. .
...
..
.
.
. .
. .
.
.
.
..
1500
Overflow Rate (gpd/ft2)
2000
2500
3000
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 2.10
Bremerton WWTP
Section 2 - Operational History
1
\ 100% .
,
I
50% .
0%.
jij
>
~
~ -50% .
en
en
I-
~
.100% .
-150% .
-200% "
0
- )
Figure 2-10
City of Bremerton WWTP
1998 - 2000 Primary TSS Removal vs. Overflow Rate
..". . .. .
. ,..
.. .. .....~~.~~..,.... . .
... ~... ........
.. · t .., ...
. . t.. .....
. ...
. ... .. .
.
.
.
.
. .
. .. .. .
. ..
. .- .
. .
.
..
.
. .
. .
.
.
500
1000
1500 2000
Overflow Rate (gpdlft2)
2500
3000
3500
Figure 2-11
City of Bremerton WWTP
1998 - 2000 Primary TSS Removal vs. Peak Day Overflow Rate
100% -
50% .
0%
~
0
E
~ -50%
en
f!!
~
-100%
-150%
-2000/0 .
o.
... t ....
..~... ".. ~ .
i$. - ~~..".. ~t. . · 1t. . .. ;;.. . . . ·
" .. ... ..., .. .... .. t" ...
.. ... -.I. . .:. · ....~ ...
.. t1.. f.. ....". . ... .... 0.... .,. ,
. .-. ........ ... . ...... ~I
.. . . . ". .. . ... . .. .. ..: --
. . .
. .... .
.. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
500
1000
1500 2000
Overflow Rats (gpd/ft2)
2500
3000
3500
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 2.11
Bremerton WWTP
Section 2 - Operational History
Figure 2-12
City of Bremerton WWTP
1998 - 2000 Primary Effluent TSS V5. Overflow Rate
300.
250 -
.
;;r
CI 200 .
.s.
III
~
'5 150.
=
ffi
~
..
e 100.
;t
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t .
. .. .
.. 1
~. .. # ft.~
..... ..
~ ..~.. ~
,:iI*. ~. ... .
.
. .
.
.
... .
. . ~
..
.
.
.
50.
..
. ... ..
500
1000
1500 2000
Overflow Rate (gpdlft2)
2500
3000
3500
o.
o
The plot is not as defInitive as the similar plot for the primary effluent BODs concentration
was. This plot does show that the primary effluent TSS is typically between 50 and 100
mglL no matter what the overflow rate is.
A scatter plot of the primary effluent BODs vs. the primary effluent TSS concentrations for
the years 1998 - 2000 was created to determine ifthere was some type of correlation. This
plot is shown in Figure 2-13. This plot shows an interesting correlation between primary
effluent BODs and TSS. It appears from this analysis that the higher primary effluent BODs
does not directly correlate with high TSS concentrations. There are many days where
effluent BODs has exceeded 150 mglL. These appear to occur during periods when the flows
and overflow rates are low, typically at overflow rates less than 500 gpd/fe, as shown in
Figure 2-6. This shows septicity that occurS in the system at low flows will affect the
primary BODs removal, but does not appear to have an affect on the TSS removal. The most
probable cause for this is the solublization of BODs.
A trend plot of the primary effluent TSS for the study period of 1997 - 2000 was created and
is shown in Figure 2-14. This plot shows the poor removals that occurred during the summer
and fall of 1997. A second plot was developed for the period of 1998 - 2000 so that the
variability in the data could be evaluated. This plot is shown in Figure 2-15.
Camp Dresser I{ McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 2-12
Bremerton WWTP
Section 2 - Operational History
1
I 200.
I
1
;
1ao
C-] 160.
!
!
:::/,140
t
Vi 120
l!.!
~
c 100
"
"
~
r:- ao
~
..
a. 60
. .
40
20.
0-
a
Figure 2-13
City of Bremerton WWTP
1998.2000 Primary Effluent BOD5 V5. TSS
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
50
100 150 200
Primary Effluent BOO (mglL)
250
300
i
,1
The primary effluent TSS concentration varies seasonally based on the plant influent flow
and primary clarifier performance. A statistical analysis of the primary effluent TSS
concentrations was performed for each of the four years ofthe study period with the results
summarized in Table 2-6. These results are provided for both the dry season and the wet
season. This was done so that the secondary system can be modeled and a capacity
determined for each of the seasonal operating conditions.
't
.,' ~
An average TSS removal rate of 55% will be used in the solids balance to determine sludge
production rates. This value was selected because it was equal to the average TSS removal
rate for the year 2000 and is at the median removal rate for the year 1998.
SECONDARY TREATMENT PROCESS PERFORMANCE
J
: I
An analysis of aeration basin and clarifier loadings for the four-year study period was
performed to develop some guidance for determining the capacity of the secondary system.
The biotower is not being operated at this time so all of the treatment is being performed in
the activated sludge process. This provides an opportunity to look closely at the capability of
this critical part ofthe secondary treatment plant.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 2.13
Bremerton WWTP
Section 2 - Operational History
Figure 2-14
City of Bremerton WWTP
1997 - 2000 Primary Effluent TSS
1000
900.
800.
, I
::i 700.
l
<II 600
f!!
400.
500.
100'~
'-~~~,~
O'
Jan-97
Jul-97
Jan-98
Jul-98
Jan-99
Data
Jul-99
Jan-OO
Jul-OO
Figure 2-15
City of Bremerton WWTP
1998 - 2000 Primary Effluent TSS
250.
200.
~
If
~ 1501, I
i'~ I~~~~.~~ \ -~:\'~~i~
O'
Jan-98
Jul-98
Jan-99
Jul-99
Date
Jan-OO
Jul-OO
Camp Dresser & McKee, Ine.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 2-14
Bremerton WWTP
Section 2 - Operational History
Table 2.6
City of Bremerton WWTP
Primary Effluent TSS Summary
Primary Effluent TSS
Year Cone 'mg/L) Mass (Ibs/day)
Ave Max Me Ave Max Me
1997
Dry 208 328 8713 13413
Wet 82 381 8918 29472
"" i 1998
Dry 81 99 3160 3946
I Wet 73 90 5278 9466
1999
{ Dry 87 105 3324 4461
J Wet 69 98 3980 7886
2000
Dry 75 86 2675 3770
Wet 72 86 3092 4217
Aeration Basin Organic Loading
The aeration basin organic loading is calculated by taking the pounds of primary effluent
BODs and dividing it by the volume of the aeration basins. The results are presented in the
units of lbs BODs/day/1000 fe. The original design criteria did not show this loading
criteria, but using the loading criteria outlined in the liquids balance, the design annual
average aeration basin BODs load was 83.7-lbs/day/1000 fe and the design max month
average BODs load was 120 Ibs/day/1000 fe. These loading rates assume that the biotower
is not in operation.
A plot ofthe aeration basin organic loading was created for the period from 1997 - 2000.
This plot is shown in Figure 2-16. The plot shows the daily loadings as a fine line and a 30-
day or monthly moving average of the loadings as a bold line. This plot shows that there
were daily high loadings as high as 256-lbs/day/l000 fe in 1997, but in the following years,
the loading did not exceed 120-lbs/dayIl000 fe. Even with these periodic high organic
loadings, the monthly average loading did not exceed 1 OO-lbs/day/l 000 ft3. This is less than
the design loading of 120-lbs/day/1000 ft3. A statistical summary of the loadings on an
annual basis is shown in Table 2-7.
A relationship that is very important to consider is the quality of effluent that was produced
at the different organic loadings. The effluent parameter that was evaluated in relation to
organic loading was the plant effluent BODs. This was done by creating a scatter plot of the
daily effluent BODs vs. the daily organic loading rate. Figure 2-17 shows this scatter plot.
This plot shows that the plant has typically operated at an effluent BODs ofless than 20
mglL at loading rates less than 60-lbs/dayIl000 ft3.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 2-15
Bremerton WWTP
Section 2 - Operational History
Figure 2-16
City of Bremerton WWTP
1997.2000 Aeration Basin Organic Loading
300.
~ 250
o
o
~
">.
..
:!! 200.
g
r
o , I I I I I I I
Jan-97 Jul-97 Jan-98 Jut-98 Jan-99 Jul.99 Jan-OO Ju~OO
Date
-Dally -Monthly
Table 2-7
Bremerton WWTP
Aeration Basin Organic Loading (Ibs/day BODsl1 000 fe)
Statistic 1997 1998 1999 2000
Max 256.5 139.0 110.6 118.5
Min 35.1 27.9 14.4 25.5
Mean 65.7 45.8 50.7 46.5
Median 56.9 41.1 47.7 45.1
90 Percentile 92.7 63.4 71.5 56.7
92 Percentile 95.5 66.8 72.5 57.9
98 Percentile 159.5 98.7 83.8 103.3
Std. Dev. 29.6 17.0 14.3 13.9
Count 138 154 156 155
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 2.16
Bremerton WWTP
Section 2 - Operational History
Figure 2-17
City of Bremerton WWTP
1997 - 2000 AB Loading vs. Effluent BOD5
80
70 .
80 .
.
i 50.
.s.
Q
g 40,
.
.
-
c
..
::I
ffi 30,
.. ..
.
. .
. .
20.
. ~... .... ..
.....+..~ '.'
.. '0..
· 0 · .,;........:
. . . -.. . ..
. .
.
10 '
o.
o
,
50
100 150 200
AS LoadIng (lbs/day/1000 /13)
250
300
There have been a few periodic excursions beyond the permit limit of30 mg/L, but these
cannot be directly correlated to the aeration basin organic loading rate. There have been few
periods of time when the loading rate has been in the range of the maximum month value of
120-lbs/day/l000 fe, but the plot shows that the daily effluent BODs values have consistently
been less than 30-mg/L. The excursions beyond 30-mg/L have typically been at lower
loadings when some factor other than organic loading would be the cause of the problem.
This historical data supports the continued use of the original aeration basin design loading
criteria~
Food-to-Microorganism Ratio (F/M)
1
I
}
~ i
FIM is another loading parameter used in the design of activated sludge treatment plants.
The FIM is calculated in a variety of manners, but in this case, it was calculated by dividing
the pounds of effluent BODs by the pounds of mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) in the
aeration basins. The MLSS was used to calculate the FIM instead of the mixed liquor
volatile suspended solids (ML VSS) because more data points for MLSS was available. The
system design was based on an average annual F/M of 0.521bs BODsl1b ML VSS-day and a
maximum monthly average ofO.84IbsBODs/lb MLVSS-day. Converting these criteria to
the units comparable to those calculated in this evaluation results in an average annual FIM
of 0.42 lbs BODs/lb MLSS-day and a maximum monthly average of 0.67 lbs BODs/lb
MLSS-day.
A plot of the FIM was created for the period from 1997 - 2000. This plot is shown in Figure
2-18. The plot shows the daily loadings as a fine line and a 3D-day or monthly moving
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 2-17
Bremerton WWTP
Section 2 - Operational History
Figure 2.18
City of Bremerton WWTP
1997.2000 Aeration Basin F/M Ratio
'. I
: I
2.5 .
2.0,-
0.5 .
0.0 " r I 1 r 1 I I
Jan.97 Jul-97 Jan-98 Jul-98 Jan-99 Ju~99 Jan-OO Jul.OO
Date
-Daily -Monthly
average of the loadings as a bold line. This plot shows that there were daily high loadings as
high as 2.3 lbs BODs/lb MLSS-day in 1997, but in the following years, the loading did not
exceed 1.5 lbs BODs/lb MLSS-day on a daily basis. Even with these periodic high F/Ms, the
monthly average F/M did not exceed 1.0 lb BODs/lb MLSS-day. This is higher than the
design maximum month F/M of 0.67 lbs BODs/lb MLSS-day. A statistical summary of the
F/M on an annual basis is shown in Table 2-8.
Table 2-8
City of Bremerton WWTP
Aeration Basin F/M Ratio
Statistic 1997 1998 1999 2000
Max 2.30 0.93 1.39 1.49
Min 0.09 0.15 0.10 0.19
Mean 0.43 0.34 0.45 0.49
Median 0.39 0.33 0.41 0.44
90 Percentile 0.65 0.46 0.69 0.75
92 Percentile 0.73 0.46 0.73 0.79
98 Percentile 1.21 0;67 0.92 1.13
Std. Dev. 0.28 0.13 0.18 0.21
Count 137 154 156 135
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 2-18
Bremerton WWTP
Section 2 - Operational History
r -'1
An evaluation ofthe quality of the effluent in relation to the FIM ratio was performed using
the plant effluent BODs as the indicator of effluent quality. This analysis was done by
creating a scatter plot of the daily effluent BODs vs. the daily F 1M ratio. Figure 2-19 shows
this scatter plot. This plot shows that the times when the daily effluent BODs concentration
exceeded 30 mg/L, the F/M ratio was always less than 1.0 lbs BODs/lb MLSS. This shows
that the high effluent BODs was due to some other variable.
Figure 2-19
City of Bremerton WWTP
1997 - 2000 Aeration Basin F/M Ratio vs. Effluent BODs
80
70 .
60 .
.
~ so.
'"
.s.
c
51 40.
"
"
"
~ 30,
.
.
. .
.
. .
.
. .
. . .
.
.
. .
. . .
.
.
20.
10.
o.
0.0
0.5
1~ ,~
Aeration Basin F/M Ratio
2.0
2.5
The F/M ratio is not only dependent on the primary effluent BODs load, but also on the
amount ofMLSS that is carried in the aeration system. The system was designed around an
MLSS concentration of2500 mg/L. The system can be operated at higher MLSS
concentrations if the required level of oxygen can be applied and the design solids loading on
the secondary clarifiers is not exceeded. For this analysis, the design F/M ratios will be used
unless it is determined in the modeling effort that additional MLSS can be maintained in the
system without a detrimental affect on process performance.
Secondary Clarifier Overflow Rate
The secondary clarifier overflow rate (OFR) is calculated by dividing the plant flow by the
surface area of the secondary clarifiers. The units of this design parameter are gpd/ft2. The
system was designed for an annual average OFR of 420 gpd/ft2, a maximum month average
OFR of 550 gpd/ff and a peak OFR of 1640 gpd/ff.
A plot of the secondary clarifier OFR was created for the period from 1996 - 2000. This plot
is shown in Figure 2-20. The plot shows the daily loadings as a fine line and a 30-day or
monthly moving average of the loadings as a bold line. This plot shows that there were daily
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 2-19
Bremerton WWTP
Section 2 - Operational History
Figure 2.20
City of Bremerton WWTP
1996 . 2000 Secondary Clarifier Overflow Rate
1800
1600,-
1400.
~ 1200,-
"
...
'"
;; 1000,-
u.
0
-
.. :~-
:e
co
13
u
..
III
400 I
200.
O. I
Jan-9a Jul-9a
J
JI
..~
I
Jan-97
I
Jul-97
I
Jan-9a
I
Jul-9a
Dale
I
Jan-99
I I I
Jul-99 Jan-OO Jul-OO
-Daily -Monthly
OFRs between 1500 and 1600 gpdl:fl? in each of the years 1996 - 1999. These OFRs are
based on the average daily flow rate. The maximum month or 30-day average OFRs were as
high as 750 gpd/ft2. This exceeds the maximum month design criteria of550 gpd/ft2. A
statistical summary ofthe OFR for each ofthe years of the study period was calculated and
the results are summarized in Table 2-9.
Table 2;.9
City of Bremerton WWTP
Secondary Clarifier Overflow Rate
Statistic 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Max 1589 1542 1509 1490 867
Min 147 203 170 168 149
Mean 336 358 348 365 271
Median 284 300 265 284 240
90 Percentile 492 531 584 659 369
92 Percentile 531 588 662 745 392
98 Percentile 920 930 973 1030 502
Std. Dev. 174 177 194 212 88
Count 366 365 365 365 366
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 2.20
Bremerton WWTP
Section 2 - Operational History
A process failure can occur when the secondary clarifier overflow rate is exceeded. This is
due to the washout of solids from the secondary clarifier resulting in high effluent suspended
solids (TSS) concentrations. To evaluate this, a scatter plot of the daily effluent TSS
concentration was plotted against the daily secondary clarifier OFR for the period of time
1996 - 2000. This plot is shown in Figure 2-21. As shown in the plot, there were few
occasions when the effluent TSS exceeded 30 mg/L on a daily basis. There was no direct
correlation between the daily average OFR and the effluent TSS.
Figure 2-21
City of Bremerton WWTP
Secondary Clarifier Overflow Rate vs. Effluent TSS
100.
90 -
60.
70 -
::i
e;, 60 -
.s-
UI
f.! so-
c
..
:J 40 .
51
I ~o -
f 20
.1
., 10
I
0-
0
.
.
. .
.
.
. .
.
.
+ #
. .
. . . .
. ..
.
.
++ + ..+
..+ +
+ +
.
+
+
200
400
600 800 1000
Secondary Clarifier OFR (gpdlft2)
1200
1400
I
1600
The peak. OFR (maximum daily OFR) is more critical to the performance ofthe secondary
clarifiers than the daily average OFR. The peak. OPR is determined by dividing the peak.
daily flow by the secondary clarifier surface area. As discussed earlier, the design peak OPR
was 1640 gpdlft2. The peak daily OFRs were calculated for the period 1996 -2000. A trend
plot ofthe results is shown in Figure 2-22. This plot shows that the peak daily OFR of over
1650 gpdlft2 was reached many times each year.
I
i
i
j
This plot shows that this value was capped at 1650 gpdlft2 due to the maximum flow meter
reading of32.0 mgd. Operations staff have estimated peak flows up to and exceeding 42.0
mgd. A peak. flow of this rate would result in a secondary OFR of 2210 gpdlft2. This value
exceeds that maximum peak flow design value of 1640 gpdlft2 by 35%. To determine the
effect that the peak OFR can have on effluent quality, the peak OFR was plotted against
effluent TSS in a scatter plot. Figure 2-23 shows this plot.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 2-21
Bremerton WWTP
Section 2 - Operational History
Figure 2-22
City of Bremerton WWTP
1996-2000 Secondary Clarifier Peak Day OFR
2500
2000.
~
a.
'"
~ 1500 -.---
u.
o
...
..
"
II.
...
..
!€ 1000.
..
U
Ii
..
rn
--1r-
~I
'I
I~__._l
I
i
o.
Jan-96
[
Jul-96
[
Jan-97
[
Jul.97
[
Jan-98
[
Jul-98
Date
[
Jan-99
[
Jul.99
I
[
Jan.OO
-Daily
[
Jul-OO
-Monthly
Figure 2-23
City of Bremerton WWTP
Secondary Clarifier Peak Overflow Rate VS. Effluent TSS
100.
90
90
70.
;;! 60
'"
.s.
rn
l!! 50
C
..
::l 40.
ffi
30
20.
10.
O.
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
..
... ..
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
200
400
600 800 1000 1200
Secondary Clarifier OFR (gpdlf12)
1400
1600
1800
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 2-22
Bremerton WWTP
Section 2 - Operational History
I
I
Figure 2-23 clearly shows that the peak OFR is a major factor in process performance. This
plot shows that in every instance when the effluent TSS has exceeded 40 mglL in the years
1996 - 2000 that the maximum daily OFR was greater than 1100 gpdlft. This demonstrates
that the peak design OFR is too high and a more conservative value needs to be used when
determining the peak hydraulic capacity of the secondary process. The DOE Orange Book
Table T3-2 states that the design peak OFR for a conventional activated sludge plant should
be 1200 gpdlft2. This is consistent with the historical performance of the secondary
treatment process.
Secondary Clarifier Solids Loading Rate
The secondary clarifier solids loading rate (SLR) is calculated by dividing the sum ofthe
plant flow and the return sludge flow by the surface area of the secondary clarifiers. In this
analysis, a return sludge flow rate of 40% of the influent flow was assumed. The units of this
design parameter are lbs/day/ft. The system was designed for an annual average SLR of
13.8 lbs/day/ff, a maximum month average SLR of 17.9lbs/day/ft2 and a peak SLR of 45.1
lbs/day/ft2.
A plot of the secondary clarifier SLR was created for the period from 1997 - 2000. This plot
is shown in Figure 2-24. The plot shows the daily loadings as a fine line and a 30-day or
monthly moving average of the loadings as a bold line. This plot shows that the daily SLRs
have only exceeded 40 Ibs/day/ft2 two times during the study period. Both of these occurred
during 1997. The maximum month or 30-day average SLRs were as high as 24lbs/day/ft2 in
Figure 2-24
City of Bremerton WWTP
1997 . 2000 Secondary Clarifier Solids Loading Rate
60
50.
~
.,
i~ TI I'
~ 30.-------l-.I----.----h.- ---. :'-- --'-.---
s: ~. I I
:; " '~.
C3 . .
U 20 .-' .'
Jl \
10.
~J~;
O.
Jan.97
I
Jul-97
1
Jan.9a
I
Ju~98
I
Jan-9g
Data
I
Jul-99
I
Jan~OO
Jul-OO
I -Daily
--Monthly
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 2-23
Bremerton WWTP
Section 2 - Operational History
1997 but have not exceeded 20 Ibs/day/ft2 since. This exceeds the maximum month design
criteria of 17.9Ibs/daylft2. A statistical summary of the SLR for each of the years of the
study period was calculated and the results are summarized in Table 2-10.
Table 2-10
City of Bremerton WWTP
Secondary Clarifier Solids Loading Rate
Statistic 1997 1998 1999 2000
Max 57.8 40.5 40.6 22.5
Min 2.4 3.0 1.9 2.3
Mean 12.4 9.8 8.6 5.1
Median 10.0 6.6 6.7 4.5
90 Percentile 20.8 19.5 15.5 7.9
92 Percentile 21.9 21.0 17.2 8.6
98 Percentile 35.9 32.1 26.6 11.1
Std. Dev. 7.5 7.2 6.0 2.2
Count 334 362 365 334
A process failure can occur when the secondary clarifier solids loading rate is exceeded
because the clarifier is not able to settle and remove the solids as fast as they are entering the
clarifier. This design criteria can sometimes be exceeded for short periods of time, ifthe
clarifier has storage capacity or if the sludge settleability is very good due to a low sludge
volume index (SVI). Failure ofthe process due to high solids loading rate results in the
washout of solids from the secondary clarifier resulting in high effluent TSS concentrations.
To evaluate this, a scatter plot of the daily effluent TSS concentration was plotted against the
daily secondary clarifier SLR for the period oftime 1997 - 2000. This plot is shown in
Figure 2-25. As shown in the plot, there were few occasions when the effluent TSS exceeded
30 mglL Qn a daily basis. There was not direct correlation between the daily SLR and the
effluent TSS.
As with the peak OFR, the peak SLR is also critical to the performance of the secondary
clarifiers. The peak SLR was determined by dividing the peak daily flow by the secondary
clarifier surface area. A 40% return sludge flow rate was also assumed in this analysis. As
discussed earlier, the design peak SLR was 45.1Ibs/day/ft2. The peak daily SLRs were
calculated for the period 1997 - 2000. The results are shown as a scatter plot in Figure 2-26.
This shows that the peak SLR of 45.1 has been exceeded on many occasions. Most of these
values occurred in 1997. The plot shows that there is no direct relationship between peak
SLR and TSS values greater than 30 mg/L. The effluent TSS standard has been exceeded at
SLRs as low as 21Ibs/day/ft2.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 2-24
Bremerton WWTP
Section 2 - Operational History
'-1
!
I
Figure 2-25
City of Bremerton WWTP
Secondary Clarfier Solids Loading Rate VS. Effluent TSS
60 .
.
.
50.
I .
I
I .
40 . .
.
~ . . . .. .. . .
l30' . .
. : .
Ul
l!! .. . .
.
. .
.
20. .
.
. ..
10.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
. . . .
.
.
.
.
10
15
20 25 30
SLR (lblday/ft2)
35
40
45
50
60.
50 .
40,
.
~
..
S 30.
Ul
Ul
....
20.
10.
Figure 2-26
City of Bremerton WWTP
Secondary Clarifier Peak Solids Loading Rate vs. Effluent TSS
.
+ .
+
.
. .
.. . .. . ...
. . .
. .
. .+
.. .t . +
+ +
.. .
. .
. .. . .
.
.
20 40 60 60 100 120
SLR IlbItlayJn2)
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 2.25
Bremerton WWTP
Section 2 - Operational History
The DOE Orange Book does not recommend a specific SLR for the design of an activated
sludge process. The work by Daigger and Roper on the use of clarifier operating diagrams
and the relationship of SVI to SLR was referenced as a methodology to be used in design.
The activated sludge model that was used in this work to determine the maximum SLR is
based on this work. Therefore, the design SLRs will be used unless the modeling shows that
a higher SLR is possible under the specific scenario being evaluated.
PLANT EFFLUENT QUALITY EVALUATION
A detailed evaluation of the effluent produced by the treatment plant has been performed for
the period oftime between January 1996 and December 2000. The variables that were
evaluated were BOD5 and TSS for both concentration and mass load. The evaluation was
performed for each of the seasons for each of the years. The seasons are defined as the dry
season, which is from May 1 - September 30, and the wet season, which are the remaining
months of the year. The following sections provide a summary of this evaluation
Plant Effluent Monthly Average Data Evaluation
The monthly average as defmed by CFR Part 133 - Secondary Treatment Regulation of the
Clean Water Act is the arithmetic mean of the values for effluent samples collected in a
period of 30 consecutive days. DOE can use the month average of the data based on the
calendar month for monitoring of permit compliance as defmed in WAC 173-221-030(2). In
this analysis, the monthly average has been evaluated based on the calendar month.
Table 2-11 and 2-l2 are a summary of the analysis of the monthly average effluent BODs and
TSS concentrations and mass based on a calendar month. (Effluent data for December 1996
was not available.) The maximum values allowed in the permit are 30 mglL and 2527
lbs/day as a monthly average.
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
1996
14
10
12
11
12
19
20
18
13
10
11
Table 2.11
City of Bremerton WWTP
Plant Effluent Monthly Average BOD5
Concentration
1997 1998
18 15
13 9
21 8
11 11
12 10
12 5
12 6
17 14
12 11
23 10
12 8
11 12
mg/L)
1999
12
12
13
11
11
11
8
9
9
11
10
11
2000
11
13
12
16
12
13
11
14
14
8
11
10
1996
963
798
593
626
601
840
753
680
487
423
496
Mass (Ibs/day)
1997 I 1998 I 1999
1549 1711 1027
796 666 1521
1856 I 538 I 882
614 474 509
511 452 499
571 220 503
544 230 295
699 552 347
657 402 320
2519 406 407
1040 623 621
975 1188 1090
2000
676
789
597
631
482
618
387
505
447
290
583
378
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 2-26
Bremerton WWTP
Section 2 - Operational History
Month
Table 2.12
City of Bremerton WWTP
Plant Effluent Monthly Average TSS
Concentration (mg/L) Mass (Ibs/day)
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1996 1997 1998 1999
17 21 21 16 14 1328 1645 2170 1645
13 18 16 17 12 1117 1057 1103 2016
10 29 15 19 16 471 2462 910 1345
14 12 14 15 15 1074 685 628 736
10 12 16 17 11 494 544 657 760
10 15 10 12 11 433 689 399 513
12 15 8 6 12 494 768 303 216
12 15 21 8 17 462 618 746 298
11 14 16 11 12 441 809 569 376
10 44 12 11 10 461 4979 492 410
11 21 15 12 11 504 1792 1417 926
19. 19 14 11 1675 1803 1129
2000
936
727
763
607
449
462
436
598
388
382
486
492
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
I
, I
J
The data summary in this table shows that the plant has not exceeded the monthly average
permit limits for BODs at any time during the 5-year study period. The highest monthly
average concentration that has been discharged is 23 mglL and the highest monthly average
mass has been 25191bs/day.
. i
\
The analysis summarized in Tables 2-12 shows that the monthly effluent permit limits have
only been exceeded one time for TSS concentration and mass. Both of these occurred in the
month of October 1997. This exceedance was the result of high effluent TSS values that
occurred on October 28 and 29. This was due to peak flows of 31. 70-mgd and 32.00-mgd
that were put through the secondary process on those days. These high flows caused washout
of the secondary clarifiers resulting in the high effluent TSS values.
C__ "l-
I
.. j
Plant Effluent Weekly Average Data Evaluation
The weekly average is defined as the arithmetic mean of the values for effluent samples
collected in a period of 7 consecutive days. The definition ofthe weekly average is also
taken directly from the permit and is based on language in CFR Part 133 - Secondary
Treatment Regulation of the Clean Water Act. DOE can base this calculation on the calendar
week for determining compliance with permit conditions as defined in WAC 173-221-
030(1). In this evaluation, the analysis of the effluent BODs and TSS concentrations were
performed using a 7-day moving average. This technique provides the average of7
consecutive days on a continuous moving average basis as defined in the permit. The results
of this analysis ofthe effluent data are shown in Table 2-13. For simplicity, this data has
been summarized annually for each of the seasonal periods.
The maximum weekly average values allowed in the permit are 45 mglL and 3790 1bs/day as
a weekly average. These weekly limits were exceeded on three occasions during the 5-year
study period. These were in October and December 1997 and in January 1998.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 2-27
Bremerton WWTP Section 2 - Operational History
Table 2-13
City of Bremerton WWTP
Plant Effluent 7-day Average. BODs and TSS
Effluent BODs Effluent TSS
Year Conc 'mg/L) Mass (Ibs/day) Conc . mg/L) Mass (Ibs/day)
Ave Max Ave Max Ave Max Ave Max
1996
Dry 16 31 669 1202 11 22 473 1012
Wet 11 19 659 1484 13 23 831 2714
1997
Dry 13 24 590 1719 14 28 681 2125
Wet 16 60 1320 8440 23 128 2039 17955
1998
Dry 10 19 377 820 14 24 539 951
Wet 10 32 766 4944 16 42 1227 6508
1999
Dry 10 17 396 723 11 22 431 1088
Wet 12 26 886 2551 15 25 1187 3428
2000
Dry 13 26 491 1634 13 26 474 915
Wet 12 25 565 1959 13 19 629 1261
In October 1997 the effluent BODs 7-day moving average concentration was 60 mglL for 1-
day and 49 mglL for 4-days. The 7 -day moving average mass discharge reached 8440
Ibs/day for I-day and 6791 for 4-days. These high values were due to the high flows that
were being passed through the treatment plant. Flows of 17.5l-mgd and 17.1 O-mgd were
treated on October 28 and 29, respectively. The 7-day moving average limit for BODs was
also exceeded for I-day in December 1997 when it reached a value of 4622 lbs/day. This
was due to the discharge of 41 mgIL of BODs on December 16 when the daily flow was
22.6l-mgd. The exceedance in 1998 was due to a discharge of 40 mglL on January 13 when
the daily flow was 19.48-mgd. This resulted in a single day when the 7-day average mass
reached a value of 4944 lbs/day. The high TSS values that were reported in 1997 and 1998
were due to the same occurrences that were described previously for BODs.
The permit compliance history has been excellent for the treatment plant with the exception
of the events that were described above. In each of these instances the permit value for
BODs or TSS were exceeded due to the treatment of high flows through the secondary
system resulting in the flushing of solids from the secondary system.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 2-28
Bremerton WWTP
Section 3 . Capacity Evaluation
INTRODUCTION
- I
I
,
A capacity study of the Bremerton WWTP was performed to determine the present and
future treatment capabilities of the treatment plant. This capacity of each unit process was
determined based on the capacity limiting parameter for the unit process. The criteria that
was used to base the capacity for each unit process was the original design criteria, the
original design hydraulic profile, the performance history of each unit process and the DOE
Orange Book standards.
The treatment plant capacity can be provided in different units depending on the unit process.
For example, the capacity of influent screening is based solely on hydraulic capacity where
the capacity of the secondary process is based on a combination of hydraulic capacity and
organic loading. In this study, the capacity of each unit process is related back to a specific
influent hydraulic capacity. This provides a common basis for permitting and planning.
!
The hydraulic capacity of the treatment plant also varies between the dry season and the wet
season. In the dry season, the plant must treat more concentrated wastes at low flow rates.
In the wet season, the plant must provide treatment of high flows and the resultant dilute
wastes. For this reason, both a dry season and a wet season capacity have been developed for
each unit process.
'j
I
I
DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
The NPDES permit (W A-0029289) for the Bremerton WWTP provides for the discharge of
treated wastewater into Sinclair Inlet on a year-round basis. The permit stipulates specific
effluent limitations on BODs, TSS, pH, fecal coliform bacteria, chlorine, copper and
mercury. The numerical permit limits are summarized in Table 3-1. The effluent mass load
limits were based ona flow to the facility of 10.1-mgd.
!
I
Effluent
Parameter
Unit of
Measure
Table 3-1
Current NPDES Permit Limits
Effluent Mass Limits
(Ibs.lday)
Monthly Weekly
Ave Ave
2527 3790
2527 3790
Monthly
Ave
Weekly
Ave
BOD5
TSS
Fecal Coliform 1
PH
Chlorine Residual2
Notes:
1. Average values are based on a geometric mean.
2. Maximum daily Total Chlorine Residual is 0.37 mg/L.
mg/L 30 45
mg/L 30 45
#/100 ml 200 400
Shall not be outside the range 6.0 to 9.0
mg/L I 0.37 I 0.23 I 6.74
The treatment plant is also required to meet the 85% removal requirement based on the
definition of secondary treatment. This means that the treatment plant must remove 85% of
the influent BODs and TSS mass or meet the 30 mglL standard for BODs and TSS,
whichever is more stringent. The permit contains special language due to the combined
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 3.1
Bremerton WWTP
Section 3 - Capacity Evaluation
sewer nature of the collection system that suspends this requirement during the period oftime
between October 1 and April 30. The 85% removal is only required during the other five
months.
CURRENT WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
The wastewater characteristics of the waste that is received at the treatment plant will vary
over time as the demographics of the service area change. The treatment plant was designed
based on a set of characteristics derived from historical data taken at the original primary
treatment plant that served the area prior to the construction of the current plant. The current
treatment plant has been in operation for over IS-years. During this period of time there
have been changes in the condition of the collection system and the demographics ofthe
servIce area.
An evaluation of the influent wastewater flows and loads was performed to determine the
current wastewater characteristics. The results of this evaluation were summarized in
Section I. These are the wastewater concentrations and characteristics that will be used in
determining the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant.
SOLIDS BALANCE
A solids balance is an evaluation of the solids production and removals at each of the liquids
and solids unit processes in the treatment plant. The solids balance evaluates the effects of
the recycle streams from the solids handling processes and incorporates them into the unit
process loads. This evaluation is necessary to determine solids production for sizing of the
solids handling unit processes.
The solids balance is a simple process model that assumes steady state conditions in the
treatment plant under the defined loading and performance criteria. The model was
developed using the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The effects of recycle streams are
incorporated into the analysis and results are updated through many iterations of the
calculations. The results are based on calculated values that have been iterated until a
maximum change of 0.001 is obtained in the last calculation.
A solids balance was developed for each of the seasonal loading conditions. The solids
balance provides the solids stream flows and loads that were used to determine the solids
processing unit capacities.
Process Assumptions
Assumptions on the performance of each unit process must be made to determine the solids
balance. The relative accuracy of these assumptions is critical so meaningful and
representative results can be obtained from the model. Process performance assumptions
were determined by evaluating the historical data and process performance at the treatment
plant over the past S-years.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 3.2
Bremerton WWTP
Section 3 - Capacity Evaluation
Table 3-2 shows the assumptions made in this model. The performance values that were
assumed in this model were based on conservative values. This was done to ensure that the
process capacity is available when a unit process does not perform optimally.
1
. Table 3-2
City of Bremerton WWTP
Solids Balance Model Performance Variables
Variable I Value' Basis
Plant Influent
Influent BOD & TSS Concentrations Variable Historical Data
Peaking Factors Variable Historical Data
VSS as % of TSS 86% Historical Data
% Soluble BOD5 46% Historical Data
Primary Treatment
Primary % TSS Removal 55% Historical Data
Primary % BOD5 Removal 30% Historical Data
Total Solids Cone. of Primary Sludge 5.0% Historical Data
Secondary Treatment
Yield (Ibs. TSS/lb. BOD5 Applied) 0.87 Activated Sludge Model
Secondary Effluent TSS 15 mg/L Assumption
Secondary Effluent BOD5 15 mglL Assumption
Total Solids Cone. of WAS 0.5% Assumption
% Volatile Solids in WAS 80% Historical Data
WAS Thickening
WAS Thickening Capture Efficiency 95% Assumption
Total Solids Cone. of Thickened WAS 4.5% Assumption
Lbs. Soluble BODs/lb. TSS In Recycle 0.01 Ib.Jlb. Assumption
Anaerobic Digestion
Digester Volatile Solids Destruction 45% Assumption
Dewatering
Dewatering Capture Efficiency 95% Assumption
Total Solids Cone. of Dewatered Sludge 22% Assumption
Lbs. Soluble BODs/lb. TSS In.Recycle 0.05 Ib.Jlb. Assumption
I
I
.1
I
, !
The results ofthe solids balances are shown in Table 3-3. This shows the estimated mass of
solids that will be produced at each of the unit processes at a unit flow rate of 1. O-mgd.
These unit flow rate process loads are used to determine the solids handling process
capacities. The development of these unit solids productions provides the basis for
development of capacities for the solids handling process units on an influent flow basis.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 3-3
Bremerton WWTP
Section 3 - Capacity Evaluation
FI w Stre
Table 3-3
City of Bremerton WWTP
Solids Balance Results at 1.0-mgd Influent Flow
Solids Mass in Ibs/day
Average Annual Dry Season Wet Season
Ave Day Max Month
1001 1221
587 716
601 734
572 699
726 886
693 846
0 am
Ave Day Max Month Ave Day Max Month
Raw Sewage 1334 1655 1568 1897
Primary Sludge 781 969 921 1115
Waste Sludge 763 959 978 1193
TWAS 726 913 932 1136
Digested Sludge 944 1178 1161 1411
Dewatered Sludge 901 1125 1109 1347
SYSTEM RELIABILITY/REDUNDANCY REQUIREMENTS
The reliability/redundancy requirements establish the minimum leyel of treatment that can be
provided when there is a failure of a process component. Three reliability classifications
have been established. These three classes are defined in Table 3-4. The classification is
based on the impacts that can occur to the receiving water quality and to public health when
there is a component or system failure. The EP A established these criteria during the
construction grants program. Specific requirements pertaining to each treatment plant unit
process for each reliability class have been developed and are described in EP A's Technical
Bulletin, "Design Criteria: for Mechanical, Electric, and Fluid System and Component
Reliability, " EP A 430-99-74-001.
Table 3-4
Guidelines for Classifying Sewage Works 1
Reliability Class Guideline
These are 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.
These are 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).
II
III
These are works not otherwise classified as Reliability Class I or Class
II.
1. EPA Technical Bulletin - Design Criteria for Mechanical Eiectric and Fluid System and Component Reiiabiiity
(EPA-430-99-74-001)
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 3-4
Bremerton WWTP
Section 3 - Capacity Evaluation
The specific requirements pertaining to treatment plant unit processes and pumping systems
are shown in Table 3-5. Unless specifically stated in Table 3-5, all unit processes in the main
treatment flow stream must have the hydraulic capacity to handle the peak wastewater flow
with the largest-flaw-capacity unit out of service. System hydraulics was not evaluated in
this evaluation. The hydraulic profile that was developed in the original design and provided
in the design documents was used as the basis of determining peak flow capacity.
Two separate and independent sources of electric power must be provided to the plant either
from two separate utility substations or from a single substation backed up by a generator
located at the treatment plant. The electrical reliability classification does not need to be the
same as the treatment plant reliability Classification. Electrical power system reliability
classifications are defined in Table 3-6.
I
I
!
, 1
Table 3-6
Electric Power System Reliability
Features Common to Class I, II and III:
Power sources - Two separate and independent electric power sources from either two separate utility
substations or one substation and one standby generator.
Reliability Class Minimum Capacity
Sufficient to operate all vital components and critical lighting and ventilation
during peak wastewater flaw conditions.
The same as Reliability class I, except that vital components used to
support the secondary process need not be operable to full level of
treatment, but shall be sufficient to maintain the biota.
II
I
I
, j
III
Sufficient to operate the screening facility, the main wastewater pumps, the
primary sedimentation basins, the disinfection facility, and critical lighting
and ventilation during peak wastewater flaws.
The Bremerton WWTP must be defined as a Class I treatment facility based on the effluent
discharge permit. As defined in the Class I requirements, the effluent is discharged directly
to a receiving stream that could place the public at risk, affect a public water supply or place
any aquatic life in danger. For this evaluation, the reliability/redundancy requirements for a
Class I facility were used.
UNIT PROCESS CAPACITY ANALYSIS
A desktop capacity of each unit process was developed for each of the major unit processes.
This desktop analysis used the current influent wastewater characteristics developed in
Section I and the design hydraulic capacities to determine the current unit process capacities.
Screening
The screening process consists of a two mechanical bar screens located in the inlet channels
of the new headworks. A third channel provides a manually raked bar screen for periods
when one of the mechanical screens is out of service. The design capacity of each screen is a
maximum flow of 15-mgd. This provides a peak hydraulic capacity for the headworks of
45-mgd, with the firm capacity with one unit out of service at 30-mgd.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
rn Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 3-5
Bremerton WWTP
Section 3 - Capacity Evaluation
Unit Process
Class I Reliability
Table 3-5
Reliability Classification
Unit Process Re uirements
Reliability Requirements
Pumping Systems
Mechanically Cleaned Bar Screens
Grit Removal Process
A backup pump shall be provided for each set of pumps
performing the same function. The capacity of the pumps shall
be such that, with anyone pump out of service, the remaining
pumps will have the capacity to handle the peak flow.
A backup bar screen, designed for mechanical or manual
cleaning, shall be provided. Facilities with only two bar screens
shall have at least one bar screen designed to permit manual
cleaning.
Bypass should be capable of passing peak flow with unit out of
service.
Primary Sedimentation Basins
Aeration Basins
Aeration Blowers
Air Diffusers
Secondary Clarifiers
The units should be sufficient in number and size so that, with
the largest-flow-capacity unit out of service, the remaining units
should have a design flow capacity of at least 50 percent of the
total design flow.
A backup basin will not be required; however, at least two
equal-volume basins shall be provided.
There shall be a sufficient number of blowers to enable the
design oxygen transfer to be maintained with the largest-
capacity-unit out of service.
The air diffusion system for each aeration basin shall be
d~signed so that the largest section of diffusers can be isolated
without measurably impairing the oxygen transfer capability of
the system.
The units should be sufficient in number and size so that, with
the largest-flow-capacity unit out of service, the remaining units
should have a design flow capacity of at least 75 percent of the
total design flow.
The units should be sufficient in number and size so that, with
the largest-flow-capacity unit out of service, the remaining units
should have a design flow capacity of at least 50 percent of the
total design flow.
Reliability Class II - The Reliability Class I requirements shall apply except as modified below:
Disinfection Contact Basins
The units should be sufficient in number and size so that, with
the largest-flow-capacity unit out of service, the remaining units
should have a design flow capacity of at least 50 percent of the
total design flow.
Reliability Class 1/1 - The Reliability Class I requirements shall apply except as modified below:
Primary Sedimentation Basins There shall be at least two basins.
Secondary Clarifiers There shall be at least two basins.
Aeration Basins A single basin is permissible.
Secondary Clarifiers
Aeration Blowers
Thera shall be at least two blowers available for service.
Aeration must be provided to maintain sufficient DO in the tanks
to maintain the biota.
Page 3-6
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Bremerton WWTP
Section 3 - Capacity Evaluation
" !
I
The design intent ofthe headworks was to operate at a peak hydraulic capacity of30-mgd
and the manual screen to operate only during periods of time when redundancy is required.
Addition of another mechanical screen in the manual screen channel will provide 45-mgd of
mechanical screening capacity.
,.., ,
. I
,
,
Grit Removal
A new grit removal system was installed with the construction ofthe new headworks at the
treatment plant. The grit basins are of a horizontal flow type. Settled grit is removed by a
system of flights and is hauled to a local landfill for disposal.
This.system was designed to remove grit at the plant's peak hydraulic flow of 30-mgd. For
this analysis, the capacity of the grit system will be at 30-mgd. It appears that these basins
have been conservatively designed and additional capacity may be available.
Primary Treatment
I
, I
The treatment plant has two circular primary clarifiers. Floatables are skimmed from the
surface of each tank and pumped directly to the digesters. Settled solids can be pumped on a
continuous basis to the gravity thickener for thickening prior to being pumped to the
digesters or the settled solids can be thickened in the primary clarifiers for pumping directly
to the digesters. The solids are then processed in the anaerobic digesters.
1
I
Primary clarifier capacity is based on surface overflow rate (OFR) expressed in the units of
gpd/ft? A typical average day SOR is in the range of 800 - 1200 gpd/tf (Orange Book Table
T2-2) with a peak day SOR of2000 - 3000 gpd/ft2. The original design criteria were at an
average annual OFR of895 gpd/ft2, a maximum month OFR of 1140 gpd/ft2 and a peak OFR
of3310 gpd/ft2.
"I
'I
j
. J
The evaluation of historical data preformed and summarized in Section 2 shows that percent
removals for BODs and TSS decrease with increasing OFR, but the effluent BODs stays in
the range of SO -75 mglL as the OFR increases at rates beyond 1000 gpd/ff. The TSS
concentration is less predictable due to the potential to wash previously settled solids from
the primary clarifiers during short-term diurnal peak flows. Based on this analysis, it would
be acceptable to increase the design criteria for maximum month flow rate to 1400 gpdlft2.
This increased OFR will not have an effect on the concentrations of effluent BODs and TSS,
based on the historical data.
A critical parameter for determining the capacity of the primary process is the peak hour
OFR. The historical data shows the concentration of effluent BODs and TSS is more
dependent on the influent concentration than it is the OFR. When the plant has experienced
extremely high flows, the influent wastewater strength is very weak, providing lower
concentrations of BODs and TSS concentrations than during lower flows. In this specific
situation, it is appropriate to maximize the flow to the primary process to the greatest extent
possible.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 3-7
Bremerton WWTP
Section 3 - Capacity Evaluation
i
I,
Ii
The primary clarifiers have a maximum month capacity of 14.1-mgd. Table 3-7 summarizes
the rerated design criteria and the related process parameters for the primary treatment
process. A review of the sludge pumping equipment was performed. There is no process
limitation for this equipment at the rerated capacity.
I
i I
I
Maximum Month
Peak Hour
- 30 mgd 30 57 57 2984
- 35 mgd 35 49 49 3482
- 40 mgd 40 43 43 3979
1) Peak Hour BODs and TSS Concentrations based on Average Annual Loads
Table 3-7
City of Bremerton WWTP
Primary Rerated Capacity
Influent Characteristics
Flow BODs TSS
(mgd) (mg/L) (mg/L)
14.1 131 146
Surface
Overflow Rate
(gpd/fr)
1412
Detention
Time
(hrs)
1.4
0.60
0.52
0.45
Secondary Treatment
The secondary treatment process is a biofilter-activated sludge process. This process consists
of a biotower followed by an activated sludge treatment system. The biotower removes
soluble BODs through a fixed film treatment system. The remaining BODs, TSS and
sloughed biomass are then treated in the activated sludge system. The biotower has recently
been covered to eliminate the potential for odors from the system. The covered tower allows
for the increased loading ofthe system without odors as a limitation.
The capacity of the secondary treatment system was determined for operation with and
without the biofilter. The capacity was determined based on the revised influent wastewater
characteristics and the variables observed in the evaluation of the historical performance
summarized in Section 2. This information was reviewed and modeled to determine the
rerated secondary capacity.
Secondary Treatment Capacity Model
A biofilter-activated sludge model was developed to assist in the determination of the
capacity and solids production for the system. The Biofilter Model is based on the Veltz
equation. The Activated Sludge Model uses Monad Kinetics 1 for organic matter removal and
nitrification. The basis of the model is similar to the IA WPRC Activated Sludge Model No.
1 outlined in the EP A Nitrogen Control Manual2. The clarifier settling model is based on the
SVI settling relationships developed by Daigger and Roper as recommended by DOE in the
Orange Book. Each of the models is interlinked to estimate the effluent BODs, nitrogen
compounds, phosphorus removal and waste sludge production.
l WEF MOP 8, Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants, 1998
2FPA MflTI11f11 NitTol1p.n rontTol RPA-n?'i--(n.OlO S~.ptp.mhp.T lqq1
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 3-8
Bremerton WWTP
Section 3 - Capacity Evaluation
"I
I
Any model is only as good as the wastewater characteristics and process variables that are
used as input. A careful evaluation of wastewater characteristics was performed to develop
representative input for the model.
Wastewater Characteristics
The wastewater must be characterized into various fractions of its organic and TSS
components to be evaluated in the model. The wastewater characteristics that were
determined for each of the loading conditions were developed in Section I. There are some
characteristics that could not be determined from the historical data. These values were
assumed at values based on a "typical textbook" municipal wastewater. Use of these values
will provide the accuracy desired in this analysis, but it may be worthwhile to refine the
values if a more detailed modeling effort is desired in the future. Table 3-8 shows values of
wastewater characteristics that were assumed in this evaluation.
Table 3-8
City of Bremerton WWTP
Assumed Wastewater Characteristics Used in Model
Characteristic I Value I Units.
Organic Characteristics
Ratio of Ultimate 800/8005 1.5
Nonbiodegradable TKN 4 % of Inf. TKN
Nonbiodegradable SCOD 12.5 % of Inf. SCOD
TSS Characteristics
Volatile Fraction 861 %
Nonbiodegradable Fraction of VSS 20 %
Volatile Fraction of Nonbiodegradable TSS 90 %
COONSS Ratio 1.42
N-Content of VSS 8 % of VSS
P-Content of VSS 1 % of VSS
lVolatile fraction based on % Volatile of primary sludge
, \
I
Model Kinetic Constants
- !
I
,
I
The activated sludge model is based on the
growth rates of heterotrophic and nitrifying
bacteria to determine sludge age, MLSS
concentrations and oxygen requirements.
A detailed analysis to determine these
growth rates was not performed for this
evaluation. Growth rates for a "typical"
activated sludge system were used and the
model dynamics were checked against
existing operating condtions. The values
used in this analysis are shown in
Table 3-9.
Table 3-9
City of Bremerton WWTP
Kinetic Coefficients
Used in Activated Slud e Model
Characteristic Value Units
Heterotroph Growth Coefficients
Ilm20 10 day"l
e 1.035
Ks 50 mg/L
Yo 0.73 mg TSS/m~ 8005
~ 0.06 day"
Nitrification Growth Coefficients
0.47
0.098
0.15
0.05
!In
en
Yn
Kd
da{l
mg TSS/mg N03
day"l
Camp Dresser & McKee, Ine.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 3-9
Bremerton WWTP
Section 3 . Capacity Evaluation
I
,! !
Clarifier Settlinl! Model
The clarifier-settling model used in this analysis is based on the SVI settling relationships
developed by Daigger and Roper. The model calculates and plots a maximum solids loading
rate for the specific return sludge flow, MLSS concentration, and SVI conditions. The
algorithm used in this model does not predict a TSS concentration in the secondary effluent.
This value must be estimated and entered as a data input.
The model provides a graphic of the solids loading-SVI relationship for the specific
conditions being analyzed by the model. Figure 3-1 shows a sample of the secondary
clarifier solids loading diagram. The diagram shows graphically that the solids loading to the
secondary clarifier is adequate as long as the solids loading rate and underflow solids
concentrations meet at a point on the loading line below the SVI curve. The point at which
the loading line intersects the SVI curve is the secondary clarifier capacity for the given
condition.
Figure 3.1
City of Bremerton
Secondary Clarifier Solids Loading Diagram
50
oJ
=
I:l:::
on 20
.5
""
"'
Q
....I
.,
:2 10
'0
<'n
, I .: I
Area = 19,007 SqFt ;
.......... Inf= 12.5 mgd I
RAS= 6.3 mgd~!
MLSS = 3,174 mgl L I I I
I .~i I
; ......1..'.. 'i~2~.11_
--;--; I/~ Ii
......; .~... ....1.....1 ,......1.1. Li..
329 gpd/ SqFt. i ;.:" r , ,
, , : .+~I"F!~'~;':":!"" .....:.:~;..:.~:r..~;.... .+::F::;..+..:'" .~:I~:.+I
...=SVI' 175lm:u.;~
.~ .,
~ 40
""
...'
It
....
.Q
=:. 30
C!
~
"II
o
..... .~ ....... r ,-
.... ..._L""h.J.___.._". .L_. _.1
i , , i
, I
..:L:l::~::. :t::-
, I I
..._{-~
o
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Underflow Solids Concentration, C. [gI L] = ~(I+l/ R)
Secondary Process Capacity Determination
The design flows are obtained by entering the specific influent BODs and TSS concentrations
for the desired treatment condition. The model then develops a table of flows and loads at
O.l-mgd increments. The design capacity is selected at a point when one of the performance
parameters reaches a predetermined limitation. The limitations used in this analysis were
clarifier solids loading as determined by the SVI settling model, a daily average secondary
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 3-10
Bremerton WWTP
Section 3 ~ Capacity Evaluation
clarifier overflow rate of750 gpd/ft2, aeration basin detention time and aeration basin organic
loading. A diurnal peaking factor of 1.3 was used in the analysis.
;-1
!
I
The maximum month aeration basin oxygen transfer capability of 8640 lbs.lday, as defined
in the original design documents was not used a limiting variable. A more thorough analysis
ofthe oxygen transfer capability is required and beyond the scope of this project. It was
assumed in this evaluation that the oxygen transfer capability would be upgraded to meet the
oxygen transfer requirements necessary for the capacity of the rerated system, if necessary.
.;
i
i
A design value was developed for average and maximum month load conditions for each of
the three loading conditions: average annual, dry season and wet season. The model also
evaluated capacities at SVIs of200 and 175. A follow-up discussion with City staff on the
differences associated with modeling under the different SVI conditions determined that an
SVI of 175 provided a desirable safety factor. An SVI of 175 was used for the determining
design flows. Table 3-10 is a summary of the input parameters and model results for each of
the conditions. Capacities for the activated sludge system operating as a separate system
were also developed. An SVI of 200 was used in determining the capacity of the activated
sludge system.
-I Table 3-10
I
, City Bremerton WWTP
Secondary Treatment Capacity Analysis Alternative Results
Influent Characteristics Design Capacity
8005 TSS Temp SVI Biofilter Activated Sludge
(mg/L) (mg/L) DegC Activated Sludge Only
Design Max Month 215 268 16 200 10.2 7.3
Average Annual
- Average 141 140 18 200 14.2 9.3
141 140 18 175 14.2 10.1
- Max Month 165 174 18 200 12.9 8.1
165 174 18 175 13.7 8.7
Dry Season
~ Average 193 188 18 200 11.5 7.9
193 188 18 175 12.3 8.5
- Max Month 224 227 18 200 10.2 6.9
224 227 18 175 10.9 7.5
Wet Season
- Average 118 120 16 200 14.2 11.6
118 120 16 175 14.2 12.5
- Max Month 131 146 16 200 14.2 10.5
131 146 16 175 14.2 11.3
Peak Hydraulic
22.8 22.8
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
'" Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 3.11
Bremerton WWTP
Section 3 - Capacity Evaluation
The average annual flow and the wet season maximum month capacity of the secondary
system were determined to be 14.2-mgd. The flow capacity is limited by the daily average
OFR criteria of the secondary clarifiers of750 gpd/ft2. The maximum month dry season
capacity was determined to be 13.7-mgd. This was based on the organic loading capacity of
the system based on the mixed liquor suspended solids required and the limiting SLR on the
secondary clarifiers at an SVI of 175 mVg.
The peak flow capacity of the secondary system was determined to be 22.8-mgd based on the
DOE Orange Book criteria fot secondary clarifier OFR of 1200 gpd/ff. This capacity limit
was verified in the evaluation of historical operating data summarized in Section 2.
Disinfection
The disinfection system uses sodium hypochlorite for disinfection and sodium bisulfite for
dechlorination. The design of a disinfection system is based on the chlorine dosage, contact
time and required bacterial kill rate. The permit requirement for discharge requires that the
process provide disinfection to a point below 200-colonies/1 00 ml on a monthly geometric
mean. An assumed dosage of 4 mg/L under average flow conditions and 10 mg/L under
peak flow conditions was used to determine the disinfection process capacity. The average
dosage of 4 mg/L was used because it was the original design value. The dosage was
increased incrementally at higher flow rates to provide for acceptable disinfection at lower
detention times.
The system capacity was developed using the contact time as the primary variable. This was
done because it is the most difficult variable to change. If additional dosage is required, a
larger feed pump can be installed fairly easily. This is not the case with adding an additional
chlorine contact basin. With dechlorination, a higher chlorine dosage can be applied,
allowing for the use of less contact time. This process logic will require the use of more
sodium bisulfite, but will maximize the capacity ofthe existing tankage. For this analysis, a
minimum contact time of 20 minutes was used to determine the capacity of the chlorination
system. The capacity of the disinfection system was determined to be 30-mgd. The results
of the analysis are shown on Table 3-11.
Table 3.11
City of Bremerton WWTP
Disinfection Process Loading Characteristics
Plant Dosage Detention
Flow Requirement Time
(mgd) (mg/L) (Ibs./day) (min)
Design Max Month 10.2 6 510 60
Plant Flow
- 10 mgd
- 15 mgd
- 20 mgd
- 30 mgd
- 35 mgd
- 40 mgd
10 4 334 60
15 6 750 40
20 6 1000 30
30 8 2000 20
35 10 2920 17
40 12 4000 15
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 3-12
Bremerton WWTP
Section 3 - Capacity Evaluation
Flotation Thickening
A flotation thickener with a 500-fl? surface area is used to thicken the waste activated sludge
prior to anaerobic digestion. The system was originally designed to thicken at a loading rate
of2Ibs/hr/ft2. Using this same loading criteria and the waste activated sludge production
determined in the solids balance and verified in the secondary treatment capacity models, the
capacity of the flotation thickener was determined. A 20-hour per day operation of the
thickener was assumed.
The greatest secondary sludge production occurs in the dry season based on the solids
balance work that has been done. Based on this sludge production of 1193 lbs/day, the
relative maximum month plant hydraulic capacity of the flotation thickener based on
secondary sludge production, is l6.7-mgd.
Gravity Thickening
~1
I
The gravity thickening process is used to thicken the primary solids for the treatment plant.
The primary sludge is pumped continuously as a thin sludge from the primary clarifiers
directly to the gravity thickener. The thickened sludge is pumped on a timed basis from the
thickener to the anaerobic digester.
7 '1.
i
!
A gravity thickener is designed based on solids loading rate. The gravity thickening process
was originally designed at a loading rate of 10.2 lbs/day/:tt2 and a maximum month loading of
20.3 lbs/day/ff. The WEF Manual of Practice No.8 states that a solids loading rate for a
gravity thickener thickening primary solids only can be loaded from 20-30 lbs/day/ft2. A
value of 24 Ibs/day/ft2 will be used to determine the existing thickener capacity. This value
was selected to ensure that conservative estimates of capacity are provided for the solids
handling systems. .
The highest primary sludge production was determined to occur in the dry season based on
the solids balance work that was done. Based on the sludge production of IllS lbs/day, the
relative maximum month plant hydraulic capacity of the gravity thickener based on primary
sludge production is 15.2-mgd.
Anaerobic Digestion
The treatment plant currently has two anaerobic digesters that can be operated in parallel as
primary digesters. The design criteria for the original treatment plant used a maximum month
VS loading of 0.21 lbs VS/ft3/day. The EP A 503 regulations require a minimum IS-days
detention time to meet the requirements for Class B biosolids required for land application
under the City's present land application program.
The primary and secondary sludge productions were developed in the solids balance. The
primary sludge was assumed to be 70% volatile and the secondary sludge was assumed to be
80% volatile, as per the original design criteria. These sludge productions relate to a
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 3.13
Bremerton WWTP
Section 3 . Capacity Evaluation
maximum month dry season relative hydraulic capacity for the digesters of 12.7-mgd and the
maximum month wet season relative hydraulic capacity of 18.4-mgd.
i I
I
The volume of primary and secondary sludges produced was also determined in the solids
balance. A thickened waste activated sludge (WAS) concentration of 4% TS and a primary
sludge concentration of 5% TS have been confirmed with actual operating data lUlder current
operating conditions. The use of a coagulant will optimize WAS thickening, hence a
thickened WAS concentration of 4.5 was assumed. These sludge volumes relate to a
maximum month dry season relative hydraulic capacity of the digesters of 9.3-mgd and a
maximum month wet season relative hydraulic capacity of 14.9-mgd.
The actual maximum month capacity of the anaerobic digestion process based on the design
maximum month hydraulic capacity of the treatment plant is 14.9-mgd. This is based on the
capability of the process to meet Class B requirements for land application based on the
BODs and TSS loads and sludge productions that will occur at 14.9-rrigd.
TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY
The capacity of the treatment plant is determined by evaluating the capacity of each unit
process and then establishing the plant capacity as the capacity of the limiting unit process.
All capacities have been standardized to a hydraulic capacity in the previous sections, even
though the limiting condition may not be based on the hydraulic capacity. For example, if
the limiting condition is based on BODs loading, the capacity at which the BODs loading
becomes limiting is used as the limiting hydraulic capacity. Each of the unit process
capacities has been summarized in Table 3-12.
The limiting unit process capacity is the capacity of the primary treatment process. The
process is limited by the average day overflow rate. Using an overflow rate of l400 gpd/ft2,
the capacity is 14.1-mgd. The DOE Orange Book criterion for the daily overflow rate for
primary clarifiers is 1200 gpd/ft2. Historical data has shown that the effluent BODs and TSS
concentrations do not increase with an overflow rate of 1400 gpd/:ft?
It is important to note that the peak secondary capacity is 22.8-mgd. This is based on the
design criteria outlined in the DOE Orange Book specifying a peak instantaneous overflow
rate to the secondary clarifiers of 1200 gpd/ft2. Historical records have demonstrated that the
treatment plant cannot produce the required effluent quality when this parameter is exceeded.
For this reason, the treatment plant should restrict the flow to the secondary system to a peak
instantaneous flow of 22. 8-mgd and provide primary treatment only to any flows greater than
that amount. The historical records show that the primary effluent is very dilute at flow rates
greater than 22.8-mgd and blending of the secondary and primary effluents prior to
disinfection will provide a plant effluent within the permit parameters for BODs and TSS
concentration and mass.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 3.14
Bremerton WWTP
Section 3 - Capacity Evaluation
Table 3-12
City of Bremerton WWTP
Unit Process Capacity Analysis
Rated Capacity
Unit Process Maximum Month Limiting Units
Flow Condition
(mgd)
Screening 30 Screen Capacity mgd
Grit Removal 30 Hydraulic mgd
Capacity
Primary Treatment 14.1 Overflow Rate gpd/fe
Secondary 14.2 Sec Clarifier gpd/fe
Treatment OFR
"I Disinfection 30 Basin hrs
" I DT
Gravity Thickening 15.2 Solids Ibs/day/fe
, J Loading
Solids
Flotation Thickening 16.7 Ibs/day/ft2
Loading
'j Anaerobic Digestion 14.9 Hydraulic days
DT
1
"
i
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 3-15
Bremerton WWTP
Section 4 -WWTP Rerating
, !
INTRODUCTION
.-1
. !
I
" I
I
The City of Bremerton's WWTP was originally designed for a maximum month flow rate of
10.1-mgd. This flow was based on influent waste load criteria that were assumed by the
designers based on historical flows and loads that entered the previous primary treatment
plant. Since.startup of the current treatment plant in 1986, the service area demographics and
wastewater characteristics have changed from those that were anticipated with the original
design.
," f
I
;
The capacity of the treatment plant is based on the characteristics of the flows and loads that
it receives. The City's treatment plant is unique in that it receives flows from the combined
sewer system resulting in increased wintertime flows and high peaking factors. This results
in a more dilute wastewater, which changes the capacity characteristics of the treatment
plant.
r '{
I
I
The treatment plant was designed for a maximum month influent flow of 10.1-mgd at a
BODs concentration of215 mglL and a TSSconcentration of268 mgIL. These wastewater
concentrations are comparable to the concentration received at the treatment plant during the
dry season. The maximum month flow actually occurs during the wet season. A detailed
analysis of the plant flows and loads for the period between 1997 - 2000 show that the actual
BODs and TSS concentrations are 131 mglL and 146 mglL, respectively at the maximum
month flow. Therefore, the treatment plant needs to be rerated to provide a revised plant
capacity under the actual maximum month wastewater characteristics.
I
I
. I
DOE RERA TING PROCEDURE
The Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) outlines in the Criteria for Sewage Works
Design (Orange Book) the requirements for rerating of a municipal wastewater treatment
plant. Section GI-5.4.2.A defines two methods for rerating a facility. These are the Standard
Facility Rerating and the Nonstandard Facility Rerating. The difference in the two is that the
standard rating is performed using Orange Book standards or other generally accepted
manuals of practice. The nonstandard rating is done using methodology or criteria outside of
the criteria set forth in the Orange Book. The City desires to rerate the treatment plant under
the Standard Facility Rerating classification.
DOE has specified some specific requirements for the gathering and submission of process
data. These are:
· The evaluation must be done under the guidance of a registered professional engineer
experienced in sanitary engineering
· The data used in the evaluation must be based on the full-scale operation of the
facility treating a sewage that is representative of the waste to be treated
· The evaluation period must be for a period of at least 12 months and must include
both wet and dry weather performance
· The data must demonstrate treatment plant performance under maximum and
minimum design conditions.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 4-1
Bremerton WWTP
Section 4 -WWTP Rerating
This rerating study was done using the design criteria specified in the Orange Book and is
based on operating data that has been collected over the past four years, as a minimum. Over
this period, the treatment plant demonstrated the ability to effectively treat a wide range in
flows. A registered professional engineer has done the data analysis and treatment plant
rerating. A summary of this data evaluation was discussed in Sections 1 and 2.
RERATING RESULTS
The capacity of the treatment plant is defined in the NPDES permit 0N A-002989) ata
maximum month flow of 10.I-mgd. The historical waste strength is weaker under the
maximum month flow conditions than the treatment plant was designed for. The actual
capacity of the treatment plant is a maximum month average daily flow of 14.I-mgd based
on the limiting unit process capacity of the primary treatment process. This is based on a
maximum daily primary clarifier overflow rate of 1400 gpd/ft . This value is higher than the
Orange Book standard of 1200 gpd/ft2, but was selected based on the historical performance
of the system.
Another critical design criterion that must be considered is the maximum hydraulic flow that
can be sent to the secondary process. The maximum daily secondary flow that can be
adequately treated is 22.8-mgd. This is based on the peak secondary clarifier overflow rate
of 1200 gpd/ft2. This criteria is based on the design standard specified in the Orange Book
and was confirmed with historical operating data. On each of the occurrences that the permit
limits were exceeded, this design criterion was also exceeded.
The treatment plant receives flows greater than 22.8-mgd on diurnal flow peaks and on rare
occasions as a daily average flow. During these periods, the influent wastewater is dilute
resulting in primary effluent BODs and TSS concentrations in the range of 50 - 75 mglL.
Forcing these high flows to the secondary system degrades the effluent quality by flushing
solids from the secondary clarifiers. The best alternative that will produce the best effluent
quality is to maximize the flow to the secondary system to 22.8-mgd and blend the primary
effluent flows greater than 22.8-mgd with the secondary effluent prior to disinfection. The
treatment plant currently has the capability to provide this blended effluent. This process
alternative will provide the highest quality effluent and will meet the effluent discharge
standards specified in the NPDES permit.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
In Association with Richwine Environmental, Inc.
Page 4-2
'1
. f
LJ
01
J
I
,.J
j
L1
dlx
~
~
..........
Appendix E
Mixing Zone Study
COM
P:\Bremerton\Comp pran\Amendment\7PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005
Bremerton Westside WWTP
Mixing Zone Study
Prepared for:
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
P.O. Box 3885
Bellevue, Washington 98009-3885.
Prepared by:
Cosmopolitan Engjneerin~ Group
117 South 8 Street
Tacoma, Washington 98402
February 2002
CDM003
APPENDIX A
MIXING ZONE STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
S ECTIO N 1: PURPOSE .................... ........................................ .................................................. 1
SECTION 2: DISCHARGE DES CRlPTION ............................................................................ 2
2.1 Outfall Description.......................... ................................. ............................................ ..2
2.2 Outfall Inspection.................................................................................... .......................2
2.3 Effluent Flow.................................................................................................................3
2.4 Effluent Quality............................................................................................. ............. ...3
2.4.1 Concentration Data............................. .,'.......................... ............ ...... ....... .... ..... 3
2.4.2 Whole Effluent Toxicity.................... ...... ....................... ......................... ......... 4
SECTION 3: WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY STANDARDS ..................................... 5
3.1 Characteristic Uses.............................................................. .......... .................................5
3 .2 Water Quality Criteria.................. .................................... ..... .................................. .......5
3.3 Mixing Zones.......................................................................................................... .......5
3.4 Sediment Management Standards ..................................................................................6
SECTION 4: RECEIVING WATER CONDITIONS ............................................................... 7
4.1 Water Quality................................. ..................................... ........ ......... ..........................7
4.2 Sediment Quality......................... ......................... ....... ....... ........ ................................... 7
4.3 Current Speed........................................................ ........................... ..............................8
4.4 Conductivity, Temperature, and Depth Profiles ............................................................9
SECTION 5: DILUTION MODELING ................................................................................... 11
5.1 Model Description... ..................... ................................. .......................... .... ............... .11
5.2 . Model Results .................................. ......... ....................................... ............. ............. ..11
SECTION 6: WATER QUALITY ANALySIS....................................................................... 13
6.l Compliance with Water Quality Standards at the Mixing Zone Boundaries............... 13
6.1.1 Reasonable Potential to Exceed Standards ...................................................,. 13
6.l.2 Chlorine Limit. ......... ............................ ..................................... ....... ............... 13
6.2 BOD, Ammonia, and Nitrogen ..... ........................ .............. ........................... .......... ....15
6.3 Sediment Impacts................................................. .... ................................................ ....15
SECTI ON 7: CON CL USI 0 NS .................................................................................................. 17
SECTION 8: REFEREN CES .............................................................................................. ...... 18
BremertOll Wests ide WWTP
Mixing Zone Study
CDM003
February 2002
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Page
Effluent Flow Projections... ....... .......... .... ....: ..... ......... .......... ............ ......... ......... .... .......3
Effluent Toxicity Data Summary (l996-200 1) ................. .... ......... ..... ...........................4
Current Speeds for Dilution Modeling................................... ..................................... ..9
Summary of Dilution Model Runs............................................. .................................. I ]
Reasonable Potential to Exceed Water Quality Standards ..........................................14
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Outfall Drawing
Attachment B: Effluent Data 1996-2001
Attachment C: 10/1/01 Drogue Study Data
Attachment D: Dilution Model Output
Attachment E: Water Quality Worksheets
Bremerlon WeSlside WWTP
Mixing Zone Study
ii
CDM003
Febrnary 2002
SECTION 1:
PURPOSE
C'j
I
I
The last mixing zone study for the City of Bremerton Westside WWTP outfall into Sinclair Inlet
was conducted by CH2M Hill in 1992. The study established acute and chronic dilution factors
of 25: 1 and 69: l, respectively. These dilution factors were used by Ecology for the current
NPDES permit issued in 1996. Ecology's Fact Sheet for the 1996 permit determined that there
was no reasonable potential to exceed water quality standards except for chlorine. Therefore, the
current NPDES permit includes a water quality-based effluent limit for chlorine only.
The purpose of this appendix is to update the mixing zone study for effluent flows projected after
construction of the proposed high rate clarification (HRC) facilities. The results of this study
will be used by Ecology to establish effluent limitations for the next renewal ofthe NPDES
permit.
Bremenon Westside WWTP
Mixing Zone Study
J
CDM003
February 2002
SECTION 2:
DISCHARGE DESCRIPTION
2.1 OUTFALL DESCRIPTION
The Bremerton Westside WWTP outfall is 568 feet long, 36 inches in diameter and terminates at
a depth of approximately -30 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) datum into Sinclair Inlet at
a location west of the Bremerton Naval Shipyard. The terminal portion of the outfall consists of
a 20-port diffuser with 6~-inch diameter openings at 6-foot spacing. The diffuser ports
discharge horizontally in alternating directions at a depth of -29 feet MLL W.
Outfall construction drawings by KCM from 1971 are included in Attachment A.
2.2 OUTFALL INSPECTION
Two certified divers and licensed professional engineers visually inspected the existing outfall
and diffuser on October l, 2001. The outfall pipeline, diff1,tser and joints were found generally
as shown in the outfall drawings. Soils surrounding the pipeline consist of fine-grain mud. No
bedding or armoring materials were observed. The mud line along the diffuser varies from about
1 foot below the springline to the springline. All 20 ports were flowing fully with no
obstructions or structural damage to the diffuser. Ports are at about the 2 and 10 o'clock
positions on alternating sides of the pipe, discharging horizontally per the drawings.
There was considerable biological growth on the concrete surface, consisting of tube worms,
nudibranchs, stars, a few rock and spider crabs, and many shrimp. There was a large
accumulation oftubewonns around the perimeter of the ports, which was not inhibiting flow.
There was a slight decrease in the flow from the inboard ports to the last ports, which is typical
of marine diffusers.
The holddown chains were at an advanced state of corrosion. However, these were probably for
construction and do not appear to have any current structural purpose. The pipe joints are fully
restrained with stainless steel lugs and harnesses. The stainless steel lugs, threaded tie-rods and
nuts are all intact. The Carnegie ioints are all intact above the mudline.
Bremerton Westside WWTP
Mixing Zone Study
2
CDM003
February 2002
There was some siltation inside the diffuser, particularly toward the middle and offshore end.
This material was fine grained and filled the pipe up to an estimated 40 percent of the pipe
diameter in places. It is not known how far back up the outfall might be subjected to siltation. A
hydraulic test of the head loss in the pipeline and diffuser is recommended.
2.3 EFFLUENT FLOW
Effluent flow criteria to be used in the mixing zone analysis are specified in Ecology's Permit
Writer's Manual (Ecology, 1994).
. For the acute mixing zone, the critical condition is defined as the highest daily maximum
plant effluent flow.
. For the chronic mixing zone, the critical condition is defined as the highest monthly
average plant effluent flow.
Construction of the proposed wet weather facilities at the Westside WWTP will significantly
increase peak flow rates. CSOs previously discharged at remote outfalls will be discharged
through the Westside WWTP outfall in the future. Dry weather flows will not be affected. The
effluent flow proj ections are shown in Table I.
Table 1 Effluent Flow Projections
'::';.:~>:=~' ::~
. ." . .
. .';'.: .: ;".i...:i ~:::' ..~ ,:-h
,......~.~M~,tjP~"!\i"~'.[
Wet Weather
Dry Weather
20
5
50
10
2.4 EFFLUENT QUALITY
2.4.1 Concentration Data
Chlorine, ammonia and metals effluent data are available from 1996 through 2000. Chlorine
residual is sampled daily, ammonia weekly and metals approximately bi-monthly. Effluent data
sheets are included in Attachment B. The statistical distributions of effluent data used in the
water qualIty analysis per Ecology protocol are provided in Table Z.
Bremerton Westside WWTP
Mixing Zone Study
3
CDM003
Febmary 2002
Table 2 Effluent Toxicity Data Summary (1996-2001)
Parameter. .. #~am~le~, . '.Mean ...... .95iI!P~tceIltil~'.
Chlorine, mglL 69 0.044 0.130 0.069
Ammonia-N, mg/L 248 16.3 39.0 30.5
Mercury, flg/L 29 0.2 0.2
Arsenic, flg/L 29 1.6 3.3 3.0
Cadmil.U1l, flglL 29 0.8 0.8
. "\ Chromium, Ilg/L 29 6.6 78 8.6
! Copper, IlglL 29 5.6 20.5 15.4
1
Lead, flglL 29 20 20
Nickel, flglL 29 9.7 20 20
Zinc, flgIL 29 33 190 91
Cyanide, flg/L 29 5.5 13 8.8
2.4.2 Whole Effluent Toxicity
Acute whole effluent toxicity has been tested six times since 1996. The LC50 has exceeded 100
percent effluent in all tests on both daphnia and fathead minnows. The NOEC has been 100
percent effluent in each test and mortality in 100 percent effluent has not exceeded 7 percent in
anyone test. Based on past performance, there is no reason to expect that there will be any
problem with acute whole effluent toxicity after the proposed wet weather facilities are
completed. However, since the city's effluent has failed the acute screening test, the permit will
include an acute WET limit.
Chronic whole effluent toxicity was tested twice in 2001 to support the NPDES permit renewal
application. The LC50 for both test species exceeded 100 percent effluent. The NOEC was 50
percent effluent for the Mysid shrimp survival and 25 percent for growth. The CCEC is on the
order of I percent effluent, so there is no chronic toxicity problem with the current discharge.
Based on past performance, there is no reason to expect that there will be any problem with
chronic whole effluent toxicity after the proposed wet weather facilities are completed.
Bremerlon Weslside WWTP
Mixing Zone Study
4
CDM003
February 2002
SECTION 3:
WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY STANDARDS
3.1 CHARACTERISTIC USES
Sinclair Inlet is a shallow bay approximately 3/4 mile wide and 5 miles long. MLL W depth
varies from 20 to 25 feet at the west end to over 50 feet at the east end of the inlet. Class AA
(extraordinary) receiving water quality standards in WAC 173-201A apply to Sinclair Inlet.
Characteristic uses protected under this classification include:
. Fish migration
. Fish and shellfish rearing, spawning, and harvesting
· Wildlife habitat
. Primary contact recreation (swimming, skiing, diving, etc.)
. Sport fishing
· Boating and aesthetic enjoyment
· Commerce and navigation
3.2 WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
Numerical criteria for conventional pollutants and toxicants are provided in WAC l73-201A-060
and -070. The numerical criteria are listed in tables later in this appendix.
3.3 MIXING ZONES
Mixing zones have been authorized by Ecology in the NPDES permit for the Westside WWTP.
The state water quality standards (WAC 173-20IA) allow Ecology to establish these zones
around discharges in determining water quality-based effluent treatment requirements. Both
acute and chronic mixing zones are authorized for toxicants in the wastewater effluent. The
concentrations of these toxicants may not exceed water quality standards outside of these mixing
zones. The dimensions ofthe authorized mixing zones are as follows:
· The boundary of the chronic mixing-zone is a horizontal distance <1f200 feet J1lu~ the
aCp~}-od'o~~"ha....~b-~~ -~""n<:Lt-1ufLLUL,",~;_~+~1. ,'"l'"l(L~L"'lQ~~
ro-:r V'V"""~\FY.~.[ U-~};.R:JA~l"-"'''''''' _.. J;T;J;:J:JLJ rr, Qr-""'t'1-'.l.v.n.J.l.l,.1.U.",",,1.T;&;.--..;i.T-Tv\J~-,--u-~~
Bremerton Westside WWTP
Mixing Zone Study
5
CDM003
February 2002
for the Westside WWTP outfall, as measured from any diffuser port. Chronic water
quality criteria for toxicants are applied at this boundary.
· The boundary of the acute mixing zone is defined as 10 percent of the distance to the
applicable boundaries of the chronic mixing zone, or 22.9 feet (7.0 meters), as measured
horizontally from any diffuser port. Acute water quality criteria for toxicants are applied
at this boundary.
· The acute and chronic mixing zone boundaries extend for the full depth of the water
column.
3.4 SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT STANDARDS
Marine sediment management standards are promulgated under WAC 173-204. The standards
were developed by Ecology to:
· Establish chemical, biological and other criteria to protect aquatic organisms and human
health from sediment-borne contaminants
· Facilitate source control and sediment cleanup
· Allow for sediment impact zones (SIZ) in areas contaminated by historic or ongoing
discharges during the period of sediment recovery or remediation.
Bremerton Westside WWTP
Mixing Zone Study
6
CDM003
February 2002
SECTION 4:
RECEIVING WATER CONDITIONS
4.1 WATER QUALITY
Water quality standards are met in Sinclair Inlet according to Ecology's biennial list of impaired
water bodies prepared under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. There are no water column
parameters included in the current 303(d) list for Sinclair Inlet.
Ecology's Sinclair Inlet Station SINOOI (Ecology, 1995) is used in conjunction with the 1992
Sinclair and Dyes Inlet Seasonal Monitoring Report (Albertson, S.L., et ai, 1995) to define
critical ambient water quality, including maximum temperature, pH, and salinity used in setting
acute and chronic ammonia criteria. Ambient toxicant data available from these sources include
only background ammonia concentration.
In 1979, scientists at the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory began investigating the
sources, transformation, transport, and fate of pollutants in Puget Sound and its watershed under
Section 202 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1971 (P.L. 92-32).
Background metals concentrations were measured by NOAA between 1979 and 1986 (Paulson,
et aI., 1991). Ambient toxicant data used in the water quality analysis are included in tables later
in this appendix.
4.2 SEDIMENT QUALITY
Sinclair Inlet is 303(d) listed for 23 priority pollutants that exceed state sediment quality
standards. These exceedences are generally found throughout Sinclair Inlet, but are greatest in
number and magnitude near the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.
Bremerton completed a sediment sampling program and data report consisting of 10 sampling
stations near the Westside outfall (Beak, 1998). Ecology reviewed the data and issued an
interdepartmental memorandum of their conclusions (memo from Brett Betts to Mike Dawda
dated June 1, 2000). The conclusions of Ecology's Sediment Management Unit include the
followinK:
Bremertol1 Westside WWTP
Mixing Zone Study
7
CDM003
Febntary 2002
. The Westside outfall appears to be having an impact on nearby sediments from
emichment of volatile solids and ammonia in the sediments
· Failure of both amphipod and echinoderm sediment bioassays appears to be correlated to
the unusually high ammonia in the sediments
· Phlalates and mercury are at concentrations above the sediment quality standards, but
may be due to other sources in Sinclair Inlet.
Mr. Betts recommends in the June 2000 memo that the City of Bremerton submit an application
for a sediment impact zone (SIZ) for the Westside outfall. Additional sediment and effluent
sampling and modeling are recommended to proceed with sediment recovery. The City has
initiated the process of applying for a SIZ and collecting additional data.
The Navy is in the process of developing a TMDL model for cleanup or recovery of sediments in
Sinclair Inlet. Ecology has been providing oversight in the development of this model. The
model is expected to define the source control actions necessary to support recovery and prevent
recontamination of the sediments after remediation. Therefore, it is not possible to predict at this
time what final source control actions will be required for the Wests ide WWTP discharge.
Ecology has established a policy for evaluating wastewater improvement projects that discharge
to 303(d) listed waters during the period when the TMDL is in development, such as currently in
Sinclair Inlet. In these cases, Ecology can only permit treatment facility improvements that do
not increase the mass discharge oflisted pollutants (Ecology 200l). Furthermore, permit limits
associated with such approvals are considered interim limits, which are subject to revision by the
TMDL when completed.
4.3 CURRENT SPEED
Ecology protocol requires that mixing zone modeling be representative of a range of tidal current
speeds measured at the site. CH2M.Hill conducted their I 992 modeling at assumed current
speeds of zero and four cm/sec, which were arbitrarily selected. However, Ecology (1994 and
1998) now require that currents be measured over at least one tidal cycle. The loth a:nd51Qth
percentile current speeds must be used for acute modeling, and median current speed for chronic.
Bremerton Westside WWTP
Mixing Zone Study
8
CDM003
February 2002
Tidal currents at the Westside outfall are small compared to most other outfall locations in Puget
Sound. Currents are listed in NOAA current tables as "weak and variable." Savonius rotor-type
current meters (Aanderaa and Magnusyn) are not able to detect and measure currents as small as
occur in Sinclair Inlet. For this study, currents were measured through the use of drogues
(current drifters) released at approximately 90-minute intervals over one tide cycle on October 1,
2001. Tides were moderate, consisting of an 8.2-foot ebb followed by a 9.5-foot flood.
The tidal currents were generally perpendicular to the diffuser. That is, ebb currents carried the
drogues northeast toward the mouth, and flood tides carried the drogues southwest toward the
head of Sinclair Inlet. Drogue data are presented in Attachment C. The current speeds used in
the mixing zone modeling are presented in Table 3.
Table 3
Current Speeds for Dilution Modeling
" "."~~t,,~~!!'i~,/:;:(;.::...';';:!):.:j::1L[;f:i~:\;'.\' I.M::,! ':::.:!:~~W~~ii~:s~~'~~}:~mt~~~~:",:::;i~;'J[,::,
10 1.3
50 3A
90 4.8
4.4 CONDUCTIVITY, TEMPERATURE, AND DEPTH PROFILES
Conductivity, temperature, and depth (CTD) profiles are necessary to run the mixing zone
models. Previous mixing zone studies including the 1992 CH2M Hill study have used historical
CTD data from the University of Washington. No profiles have ever been measured in the
immediate vicinity of the Westside outfalll. Therefore, CTD casts were obtained concurrently
with the drogue data on October 1, 2001. Six CTD casts were obtained at approximately 90-
minute intervals on October I, 2001, using a SeaBird Model SBE-19DO. The casts were
conducted approximately 80 yards offshore of the end of the diffuser.
I In their review of an initial draft of this report, Ecology noted that there is long-term CTD monitoring at Station
SINOO I, which is approximately one mile southeast of the Westside WWTP outfall. Model runs by Ecology with
pmffies- represerrrirrg rrmxirrn:mrand- minimum stratification did not produce dilution factors significantly different
than..iaJhi" r..nnrt
.
Bremerton Westside WWTP
Mixing Zone Study
9
CDM003
February 2002
Eight CTD profiles were used in the dilution modeling: the six profiles measured October 1 plus
two historical profiles from the UW data. The CH2M Hill 1992 mixing zone study evaluated
dilution for 50 CTD profiles by UW between 1971 and 1975. They concluded that the maximum
and minimum stratification profiles were 4114/71-0842 and 9/3/75-1700, respectively. These
two CTD profiles reflecting maximum and minimum stratification are also modeled in this study.
The six profiles measured in October 2001 and the two UW profiles are included with the
modeling results.
BrelllertOtl Westside WWTP
Mixing Zone Study
10
CDM003
Febnwry 2002
SECTION 5:
DILUTION MODELING
5.1 MODEL DESCRIPTION
CH2M Hill used the UDKHDEN in the 1992 study. UDKHDEN is well suited to the buoyant
nearfield mixing. However, it does not include a link to a farfield model. Therefore, the EP A
computer model PLUMES (Baumgartner, 1993) is used to predict acute and chronic dilution
factors. PLUMES is an interface linking the near-field model UM (Updated UMERGE) with a
far-field module based on Brooks Equation (Fischer, 1979). PLUMES is ideally suited for
buoyant discharges, and is the most commonly used model for Puget Sound outfall mixing zone
studies.
5.2 MODEL RESULTS
Table 4 summarizes the predicted acute and chronic dilution factors for all model runs.
Table 4 Summary of Dilution Model Runs
,. :"': ~ t '{::.'r:t\~:\'l':"-; .::,['1;>. ",:.-;... """, ;,': '.-
: ',"~'i :. ":I~:i~;;:\'.::\<'
, ...,,'\:;';):6hfqll.'.i...~..,P. ..!ll.'!.iu.,,;~.iti...':..,~:.~.:.::::
....:,::'.....!: .
.'. ../ .':'::.'...w';. [.n.~~t'.tyh.:':e[!:r'...'..,(~.)..'...'.'...::"i,';;i:;j':'::W~ii
.~TPlir~~~~g\\ ....,/.,... ;;r~#~t,~~.,,:.,,!.
10/01/01-0829 186 93 53 18.0 43 17.5
10/01/01 -0944 184 93 53 18.0 43 17.5
10/01/01-1139 181 92 53 18.0 43 17.5
10/01/01-1307 180 92 53 18.0 43 17.5
10/01/01-1437 180 92 53 18.0 43 17.5
10/01/01-1609 180 92 53 18.0 43 17.5
---------------------------..----------------- -----------------
09/03/75-1700 175 91 52 18.0 42 17.5
04/14/71-0842 186 93 53 18.0 43 17.5
(1) 10/01l01 CTn Profiles by Cosmopolitan Engineering with Seabird SBEl9 profiler. 1971-75 profiles by UW School of
Oceanography.
(2) Median current speed = 3.4 em/see
(3) Dry weather maximum month average daily flow = 5 mgd
(4) Wet weather maximum month average daily flow = 20 mgd
(5) 90th percentile current = 4.8 em/see
(6) lOth percentile current = 1.3 em/see
(7) Dry weather peak day flow = H} rngd
(8) Wet weather peak day flow = 50 mgd
Bremertan Westside WWTP
Mixing Zone Study
11
CDM003
February 2002
PLUMES model output files are included in Attachment D. Results and conclusions from the
modeling are provided below:
. The CTD profiles are of little significance because the plume surfaces in all cases. This
was confinned by visual observations of the plume at the water surface on several
occasions. Maximum and minimum stratification profiles produce nearly equivalent
model predictions.
. The modeling confirmed that the 4/14/71-0842 CTD profile represents maximum
stratification, which produces the lowest dilutions by a very small margin. Therefore, the
critical acute and chronic dilution factors are based on that CTD profile.
. The current speeds are so small that the difference between loth and 90th percentile
conditions is not excessive. However, the dilution predictions at loth percentile current
speeds are in all cases lower than 90th percentile current speeds. Therefore, the 10th
percentile current cases are critical for acute dilution predictions.
. The critical acute and chronic dilution factors for wet weather effluent flows are I 7.5: I
and 91: I, respectively. The critical acute and chronic dilution factors for dry weather
effluent flows are 42:l and 175:1, respectively. Wet weather acute dilution is less than
the 1992 study results due to the higher effluent flow. Wet weather chronic dilution is
higher than the 1992 study results due in part to the farfield model not available to
UDKHDEN.
Bremerton Westside WWTP
Mixing Zone Study
12
CDM003
February 2002
SECTION 6:
WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS
In this section, critical acute and chronic mixing ratios are applied to effluent and ambient water
quality data to assess compliance with Washington State marine water quality standards for
chlorine, ammonia, and metals. The need for effluent limitations in the next NPDES pennit for
these parameters is determined. Potential impacts on other receiving water and sediment quality
parameters are also addressed.
6.1 COMPLIANCE WITH WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AT THE MIXING
ZONE BOUNDARIES
6.1.1 Reasonable Potential to Exceed Standards
Ecology (1994) and EPA (1991) have established a statistical test of the "reasonable potential to
exceed water quality standards" at the acute and chronic mixing zone boundaries. Table 5
presents the "reasonable potential" analysis for the projected discharge after the proposed wet
weather facilities are constructed. The table is based on the critical dilution factors, ambient
conditions, and maximum effluent concentrations cited in the previous sections of this appendix.
Ammonia is considered seasonally in this analysis due to the variability between wet and dry
weather effluent concentrations. All of the other parameters are considered at worst-case
conditions. Water quality worksheets are provided in Attachment E.
Table 5 shows that there is no reasonable potential to exceed standards for any water quality
parameter. Therefore, there will be no need for water quality-based effluent limitations in the
next NPDES permits, according to EP A and Ecology protocol.
6.1.2 Chlorine Limit
Despite the determination of no reasonable potential to exceed the water quality standards,
Ecology will probably continue to include an effluent chlorine limit in future NPDES permits.
They may continue the existing effluentlimits of 0.13 mg/L average monthly and 0.37 mglL
maximum daily. Ifwater quality-based chlorine limits are imposed, they may be as low as 0.09
mglL monthly and 0.23 mg.IL daily, as shown in Attachment E.
Bremerton Westside WWTP
Mixing Zone Study
13
CDM003
February 2002
Table 5 Reasonable Potential to Exceed Water Quality Standards
;'~i!~~;I~,q::~tE:c~I~Ier:=:t:I'~;~4'::~;:'.. '
Conventional
Chlorine mg/L 0 0.069 0.013 0.0075 0.0039 0.0008 No
Total Ammonia mg/LasN (1) 0.05 30.5 (4) 2.86 (4) 0.43 1.79 0.38 No
Total Cyanide JigIL 0 8.8 1.0 - 0.50 0.10 No
Metals
Arsenic Jig/L 0 3.0 69.0 36 0.17 0.03 No
Cadmium Jig/L (2) 0.081 0.8 42 9.3 0.12 0.09 No
Chromium (Total) Jig/L 0 8.6 1100 50 0.49 0.09 No
Copper JigIL (2) 0.54 15.4 4.8 3.1 1.24 0.67 No
Lead Jig/L (2) 0.12 20 210 8.1 1.20 0.33 No
Mercury Jig/L 0 0.2 1.8 0.025 0.010 0.002 No
Nickel Jig/L (2) 0.41 20 74 8.2 1.52 0.62 No
Zinc Jig/L (2) 0.49 91 90 81 5.38 1.43 No
(I) Near Bottom Dissolved Total Ammonia Concentration at Station SD-2 (Albertson, 1995)
(2) Highest Dissolved Metals Concentration Station MB86- I B (Paulson et aI., 1 991)
(3) Metals criteria are as dissolved metal
(4) Ammonia criteria based on highest pH=8.4, temp=l 80C, and S=30 ppt from Ecology Station SINOOI (Albertson, 1995)
Acute dilution factor = l7.5
Chronic Dilution Factor = 91.0
Bremerton Westside WWTP
Mixing Zone Study
14
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
CDM003
February 2002
6.2 BOD, AMMONIA, AND NITROGEN
Sinclair Inlet is not included on the 303(d) list for dissolved oxygen. However, there have been
historic violations of the dissolved oxygen standard in Sinclair Inlet (Albertson, 1995). Ecology
has notified the local WWTP operators (Bremerton, Port Orchard, and KCSD5) that they intend
to conduct a model study to determine the water quality impacts of the wastewater treatment
plants in Sinclair Inlet. The study is being coordinated with the Navy ENVVEST project. The
\
ENVVEST study is focused on sediment cleanup. However, the Ecology study may expand to
include BOD, ammonia, and nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) loadings and impacts on
dissolved oxygen. A total maximum daily load (TMDL) of these parameters may be developed
in the future.
Until the TMDL is completed, Ecology has notified WWTP operators that treatment facility
modifications will be required to provide treatment that results in no net increase of mass
loadings for BOD, ammonia, and nitrogen. There is no scheduled date of completion for the
expected TMDL study.
The proposed HRC facility improvements at the Westside and Eastside WWTPs will meet
Ecology's requirement for no net increase in BOD, ammonia and nitrogen. The Bremerton
service area will not be expanding, so there will be no change in the dry weather loading of these
parameters. There will be a net reduction in wet weather loading of these parameters, because
previously untreated CSO discharges will be treated before discharge after the HRC facility
improvements are completed.
The projected effluent loadings before and after the HRC improvements are provided in the
Facility Plan. Projected effluent limits for BOD are also provided in the Facility Plan. There are
no limits expected for ammonia or total nitrogen until a TMDL is completed.
6.3 SEDIMENT IMPACTS
Sediments are the primary water quality concern in Sinclair Inlet, and a sediment TMDL is in
process. As stated previously, Ecology can only approve the proposed HRC improvements if
they can be shown to have a neutral impact or net benefit to the marine sediments compared to
existing conditions. Using TSS as a surrogate for all of the sediment toxicants, the Facility Plan
has demonstrated that mass loading from the Wests ide WWTP will decrease after the proposed
Brenzertoll Westside WWTP
Mixing Zolle Study
15
CDM003
February 2002
wet weather facilities are constructed. Therefore, the proposed HRC facility improvements are
approvable pending the TMDL.
Bremerton Westside WWTP
Mixing Zone Study
, 16
CDM003
February 2002
SECTION 8:
REFERENCES
Albertson, S.L. et al. March 1995. 1992 Sinclair and Dyes Inlet Seasonal Monitoring Report.
Environmental Investigations and Laboratory Services Program, Washington State
Department of Ecology. Olympia, Washington.
Baumgartner, DJ. Frick, W.E., Roberts, P.J.W., Bodeen, c.A. June 1993. Dilution Modelsfor
Effluent Discharges, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Pacific Ecosystem
Branch, ERL-N, Newport, Oregon.
CH2M Hill. 1992. Evaluation of Dilution and Compliance with Water Quality Standards,
revised memorandum dated October 29, 1992 and submitted to Ecology for approval,
included in Ecology's NPDES permit file for the Bremerton Westside WWTP.
Ecology. 1993. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. WA-
002034-6, Issuance and Effective Date May 28, 1993, Washington State Department of
Ecology, Olympia, Washington.
Ecology. 1994. Permit Writer's Manual, Washington State Department of Ecology Pub # 92109,
Amended July 1994, Olympia, Washington.
Ecology. 2001. Guidance to NPDES permit writers regarding permitting of wastewater facility
modifications with discharge to 303(d) listed waters, amendment to the 1994 Permit
Writer's Manual, adopted July 2001.
Fischer, H.B. et al. 1979. Mixing in Inland and Coastal Waters. Academic Press. San Diego,
California.
Kramer, Chin & Mayo, Inc. 1981. Construction Drawingsfor Wastewater Facilities
Improvements, Outfall and Diffuser Details, Drawing Number 13.
Bremer/on Wes/side WWTP
Mixing Zone Study
18
CDM003
February 2002
"
Paulson, A.J. et al. April 1991. Trace Metal and Ancillary Data in Puget Sound: August 1986.
NOAA Data Report ERL PMEL-32. Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Seattle,
Washington.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. April 1989. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Ammonia (Saltwater), Office of Water, Washington D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Technical Support Documentfor Water
Quality Based Toxies Control, EPN505/2-90-001, Office of Water, Washington D.C.
Bn~merton Wests ide WWTP
Mixing Zone Sludy
19
CDM003
Febnlary 2002
Page 1 of 1
Van Norman, Stacey
r.:-::7-==--=;:'..=~:::====--==--=-----:::===-=--=--'==--====--==-~-=====-----:::::=----=:::"==-=----=====:-7::.':::.::':::'=::'::'=-"'::=':=.==-".==':::"_-,:.:::_ =..-=:....-=::.::':.~-;:'.:;-:..,
From: Bill Fox [wpf@sprynet.com]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 12:26 PM
To: mdaw461@ecy.wa.gov
Cc: John Poppe; Van Norman, Stacey; Fernbach, Edward
Subject: Dilution factor for Bremerton Human Health Criteria
Mike:
Per your request, I ran the dilution model for effluent flow criteria applicabe to the human health criteria. I understand
that you need this for your development of the NPDES permit renewal. I will also add these results and discussion to the
mixing zone study that will be appended to the facility plan that eDM is preparing.
The Permit Writer's Manual stipulates annual average flow for carcinogens and dry weather design flow for non-
carcinogens. The previous permit human health dilution for carcinogens only was based on annual average flow of7.6
mgd. We are proposing to use an effluent flow rate of 10 mgd for the human health calculation for both carcinogens and
non-carcinogens. We believe this is a very conservative estimate for both sets of criteria.
I have attached the PLUMES model printout for this case using the critical em profile of April 4, 1971 (the same
profile as the aquatic life cases) and median currents. The resulting dilution factor for human health criteria is 121.
Please contact me at (253)265-2958 if you have any questions or I have misunderstood your request.
2/14/2002
end'x
..-
I-
I
Appendix F
Bremerton Beach Main Pigging Technical Memorandum
CDIVI
P:\Bremerton\Comp PlanlAmendment\7PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005
"I
, I
"I
City of Bremerton
East Bremerton Beach Main and Inverted
Siphon Pigging Concept Technical Memorandum
fiR
Date:
To:
From:
SUBJECT:
March 15, 2004
Tom Knuckey, Bill Davis
Eric Bergstrom, Craig Tennock
East Bremerton Beach Main Pigging Technical Memorandum
INTRODUCTION
This technical memorandum (TM) identifies the structural modifications required to be
constructed on the East Bremerton Beach Main to facilitate the pigging of the beach main and
inverted siphons including fittings, valves, and structures. This memo also summarizes the
concepts for pigging this piping system. These pigging concepts were developed with the City
and SFE, Inc. a contractor specializing in pipeline pigging. SFE was retained as a subconsultant
to HDR in this effort. A detailed pigging plan for cleaning the beach main pipes will be
developed at a later date by either the City or by a contractor such as SFE.
BEACH MAIN CONFIGURATION
A schematic plan of the East Bremerton Beach Main and the Port Washington Narrows Inverted
Siphons is illustrated in Figure 1. Sewage from all of the East Bremerton structures (OF-2, 3,
and 4), the Riptide Apartments, the East Side CSO Treatment Plant and Pump Station EB-2 flow
into, or are pumped into, the beach main and discharged to pump station CE-l. The pressure or
head in the pipeline on the east side is a function of the flow rate to Pump Station CE-I. As the
'1 flow increases, particularly during wet weather, the pressure increases. At low flows the majority
! of the beach main remains full with very low velocities. Theses low velocities promote the
deposition of solids in the pipeline. Currently, because of limited access into the pipeline the
City has limited ability to clean the beach main and siphons.
BEACH MAIN CLEANING
A number of pipeline cleaning options have been considered; however, the most feasible method
of cleaning is by pigging the pipeline. This entails inserting an object (pig) into the pipeline and
using pressure to push the pig through the pipeline. The diameter of the pig is slightly smaller
the pipeline. As the pig moves through the pipeline it pushes and scours solids in the pipe. The
solids are removed at the end of the pipeline segment being cleaned.
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 200S\Appendices\Appendix F - East Bremerton Beach Main 1M-
200403 IS.doc
1
Several considerations for pigging the beach main and siphons are discussed below:
. Launching points for pigs - Addressed below.
· Types and sizes of pigs to use - This issue will be addressed in a detailed pigging plan
prepared by others at a later date. The types and sizes of the pigs used will affect the type
and amount of solids removed.
. Methods to induce the pressure in the pipeline to push the pig - Valves and pipeline
fittings that are required for a pigging operation are identified below. The specific
equipment and the operating plan for a pigging operation will be addressed in a detailed
pigging plan.
. Methods to retrieve the pig - The required pig retrieval structures are identified below.
. Methods for handling the solids removed from the pipeline during the pigging - The
location where solids may be removed are addressed below. The method of removing
solids will be developed in a detailed pigging plan at a later date.
· Pump Station EB-2 to the inverted siphons
. Inverted siphons to the East Side CSO Treatment Plant or from the East Side CSO
Treatment Plant to the inverted siphons
. The inverted siphons
Pigging the beach main and siphons would be completed in sections as shown in Figure 1. The
sections are:
Pigging these pipeline sections will require fittings and valves at the connection point of the
siphons to the beach main as illustrated in Figure 2. Figure 3 presents an elevation view of the
pig launch and retrieval structures identified in Figure I. The valves shown in Figure2 will allow
flow to be stopped in either siphon to allow the launching of a pig.
Removal of Pigging Solids
Pump Station CE-l has a very small and deep wet well, and therefore removal of solids at the
wet well is anticipated to be difficult. Since CE-1 pumps to the Crosstown Pipeline which is a
large inverted siphon with low velocities, it is important that solids be kept from passing
downstream of CE-I to the maximum extent possible. To reduce problems with solids
downstream, it is anticipated that provisions will be made to remove solids at the end of each
section of pipe cleaned. For the first two sections of the beach main identified above to be
cleaned, it is anticipated that a settling tank may be located on the beach in the vicinity of the Pig
Launch/Retrieval Structures for removal of solids. The specific tank size, location, and related
settling issues will be identified in a detailed pigging plan developed at a later date.
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 200S\Appendices\Appendix F - East Bremerton Beach Main TM-
200403 IS.doc
2
~'l
I
'1
i
1
!
, j
It is possible that solids could be removed at the East Side CSO Treatment Plant; however, this
would need to be evaluated further in the detailed pigging plan.
A detailed description ofthe pigging concept for each beach main section summarized below.
EB-2 to Inverted Siphons
A pig launch structure is provided at Pump Station EB-2. An 18-inch diameter pipe spool
projects directly above the ground behind the CMU block retaining wall. A blind flange is
located at the top of the pipe, along with an air release valve. The top of the blind flange is at
elevation 130 feet. During dry weather and when Pump Station EB-2 is not operating, the static
water surface elevation in the beach main is at elevation 125 or lower. When the water surface is
at this elevation, the blind flange will be removed and the pig inserted into the pipeline. The
blind flange will be replaced and a water source connected to the tap for the air release valve in
the blind flange. To launch the pig, water will be introduced through this tap on the top of the
blind flange. Once the pig is beyond the discharge header of the EB-2 pump station, the High
Flow pumps may be used to advance the pig. Depending upon the required pigging pressure,
other pumps may be used. A source of water will be required to advance the pig and could be
from sewage, water from the drinking water system, or a combination of both.
The OF-4 connection to the beach main needs to be pressurized so that as the pig approaches this
connection, it will continue on to inverted siphons. A check valve was installed on the pipeline
at OF-4 to allow the line to be pressurized and prevent back flow. During a pigging operation,
the check valve will close, and normal flow into OF-4 will surcharge in the structure and be
diverted to EB-2 through the gravity sewer on the beach. To insure that the pig advances in the
beach main toward the siphons rather than up to OF-4, a supplementary source of water may
need to be pumped into the air release valve connection at OF-4. The necessity of pumping
water at this location should be identified in the detailed pigging plan that will be developed at a
later date.
The OF-3 connection to the beach main also needs to be pressurized in the same manner as OF-4
so that the pig will continue to advance. An isolation valve on the pipe will need to be provided
on the pipe up to OF-3. A bypass connection is required to allow sewage flows to be pumped
into the beach main while the valve is closed. A design concept of the isolation valve with a
bypass connection is presented in Figure 4.
At the connection point of the siphons to the beach main (See Figure 2) valves 1,2 and 6 would
be closed and valves 3, 4 and 5 opened. System sanitary flow north of valve no. 1 would be
conveyed to the CSO Treatment Plant for storage, or treatment and discharge. A pig retrieval
chamber would be installed on Pig LaunchlRetrieval Structure No. l. Before valve 4 is opened
the blind flange would be removed and replaced willi the retrievardiamber. A concept of the pig
retrieval chamber is illustrated in Figure 5. The chamber would be provided by the pigging
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Appendices\Appendix F - East Bremerton Beach Main TM-
200403 IS.doc
3
contractor or the City. The retrieval chamber would be tapped and connected by a temporary
pipe to Pig Launch Structure No.2 to allow forward flow to continue on to CE-l through the 16-
inch inverted siphon. A settling tank would be installed between Structures No.1 and 2, so that
system flow would exit the pig launcher/retriever at Structure No.1, flow through the settling
tank, then exit the settling tank and flow into Structure No.2 for conveyance to CE-I.
Alternatively, should the City decide to remove all pigging solids at Pump Station CE-I,
Structures No.1 and 2 could be piped together with temporary piping to convey system flow,
along with the pigging solids on to CE-1.
I I
i I
East Side CSO Treatment Plant to the Inverted Siphons
To pig the segment of the beach main from the East Side CSO Treatment Plant to the Inverted
Siphons, valves 1, 4 and 5 would be open valves 2 and 3 closed. The pig retrieval device would
be installed on Pig Launch/Retrieval structure No.1. The tapped connection on the retrieval
chamber would be connected by piping to Pig Launch Structure No.2. Again, the settling tank
would be installed between the two structures to capture solids removed during the pigging. The
beach main would need to be isolated with a valve at the East Side CSO Treatment Plant so that
the pig may be pushed to the inverted siphon connections. OF-2 and the Riptide Apartments
connections would also need to be isolated with a valve to make sure the pig advances to the
siphon. See Figure 4. However, the bypass connection is not required for the OF-2 and Riptide
Apartments connections. At OF-2 the flows will surcharge and flow to the East Side CSO
Treatment Plant through the 48-inch bypass pipe on Lebo Boulevard. The City operations staff
indicated that locating a valve on the pipe at the top of the hill adjacent to the Riptide Apartments
would be difficult. Their preference was to locate the valve on the beach at the beach main.
During pigging operations the pipeline between the manhole and the valve could be used to store
flow from the apartments.
Another option would be to pig this section from the inverted siphons to the East Side CSO
Treatment Plant. This would require removal of pigging solids at the treatment plant and storage
of flow during the pigging operation. This would need to be evaluated further.
Inverted Siphons
The 16-inch siphon may be pigged by isolating valve 2, and the 24-inch siphon may be pigged by
isolating valve 6. For the 16-inch siphon, the pig would be inserted into the pig launcher which
would be installed on structure No.2. A pressurized water supply will be connected to the pig
launcher to advance the pig. To start the pigging, valve 5 would be opened and the pig would be
pushed to CE-l. The 24-inch siphon would be pigged in a similar manner by closing valve 6 and
launching the pig through pig launch structure No.3. Provisions must be made to collect the
pigging solids at pump station CE-1. One concept for capturing solids at CE-1 is illustrated in
Figure 6.
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Appendices\Appendix F - East Bremerton Beach Main TM-
200403 I5.doc
4
I
. I
I
~ I
I
.1
I
!
j
I
I
.~
REMOVAL OF AIR TRAPPED IN BEACH MAIN
Currently, the connection point of the 16-inch inverted siphon to the Beach Main is a high point
in the system and it likely traps air. This air pocket potentially impacted the flow of wastewater
and limited the capacity of the system. The City tapped the l6-inch inverted siphon just
downstream of the connection to the Beach Main and vented the air through an air release valve.
The City has not experienced any problems recently in which the 16-inch siphon appears to be
plugged. The air release valve appears to have eliminated the air that became trapped at this
connection point.
When the new valves are installed as shown in Figure 2, the piping will be sloped up from the
16-inch siphon connection to the OF-3 connection. This will eliminate the potential for air to
accumulate at the 16-inch inverted siphon connection. In order to maintain a full pipe the crown
of the beach main at the OF-3 connection should be constructed at elevation 120.5 feet or lower
. assuming that the center line elevation of the inverted siphons entering CE-l is 120.7 feet as
shown on the original CE-1 construction drawings.
CLEANING THE CROSSTOWN PIPELINE
Pump Station CE-I discharges to the Crosstown Pipeline. This piping system also operates as an
inverted siphon. The City should investigate methods for cleaning this pipeline also.
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 200S\Appendices\Appendix F - East Bremerton Beach Main TM-
2004 03 IS.doc
5
Figure 1
Schematic Plan of the East Bremerton Beach Main and Port Washington Narrows Siphons
Pump Station
EB-2
OF-4
20" --
;~
Beach Main
Port Washington Narrows
Inverted Siphons
16"
24"
Pump Station
CE-l
r
Figure 2
Plan View of Fittings and Valves at the Beach Main Connections to the Inverted Siphons
From
OF-2
From
OF-3
Pig Launch! Retrieval
Structure No.1
See Figure 3
Gate Valve
and Number
/
From
EB-2
6
~.
/5
~. '
'7 """"
Pig Launch Structure
No.2
See Figure 3
't'
16-inch
Siphon
'"
24-inch
Siphon
Pig Launch Structure
No.3
See Figure 3
P:\Bremerton\Comp Plan\Amehdment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Appendices\Appendix F - East Bremerton Beach Main TM-
200403 I5.doc
6
Figure 3
Elevation View of Pig Launch! Retrieval Structure
Pig Launch Riser, Same -\
Size as Mainline
Mainline ~ Blind Flange,
~ ~ I II below Su...."
~ Gate Valve
~
Ground
Surface
Figure 4
Isolation Valve at East Side CSO Treatment Plant, OF2, OF-3, and Riptide Apartments
Connections
Ground
Surface
\
Last Manhole or Other Structure
before Connection to Beach Main
l
/
~
-
~i
Bypass Connection, ,
Blind Flange
1 ft below Surface, Not
Required at OF-2 or the Riptide
Apartments
-
Beach Main
\
.
/
Gate Valve
At the Riptide Apartments connection the City determined that the gate valve would be more
suitably located near the beach main connection. A bypass connection would probably not be
required because normal sewage flow could be stored in the pipe during the pigging operation.
P:\Bremerton\Comp PIan\Amendment\7 PROJDOC\DRAFT AFTER JUNE 2005\Appendices\Appendix F - East Bremerton Beach Main TM-
200403 I5.doc
7