Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CITY OF BREMERTON WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
32001 32nd Avenue South, Suite 300 Federal Way, WA 98001 (253) 835-6400 City of Bremerton Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update November 2025 Prepared for City of Bremerton 345 6th Street Bremerton, WA 98337 KJ Project No. 2397011*00 11/21/25 City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update i List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... v List of Figures............................................................................................................................ vii List of Appendices ........................................................................................................................ i List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... i Section 1: Executive Summary .................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 1 1.2 Service Area and System Description .................................................. 1 1.3 Business Risk and Vulnerability Assessment ....................................... 2 1.4 Historical and Projected Flow and Loads ............................................. 2 1.4.1 Historical Flows and Loads ....................................................... 3 1.4.2 Projected Flows and Loads ....................................................... 3 1.5 Collection System Evaluation ............................................................... 5 1.6 Treatment Facilities Evaluation ............................................................ 6 1.7 Capital Improvement Plan .................................................................... 7 1.8 Operations and Maintenance ............................................................... 8 1.9 Implementation .................................................................................... 8 Section 2: Introduction ............................................................................... 10 2.1 Regulatory Requirements ................................................................... 10 2.1.1 Federal Regulations ................................................................ 10 2.1.2 Washington State Regulations ................................................ 11 2.2 Growth Management Act .................................................................... 12 2.3 Compliance Status ............................................................................. 13 2.4 Planning Information Sources ............................................................ 13 2.5 WWCP Organization ......................................................................... 14 Section 3: Service Area and System Description ....................................... 16 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 16 3.2 Surrounding Vicinity Characteristics ................................................... 18 3.2.1 City of Bremerton .................................................................... 18 3.2.2 Topography ............................................................................. 18 3.2.3 Geology and Soils ................................................................... 19 3.2.4 Climate and Air Quality ............................................................ 19 3.2.5 Water Resources .................................................................... 20 3.2.6 Wildlife and Endangered Species ............................................ 22 3.3 Sewer Service Area ........................................................................... 23 3.3.1 Service Agreements ................................................................ 23 3.4 Infrastructure Description ................................................................... 25 3.4.1 Overview ................................................................................. 25 3.4.2 Sewer Basins and Flow Routing .............................................. 25 3.4.3 Pump Stations ......................................................................... 31 3.4.4 Sewer Pipelines ...................................................................... 39 3.4.5 Combined Sewer Overflow Outfalls ......................................... 40 City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update ii 3.4.6 Collection System Odor Control Stations ................................. 41 3.4.7 Wastewater Treatment Facilities ............................................. 42 Section 4: Business Risk and Vulnerability Assessment ........................... 47 4.1 BRVA Workshop Series ..................................................................... 47 4.1.1 BRVA Approach ...................................................................... 47 4.1.2 Levels of Service ..................................................................... 51 4.1.3 Consequence of Failure/Criticality ........................................... 53 4.1.4 Business Vulnerability ............................................................. 55 4.1.5 BRVA Key Observations ......................................................... 58 4.1.5.1 CoF/Criticality ........................................................ 58 4.1.5.2 Business Vulnerability ........................................... 60 4.1.6 Engineering for Maintenance Reliability and Asset Performance ........................................................................... 62 4.1.6.1 BRVA Findings ...................................................... 63 4.1.7 Risk Score Validation & Calibration ......................................... 67 4.1.8 Likelihood of Failure ................................................................ 67 Section 5: Historical and Projected Flows and Loads ................................ 68 5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 68 5.2 Historical WWTP Flows and Loads .................................................... 68 5.3 Projected Wastewater Flows and Loads ............................................ 73 5.3.1 Sewered Population Projections .............................................. 73 5.3.2 Sewer Flow and Waste Load Projections ................................ 76 5.4 Sewer Basin Existing and Projected Flows......................................... 78 5.4.1 Sewer Basin Average Dry Weather Flows ............................... 79 5.4.2 Sewer Basin Average Dry Weather Flows Methodology .......... 79 5.4.3 Sewer Basin Peak Hour Flows ................................................ 80 5.4.4 Sewer Basin Peak Hour Flows Methodology ........................... 80 5.4.4.1 Existing Flows (2024) ............................................ 80 5.4.4.2 Projected Flow Increases (2024- 2044) ................. 81 5.4.4.3 Projected Flows (2044) ......................................... 81 5.5 Design Criteria ................................................................................... 81 Section 6: Collection System Evaluation .................................................... 83 6.1 Collection System Development ......................................................... 83 6.2 Hydraulic Model Development ............................................................ 83 6.2.1 Model Approach, Assumptions and Update ............................. 83 6.2.2 Sewer Inflow Allocation ........................................................... 86 6.2.2.1 Existing Sewer Average Daily Flows Calculation from Water Billing Data ....................... 86 6.2.2.2 Existing Sewer Inflow Allocation ............................ 87 6.2.2.3 Future Sewer Demand Allocation .......................... 87 6.2.3 Flow Meter Data Collection ..................................................... 90 6.2.4 Model Calibration Methodology ............................................... 91 6.2.5 Rainfall Data ........................................................................... 92 City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update iii 6.2.6 Calibration Statistics ................................................................ 94 6.2.7 Dry Weather Flow Calibration .................................................. 94 6.2.8 Wet Weather Flow Calibration ................................................. 95 6.2.9 Future Flow Results ................................................................ 96 6.2.10 Hydraulic Model Capacity Evaluation ...................................... 97 6.2.10.1 Existing Flow Conditions ....................................... 97 6.2.10.2 Future Flow Conditions ....................................... 104 6.2.11 Inflow & Infiltration Analysis ................................................... 109 6.2.11.1 Graphical Identification of I&I ............................... 109 6.2.11.2 I&I Results Analysis ............................................. 111 6.2.12 Field Inspections ................................................................... 112 6.2.13 Conclusion ............................................................................ 114 Section 7: Treatment Facilities Evaluation .............................................. 116 7.1 WWTP Treatment Facilities .............................................................. 116 7.1.1 References ............................................................................ 116 7.1.2 Liquid Stream Processes ...................................................... 116 7.1.2.1 Headworks Screens ............................................ 116 7.1.2.2 Grit Removal ....................................................... 117 7.1.2.3 Primary Clarifiers ................................................. 118 7.1.2.4 Primary Effluent Pumps ....................................... 119 7.1.2.5 Aeration Basins ................................................... 119 7.1.2.6 Secondary Clarifiers ............................................ 120 7.1.2.7 RAS System ........................................................ 121 7.1.2.8 Chlorine Disinfection Contact Chambers ............. 121 7.1.3 Solids Stream Processes ...................................................... 122 7.1.3.1 Primary Sludge Pumping ..................................... 122 7.1.3.2 Waste Activated Sludge System .......................... 123 7.1.3.3 Thickening Process ............................................. 123 7.1.3.4 Anaerobic Digesters ............................................ 124 7.1.3.5 Sludge Dewatering .............................................. 125 7.1.4 Other Processes ................................................................... 126 7.1.4.1 Headworks Odor Control System ........................ 126 7.1.4.2 Biofilter Odor Control System .............................. 127 7.2 WWTP System Analysis Overview ................................................... 127 7.3 WWTP Hydraulic Capacity ............................................................... 127 7.4 WWTP Secondary Process Performance and Capacity ................... 132 7.4.1 Process Model Calibration .................................................... 132 7.4.1.1 Existing Wastewater Characterization ................. 134 7.4.1.2 Calibration and Validation Results ....................... 137 7.4.1.3 Limitations of BioWin Modeling............................ 139 7.4.2 Process Modeling and Capacity Assessment ........................ 139 7.4.3 Aeration Basin Capacity Assessment .................................... 143 7.4.4 Aeration Capacity Assessment .............................................. 145 7.4.5 Secondary Clarifier Capacity Assessment ............................. 146 7.5 WWTP Unit Process Capacity .......................................................... 149 7.5.1 Headworks Screening ........................................................... 149 7.5.2 Grit Removal ......................................................................... 149 City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update iv 7.5.3 Primary Clarifier .................................................................... 150 7.5.4 Disinfection ........................................................................... 151 7.5.5 Solids Stream Handing Processes ........................................ 152 7.5.6 Anaerobic Digestion .............................................................. 153 Section 8: Capital Improvement Program ................................................. 155 8.1 Basin Plans ...................................................................................... 155 8.2 Recommended System Improvements ............................................. 155 8.2.1 WWTP Improvements ........................................................... 155 8.2.2 Collection System Improvement Projects .............................. 159 8.2.3 Operations and Maintenance ................................................ 161 8.2.4 Facilities and Equipment ....................................................... 162 8.2.5 New Service Area Improvements .......................................... 162 8.3 Project Prioritization ......................................................................... 171 8.4 CIP Development and Cost Estimates ............................................. 173 8.5 Financial Plan .................................................................................. 175 8.5.1 Past Financial Performance .................................................. 175 8.5.1.1 Comparative Financial Statements ...................... 175 8.5.1.2 Table 8-1 Findings and Trends ............................ 176 8.5.1.3 Table 8-2 Findings and Trends ............................ 179 8.5.2 Financial Plan ....................................................................... 179 8.5.2.1 Capital Funding Plan ........................................... 180 8.5.3 Available Funding Assistance and Financing Resources ....... 182 8.5.3.1 City Resources .................................................... 182 8.5.3.2 Outside Resources .............................................. 183 8.5.4 Financial Forecast ................................................................. 185 8.5.4.1 Current Financial Structure .................................. 186 8.5.5 Current and Projected Rates ................................................. 190 8.5.5.1 Current Rates ...................................................... 190 8.5.5.2 Projected Rates ................................................... 191 8.5.6 Affordability ........................................................................... 192 8.5.7 Conclusion ............................................................................ 193 Section 9: Operation and Maintenance .................................................... 194 9.1 Responsibility and Authority ............................................................. 194 9.2 Utility Organization ........................................................................... 195 9.2.1 WWTP Personnel .................................................................. 199 9.2.2 Collection System Personnel ................................................. 199 9.3 Existing Operation and Maintenance Activities ................................. 199 9.3.1 Collection System ................................................................. 200 9.3.2 Treatment Facilities and Pump Stations ................................ 200 9.4 Staffing Needs Related to New and Expanded Facilities and Programs ......................................................................................... 202 Section 10: Implementation ........................................................................ 203 10.1 Plan Adoption ................................................................................... 203 City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update v 10.2 Coordination with Kitsap County ...................................................... 203 10.3 Environmental Impact ...................................................................... 203 10.4 Financial Standing ............................................................................ 203 10.5 Future Additions to the WWCP ......................................................... 204 References ............................................................................................................................. 205 List of Tables Table 1-1: Historical WWTP Flow Summary (2018-2023) .......................................................... 3 Table 1-2: WWTP Historical Influent Loads ................................................................................ 3 Table 1-3: Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) Projection ......................................................... 4 Table 1-4: Additional Design Flow Projections (MGD) ................................................................ 4 Table 1-5: Peak Wet Weather Flow Projection (MGD) ................................................................ 4 Table 1-6: Average Annual Load Projections ............................................................................. 5 Table 1-7: BOD and TSS Load Projection .................................................................................. 5 Table 1-8: CIP Summary ............................................................................................................ 8 Table 2-1: NPDES Permit Requirements .................................................................................. 13 Table 3-1: Major Water Resources ........................................................................................... 21 Table 3-2: Species of Concern Identified by USFWS and NMFS in the Project Area................ 22 Table 3-3: West Bremerton Sewer Basins ................................................................................ 26 Table 3-4: East Bremerton Sewer Basins ................................................................................. 28 Table 3-5: Pump Stations ......................................................................................................... 32 Table 3-6: CSO Outfalls ........................................................................................................... 40 Table 3-7: Collection System Odor Control Stations ................................................................. 42 Table 4-1: BRVA Workshop Steps (Elements 1 to 3) ................................................................ 50 Table 4-2: BRVA Workshop Agenda ........................................................................................ 51 Table 4-3: Consequence of Failure Definitions ......................................................................... 53 Table 4-4: Consequence of Failure (CoF) Scoring ................................................................... 54 Table 4-5: Business Vulnerability Criteria Definitions ................................................................ 56 Table 4-6: Business Vulnerability (BV) Scoring Criteria ............................................................ 57 Table 5-1: Historical WWTP Flow Summary (2018-2023) ........................................................ 69 Table 5-2: WWTP Historical Influent Loads .............................................................................. 69 Table 5-3: Influent Flow and Load Peaking Factors 2018-2023 ................................................ 73 Table 5-4: City of Bremerton Sewered Population Projection ................................................... 75 Table 5-5: Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) Projection ....................................................... 76 Table 5-6: Additional Design Flow Projections (MGD) .............................................................. 77 Table 5-7: Peak Wet Weather Flow Projection (MGD) .............................................................. 77 Table 5-8: Average Annual Load Projections ........................................................................... 78 Table 5-9: BOD and TSS Load Projection ................................................................................ 78 Table 5-10: Existing and Projected ADWF – Basin Specific ..................................................... 79 Table 5-11: Existing and Projected PHF – Basin Specific ......................................................... 80 Table 5-12: Summary of Design Criteria ................................................................................... 82 Table 6-1: Annual (2023) Billed Water and Sewer Demand by Usage Type ............................. 86 Table 6-2: Rainfall Event Summary .......................................................................................... 93 Table 6-3: Calibration Statistics Criteria.................................................................................... 94 City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update vi Table 6-4: Existing DWF Calibration Results ............................................................................ 95 Table 6-5: Existing WWF Calibration Results ........................................................................... 96 Table 6-6: Future Peak Hourly Flow Results ............................................................................ 97 Table 6-7: I&I Analysis – November 2023, 24-Hour Storm ..................................................... 112 Table 7-1: Design Criteria for Headworks Screens ................................................................. 117 Table 7-2: Design Criteria for Grit Removal Chambers ........................................................... 118 Table 7-3: Design Criteria for Primary Clarifiers ..................................................................... 118 Table 7-4: Design Criteria for Primary Effluent Pumps ........................................................... 119 Table 7-5: Design Criteria for Aeration Basins ........................................................................ 120 Table 7-6: Design Criteria for Secondary Clarifiers ................................................................. 120 Table 7-7: Design Criteria for RAS Pump ............................................................................... 121 Table 7-8: Design Criteria for Chlorine Disinfection Contact Chambers .................................. 122 Table 7-9: Design Criteria for Primary Sludge Pump .............................................................. 123 Table 7-10: Design Criteria for WAS System .......................................................................... 123 Table 7-11: Design Criteria for Thickening Process ................................................................ 124 Table 7-12: Design Criteria for Anaerobic Digesters ............................................................... 125 Table 7-13: Design Criteria for Sludge Dewatering ................................................................. 126 Table 7-14: Hydraulic Scenarios for Plant’s Flow Capacity Assessment ................................. 130 Table 7-15: Ratios Used to Establish BioWin Modeling Input Parameters .............................. 135 Table 7-16: Water Quality Characteristics for Influent and Centrate from Supplemental Sampling ........................................................................................................................ 136 Table 7-17: Secondary Process Modeling Calibration Results ............................................... 137 Table 7-18: Effluent Quality Goal............................................................................................ 139 Table 7-19: Operation Criteria for Secondary Process Capacity Assessment......................... 140 Table 7-20: Operating Scenarios for Modeling and Desktop Calculations .............................. 141 Table 7-21: Summary of Aeration Basin Capacity Assessment .............................................. 144 Table 7-22: Summary of Aeration Demand Assessment ........................................................ 145 Table 7-23: Summary of Secondary Clarifier Capacity Assessment ....................................... 148 Table 7-24: Grit Removal Capacity Assessment .................................................................... 150 Table 7-25: Primary Removal Capacity Assessment .............................................................. 151 Table 7-26: Disinfection System Capacity Assessment .......................................................... 152 Table 7-27: Solids Stream Handling System Capacity Assessment ....................................... 153 Table 7-28: Anaerobic Digestion Process Capacity Assessment ............................................ 154 Table 8-1: Summary of Historical Fund Resources and Uses Arising from Cash Transactions ........................................................................................................................ 176 Table 8-2: Summary of Historical Comparative Statements of Net Position ............................ 178 Table 8-3: Budget and 10-Year and 20-Year CIPs ................................................................. 180 Table 8-4: Budget Year and 10-Year CIP ............................................................................... 181 Table 8-5: Budget Year and 10-Year and 20-Year Capital Financing Strategy ....................... 185 Table 8-6: Budget Year and 10-Year Financial Forecast ........................................................ 189 Table 8-7: Ending Cash Balance Summary ............................................................................ 190 Table 8-8: Existing Schedule of Rates .................................................................................... 191 Table 8-9: Proposed Schedule of Rates ................................................................................. 192 Table 8-10: Community Affordability Test ............................................................................... 193 Table 9-1: Operations and Maintenance Responsibilities ....................................................... 194 Table 9-2: WWTP Staff Minimum Required Certifications ...................................................... 199 City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update vii List of Figures Figure 3-1: Site Location .......................................................................................................... 17 Figure 3-2: Topography ............................................................................................................ 24 Figure 3-3: Existing Sewer System and Service Area ............................................................... 29 Figure 3-4: Sewer Basins Map with Water System Infrastructure ............................................. 30 Figure 3-5: Westside Wastewater Treatment Process Schematic ............................................ 44 Figure 3-6: Westside Wastewater Plant.................................................................................... 45 Figure 3-7: Eastside Treatment Process Diagram .................................................................... 46 Figure 4-1: Example of Relative Risk Score and Profile ........................................................... 48 Figure 4-2: City Risk Matrix and Scoring .................................................................................. 52 Figure 4-3: Preliminary Risk Score ........................................................................................... 64 Figure 4-4: Preliminary Risk Score – BRVA Heat Map ............................................................. 66 Figure 5-1: Influent Flow in MGD (2018-2023).......................................................................... 70 Figure 5-2: Influent CBOD5 Load in ppd (2018-2023) ............................................................... 71 Figure 5-3: Influent TSS Load in ppd (2018-2023) .................................................................... 72 Figure 6-1: Sewer Basin Map ................................................................................................... 85 Figure 6-2: Future Average Dry Weather Flow Map ................................................................. 89 Figure 6-3: ADWF Schematic from PS Flow Meters ................................................................. 91 Figure 6-4: Existing System DWF d/D Capacity Results ........................................................... 99 Figure 6-5: Existing System WWF d/D Capacity Results ........................................................ 101 Figure 6-6: Existing System DWF Velocity Results ................................................................ 103 Figure 6-7: Future Flow DWF d/D Capacity Results ............................................................... 105 Figure 6-8: Future Flow WWF d/D Capacity Results .............................................................. 106 Figure 6-9: Future Flow DWF Velocity Results ....................................................................... 108 Figure 6-10: CE-1 Wastewater & Rainfall Hyetograph ............................................................ 110 Figure 6-11: Overlay of Wet and Dry Weather Events for CE-1 .............................................. 111 Figure 7-1: BioWin Simulator Layout for Bremerton WWTP ................................................... 133 Figure 8-1: New Service Area Improvements ......................................................................... 169 Figure 8-2: Collection System Improvement Projects ............................................................. 170 Figure 8-3: System Risk Evaluation and Identified CIP Improvements ................................... 172 Figure 8-4: 20-Year CIP Schedule .......................................................................................... 174 Figure 9-1: Department of Public Works and Utilities organizational chart .............................. 196 Figure 9-2: Utility Operations Division .................................................................................... 197 Figure 9-3: Wastewater Division ............................................................................................. 198 City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update i List of Appendices A NPDES Permit and Fact Sheet B Basin Plans C Pump Stations D Treatment System Modeling Results E Interagency Agreements F Outfall Evaluation Report G Crosstown Pipeline Memorandum H PSIC Memorandum I Oyster Bay Sewerage Pre-Design Alternatives J SEPA Determination Letter and Checklist K Spill Response Plan L Sea Level Rise Policy City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update i List of Abbreviations AAF Average Annual Flow AAL Average Annual Load AB Aeration Basin ADWF Average Dry Weather Flow AECOM Architecture, Engineering, Construction, and Management BASF Badische Anilin- und Sodafabrik BNR Biological Nutrient Removal BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand BRVA Business Risk and Vulnerability Assessment BTU British Thermal Unit CBFM Central Bremerton Force Main CBOD Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand CE Central Effluent CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIP Capital Improvement Plan COD Chemical Oxygen Demand CoF Consequence of Failure COVID Coronavirus Disease CPP Countywide Planning Policies CSO Combined Sewer Overflow CTP Crosstown Pipeline CW Callow Avenue Basin CWA Clean Water Act DCD Department of Community Development DMR Discharge Monitoring Report DO Dissolved Oxygen DWF Dry Weather Flow EB East Bremerton EBBM East Bremerton Beach Main EPA Environmental Protection Agency EQ Exceptional Quality ERU Equivalent Residential Unit ESTP Eastside Treatment Plant FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map GAC granulated activated carbon GMA Growth Management Act gpd Gallons per Day gpm Gallons per Minute HDPE High-Density Polyethylene HDR Henningson, Durham, and Richardson, Inc. HGL Hydraulic Grade Line HRT Hydraulic Retention Time I&I Inflow and Infiltration KCSD Kitsap County Sewer District KJ Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. lbs/sf/day Pounds per Square Feet per Day MCC Motor Control Center MCRT Mean Cell Retention Time MG Million Gallons MGD Million Gallons per Day mg N/L Milligrams of Nitrogen per Liter Mg P/L Milligrams of Phosphorus per Liter mg/L Milligrams per Liter MLK Martin Luther King MLSS mixed liquor suspended solids MLVSS mixed liquor volatile suspended solids MMF Maximum Month Flow MML Maximum Month Load MWL Maximum Week Load NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update ii NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OCS Odor Control Stations OF Overflow OFM Washington State Office of Financial Management PC Primary Clarifier PD Peak Day PDF Peak Day Flow PDL Peak Day Load PE Primary Effluent PEC Pathogen Equivalency Committee PF Peaking Factor PFRP Process to Further Reduce Pathogens PHF Peak Hour Flow ppd Pounds per Day ppdc Pounds per Day per Capita ppm Parts Per Million PSCAA Puget Sound Clean Air Agency PSIC Puget Sound Industrial Center PSNGP Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit PSNS Puget Sound Naval Shipyard PSRP Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens PVC Polyvinyl Chloride RAS Return Activated Sludge RCW Revised Code of Washington RDT Rotary Drum Thickener SB Sewer Basin SCADA Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition SCFH Standard Cubic Feet per Hour SEPA State Environmental Policy Act sf Square Feet SLR Solids Loading Rate SOR Surface Overflow Rate SOTE Sludge Settleable Overflow Rate SRT Solids Retention Time SVI sludge volume index TAZ Traffic Analysis Zones TKN Total Kjeldahl nitrogen TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TP Total Phosphorus TSS Total Suspended Solids TWAS Thickened Waste Activated Sludge UGA Urban Growth Area USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VFD Variable Frequency Drive VS Volatile Solids VSS Volatile Suspended Solids WAC Washington Administrative Code WEM Work Execution Management WAS Waste Activated Sludge WB West Bremerton WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area WTP Water Treatment Plant WWCP Wastewater Comprehensive Plan WWF Wet Weather Flow WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 1 Section 1: Executive Summary 1.1 Introduction The Bremerton Department of Public Works and Utilities (Bremerton) is responsible for providing wastewater services to the City of Bremerton and its surrounding areas. This update to the Wastewater Comprehensive Plan (WWCP) was developed to assess the capacity of the existing and future wastewater system and to outline necessary improvements. Commonly referred to as a "general sewer plan," the WWCP meets the requirements of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-240-020 and the minimum content standards specified in WAC 173-240-050. The previous WWCP was completed in October 2014 and adopted by the City Council through Ordinance No. 5268 in December 2014. This 2024 WWCP updates the previous WWCP and establishes a 20-year planning horizon from 2024 to 2044. Periodic reviews and revisions may be required to address regulatory changes in system conditions. 1.2 Service Area and System Description Sections 2 and 3 of the WWCP Update provide an overview of the service area and existing wastewater system. Bremerton, situated in Kitsap County and approximately 15 miles west of Seattle across the Puget Sound, owns, maintains, and operates a comprehensive sanitary sewer collection and treatment system. This system serves West Bremerton, East Bremerton, and the surrounding areas of unincorporated Kitsap County. 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. However, apart from the U.S. Navy, the system does not provide sewer service for significant industrial dischargers. The City’s sewer infrastructure comprises several key components: • Sewer Basins: Twenty-two (22) sewer basins; six (6) in East Bremerton with a sewered area of 1,660 acres, and sixteen (16) in West Bremerton with a sewered area of 5,360 acres. • Pipelines: Approximately 176 miles of gravity and pressure pipelines, ranging in size from six to 42 inches in diameter. Materials include polyvinyl chloride (PVC), high density polyethylene (HDPE), asbestos-cement, clay, cast iron, concrete cylinder pipe, and ductile iron (DI) pipe. • Pump Stations: Forty (40) sewer pump stations including the two Kitsap County pump stations, WB-1 and WB-2. • Odor Control Stations: Two (2) odor control stations are located in the collection system at surge chambers where pressure sewers transition to gravity sewers. Additionally, five (5) pump stations have dedicated odor control systems at the pump station wet wells. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 2 • Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Outfalls: Fourteen (14) CSO outfalls which allow discharge of untreated combined sewer flows into Puget Sound during extreme wet weather events. • Westside Treatment Plant (WWTP): One conventional wastewater treatment plant for treating dry weather flows and the majority of wet weather flows. This plant treats all flows generated in the City and service area. • Eastside Treatment Plant (ESTP): One high-rate clarification and UV disinfection treatment plant for treating excess combined sewer flows generated in East Bremerton during some heavy wet weather conditions 1.3 Business Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Section 4 describes the development process of the Business Risk and Vulnerability Assessment (BRVA) and the scoring outputs from the analysis. The intent of the BRVA is to identify the most vulnerable unit processes that might impact the ultimate performance of the City’s facilities and systems The risk score was developed with consideration to the process area’s consequence of failure (CoF) against business vulnerabilities (BV), helping to identifying assets that are more susceptible to failure. The City’s WWCP BRVA preparation kicked off with a workshop series where City staff gathered to discuss their various systems, operational risks, potential modes of failure, and opportunities for improvement. During these workshops, CoF and BV criteria mat rices were developed and process areas were scored. City staff from operations and maintenance (O&M), engineering, and management were included in these conversations. Subsequent field investigations and desktop analyses confirmed many of the findings from the BRVA interviews. Of the more than 40 assets scored in the BRVA, the following assets were identified as highly critical. • Port Washington Narrows Siphon • Electrical system • Crosstown Pipeline • Central Bremerton Force Main • Final Effluent Channel/Outfall • Anaerobic Digesters • Oyster Bay Basin Collections System The complete BRVA findings are available in Section 4. 1.4 Historical and Projected Flow and Loads Section 5 describes the historical flows and loads entering the wastewater treatment plant, and also projects the sewer flows and loads to be leveraged in both future wastewater treatment City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 3 plant and collection system analyses to identify capacity-related capital improvement opportunities. 1.4.1 Historical Flows and Loads The discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) for the influent flows and loads were provided for the period January 2018 through December 2023. This range includes periods for pre-COVID 19 pandemic years (2018-2019). Flow averages for this time period are summarized below in Table 1-1. Table 1-1: Historical WWTP Flow Summary (2018-2023) Parameter 2018 (MGD) 2019 (MGD) 2020 (MGD) 2021 (MGD) 2022(1) (MGD) 2023(1) (MGD) Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) 4.2 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.2 Annual Average Flow (AAF) 5.1 4.4 4.8 5.2 4.6 4.2 Maximum Month DWF (MM DWF) 4.6 4.0 4.0 3.9 4.3 3.6 Peak Day DWF (PD DWF) 6.2 8.7 10.4 7.3 6.9 5.8 Maximum Month Wet Weather Flow (MM WWF) 9.3 7.2 9.5 10.7 9.9 8.7 Peak Day WWF (PD WWF) 19.3 22.3 18.4 22.4 26.0 26.0 (1) Due to issues with influent measurement, effluent flow has been recorded as influent flow in the DMR since 2022. Average day and maximum month loads for Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) between 2018 and 2023 are summarized in Table 1-2 below. Table 1-2: WWTP Historical Influent Loads Parameter 2018 (ppd) 2019 (ppd) 2020 (ppd) 2021 (ppd) 2022 (ppd) 2023 (ppd) Average Annual Load (AAL) for CBOD 8,100 7,100 6,200 6,500 7,100 5,900 Maximum Month Load (MML) for CBOD 9,900 8,400 8,300 7,700 14,000 7,500 Peak Day Load (PDL) for CBOD 15,700 12,200 17,400 13,200 21,300 10,700 AAL for TSS 9,300 9,100 8,400 7,500 8,900 7,000 MML for TSS 12,100 10,000 10,600 9,400 17,700 8,500 1.4.2 Projected Flows and Loads Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) data provided by Kitsap County to the City of Bremerton was analyzed to determine the increase in residential and employment population through 2044, and subsequent increases to sewer flows and loads across the planning horizon. According to the City of Bremerton Water Utility's 2020 Water Use Efficiency Plan, water consumption per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) was estimated to be 143 gallons per day (gpd) between 2013 and 2019. Based on an average household size of 2.33 persons per ERU, residential water usage was calculated at 61 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). The water consumption rate for employment-related use remained consistent with the 42 gpcd value established in the 2014 WWCP Update. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 4 In the 2014 WWCP Update, the sewer generation factor was derived by applying a reduction to the water consumption factor to align estimated sewer generation with the 2012 Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF). This same approach was utilized to determine the reduction from the updated residential water consumption rate and the 2014 employment water consumption rate to the corresponding sewer generation factor. A 20% reduction from water consumption to sewer generation was applied to align with historical ADWF data from 2020 through 2023, yielding an average variance of 2%. The reduced residential and employment per capita per day usage rates were calculated as 49 gpcd and 34 gpcd respectively. The ADWF projections were developed using sewer generation factors applied to the projected sewered population as summarized in Table 1-3. Table 1-3: Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) Projection Year Sewered Population Base Flow ADWF Projection Residential Employment Residential Employment ADWF 2024 42,100 44,617 2.1 1.5 3.6 2034 51,241 47,795 2.5 1.6 4.1 2044 62,161 51,279 3.1 1.7 4.8 To establish other design flow baselines, historical peaking factors of AAF to ADWF, and those of peak day (PD) and maximum month (MM) flows to AAF were estimated from DMR data over the past six years for both wet weather flow (WWF) and dry weather flow (DWF). The average of the six peaking factors (PFs) was used to project all flows except for the MM WWF, where the highest PF among the six historical PFs was used. These additional projected design flows are listed in Table 1-4. Table 1-4: Additional Design Flow Projections (MGD) Year ADWF AAF MM DWF PD DWF MM WWF 2024 3.6 4.6 4.0 7.4 10.1 2034 4.1 5.3 4.6 8.6 11.7 2044 4.8 6.2 5.3 9.9 13.5 Peaking Factors 0.77 1.00 0.86 1.61 2.18 The projected 2044 peak hour flows are summarized in Table 1-5 below. Table 1-5: Peak Wet Weather Flow Projection (MGD) Year ADWF Current I/I New Area I/I PD WWF PHF 2024 3.6 22.8 0 26.4 46.9 2034 4.1 22.8 2.8 29.7 52.9 2044 4.8 22.8 5.6(2) 33.2 59.0 Notes: (1) PHF = PD WWF x 1.78 (calculated as the average of six historical peaking factors: PHF/PD WWF). (2) Additional I/I for assumed new area estimated at 2,400 gal/day/acre for 2,321 acres, following the method from the 2014 WWCP Update. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 5 To estimate loading for residential and employment areas, the City used King County’s 2014 WWCP Update loading factors for treatment plant flow and waste-load projections. Although the City is not part of King County and lacks specific local data, these figures were adopted based on their assumed regional applicability. Historical data confirmed that these assumptions closely matched local conditions, with average differences of less than 2% in influent BOD and TSS loads from 2020 to 2022. The average annual load (AAL) projections were then calculated using these factors and applied to the projected sewered population, as summarized in Table 1-6. Table 1-6: Average Annual Load Projections Year Sewered Population AAL for BOD (ppd) AAL for TSS (ppd) Residential Employment 2024 42,100 44,617 8,100 8,500 2034 51,241 47,795 9,600 10,100 2044 62,161 51,279 11,400 12,000 To establish additional design loads, historical peaking factors for maximum month load (MML), maximum week load (MWL), and peak day load (PDL) relative to annual average load (AAL) were estimated using six years of DMR data. The average of five peaking factors, after excluding an outlier from 2022, was used to project both MWL and PDL. For the MML, the highest peaking factor among the remaining five historical values was applied to the projected AAL to estimate the MML. Table 1-7 summarizes the projected BOD and TSS design loads. Table 1-7: BOD and TSS Load Projection BOD Projection TSS Projection Year AAL MML PDL AAL MML 2024 8,100 10,900 16,800 8,500 11,100 2034 9,600 13,000 19,900 10,100 13,100 2044 11,400 15,400 23,600 12,000 15,600 Peaking Factors 1.00 1.35 2.07 1.00 1.30 1.5 Collection System Evaluation Section 6 describes collection system hydraulic model development, calibration, and analysis at dry weather and wet weather steady state scenarios to identify areas of concern as the population grows across the planning area. The section also includes the results of a focused collection system field inspection effort to assess condition of several assets identified by City staff. A hydraulic model was developed for the WWCP from GIS data, as-built drawings, and other information provided by the City. The model was calibrated using rainfall data from a storm in 2023 to simulate the flow response in the model. Settings in the model were calibrated to match the modeled flow response with flow monitoring data from pump stations and Westside City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 6 Wastewater Treatment Plant DMR data. The projected 2044 peak hour flow established in the model totaled 56.5 MGD, within 4% of the projected peak hour flow based on DMR data. The model was then used to simulate a flow response due to population growth across each basin per County-provided TAZ data. The collection system evaluation, along with the focused field inspection effort, estimated the impact to each structure and recommended alternatives for improvement where necessary. Results of the evaluation indicate the current wastewater facilities generally have sufficient capacity to accommodate existing flows, with the exception of some localized capacity limitations in certain segments of the collection system, including the Sinclair Park, Callow Basin, Anderson Cove, and Kitsap Sewer District No. 1 basins. Projecting to 2044, the main trunklines in these areas, along with those in the Callow Basin, Kitsap Sewer District No. 1, Pacific Avenue Basin, and Anderson Cove, are anticipated to face capacity constraints, as indicated by the future WWF scenarios. These deficiencies can be addressed through upsizing sewer lines and mitigating Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) issues. The most critical concerns resulting from the field inspections include wet well degradation at numerous pump stations, pipe corrosion, and the need for arc flash testing. Since these recommendations do not relate to a single pump station in particular, a programmatic approach to addressing these concerns is proposed. 1.6 Treatment Facilities Evaluation The treatment system evaluation, described fully in Section 7, was conducted to assess the WWTP’s current capacity and performance under projected 2044 conditions in accordance with the Ecology’s Criteria for Sewage Works Design (Orange Book) and the design and construction standards outlined in WAC 173-240. This evaluation ensured that the facility would maintain compliance with regulatory requirements while meeting future demands. The assessment utilized three primary methods: Plant Hydraulic Analysis: A plant-wide hydraulic model was developed to evaluate the plant's overall hydraulic capacity. The goal of this assessment was to verify that the existing facilities can handle the design flows without overtopping the structures' walls and to confirm the proper operation of the flow split structure. The hydraulic profile was established from the headworks to the Sinclair Inlet. Field measurement data was collected by plant operators on March 30 and May 20, 2024 and used to evaluate the current hydraulic conditions. Process Modeling Analysis: A process model was created to simulate the existing WWTP processes. Plant daily monitoring data from January 2018 through September 2023, along with additional sampling data collected between October 16 and December 18, 2023 were used to develop the detailed influent wastewater characteristics for the model. Desktop Calculations: The capacity of the remaining major process units was evaluated through desktop calculations, comparing key design and operational parameters with typical values recommended and ranges from Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Resource Recovery (5th Edition, 2014, by Metcalf & Eddy), as well as the requirements outlined in the WA Orange Book. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 7 Key outcomes from the analyses and calculations include: • The WWTP is expected to be unable to handle the 2044 projected peak hour flow at the record high tide in many locations across the plant, including overtopping in the secondary processes and the chlorine contact chamber. Other process areas will face submerged conditions. • The outfall system limits the plant’s capacity and causes constraints in upstream processes in multiple modelled scenarios. The submerged outfall conditions have been field confirmed with manhole overtopping upstream of the outfall. • Process modelling scenarios helped to confirm that additional secondary treatment capacity is adversely affected by undersized primary treatment processes, and therefore improvements to primary processes can improve secondary treatment capacity. • The aerations basins are running at or above their estimated capacity. • The secondary clarifiers are undersized for max month wet weather flow and depend on operational parameter adjustments to meet average annual flow conditions. • Solids stream pumping capacity and anaerobic digestion capacity was found to be adequate to handle the anticipated increase in solids handling across the planning horizon. However, there is currently no redundant digester capacity. • Grit migration beyond the headworks is adversely affecting downstream treatment process performance and capacity, including the anaerobic digesters. • The disinfection system requires additional capacity to achieve required detention time under peak flow conditions. 1.7 Capital Improvement Plan Section 8 describes the capital improvement projects identified as the culminating effort between field inspections, hydraulic and process model analyses, and operator and engineering staff interviews. A financial plan to meet the 20-year CIP goals is also proposed in this section. The following types of capital improvement projects are included in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP): • Collection System Improvements: Replacement or repair of existing pipelines to correct existing conveyance deficiencies or to convey future flows. This includes the Puget Sound Industrial Center (PSIC) and Crosstown Pipeline (CTP) improvements as well. • Facilities and Equipment: Rehabilitation, replacement, or upgrades to building, equipment, and facilities. • Wastewater Treatment Plant: Rehabilitation, replacement, or upgrades to the WWTP infrastructure. • Operations and Maintenance Improvements: Annual programs for substandard main replacement, main cleaning, miscellaneous equipment improvements, and controls upgrades. This also includes additional projects that improve the operation and maintenance of the sewer system. A detailed list of the recommended CIP projects is provided in Section 8. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 8 In total, the 20-year CIP was estimated to cost approximately $279 million dollars in present worth. Major improvement projects include those shown in Table 1-8. Table 1-8: CIP Summary Improvement Type Schedule of Improvements (2025 $1,000) 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2025- 2030 2031- 2044 Collection System Improvements (C) $17,870 $3,942 $4,700 $3,500 $1,600 $2,700 $34,312 $97,950 Facilities and Equipment (F) $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $600 Wastewater Treatment Plant (T) $2,491 $11,040 $2,510 $100 $100 $700 $16,941 $108,630 Operations and Maintenance Improvements (M) $900 $900 $900 $2,400 $900 $900 $6,900 $13,600 Total CIP $21,400 $16,000 $8,200 $6,100 $2,700 $4,400 $59,000 $220,000 1.8 Operations and Maintenance Section 9 describes roles and responsibilities within the County’s wastewater/utilities organization and the staff levels required to successfully manage and operate the system. The operations and maintenance responsibilities are divided between the Wastewater Manager and the Utilities Operations Manager, both of whom report directly to the Director. The Wastewater Manager is responsible for overseeing the Wastewater Division, which includes the operation and maintenance of sewer pump stations, odor control stations, and wastewater treatment facilities and directs 20 full-time employees (FTEs). The Utility Operations Manager oversees the collection system and directs 12 FTEs. To account for expanding new and expanding facilities and programs such as PSIC improvements and the pump station improvements program, the City should anticipate adding a minimum of three (3) FTEs. Actual FTE needs should be assessed as programs expand and improvements are made. 1.9 Implementation Section 10 describes the general strategies for adopting and implementing the WWCP. This WWCP addresses system additions and improvements that will be required to fully develop the service area. It is recommended that Bremerton periodically review progress it has made in implementing the WWCP before the next WWCP is developed. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 9 Bremerton should continue to deliver on its CIP and meet the identified O&M goals. Bremerton should also continue to assess financial expenditures yearly to confirm rate increases as projected are necessary. 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. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 10 Section 2: Introduction The City of Bremerton Department of Public Works and Utilities (City) provides wastewater services to Bremerton and its neighboring areas. To ensure both existing and future wastewater capacity of the Bremerton community is met, the City has prepared this update to the Wastewater Comprehensive Plan (WWCP). This plan, often referred to as the “general sewer plan,” adheres to the requirements outlined in WAC 173-240-020 and WAC 173-240-050. The most recent WWCP update was completed in October 2014 (2014 WWCP Update) and adopted through Ordinance No. 5268 by the City Council in December 2014. The current 2024 WWCP builds upon its predecessor, utilizing a 20-year planning horizon from 2024 to 2044. Periodic review and revisions to the WWCP may be necessary to address changes in regulations or system conditions. 2.1 Regulatory Requirements The WWCP addresses relevant federal, state, county, and local regulatory requirements. The following sections summarize these regulations applicable to this WWCP. 2.1.1 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-100-4), commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA), are the federal laws that provide the overall regulatory construct for the development of federal rules to protect surface water quality in the Unites States. The CWA gave the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to implement pollution control programs and regulations associated with wastewater and effluent discharges into surface waters. The EPA 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, the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) has primacy from the EPA to administer and enforce the CWA. In response, the DOE has promulgated several regulations to protect human health and the environment from wastewater treatment and effluent discharge to surface water in Washington. Federal regulations for biosolids treatment and disposal are outlined in Title 40 Part 503 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The EPA's Part 503 regulations classify biosolids as Class A or Class B based on pathogen density achieved through treatment. Biosolids beneficially used must meet one of these classifications. Class B biosolids are produced using a Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens (PSRP), including aerobic/anaerobic digestion, composting, lime stabilization, and drying. Restrictions apply to food crop harvesting, animal grazing, and public access to land treated with Class B biosolids. Class A biosolids, achieved through a Process to Further Reduce Pathogens (PFRP), such as composting, heat drying, and pasteurization, offer greater flexibility for use and sale due to fewer restrictions. To classify biosolids as Class A using anaerobic digestion, the process City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 11 must meet time-temperature criteria or obtain PFRP equivalency from the EPA's Pathogen Equivalency Committee (PEC). Part 503 regulations also cover pollutant concentrations, vector attraction reduction, and management practices. Effective industrial pretreatment generally results in low pollutant levels. Biosolids that meet Class A pathogen levels, low pollutant concentrations, and vector attraction reduction criteria may qualify as Exceptional Quality (EQ). The EPA has established guidance for states to use in enacting regulations for wastewater reuse and reclamation (i.e., reclaimed water). 2.1.2 Washington State Regulations States are required under Section 303(d) of the CWA 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 EPA and Ecology regarding Section 303(d) implementation. Discharges of excess nutrients to the Puget Sound from domestic wastewater treatment plants are controlled by the Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit (PSNGP). The first PSNGP was issued in December 2021 and is effective until December 2026. In addition to the general nutrient-control responsibilities under the PSNGP, Ecology is advancing a broader regional nutrient-reduction strategy focused on mitigating both dissolved oxygen (DO) impairment and excessive nutrient loads in Puget Sound. In February 2025 the Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB) invalidated the PSNGP insofar as it was mandatory and remanded the permit back to Ecology for further action. As a result, Ecology is proposing to reissue the general permit in a voluntary format in which wastewater treatment facilities may opt into the general permit or alternatively be subject to nutrient-control requirements through their individual NPDES permits. Concurrently, Ecology is developing a comprehensive Nutrient Reduction Plan that uses modeling such as the Salish Sea Model to set reduction scenarios for nutrients and the associated DO improvements across the Sound. The governing Washington State laws for the planning and designing of wastewater facilities are the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.48.110. Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Section 173-240 implements the “plans and specifications” from RCW 90.48.110 and includes the requirements for engineering reports, plans and specifications, and general sewer plans. WAC 173-240 includes the following regarding planning requirements and review procedures: • Plan contents, • Requirements for engineering reports for specific projects, ownerships, operation and maintenance, and • Public notification procedures for construction of wastewater facilities. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 12 Title 90.46 of the RCW establishes Washington State law governing the use of reclaimed wastewater including treatment requirements according to types of use. WAC 173-308 is the state regulation that governs the management, beneficial use, and disposal of biosolids generated by wastewater treatment processes. Combined sewer overflow (CSO) regulations are addressed in RCW 90.48.480 and WAC 173- 245. These regulations call for “the greatest reasonable reduction in CSOs at the earliest possible date.” The WAC 173-245 regulations developed from this law allow only one CSO per year per CSO site. The City of Bremerton is allowed to meet this requirement based on a 20- year rolling average. The CSO regulations have been addressed in the City of Bremerton’s CSO Reduction Plan, October 2000 (addendum July 2003). Ecology determined in February 2011 the City had fulfilled the obligations of the CSO Reduction Plan. Overall reduction by volume and frequency of events is 99% and compliance has been obtained at all sites. The City has continued to minimize CSO events by addressing sanitary sewer discharges as they are identified, enhancing the collection system with cured-in-place pipelining for aging mains, and eliminating sewer lateral connections and decommissioning sewers in marine areas. Each year, the City submits a CSO Annual Report to the Ecology, detailing ongoing monitoring, the volume, location, and duration of CSO events, and the activities performed to further reduce such occurrences. 2.2 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 WAC 365-195 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. Wastewater 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. 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, • At least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes, and • A requirement to reassess the land use element if the probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 13 2.3 Compliance Status The City’s WWTP continues to operate under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (WA-002928-9), issued by the Ecology, which administers the Clean Water Act regulations. The plant has consistently met weekly and monthly effluent biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) permit standards since 2005. It has received the Department of Ecology’s Outstanding Performance Award for operational excellence every year from 2005 through 2023 (the award was not received in 2014, 2015, and 2019). This recognition underscores the facility's ongoing commitment to compliance and water quality management. Table 2-1 provides a summary of the requirements under the current NPDES permit. Copies of the NPDES permit and fact sheet are included in Appendix A. Table 2-1: NPDES Permit Requirements Parameter Units(1) Design Quantity May – September October – April Influent Limitations Maximum Month Flow MGD 11.0 15.5 Maximum Month Influent BOD5 Loading ppd 18,100 Maximum Month Influent TSS Loading ppd 22,600 Effluent Limitations Average Monthly Carbonaceous BOD5 (CBOD5) mg/L 25 ppd 2,294 3,232 85% removal of influent CBOD5 65% removal of influent CBOD5 Average Monthly TSS mg/L 30 30 ppd 2,752 3,878 85% removal of influent TSS 65% removal of influent TSS Monthly Geometric Mean Fecal Coliform # Colonies 200 per 100 mL pH Between 6.0 and 9.0 Notes: (1) MGD – million gallons per day ppd – pounds per day mg/L – milligrams per liter The City has also successfully reduced its combined sewer overflows (CSOs) by over 99%, as required by the City's CSO Reduction Plan, leading to the reopening of shellfish harvesting areas in Dyes Inlet. This reduction was instrumental in the termination of the Federal Consent Decree in 2011, which resulted from the 1992 lawsuit filed by the Puget Soundkeeper Alliance. All projects listed in the 1993 Ecology Order on Consent were completed by February 2011. 2.4 Planning Information Sources Information sources used in preparation of the following WWCP elements include: City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 14 Population: United States Census Bureau, 2020 census data. Land Use: City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan, December 2014. City of Bremerton Wastewater Treatment Comprehensive Plan, December 2005. City of Bremerton Zoning Ordinance, May 18, 2016. Other Reports: City of Bremerton Wastewater Comprehensive Plan (2005, CDM). City of Bremerton Wastewater Comprehensive Plan (2014, HDR). WWTP Rerating Study (2008, MWH). Nitrogen Removal Planning Study (2021, HDR). Nitrogen Optimization Plan and Report (2023, HDR). CSO Reduction Plan Update (2000, HDR) Sewer UGA Planning (2008, HDR) Sewer Planning Reports for Marine Drive, SKIA, East Bremerton and West Hills (2008, HDR) Outfall Evaluation (2018, Cosmopolitan Engineering for WWTP only). 2.5 WWCP Organization The objective of the WWCP is to provide a comprehensive summary of planning strategies, policies, and regulatory compliance efforts for the City’s wastewater utility. The WWCP outlines long-term planning and service criteria, and assesses the capacity, condition, and regulatory compliance of the City’s wastewater utility facilities in alignment with the Washington State Growth Management Act and the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Specific plan components include the following Sections: Section 1: Executive Summary Section 2: Introduction – Provides a summary of relevant background information, describes the existing system, including applicable regulatory and other requirements, and identifies related documents and sources of planning information. Section 3: Service Area and System Description – Details the characteristics of the surrounding vicinity, the sewer service area, and the existing infrastructure. Section 4: Business Risk and Vulnerability Analysis - Baselines unit process and system performance, vulnerabilities, and failure modes based on input from stakeholders. Institutional knowledge is collected from City staff along with record data to review performance objectives and identify known functional failures and risks. Section 5: Historical and Projected Flows and Loads – Documents current and projected future population, land use, sewer flows, loads, and their impacts on the utility within the sewer service area. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 15 Section 6: WWTP Collection System Evaluation – Evaluates necessary improvements to the sanitary sewer system based on the proposed expansion of the City’s sewer service area to incorporate new service zones. Section 7: Wastewater Treatment Facilities Evaluation – Establishes planning and design criteria, assesses the effects of anticipated sewage flows on treatment processes and facilities, and identifies necessary improvements to accommodate expected waste flows and loadings, including those required for effective use and disposal of effluents and solids. Section 8: Capital Improvement Program – Summarizes, schedules, and prioritizes the improvements identified in the WWCP, including implementation timelines, cost estimates, and the financial plan. Section 9: Operation and Maintenance – Outlines the wastewater utility’s organizational structure and details the operations, maintenance procedures, and programs in place. Section 10: Implementation – Discusses the coordination process for implementing the WWCP, as well as the environmental impacts associated with the implementation of current and future WWCPs. Section 11: References City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 16 Section 3: Service Area and System Description 3.1 Introduction Bremerton, situated in Kitsap County and approximately 15 miles west of Seattle across the Puget Sound, owns, maintains, and operates a comprehensive sanitary sewer collection and treatment system. This system serves West Bremerton, East Bremerton, and the surrounding areas of unincorporated Kitsap County as depicted in the vicinity map (Figure 3-1) and the sewer service area map (Figure 3-2). The system also accepts sanitary sewer flows from the U.S. Navy PSNS, other U.S. Navy Facilities, and KCSD No. 1 in West Bremerton. However, apart from the U.S. Navy, the system does not provide sewer service for significant industrial dischargers. The City’s sewer infrastructure comprises several key components including sewer mains (combined sanitary, storm, gravity, gravity-pressure, siphon, and force/pressure), combined sewer overflow structures, pump stations, odor control stations, pressure-to-gravity surge chambers, a CSO treatment plant, a conventional wastewater treatment plant, and low-pressure sewer systems (grinder pump systems and low-pressure sewer mains). The City’s engineering design and construction standards can be found at https://www.bremertonwa.gov/413/Design- Construction-Standards. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 17 Figure 3-1: Site Location City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 18 The City currently operates two wastewater treatment facilities. The WWTP, located in West Bremerton, provides secondary wastewater treatment for the entire system's wastewater service area and discharges treated wastewater into Sinclair Inlet. The Eastside CSO Treatment Plant, located in East Bremerton and sometimes referred to as the ESTP, treats combined sewer flows generated during heavy storm events in East Bremerton and discharges effluent to the Port Washington Narrows, the marine body of water that connects Dyes Inlet and Sinclair Inlet. The network connecting these treatment facilities and the service area includes gravity sewers (separated and combined), pump stations, and force mains. In East Bremerton, flow generated in the sewer basins eventually enters the East Bremerton Beach Main (EBBM). The flow is conveyed to West Bremerton via two inverted siphons that cross under the Port Washington Narrows, entering Pump Station CE-1. CE-1 pumps into the CTP, a nearly 4-mile-long pipeline which carries flows to the WWTP. The West Bremerton area also delivers wastewater to the WWTP via gravity sewers, pump stations and force mains. Flow sources include conventional wastewater, groundwater infiltration, and stormwater inflow. The hydraulic capacity of the municipal combined sanitary sewer collection system and its associated components is deemed sufficient for the conveyance of dry weather wastewater flows to the WWTP for treatment. However, under conditions of extreme wet weather storm events, the combined sewer flows may surpass the hydraulic capacity of the existing combined sanitary sewer conveyance system and the WWTP/ESTP infrastructure. In such instances, historical data indicates that excess untreated combined sanitary sewer flows have led to overflow events at CSO outfalls. 3.2 Surrounding Vicinity Characteristics This section provides a description of the surrounding vicinity, the sewer service area, and the existing sewer infrastructure. 3.2.1 City of Bremerton Situated on the western shore of Puget Sound, the City of Bremerton is bordered by two major waterways: Sinclair Inlet and Dyes Inlet. The Port Washington Narrows, which connects these inlets, divides Bremerton into two distinct areas: East Bremerton to the northeast and West Bremerton to the southwest. Figure 3-1 provides an illustration of the City and its surrounding features. 3.2.2 Topography Kitsap County lies in a structural downfold, referred to as the Puget Trough or Puget Sound Lowland, between two mountain ranges. The county occupies a long, narrow, and irregularly shaped section of the Kitsap Peninsula, characterized by numerous bays and smaller inlets that create an extensive, irregular coastline. Except for the southern boundary, the county is surrounded by the waters of Puget Sound. The terrain features gently rolling lowlands with moderate elevation changes. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 19 3.2.3 Geology and Soils Bremerton lies within the Puget Lowland and is part of a large glacial drift plain. This plain is characterized by low, gently rolling ridges that run north to south, separated by valleys and marine embayment. The area is covered by glacial tills, which is underlain by older glacial and interglacial deposits. The depth of the till ranges from a few feet to over 100 feet and typically consists of cobbles and coarse gravel embedded in clays, silts, and sands, forming a very dense material. Beneath the till, from Bainbridge Island to Bremerton, are the sediments of the Blakely Formation. These sediments are made up of massive to moderately bedded, dark reddish- brown cobble to boulder conglomerates within a well-cemented matrix of coarse, poorly sorted sandstone. The sandstone and conglomerate contain a mix of subangular to well-rounded fragments of basalt, andesite, basaltic sandstone, dark gray siltstone, along with occasional quartzite and metamorphic rock fragments. Interbedded within the formation are thin layers of lighter gray-brown clay mudstone, carbonaceous siltstone, and coal. To the west of Bremerton, there is a significant outcrop of Eocene Crescent volcanic rocks. 3.2.4 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 Bremerton, 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. Annual precipitation in the county ranges from about 30 inches in the northern parts to around 70 inches in other areas, with some southwestern parts receiving up to 70 inches. Around 80% of Bremerton’s precipitation occurs between October and March. Snowfall remains infrequent and light, with depths typically between 3 to 6 inches in lower elevations. Snowmelt continues to occur within 24 hours following a snowstorm. The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) is the regional air quality management agency for Kitsap County. PSCAA represents the EPA, and monitors and manages air quality in the Puget Sound Region. Under the authority of the Clean Air Act, EPA established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which specify maximum concentrations for a set of “Criteria Pollutants”. These pollutants include carbon monoxide, particulate matter (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 EPA as “Non- attainment” areas. The planning area is not located in a designated non-attainment area for any of the federal criteria pollutants. The City is aware of the effects of climate change as they relate to sea level rise in its system. Please refer to Appendix L for the City’s administrative policy on sea level rise, which is a consideration in all future capital improvements to the City’s system. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 20 3.2.5 Water Resources Freshwater and marine resources in this area of Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 15 include Sinclair Inlet, Dyes Inlet, the Port Washington Narrows, and the associated watersheds that flow into these marine systems. Both Fresh and Marine water 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 and described in WAC 173-201A. 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 primary contacts as designated by the State of Washington (WAC 173-201A). The following freshwater bodies are within the Sinclair Inlet Watershed: • Anderson Creek • Annapolis Creek • Beaver Creek • Blackjack Creek • Gorst Creek • Karcher Creek • Ross Creek • Ruby Creek • Sacco Creek • Wright Creek Dyes Inlet Watershed The Dyes Inlet Watershed is located north and west of Bremerton in central Kitsap County. Surface waters of this watershed are primary contact as designated by the State of Washington (WAC 173-201). The following freshwater bodies are within the Dyes Inlet Watershed: • Barker Creek • Chico Creek • Clear Creek • Dickerson Creek • Kitsap Creek • Mosher Creek • Ostrich Bay Creek • Pahrmann Creek • Ridgetop Creek • Strawberry Creek • Steele Creek 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 supports shellfish harvest, has been classified as being of City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 21 excellent quality for Aquatic Life Uses, and is a primary contact for recreational uses according to the State of Washington (WAC 173-201A). Dyes Inlet and Port Washington Narrows The Port Washington Narrows flows between Dyes and Sinclair Inlets. Strong currents, associated with the tidal cycles, characterize the 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 the water and habitat quality. Dyes Inlet and Port Washington Narrows are classified as being of excellent quality for aquatic life uses, support shellfish harvest, and are significant contacts for recreational uses according to the State of Washington (WAC 173-201A). Other Water Resources The waters within Bremerton’s service area have differing water quality due to natural conditions and historical practices. Based on a review of past water quality studies and planning documents, a general assessment of the water quality trends of major water resources is provided in Table 3-1. Table 3-1: Major Water Resources Water Body Current Water Quality Kitsap Lake (1)(2) Good Sinclair Inlet (1)(3) Excellent Dyes Inlet (1)(3) Excellent Anderson Creek Excellent Union River Excellent Notes: Source: Kitsap Co. Health Dist. (SSWM) 2023 Water Quality Monitoring Report. (1) Water body is 303(d) listed for fecal coliform bacteria. (2) Water body is 303(d) listed for phosphorus. (3) Water body is 303(d) listed for heavy metal, organic, and/or inorganic parameters. Kitsap Lake often faces challenges related to high phosphorus levels, which can lead to harmful algal blooms. Currently, elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria have been detected, especially after rain events, indicating potential contamination from stormwater runoff or failing septic systems. 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. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 22 Department of Housing and Urban Development breaks the City down into three flood zones. FIRM zones and areas include: The Department of Housing and Urban Development classifies the City into three flood zones based on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). These zones are as follows: • Zone A1: Identified as areas subject to a 100-year flood event, with base flood elevations and flood hazard factors determined. This includes the entire city coastline and the shoreline of Kitsap Lake (elevation 159 feet). • Zone B: Areas situated between the limits of the 100-year and 500-year flood zones. It also includes areas prone to 100-year flooding with average depths of less than one foot or where the contributing drainage area is less than one square mile, or those protected by levees. A small 5 to 6 block area south of Kitsap Way (a low-lying region) falls under Zone B. • Zone C: This zone is defined as areas with minimal flooding risk and covers the remainder of Bremerton. The City is aware that sea level rise could affect existing sewer facilities, especially in low-lying areas, including some pump stations, sewers in or adjacent to marine waterbodies, CSO outfalls, the WWTP, and ESTP. This WWCP update does not address the impacts of sea level rise on the City’s infrastructure. 3.2.6 Wildlife and Endangered Species The following threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species listed in Table 3-2 have been identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) as species that may occur in the planning area. Table 3-2: Species of Concern Identified by USFWS and NMFS in the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status USFWS Bull trout (coastal- Puget sound DPS) Salvelinus confluentus Species Threatened Candidate Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus Marmoratus marmoratus Species Threatened Threatened Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Species Threatened Threatened Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss Species Threatened None Source: WDFW 2019 City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 23 3.3 Sewer Service Area Bremerton’s sewer service area and City contours (50-foot Intervals) is depicted in Figure 3-2. Bremerton’s service area includes Urban Growth Areas (UGAs). Along with providing retail sewer service in these regions, the City also accepts sewer flows from the U.S. Navy's PSNS and KCSD No. 1. The figure also highlights new service areas, which primarily consist of unsewered regions where the City plans to extend sewer services in the future. Detailed planning documents have been created to outline these areas. Within the existing sewer service area, there are two locations not included within a UGA boundary. One is situated north of Kitsap Lake, and the other is located southwest of the lake. Both areas currently have sewer facilities serving existing customers. The City has halted new service sales in these regions while awaiting modifications to the UGA boundaries, which will be assessed during Kitsap County’s 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update process. 3.3.1 Service Agreements The City has Negotiated Sewer Services Contracts with the U.S. Navy and KCSD No. 1. The U.S. Navy agreement was updated in 2008 and the KCSD No. 1 agreement from 1992 remains in effect. Copies of the agreements are included in Appendix E. U.S. Navy The U.S. Navy Contract with the City includes metered discharges from PSNS, Jackson Park Navy Family Housing (currently known as The Landings Family Housing), Naval Hospital Bremerton, and Camp McKean located on the west side of Kitsap Lake. Charges for service are based on water meter readings. The U.S. Navy Contract states that Bremerton will convey, treat, and dispose of sewage discharges from these facilities. However, the U.S. Navy owns and maintains the pump stations and sewage collection system at the facilities and discharges to Bremerton’s system at designated discharge locations. The discharge locations and discharge limitations are detailed in the Negotiated Sewer Service Contract. At PSNS, the Navy’s contracted peak discharge is 2,500 gallons per minute (gpm) at Cambrian Avenue, which discharges to the City Sewer Pump Station WB-3, and 500 gpm at First Street, which pumps to the City Sewer Pump Station CE-4. Kitsap County Sewer District No. 1 KCSD No.1 is located directly northeast and southwest of the WWTP. KCSD No. 1 discharges to Bremerton through two pump stations (WB-1 and WB-2) and by gravity discharge. 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 conveyance, treatment, and disposal of these contracted discharges from the connection point to the City’s system to the City’s WWTP. The pump stations and gravity collection system within the KCSD boundary are owned, operated, and maintained by Kitsap County. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 24 Figure 3-2: Topography City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 25 3.4 Infrastructure Description 3.4.1 Overview The City’s sewer system is composed of several components, which are listed below and shown in Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4. • Sewer Basins: Twenty-two (22) sewer basins; six (6) in East Bremerton with a sewered area of 1,660 acres, and sixteen (16) in West Bremerton with a sewered area of 5,360 acres. • Pipelines: Approximately 176 miles of gravity and pressure pipelines, ranging in size from six to 42 inches in diameter. Materials include polyvinyl chloride (PVC), high density polyethylene (HDPE), asbestos-cement, clay, cast iron, concrete cylinder pipe, and ductile iron (DI) pipe. • Pump Stations: Forty (40) sewer pump stations including the two Kitsap County pump stations, WB-1 and WB-2. • Odor Control Stations: Two (2) odor control stations are located in the collection system at surge chambers where pressure sewers transition to gravity sewers. Additionally, five (5) pump stations have dedicated odor control systems at the pump station wet wells. • CSO Outfalls: Fourteen (14) CSO outfalls (OF) for discharging untreated combined sewer flows into Puget Sound during extreme wet weather events. OF-12 was eliminated in 2020 with the upgrade to CW-4. The City intends to eliminate OF-4 in 2026 upon decommissioning of the beach sewer between E. 16th Street and Pump Station EB-2. • Westside Treatment Plant: One conventional wastewater treatment plant for treating dry weather flows and the majority of wet weather flows. This plant treats all flows generated in the City and service area. • Eastside Treatment Plant: One high-rate clarification and UV disinfection treatment plant for treating excess combined sewer flows generated in East Bremerton during some heavy wet weather conditions. 3.4.2 Sewer Basins and Flow Routing West Bremerton There are sixteen (16) sewer basins in West Bremerton, listed in Table 3-3 below. Two of those basins are the contract customers – KCSD No. 1 and PSNS. Four basins are combined that are partially separated with storm water collection and conveyance installed within the right-of-way. The other ten basins have dedicated separate sanitary sewers, and stormwater is conveyed and City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 26 handled separately. The total area of the West Bremerton sewer basins is 10,100 acres with an estimated sewered area of 5,359 acres. Table 3-3: West Bremerton Sewer Basins Basin Name Basin Area(1) (Acres) Percent Developed(2) Percent of Developed that are Sewered(3) Sewered Area (4) (Acres) Combined/ Separated/ Contract Anderson Cove 385 97% 98% 366 Combined Callow Basin 644 95% 93% 569 Combined Kitsap Lake 996 57% 71% 403 Separate Oyster Bay 958 90% 86% 741 Separate Pacific Avenue 78 93% 83% 60 Combined Warren Avenue 309 96% 92% 273 Combined Anderson Hill Road 470 67% 18% 57 Separate Gorst 333 48% 57% 91 Separate Marine Drive 244 92% 22% 49 Separate Phinney Bay 86 90% 94% 73 Separate PSNS 385 100% 98% 377 Contract KCSD No. 1 275 85% 71% 166 Contract Rocky Point 423 86% 0% 0 Separate Sherman Heights 209 54% 44% 50 Separate Sinclair Park 875 54% 75% 354 Separate PSIC 3,430 52% 97% 1,730 Separate Total 10,100 5,359 (1) Excludes parcel area designated as water bodies. (2) Total area of developed parcels divided by total Basin Area less Right of Way area. (3) Total area of developed parcels with available sewer service divided by total developed parcel area. The parcel area designat ed as right of way or undeveloped are excluded. (4) Sewered Area = Basin Area * % Developed * % Sewered. The CTP receives flow from Pacific Avenue, Warren Avenue, Anderson Cove, and Callow Avenue Basins, all of the East Bremerton service area, as well as from PSNS and KCSD No. 1, The CTP begins at Pump Station CE-1, which receives flow from the Warren Avenue Basin, part of the Pacific Avenue Basin via CE-6, and all of East Bremerton. Sewer flow generated in the Pacific Avenue Basin goes to Pump Stations CE-4 and CE-6. Flow from the east half of PSNS is pumped via PSNS Lift Station No. 1 to the City’s Pump Station CE-4 located at the Bremerton waterfront. Pump Station CE-4 also receives gravity sewer flow from the Pacific Avenue Basin and pumps into the 8,000-foot long Central Bremerton Force Main (CBFM), which discharges into the CTP at 1st Street and Montgomery Avenue. CE-6 pumps to a force main which runs along Park Avenue, eventually discharging into the Warren Avenue Basin gravity sewer near Dr. MLK Way (formerly 7th Street) and flowing by gravity sewer (referred to as the Park Avenue Sewer) along Park Avenue to CE-1. In the Anderson Cove Basin, flows are split into five (5) sub-basins, with four (4) sub-basins flowing to Pump Station CW-1, which pumps into the Crosstown Pipeline at 13th Street and City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 27 Naval Avenue via the 12-inch Naval Avenue Force Main. Flows from the CW-2 sub-basin are directed to the Callow Avenue Basin, but during low flow, can be diverted to CW-1 via valving at 19th Street and Snyder Avenue. Pump Station CW-4, which is located at the waterfront on the end of Ohio Avenue, can be directed (via the valve cluster at 17th Street and Ohio Avenue) to pump into the CTP at 13th Street and Ohio Avenue, or into the approximately 2,000 feet of beach sewer which runs from the end of High Avenue to CW-1. During wet weather months, CW-4 discharge is directed into the CTP, reducing the flow impact (approx. 600 gpm) to the beach sewer and the potential for CSO events. In dry weather months, flow is directed into the beach sewer to increase flow and velocity for scouring purposes. In the Callow Avenue Basin, combined sewer flows, along with discharges from the west half of PSNS via PSNS Lift Station No. 9, are directed to City Pump Station WB-3, which then discharges into the CTP. The basin also receives flows from the Phinney Bay Basin at 15th and Cambrian, and from CW-2. To reduce CSO events, Bremerton constructed wet-weather Pump Station WB-6 near WB-3. During high flow events, flow will back up to WB-6, which pumps to the CTP. When WB-6 cannot keep up with excess combined sewer flow in the Warren Avenue Basin, a CSO event will occur at OF-17 (the most recent event was in 2021). Sanitary sewer flows from the Oyster Bay and Kitsap Lake Basins are routed through a series of pump stations that ultimately discharge into the Sinclair Park Basin and then flow by gravity to the WWTP. Flows from the Gorst, Anderson Hill Road, and most of Sherman Heights Basins pump to the WWTP through a series of force mains via Pump Stations SB-1, SB-2, SB-3, and SB-4. East Bremerton There are six (6) sewer basins in East Bremerton, listed in Table 3-4 below. These are all combined sewer basins that are partially separated with stormwater collection and conveyance installed within the right-of-way. The total basin area is 2,645 acres with an estimated sewered area of 1,660 acres. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 28 Table 3-4: East Bremerton Sewer Basins Basin Name Basin Area(1) (Acres) Percent Developed(2) Percent of Developed that are Sewered(3) Sewered Area(4) (Acres) Combined/Separated Cherry Avenue 214 95% 82% 168 Combined East Park 346 81% 88% 247 Combined Pine Road 871 86% 82% 614 Combined Stephenson Canyon 299 98% 96% 281 Combined Tracyton Beach 187 76% 80% 114 Combined Trenton Avenue 728 82% 39% 233 Combined Total 2,645 1,665 (1) Excludes parcel area designated as water bodies. (2) Total area of developed parcels divided by total Basin Area less Right of Way area. (3) Total area of developed parcels with available sewer service divided by total developed parcel area. The parcel area designat ed as right of way or undeveloped are excluded. (4) Sewered Area = Basin Area * % Developed * % Sewered. Flows from Tracyton Beach Basin go to Pump station EB-6, in the Pine Rd Basin, that also receives combined sewage from the Pine Rd Basin storm drainage. EB-6 pumps into an 8-inch force main that discharges to the gravity sewer on Lebo Blvd at the edge of Stephenson Canyon Basin. From there, sewer will flow via gravity into the 24-inch EBBM. CSO events will occur at OF-6 if the basin flow exceeds the EB-6 pumping and basin storage capacity. Similarly, in the Trenton Avenue Basin, combined flows enter the gravity beach sewers and eventually enter Pump Station EB-2, which pumps into the EBBM at the base of the Manette Bridge. EB-2 has small pumps (approximately 400 gpm) that operate during dry weather and most conditions, and high flow pumps (max. design flow approximately 4,000 gpm) which will operate during heavy weather conditions when the hydraulic grade line (HGL) in the EBBM increases and diverts the flow to the high flow pumps. CSO events will occur at OF-7 if the flow in the Trenton Avenue Basin exceeds the pumping and storage capacity of that basin. Flows from the Stephenson Canyon Basin are directed to the EBBM via piping at Lent Landing Park, where OF-2 is located. Combined sewage from the Cherry Avenue Basin flows into the EBBM via the OF-3 structure and rock trap manhole. The higher elevation of this site relative to the other CSO sites that discharge to the beach main reduces the potential for a CSO and drives flow to CE-1 during dry weather flow or to the ESTP during large rain events. During periods of high flow, the EBBM can surcharge and become pressurized. As the HGL rises, flow will back up and divert to ESTP. The sewer along Lebo Blvd is designed to allow flow to drain back to the ESTP before an overflow can occur at OF-2. The sewer piping along Lebo Boulevard and the storage basin at the ESTP provide approximately 200,000 gallons of storage capacity (100,000 gallons at the ESTP and 100,000 +/- in the conveyance system). When the storage capacity is exceeded, flow will enter the ESTP for treatment. The effluent discharges to the Port Washington Narrows. When the capacity of the ESTP is exceeded, flow will be relieved at OF-1, which is built into the ESTP storage basin. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 29 Figure 3-3: Existing Sewer System and Service Area City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 30 Figure 3-4: Sewer Basins Map with Water System Infrastructure Oyster Bay Basin Figure 3-4 is excerpted from City of Bremerton 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 31 3.4.3 Pump Stations Bremerton operates 40 pump stations, with pumps ranging from five (5) to 400 horsepower and capacities varying from tens to thousands of gpm. Most pump stations are equipped with variable frequency drives (VFDs) and emergency power backup to ensure continued operation during power outages. Additionally, some of the stations are equipped with odor control equipment and surge tanks. Numerous individual grinder pumps are installed in areas where gravity sewer connections are not feasible. The City owns and maintains approximately 280 grinder pump stations and the number of these stations increases every year. These stations are installed by private developers when a gravity sewer connection is not feasible. They are also installed by contractors on City capital projects when a beach sewer is being decommissioned and the sewer connection must be redirected to an upland sewer system. They are typically installed at single family residences; however, they have also been used at condominiums, apartments, small businesses, and in the City right-of-way. Typical installation is a single (simplex) 1 hp grinder pump installed in a tank with sufficient storage for 1 to 2 days during a power outage. Larger installations require multiple pumps (duplex and triplex) with larger storage tanks. Service lines on private property are owned and maintained by the owner, and the service line in the right-of-way is owned by the City. The Owners are required to sign a Grinder Pump Service Agreement with the City which clearly defines the ownership and maintenance requirements. The pumps themselves are maintained by the City through a third-party maintenance contract (currently Correct Equipment). The property owners pay a fee on top of their regular sewer bill to cover the cost for maintaining the grinder pumps. The grinder pump stations that are part of this agreement must be manufactured by Environment One (E-One) Corporation. There are a number of legacy grinder pump stations that were installed prior to the current City policy. Those stations are owned and maintained by the individual property owners. Current policy requires these homeowners to enter into service contracts with third-party entities responsible for maintenance. Table 3-5 provides a summary of the pump stations, and a detailed tabulation of this information is provided in Appendix C. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 32 Table 3-5: Pump Stations Pump Station Description Year Constructed Pump VFDs? (Y/N) Maximum Capacity (gpm) Backup Power Basin / Upstream Station CSO Outfalls Discharge Location CE-1 Dry Well, 32ft diameter segmented caisson 1985 Sulzer, 2 Dry-pit Submersible, 128 hp Y 10,000 Yes Warren Ave Basin, East Bremerton OF-13 Start of CTP Flygt, 2 Dry-pit Submersible, 385 hp Y CE-2 Dry Well, S&LL Package Pump Station 1973 S&LL, 2 Dry-Pit, 3 hp N - Portable Warren Ave Basin - Park Ave Sewer to CE-1 CE-4 Dry Well 1989 Flygt, 2 Dry-pit Submersible, 160 hp Y 1,940 Yes Pacific Avenue Basin, PSNS - Central Bremerton FM to CTP CE-6 Dry Well, Metal, Significant upgrades in 2006 1989 Flygt, 3 Dry-pit Submersible, 12 hp Y 1,600 Yes Pacific Avenue Basin OF-16 Gravity Sewer @ 7th & Park CW-1 Dry Well, Significant upgrades in 2004/2007 1984 ABS, 3 Dry-pit Submersible, 201 hp Y 3,500 Yes Anderson Cove Basin OF-8, OF-9, OF-10A, OF-11 Naval Ave Force Main to CTP CW-2 Wet Well 1999 Flygt, 3 Submersible, 75 hp Y 1,260 Yes Anderson Cove Basin OF-8 Callow Ave Sewers, with intertie to CW-1 City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 33 Pump Station Description Year Constructed Pump VFDs? (Y/N) Maximum Capacity (gpm) Backup Power Basin / Upstream Station CSO Outfalls Discharge Location CW-3 Wet Well ~1970 Zoeller, 2 Submersible, 2 hp N 50 Portable Anderson Cove Basin - Gravity sewer on 26th, flows to CW-2 CW-4 Wet Well 2020 Flygt, 2 Submersible Y 450 Portable Anderson Cove Basin - End of High Ave into beach sewer, intertie to CTP at 13th/Ohio KL-1 Wet Well, Converted Wet Well, Significant upgrades in 2013 (Conversion) ~1970 Flygt, 2 Submersible, 30 hp N 950 Yes Kitsap Lake Basin, KL-2 - Gravity Sewer Near Pendergast Field to WWTP KL-2 Dry Well ~1970 Flygt, 2 Dry-pit Submersible, 85 hp Y 1,150 Yes Kitsap Lake Basin, KL-3 - KL-1 KL-3 Dry Well ~1970 Fairbanks Morse, 2 Dry-pit Submersible, 5 hp N 450 Yes Kitsap Lake Basin, KL-4 - KL-2 KL-4 Dry Well ~1970 Fairbanks Morse, 2 Dry-pit Submersible, 5 hp N 475 Yes Kitsap Lake Basin - KL-3 MD-1 Wet Well 1994 Essco, 2 Submersible, 40 hp N 950 Portable Marine Drive Basin - Kitsap Way gravity sewer, flows to OB-1 City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 34 Pump Station Description Year Constructed Pump VFDs? (Y/N) Maximum Capacity (gpm) Backup Power Basin / Upstream Station CSO Outfalls Discharge Location OB-1 Dry Well 1966 Flygt, 3 Dry-pit Submersible, 65 hp Y - Yes OB Basin, MD-1, OB- 2 - Gravity Sewer at Bremerton Blvd & Arsenal Way OB-2 Dry Well 1966 Flygt, 2 Dry-pit Submersible, 15 hp Y - Yes OB Basin, OB-3, OB-5 - OB-1 OB-3 Dry Well 1970 Fairbanks, 2 Dry-pit Submersible, 5 hp N - Portable Madrona Point, OB-4 - OB-2 OB-4 Dry Well 1971 Fairbanks, 2 Dry-pit Submersible, 5 hP N - Portable Madrona Point - OB-3 OB-5 Dry Well, May be upgraded in near future 1966 Flygt, 1 Dry-pit Submersible, 12 hp Y 500 Portable Oyster Bay Basin, OB- 6 - OB-2 - Flygt, 1 Dry-pit Submersible, 15 hp Y - - - - - OB-6 Dry Well 1966 Flygt, 2 Dry-pit Submersible, 15 hP N - Portable Oyster Bay Basin - OB-5 OB-7 Wet Well ~1970 Essco, 2 Submersible, 50 hp N - No Erland Point Apartment - Gravity Sewer on Austin Dr 600’ NW of Olding Rd PB-1 Dry Well, S&Ll Package Pump Station ~1970 Flygt, 2 Dry-pit Submersible, 20 hp N - Portable Phinney Bay Basin - Callow Avenue gravity sewer City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 35 Pump Station Description Year Constructed Pump VFDs? (Y/N) Maximum Capacity (gpm) Backup Power Basin / Upstream Station CSO Outfalls Discharge Location PB-2 Dry Well, S&Ll Package Pump Station ~1970 Fairbank-Morse, 2 Dry-pit N 350 Portable Phinney Bay Basin PB-1 PP-1 (PG) Wet Well ~1990 Essco, 2 Submersible, 8 hp N 140 Portable Services Pendergast ONLY - KL-1 discharge gravity sewer, south of Francis St. SB-1 Wet Well - Flygt, 2 Submersible, 105 hp Y - Yes - - SW Bremerton Force Main SB-2 Wet Well - Flygt, 2 Submersible, 11 hp Y - Yes - - SB-1 SB-3 Wet Well - Flygt, 2 Submersible, 23 hp Y - Yes - - SW Bremerton Force Main SB-4 Wet Well - Flygt, 2 Submersible, 24 hp Y - Yes - - SW Bremerton Force Main WB-1 Wet Well, Maintained by KCSD#1 1989 2 Submersible - - No Sinclair Park, Beachfront - Crosstown Pipeline WB-2 Dry Well, Maintained by KCSD#1 1989 - - - No KCSD #1 - Crosstown Pipeline City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 36 Pump Station Description Year Constructed Pump VFDs? (Y/N) Maximum Capacity (gpm) Backup Power Basin / Upstream Station CSO Outfalls Discharge Location WB-3 Dry Well 2002/2003 Flygt, 2 Dry-pit Submersible, 20 hp Y 10,000 Yes Callow Ave, PSNS, Phinney Bay, Anderson Cove OF-17 Crosstown Pipeline Fairbanks, 3 Dry-pit Submersible, 238 hp Y - - - - - WB-4 Dry Well, S&Ll Package Pump Station 1971 Smith & Loveless, 2 Dry- pit, 5 hp N - Portable Callow Ave Basin - Farragut St gravity sewer that goes to WB-3 WB-6 Wet Well, CSO Flow Only 2003 Flo-Serve, 3 Submersible, 200 hp Y Yes WB-3 Overflow OF-17 Crosstown Pipeline EB-2 High Flow (Wet Well), Active for high flow, Significant upgrades in 2003 1973 Flowserve, 3 Submersible, 75 hp Y 4,100 Yes Trenton Ave Basin OF-7 Eastside Bremerton Normal Flow (Wet Well), Active for low flow - Flygt, 2 Submersible, 5 hp N - - - - Gravity sewer on E. 10th, flows to EB-2 City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 37 Pump Station Description Year Constructed Pump VFDs? (Y/N) Maximum Capacity (gpm) Backup Power Basin / Upstream Station CSO Outfalls Discharge Location EB-3 Dry Well, Significant upgrades in 1984, 2005. 1972 Flygt, 2 Dry-pit Submersible, 30 hp Y 1,400 Yes Trenton Ave Basin OF-7 Gravity sewer on Jacobsen Blvd by Trenton Ave EB-4 Wet Well, Converted Wet Well ~1940 Flygt, 2 Submersible, 7.5 hp N - Portable Trenton Ave Basin - Trenton Ave at Holman St gravity sewer EB-5 Wet Well, Converted to Wet Well, Significant upgrades in 1995 ~1970 Zoeller, 2 Submersible, 2 hp N - Portable Trenton Ave Basin - Trenton Ave at Holman St gravity sewer EB-6 Wet Well, Significant upgrades in 2004 1947 Flygt, 3 Submersible, 45 hp Y 1,200 Yes Tracyton Beach Basin OF-6 Gravity sewer at Lebo Blvd and Hefner St EB-7 Pending (2025) EB-8 Dry Well, S&Ll Package Pump Station 1971 Smith & Loveless, 2 Dry- pit, 10 hp N - Portable Pine Road Basin - Gravity sewer at Sugar Pine Dr and Pinecone Dr City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 38 Pump Station Description Year Constructed Pump VFDs? (Y/N) Maximum Capacity (gpm) Backup Power Basin / Upstream Station CSO Outfalls Discharge Location EB-9 Wet Well ~1970 Flygt, 2 Submersible, 10 hp N - Portable Pine Road Basin - Gravity sewer on NE Pinecrest Dr City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 39 3.4.4 Sewer Pipelines The City’s sewer collection system main diameters range from 6 to 42 inches for gravity mains and 4 to 36 inches for force mains. These sewers are constructed from various materials, including clay, concrete, PVC, asbestos cement, cast iron, DI, and HDPE, with some sections dating back to 1910-1920. Major conveyance, overflow, treatment facilities, and wholesale connection points are illustrated in Figure 3-3. Three of the major pipelines are discussed in this section. The Central Bremerton Force Main, another major pipeline from CE-4 to the CTP, is also mentioned in this section. Crosstown Pipeline The Crosstown Pipeline conveys flows from all of East Bremerton and much of West Bremerton to the WWTP. The CTP originates at Pump Station CE-1. CE-1 receives flows from all of East Bremerton through 16-inch and 24-inch siphons under Port Washington Narrows, the Warren Avenue Basin gravity sewers, and the Pacific Avenue Basin via CE-6. Pump Station CW-1 in the Anderson Cove Basin discharges to CTP through the Naval Avenue Force Main at 13th Street and Naval Avenue. The Central Bremerton Force Main, an 8,000-foot-long pressure sewer which originates at Pump Station CE-4 at the Bremerton waterfront, discharges to the CTP at First Street and Montgomery Avenue. Pump Stations WB-3, WB-6, WB-2, and pump stations from Kitsap County Sewer District No. 1, discharge directly into the CTP as it approaches the WWTP. All flow from PSNS eventually discharges to the CTP, since PSNS discharges to either CE-4 or WB-3. Pump Stations SB-1, SB-3, and SB-4 discharge into the Southwest Bremerton Sewer, which subsequently feeds into the CTP as it enters the south end of the WWTP property. The CTP's alignment is approximately 19,300 feet in length. The pipe materials include prestressed concrete cylinder pipe (PCCP), HDPE, polyethylene-lined DI, CIPP-lined DI, and cement-lined DI. The initial section from Pump Station CE-1 (located at the north end of Park Avenue) is a 24-inch DI force main which discharges into the HDPE surge chamber at 13th Street and Naval Avenue. Both the Naval Avenue Force Main (from CW-1) and the CTP converge at this surge chamber. From this location to the WWTP, the CTP operates as a gravity-pressure main with an inverted siphon configuration. The section of the CTP from this location to the intersection of 9th Street and Montgomery Avenue was replaced and/or rehabilitated in 2013 using HDPE pipe and CIPP-lining of existing 30-inch DI pipe. At 9th and Montgomery, the pipe transitions to 30” PCCP, then transition to 36” PCCP near WB-3. East Bremerton Beach Main The East Bremerton Beach Main conveys wastewater from the East Bremerton sewer basins to the inverted siphons and/or the ESTP entry points to the beach main and the associated CSO outfalls include adjacent to the ESTP (OF-1), Lent Landing Park (OF-2), Riptide Condominiums, Lower Wheaton Way (OF-3), East 16th Street (OF-4), and Pump Station EB-2 next to the Manette Bridge (OF-7 at Trenton and Shore Drive). The EBBM main is approximately 7,500 feet in length with diameters varying in size from 18-inch to 24-inch. Materials include HDPE and DI. A 3,000-foot-long section of 20-inch asbestos cement pipe between the ESTP and the siphons was replaced with 24-inch HDPE in 2013. The 20-inch AC pipe remains buried in the beach and was abandoned in-place. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 40 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. These pipelines are 16-inch cast iron (constructed in 1946) and a 24-inch concrete-lined DI (constructed in 1983.) The connections of the EBBM to the siphons were replaced in 2005 and include isolation valves and pigging ports. In 2011, Bremerton installed stainless steel knife gate valves on the discharge side of the siphons at Pump Station CE-1. These valves enhance regulatory compliance by allowing the City to prevent East Bremerton flows from causing overflows at OF-13 (CE-1). During major storm events, excess flows from East Bremerton can be treated and discharged at the ESTP, freeing capacity in the Crosstown Pipeline for West Bremerton flows. 3.4.5 Combined Sewer Overflow Outfalls The City’s wastewater collection system contains 14 CSO outfall sites, which typically consist of an overflow weir, equipment to measure flow and duration of flow over the weir, and the outfall piping. The outfalls considered for this comprehensive plan project are listed in the Table 3-6 below. OF-12 is not included in this list since this CSO outfall was decommissioned as part of the CW-4 Upgrade project in 2020, which will be reflected in the City’s next NDPES wastewater permit issued by Ecology. The City also anticipates abandoning OF-4 upon completion of decommissioning the 8-inch beach sewer between E. 16th Street and EB-2 in 2026. Table 3-6: CSO Outfalls Outfall Number Basin Receiving Water Body OF-1 Pine Road Port Washington Narrows OF-2 Stephenson Canyon Port Washington Narrows OF-3 Cherry Avenue Port Washington Narrows OF-4 East Park Port Washington Narrows OF-6 Tracyton Port Washington Narrows OF-7A Trenton Avenue Port Washington Narrows/Port Orchard Bay OF-7B Trenton Avenue Port Washington Narrows/Port Orchard Bay OF-8 Anderson Cove Port Washington Narrows OF-9 Anderson Cove Port Washington Narrows OF-10 Anderson Cove Port Washington Narrows OF-11 Warren Avenue Port Washington Narrows OF-13 Warren Avenue Port Washington Narrows OF-16 Pacific Avenue Sinclair Inlet OF-17 Callow Basin Sinclair Inlet The following four bullets are in reference to the City’s 2023 CSO Annual Report (submitted to Ecology on May 30, 2024), • Compliance: The City is still in compliance with CSO reduction requirements at 13 of the 14 sites. To be in compliance, the City must achieve a rolling 20-year average of less than one City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 41 CSO event per year at each outfall site. At OF-11, the rolling average was 1.05. The City is programming a capital project at this outfall to upsize the stormwater outfall that is causing the CSO events to occur. • Reduction of Overflow Volume and Frequency: The City has successfully reduced the volume of overflow by 99% and the frequency of CSO events by 99% as well. • Precipitation Events: The City has continued to experience significant rainfall events which generally correlate with CSO events. • Public Education: The City has maintained its public education and assistance program, which involves citizens in CSO reduction and educates them on water pollution prevention. 3.4.6 Collection System Odor Control Stations Bremerton operates seven odor control stations to manage odors in the collection system, as detailed in Table 3-7. Odor Control Stations OCS -1, -2, and -3 are packed tower scrubbers utilizing sodium hypochlorite and caustic soda; tanks are refilled about three times annually. OCS-4 through OCS-7 consist of granulated activated carbon (GAC). OCS-1 and OCS-2 are installed in the collection system near the surge chambers where pressure sewer transitions to gravity sewer, whereas OCS-3 through OCS-7 are installed at pump station wet wells. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 42 Table 3-7: Collection System Odor Control Stations Station Name Location Type of Facility Chemical Storage Tank Size and Type Pump Station or Area Served Year Built OCS-1 2100 12th Street Packed tower scrubber with sodium hypochlorite and caustic injection 500-gallon storage tanks for sodium hypochlorite and caustic soda Convergence of Crosstown Pipeline from CE- 1 and Naval Avenue Force Main from CW-1. Transitions from pressure to gravity sewer at this location 1996 OCS-2 200 High Ave. Carbon tower scrubber GAC Tower Transition from pressure to gravity sewer for Central Bremerton Force Main from CE-4 1996 OCS-3 1740 Park Ave. Packed tower scrubber with sodium hypochlorite and caustic injection 500-gallon storage tanks for sodium hypochlorite and caustic soda CE-1 1996 OCS-4 2304 19th Street Carbon tower scrubber GAC Tower CW-1 1996 OCS-5 416 S. Cambrian Carbon tower scrubber GAC Tower WB-3 1996 OCS-6 100 2nd Street Carbon tower scrubber GAC Tower CE-4 1996 OCS-7 622 Burwell Street Carbon tower scrubber GAC Tower CE-6 1996 3.4.7 Wastewater Treatment Facilities The City owns, operates, and maintains two wastewater treatment facilities, namely the WWTP and the ESTP. Both sites are located outside the boundaries of established floodplains and shorelines and do not contain any onsite environmentally sensitive areas or wetlands. Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant The WWTP provides secondary treatment for the entire service area, with a peak hydraulic capacity of 65 million gallons per day (MGD). It uses a conventional activated sludge secondary treatment process. The plant is located in West Bremerton and discharges treated effluent into City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 43 Sinclair Inlet. The treatment process flow diagram is shown in Figure 3-5 and the treatment site plan is shown in Figure 3-6. The WWTP collects wastewater sludges, which are anaerobically digested, treated to Class B standards, dewatered, and reused at Bremerton’s silviculture site. Odor control measures and facilities at the WWTP include: • Odor containment enclosures and covers for major facilities. • Foul air conveyed to packed tower scrubbers for treatment. • Two-stage packed tower treatment for facilities such as screenings, grit removal, primary clarifiers, old headworks, overflow chambers, gravity thickener, digester vents, centrifuge area, and sludge loading facility. • Enclosures for the grit removal system. • Single stage packed towers for Biofilter wet well, aeration basin headworks, return activated sludge (RAS) wet well, and secondary clarifier scum pits. The WWTP outfall was constructed in 1971 and consists of 36-inch reinforced concrete pipe that was jacked through a casing under the Burlington Northern railroad track and laid along the bottom of Sinclair Inlet. The outfall is approximately 570 feet in length and the pipe was installed in 12-foot sections with bell and spigot joints. The joints are restrained using stainless steel all- thread rod at the springline connected to lugs. The diffuser has 22 ports and lays at approximately -40 feet mean lower low water (MLLW). The outfall was last inspected in November 2018 by Cosmopolitan Engineering. An outfall evaluation report was prepared and is included in the Appendix F. The report concluded that the outfall and diffuser are in good condition and operating as intended. Eastside Treatment Plant (ESTP) The Eastside Treatment Plant was constructed in 2001 to reduce CSO discharges by treating wet weather combined sewer generated in East Bremerton when the EBBM surcharges. The ESTP has a peak hydraulic capacity of 20 MGD and utilizes high-rate clarification followed by ultraviolet (UV) disinfection to meet secondary water quality standards. The ESTP is located in the Pine Road Basin and discharges into the Port Washington Narrows. The plant’s process diagram is shown in Figure 3-7. A capital project scheduled for 2026 is intended to replace the UV disinfection components. The ESTP outfall system was originally constructed in 1947 as part of the Manette Primary Treatment Plant. The outfall was reconstructed in 2018 and consists of sixty (60) feet of original cast iron pipe lined using cure-in-place-pipe (CIPP) technology, 373 feet of mechanically restrained 36-inch reinforced concrete pipe, and a single port 36-inch elastomeric diffuser check valve (Redflex duck bill). The total outfall length is approximately 450 feet. The invert of the diffuser is -25 feet MLLW. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 44 Figure 3-5: Westside Wastewater Treatment Process Schematic Source: 2023 Nitrogen Optimization Plan and Report, HDR City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 45 Figure 3-6: Westside Wastewater Plant Source: 2014 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Report, HDR City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 46 Figure 3-7: Eastside Treatment Process Diagram Source: 2014 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Report, HDR City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 47 Section 4: Business Risk and Vulnerability Assessment The City’s WWCP preparation kicked off with a Business Risk and Vulnerability Assessment (BRVA) workshop series where City staff gathered to discuss their various systems, operational risks, potential modes of failure, and opportunities for improvement. A follow-up BRVA session was later held to capture Collection System Assets. City staff from operations and maintenance (O&M), engineering, and management were included in these conversations. This gathering of City stakeholders ensured a comprehensive analysis of the City’s risks by discussing potential failures and their impact on the City’s business plan. The BRVA creates a baseline for unit process and system performance, vulnerabilities, and failure modes based on input from stakeholders. Institutional knowledge is collected from City staff along with record data to review performance objectives and identify known functional failures and risks. The BRVA outcomes prioritize needs using a relative risk score and profile to direct attention to the most critical systems. Unit processes are prioritized based on consequential ranks, asset vulnerabilities, organizational vulnerabilities, and opportunities for improvement. 4.1 BRVA Workshop Series 4.1.1 BRVA Approach The BRVA approach is intended to bring City management, engineering, and O&M staff together to identify the nexus between business risk, capital improvements, and asset performance to identify the opportune area(s) to manage City assets most effectively. Each staffing outlet offers unique insight into vulnerabilities within the system. Providing an opportunity for each of these groups to openly discuss system concerns establishes a foundation for effective management of assets. This high-level assessment directs attention to the most critical City wastewater facilities and systems based on consensus from workshop participants. Figure 4-1 illustrates a generic example of how BRVA outcomes are presented to prioritize decision making. System components are ranked from high to low risk based on a combination of the Consequence of Failure score and the Business Vulnerability score. The Consequence of Failure is a relative measure of the potential impact an agency will face when a unit process or asset experiences functional failure. Business Vulnerability addresses how an agency’s business practices affect staff’s ability to optimize the long-term operation and maintenance of a asset. These scores are generated using weighted metrics and then multiplied together to create the relative risk score. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 48 Figure 4-1: Example of Relative Risk Score and Profile The BRVA workshops were designed to capture an objective opinion of the City’s risk, based on a consequential and vulnerability risk assessment of the wastewater facilities, systems, and assets. This was completed by evaluating the desired function, ability to meet performance objectives, and existing O&M business processes for each system. While a complete profile of every asset is ideal for a comprehensive risk evaluation, for the purposes of this series, assets were allocated into major asset categories, and sub-system assets. The major asset categories is referred to herein as system unit processes, including systems within the WWTP and major systems of the collection system. These 17 major system unit processes are outlined below: Headworks Secondary Clarification Odor Control • Grit Removal • Disinfection • Electrical System • Pre-Aeration • Final Effluent Channel/Outfall • Collection System Subbasins • Primary Clarification • Solids Stream • Siphons Mains • Biofilter • Digestion • Crosstown Pipeline & • Aeration • Biosolids Land Application Central Bremerton Force Main Organizing the City’s wastewater assets into these unit processes was done based on a review of existing flow diagrams and schematics. From these 17 system unit processes, the assets are further broken down into 43 sub-system assets. A full list of all 43 assets is depicted in the results generated in Figure 4-3 and Figure 4-4. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 49 There are four major elements of the BRVA: 1. The first element is to establish functional performance through general knowledge of the system by inquiring about the function of the system, performance criteria expected by the system, the key process indicators that the operator measures to meet system functional performance, and whether a failure event is evident to the operator. 2. The second element is to identify the impact of failure on safety, environment, service quality, public perception, and financial impact/fiscal sustainability. 3. The third element is to establish vulnerability of how the business operates, maintains and manages City facilities and systems. This is done by determining the condition of each unit processes relative to physical condition, the degree of potential safety risks, operating procedures, O&M training programs, management of change processes, and maintenance management systems. 4. The fourth element of the BRVA is to collaboratively identify improvement opportunities, from a high level. Business system improvements, including any O&M procedural improvements, replacement of critical assets, or re-engineering of the systems is considered to reduce the overall risk score. This element is the culmination of risk assessment and is completed at the end of all evaluations to generate the prioritize CIP program. For each system and asset, the BRVA participants defined the system and assessed the consequence of failure and collective vulnerability of the system by carefully asking a series of strategic questions and applying the scoring approach defined in Section 6.5. The steps outlined in the following table describe the BRVA approach covered during the workshop series and align with the first three elements described above. The outcome of the asset evaluation is to identify business system improvements, as described by the fourth element above, and is completed after the workshop series. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 50 Table 4-1: BRVA Workshop Steps (Elements 1 to 3) Steps Evaluation Criteria Outcome Define Asset Functional Attributes - Functional Statement - Performance Objectives - Failure Modes and Detectability - Potential Improvement/ Mitigation Compiled notes for each asset according to knowledge collected from City Staff Assess Consequence of Failure - Public/Staff health and Safety - Environmental and Regulatory Impact - Quality of Service/Continuity - Public Perception - Financial Impact/Fiscal Sustainability Each criteria scored 1 to 5 Each criteria assigned a weighted multiplier Assess Collective Business Vulnerability of Asset - Work Execution Management - Asset Condition - Workforce Reliability & Training - Workface Safety Features & Culture - Process Resiliency - Engineering for maintenance Reliability & Asset Performance Tracking Each criteria scored 1 to 5 Each criteria assigned a weighted multiplier The following section provides a describes the evaluation criteria used to develop an arithmetic mean and determine the vulnerability rating for each unit process as it relates to the condition of each business element. This process establishes a uniform scoring metric to be used system wide prior to individual assets being discussed to maintain continuity and avoid initial bias. Record documents were collected by KJ to generate a basic asset hierarchy of unit processes within the WWTP and collection system. Using this asset hierarchy, the framework and agendas for the BRVA workshop series were compiled and approved by the City. The BRVA leverages institutional knowledge through workshops and interviews with experienced O&M staff to determine and uncover reasonable system failure modes and effects, dominant failure mechanisms, operational targets, equipment history, system criticality, business vulnerabilities, likelihood of failure, and corrective actions. Various stakeholders from management and O&M from treatment, collections, electrical, and instrumentation and controls (I&C) were invited to all meetings allowing KJ to record institutional knowledge and notable areas of concern. Each staffing outlet offers unique insight into vulnerabilities within the system. Providing an opportunity for each of these groups to openly discuss system concerns establishes a foundation for effective management of assets. Attendance for these workshops included the following: City Engineering: Ned Lever, William David, David Powell, and Cole Arthur Wastewater O&M (WWTP and Pump Stations): Eric Burris, Kevin Golnik, Travis Olson, William Wendling, Dana Nystrom Utility O&M (Collection System): Chance Berthiaume and Darrell Clauson City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 51 Facilitated by KJ Staff: Andrew Perez, Mackenzie Capaci, Gwen Gyldenege, Swati Maurya, Michael Lubovich, and Benjamin Schriber. The BRVA workshop series agenda is outlined in Table 4-2 below: Table 4-2: BRVA Workshop Agenda 10/17/2023 Service Levels, Corporate Risk Matrix Development City’s Vision & Mission, Agency Performance Objectives, Consequence of Failure Identification & Impact Scale, System Condition Scale, and BRVA Workshop Outline & Approval 10/18/2023 Workshop 1 Review Elements of the BRVA Tool, general flow path overview and initial concerns, Headworks, Grit Removal 10/19/2023 Workshop 2 Pre-aeration, Primary Clarification, Biofilters 10/25/2023 Workshop 3 Aeration, Secondary Clarification, Disinfection 10/26/2023 Workshop 4 Final Effluent Channel/Outfall, Solids Stream, Digestion 11/14/2023 Workshop 5 Biosolids Effluent, Electrical Systems, general overview of collections system (to be continued after future analysis) 09/24/2024 Workshop 6 Review Elements of the BRVA Tool, Collection System Subbasins 10/8/2024 Workshop 7 Remaining Subbasins, Siphons, Crosstown Pipeline & Central Bremerton Force Main Not all staff referenced were in attendance for each workshop. 4.1.2 Levels of Service The kickoff meeting focused on service levels and the development of a corporate risk matrix based on the City’s goals and unique ability to manage and respond to different types of risks. KJ facilitated a conversation to develop a vision statement for Wastewater and Sewer Utility Operations that aligned with the established City Public Works and Utilities Mission. Mission: Providing expert, efficient stewardship of Bremerton’s infrastructure and natural resources; ensuring responsive and professional customer service. Vision: To resiliently, reliably and efficiently stewards Bremerton’s essential infrastructure and natural resources, while protecting public safety and the environment through innovative, sustainable, efficient, and cost-effective practices Conducting risk analyses are inherently subjective, so the risk matrix serves as a tool to transform the subjective discussion into objective outcomes. The risk matrix helps achieve this by identifying functional failure, business impacts when failure occurs, and using the risk outcomes to streamline prioritization of City needs. City staff were given the opportunity to develop, refine, review and comment on the risk matrix before it was used during the BRVA workshops to confirm group consensus on the consequences and scoring criteria. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 52 The risk matrix developed for the City is a 5 by 5 matrix that includes condition rating and probability of failure on the vertical access and various levels of consequence along the horizontal access. The risk matrix as shown in Figure 4-2 provides a color-coded illustration of the potential risk as it relates to the system condition rating and consequential criteria. Figure 4-2: City Risk Matrix and Scoring This matrix was used to develop the risk scores for the BRVA group workshops. In terms of the risk matrix anatomy, the red shaded sections indicate the exposure to risk is high as it relates to likelihood of a threat impacting the asset due to vulnerable condition and significant consequence of failure. The green shaded sections indicate assets in good condition with a low probability and/or minimal consequence of failure. Scoring descriptions and guidance are provided in the following sections. The system level consequential risk determined by the analysis is essentially the product of vulnerability and consequence that results from a failure event. The service levels meeting, and subsequent workshop series was planned and implemented to gather key City staff in a single room with the purpose of collecting information on the current state of major assets to determine necessary improvements, while relating it to agreed upon parameters of operating conditions. The group focused on reviewing equipment conditions, maintenance practices, documentation, and staff concerns that characterize process reliability. Although each facility comes with unique challenges, including maintenance accessibility issues, asset age, design issues, and influent loading changes due to community water conservation measures, they all share common problems relative to reliable documentation control and a history of plant operations and maintenance practices. System Condition/Vulnerability Non-Functional - Requires Full Replacement 5 Poor but Functional - Requires Rehabilitation 4 Fair Condition - Requires Significant Repair 3 Good Condition - Requires minor Repair 2 Like New Condition - Requires No Repair 1 1 2 3 4 5 Minimal Impact Minor Impact Moderate Impact Major Impact Significant Impact City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 53 4.1.3 Consequence of Failure/Criticality The Consequence of Failure (CoF) addresses how the failure of an asset to meet its function will impact the ability of an agency to meet their mission, vision, and/or goals. It is a relative measure of the outcome when a unit process experiences functional failure and impedes intended engineered function of the unit process. These elements were based on the following categories: Public & Staff Health and Safety, Environmental and Regulatory Impact, Quality of Service and Continuity, Public Image/Perception, and Fiscal Impact. Each of these criteria are defined in Table 4-3 below: Table 4-3: Consequence of Failure Definitions Public & Staff Health and Safety Relative impact a failure will have on the risk of accidents and injuries, and ability to create a safe working environment to protect the safety of life and property. Environmental and Regulatory Impact Relative impact a failure will have on the environment, as well as the potential legal implications based on existing environmental regulations and permit requirements with which the City will need to comply. Quality of Service and Continuity Relative impact a failure will have on the ability to maintain service levels after a disruptive event or disaster. Service continuity is important for ensuring that essential functions continue to operate. Public Perception Relative impact a failure will have on the collective opinion, attitude, and understanding that the residents of the City hold about their local government, its wastewater services, policies, and overall performance. Financial Impact/Fiscal Sustainability Relative impact a failure will have on available City funds and available financial resources necessary to support restoration efforts, including potential construction costs, bypassing, equipment/rentals, ongoing operational expenses (maintenance, utilities, staffing), and any permit violation fees. The specific criteria and relative weight of these categories were reviewed with the City and structured around their business objectives. Table 4-4 displays the criticality scoring matrix developed with the City. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 54 Table 4-4: Consequence of Failure (CoF) Scoring Impacts to City Weight Score: 1 Minimal Impact Score: 2 Minor Impact Score: 3 Moderate Impact Score: 4 Major Impact Score: 5 Significant Impact Public & Staff Health & Safety 30% No injury or minor injury – contusions & lacerations, first aid, non-recordable or near miss Minor to moderate Injury – contusions & lacerations w/out lost time - recorded Moderate injury/lost time or restricted duty – OSHA triggered action Major serious health issues (acute & chronic) & long-term injuries – disabling Fatalities Environmental & Regulatory Impact 25% No negative impacts on environment, public health, or regulatory compliance. 100% Permit Compliance. No negative impacts on environment or public health; One-off Permit violation – No Action from DOE No negative impacts on environment or public health; Multiple Permit violations within 6- 12 months – No Action from DOE Minor negative impact to the environment and/or public health Permit Violation – Action from DOE Moderate/Significant negative impact to the environment and/or public health; major permit violation Quality of Service and Continuity 15% No impacts on service delivery or customers Localized community impact / minor disruption. Moderate localized long-term impact. Community short-term service disruption. Capacity limitations. Delays/Restrictions to developers (<6 months). Community wide impacts with potential long-term service disruption. Capacity limitations. Delays/Restrictions to developers (>6 months). Service area wide impacts or highly acute localized impacts that have long-term service outages. Capacity limitations. Inability to provide for new development. Public Perception 10% No Impact, odor complaint, or complaint to staff. No significant social media Social media activity but no local media coverage. Response handled by staff. Potential complaints to City Council, but no action required. Social media activity and maybe minor local media coverage. City Council may receive complaints to be responded to by staff. Local media coverage with Board of Directors potentially involved in response. Potential long-term impact to community confidence in City. Lead story in local media and/or possible national or industry coverage. Significant impact to community confidence in the City. Financial Impact/Fiscal Sustainability 20% $100 < X < $10,000 Minor cost impacted that can be covered within an operational or CIP budget authorization $10,000 < X < $25,000 Costs can be covered by reallocating authorized funding in operational or CIP budgets. Requires Director sign-off but does not need to go to Council. $25,000 < X < $100,000 Non-emergency Requires City Manager sign-off, may require supplemental budget approval through Council. $100,000 < X < $350,000 Emergency repair triggered. Requires Council to appropriate additional funding in an amount that affects the next FY CIP. X > $350,000 Emergency repair triggered. Requires Council to appropriate additional funding in an amount that affects funding availability in multiple future fiscal years. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 55 4.1.4 Business Vulnerability Business Vulnerability (BV) addresses how an agency’s business practices affect staff’s ability to optimize the long-term operation and maintenance of an asset. This metric was based on six criteria including Work Execution Management (WEM), asset condition, workforce reliability and training, workforce safety features and culture, process resiliency, and engineering for maintenance reliability and asset performance tracking. This condition rates the various business systems and assets that support the operations, maintenance and engineering management that directly impact potential vulnerabilities within the system architecture. When the support systems and assets are in excellent condition, the vulnerability of the business is minimized. However, when the systems and assets are in poor condition, then the vulnerability of the business is greater. Each of these criteria are defined in Table 4-5 below: City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 56 Table 4-5: Business Vulnerability Criteria Definitions Work Execution Management (WEM) How efficient is the lifecycle of a work order; including identification of an issue, confirmation, documentation, resource planning, work execution, functional review, and close out? Asset Condition How functional is the asset in the current state? A measure of an asset's health and physical state at a given time is a key factor in determining how long an asset will remain useful and can help predict when it will need to be repaired, renewed, or replaced. Workforce Reliability & Training How functional is your staff resources, skills training, and knowledge transfer? A variety of activities that help employees and businesses develop and improve skills, and meet employment needs, including day- to-day skills training, mandatory trainings, documented training and materials, formal standard operating procedures (SOPs), abnormal operating procedures (AOPs), emergency response plans (ERPs), labor forecasting, knowledge transfer, etc. Workforce Safety Features and Culture How safe does your staff feel when working on or around assets? Appropriate safety policy and safety signs, labels, guarding, and clearances to help prevent injury, illness, or property damage. Process Resiliency How efficient and available are resources required to respond in the event of a failure or emergency event? The consistent ability of a defined process to produce the desired outcome with minimal errors, as outlined in the detailed steps and guidelines within the SOP, AOPs, and ERPs, essentially signifying how dependable and predictable the process is when followed accurately, even when under stress. Engineering for Maintenance Reliability and Asset Performance Tracking How intentional are engineering practices to improve the longevity and performance of physical assets by documenting system functions at the unit process level, leveraging a formal risk methodology, and using root cause analysis processes for key engineering tools which can 1) support O&M, 2) leverage reliability principles during the development of capital improvement strategies and design projects, and 3) formalize a management of change process? The condition ratings listed in Table 4-6 for each business vulnerability criteria were used to develop the City’s risk matrix. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 57 Table 4-6: Business Vulnerability (BV) Scoring Criteria Impacts to City Weight Score: 1 Excellent Condition Score: 2 Good Condition Score: 3 Fair Condition Score: 4 Needs Attention Score: 5 Very Poor Work Executive Management (WEM) 15% No identification of failure Non-Functional - Requires Full Replacement No training O&M do not feel safe conducting work. No safety equipment/protocols. Hazardous Environment. PPE Required. No tools, knowledge, spares or other resources to respond to failure. Asset Condition 20% Not identified during routine inspection, but ability to be seen from O&M Long period of time prior to maintenance Poor but Functional - Requires Rehabilitation Minimal, undocumented training. Based on institutional knowledge O&M do not feel safe conducting work. Non-functioning or failed safety equipment. Hazardous Environment. PPE Required. Limited ability to respond to failure. Workforce Reliability & Training 10% Not identified during routine inspection, but ability to be seen from O&M Mid-range response time to final execution Fair Condition - Requires Significant Repair Minimal, but documented training. Mostly based on institutional knowledge. Basic standard operating procedures (SOPs) Controlled hazardous environment. PPE Required. City has some knowledge and/or spares to respond to failure. Workforce Safety Features and Culture 30% Routine inspection/maintenance route. Mid-range response time to final execution Good Condition - Requires Minor Repair Required formal documented training protocols. SOPs, emergency response plans (ERPs) O&M feels safe operating. PPE provided and known. Signage posted. Minimal, well controlled hazard. City has ability to respond to failure with emergency contract and/or local spare parts. Process Resiliency 20% Routine inspection/maintenance route. Rapid response time to final execution Like New Condition - Requires No Repair Required formal documented training program. SOP, abnormal operating procedures (AOPs), ERPs exercised regularly. Validating relevancy. O&M feels safe operating. No hazard. City has multiple staff trained, all the necessary tools and spare parts, to respond to a failure. Engineering for Maintenance Reliability and Asset Performance Tracking 5% No identification of failure Non-Functional - Requires Full Replacement No training O&M do not feel safe conducting work. No safety equipment/protocols. Hazardous Environment. PPE Required. No tools, knowledge, spares or other resources to respond to failure. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 58 4.1.5 BRVA Key Observations 4.1.5.1 CoF/Criticality Understanding the business impact of failures is essential in prioritizing how and where to act when emergencies or unexpected events occur. For example, is this piece of equipment or infrastructure critical to bring my process back online? CoF/Criticality is not a measurement of how well the piece of equipment or infrastructure is working, but instead evaluates the repercussions that would result from a potential failure and how that loss of function will impact the ability of the City to meets their mission, vision, and goals. These consequences are broken down below with observations made during the BRVA workshops: 4.1.5.1.1 Public & Staff Health and Safety: Public and Staff Health and Safety measures the relative impact a failure of an asset will have on the risk of accidents and injuries, and the ability to create and maintain a safe working environment protecting the safety of life, property, and the environment. The health and safety of City staff, its residents, and its businesses is crucial to its overall success and is held paramount to other risk attributes. The most notable assets that presented concerns around the health and safety of staff and/or the public revealed during the BRVA include the whole electrical system and the anaerobic digesters. These assets and few others noted by City staff are described below: • Electrical System: The electrical system has no known arc flash ratings and no signage indicating the last arc flash testing event, throughout the WWTP and collection system and select panels should be further evaluated if they fall under Class 1 Division 1 room classifications. • Anaerobic Digesters: The anaerobic digesters present an inherent risk due to the nature of gas build up within them. If the dome were to rupture in any way, personnel working either on or around the digesters could be inundated and exposed to hazardous sludge and gases. Staff also discussed concerns around the explosion potential and boiler system being in poor condition, which could result in hydrogen sulfide gas not going through a proper safety system. • RAS System: While not as likely, if the return activated sludge (RAS) system were to flood the basement, there could be improved measures installed to ensure staff safety from both the electrical and slip/trips/falls and potential inundation that could take place. • Odor Control Facilities: There also should be secondary, redundant, or more frequently monitored ventilation in place around the odor control facilities at the WWTP and satellite facilities. • Primary Effluent System: Pump removal for the Primary Effluent system is also extremely difficult and is a potential threat to staff safety since they do not have the ability to utilize a boom truck and use a forklift. Alternative methods for removal should City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 59 be evaluated to create a safer working environment for staff to preform maintenance on these pumps. 4.1.5.1.2 Environmental & Regulatory Impact: The environmental and regulatory impact measures the relative effect a failure will have on the environment, as well as the potential legal implications based on existing environmental regulations and permit requirements that the City needs to comply with. The largest concerns to environmental impact are the electrical system doing down, since it was more than likely create an ongoing permit violation, a failure along any part of the Crosstown Pipeline or Central Bremerton Force Main could cause up to a 7-day beach closure, flooding in the streets, and impact to the Narrows. Similarly, a failure of the Port Washington Narrows siphon mains could discharge sewage into that body of water for a few days without notice. 4.1.5.1.3 Quality of Service & Continuity: Quality of service and continuity measures the relative impact a failure will have on the ability to maintain service levels after a disruptive event or disaster. Service continuity is important for ensuring that essential functions continue to operate. From the risk assessment, the major assets identified as high consequence for this delivery were the Crosstown Pipeline and Central Bremerton Force Main, since these could impact the Navy shipyard operations by needing to temporarily redirect or bypass the Navy’s sewer discharge to the City’s system. Additionally, any bypass operation associated with the repair of the Crosstown Pipeline or CBFM, both of which pass through densely populated areas of Bremerton, could significantly impact the general public, vehicular traffic and Bremerton businesses due to the scale of bypass pumping operation. 4.1.5.1.4 Public Perception Public Image is a measure of the relative impact a failure will have on the collective opinion, attitude, and understanding that the residents of the City hold about their local government, its wastewater services, policies, and overall performance. How the public views and trusts the City’s system is vital to ensuring continued growth and investment into needed and desired projects. The City rated the Crosstown Pipeline and Central Bremerton Force Main and the Port Washington Narrows Siphon the most highly critical and publicized failures. The WWTP odor control at the headworks scrubber was also ranked highly, due to the WWTP’s close proximity to a major highway, local businesses, and residential districts. 4.1.5.1.5 Financial Impact/Fiscal Sustainability The financial impact/fiscal sustainability measures the relative effect a failure will have on available City funds and available financial resources necessary to support restoration efforts, including potential construction costs, bypassing, equipment/rentals, ongoing operational expenses (maintenance, utilities, staffing), and any permit violation fees. In the event of a failure, the following systems were deemed of highest consequence, potentially exceeding $350,000 in rehabilitation: City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 60 • Crosstown Own Pipeline and Central Bremerton Force Main • Port Narrows/Port Washington Narrows Siphon • Electrical system • Anaerobic digesters • Oyster Bay Basin (OB-1, OB-2, OB-3) • Primary clarifiers • Primary sludge systems The following systems fall within the potential $100,000 to $350,000 range for repairs: • WWTP screening • Aeration basins • RAS/WAS systems • Primary effluent • Dewatering • Lagoons Major pieces of infrastructure like these will not only increase the cost of long-term repair but also the cost of emergency response services for potential bypassing and cleanup during the failure. It is vital to keep these under preventative maintenance inspection to avoid premature failure. 4.1.5.2 Business Vulnerability The BV is measured by how well an agency’s business practices affect their staff’s ability to optimize the long-term operation and maintenance of all their assets. When discussing Business Vulnerability, it is important to understand how an organization functions; how well different departments communicate, where resources are sourced and allocated, and how performance metrics are determined and tracked for both. When assessing an O&M program, identifying the constraints placed on the O&M staff is a top priority. O&M constraints, which is often staff/resource limitations, can negatively impact how a facility is operated, maintained, and managed. City management must strive to achieve a delicate balance between risk, costs, and performance/compliance. Anything that constrains system functionality can significantly impact this delicate balance and should be addressed to prevent forcing O&M staff into a reactive state of operating and maintaining the facility. These constraints are largely exacerbated when there are not adequate business processes/practices in place, which are necessary to sustain system performance. Inadequate business processes/practices could leave the City vulnerable to increased exposure to business risk(s), threat likelihood(s) and/or system functional failure(s). Such business practices are listed below with observations made during the BRVA workshops: 4.1.5.2.1 Work Execution Management The BRVA provided insight into how work is executed at City facilities. WEM is the lifecycle of a work order which includes the identification of an issue, confirmation, documentation, resource planning, work execution, functional review, and close out. It was discussed that O&M staff feel comfortable with the level of staff they have available to address major concerns, but with the personnel resources they have available and work order backlogs, their ability to ensure all City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 61 operational routine duties (ORDs) such as regular cleanings or equipment lubrications is limited. Most of the equipment at the WWTP and throughout the collection system is tied to the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) and identification of failures is sufficiently relayed to staff, however hidden failures identified in the Crosstown Pipeline and all City Siphons could have major negative impacts on the ability to service the City. The thickening system and aerated grit system were identified as hidden failures that could take up to a week before staff may be made aware of a failure. The major concerns noted for WEM relate to long lead times for equipment and the inability to close out work orders. Providing more spare parts, resource pooling from nearby agencies, or staff increases may help alleviate this constraint. 4.1.5.2.2 Asset Condition The asset condition is measure of an asset's health and physical state at a given time. It is a key factor in determining how long an asset will remain useful and can help predict when it will need to be repaired, renewed, or replaced. There was known rehabilitation needed for the anaerobic digesters, and the outfall was recently inspected with a diver who denoted visible separation. Most equipment within the WWTP was deemed in fair condition to good condition. The collection system is in worse condition since pump station piping, valves and equipment is constantly exposed to saltwater and there is a significant amount of aging gravity sewer piping, some installed as far back as the 1940s. Many wet wells have deteriorating concrete walls and liners. City staff will oftentimes perform ultrasonic pipe thickness testing of piping at the pump stations to ensure adequate wall thickness, since these pipes are continuously exposed to corrosive salt water. Notable observations from field inspections will be discussed in Sections 6 and 7. 4.1.5.2.3 Workforce Reliability & Training: Workforce Reliability and Training is key to every asset management program because it connects the physical asset to the human asset. If one wants an asset to perform its expected function, then that asset must be operated and maintained correctly. This is only achieved by ensuring that comprehensive competency-based training is offered by the City. Workforce reliability and training is a measure of the variety of activities that help employees and businesses develop and improve skills, and meet employment needs. For example, this includes day-to-day skills training, mandatory trainings, documented training and materials, labor forecasting, knowledge transfer. Major concerns noted from the BRVA include training or knowledge of how to address issues that occur in the siphons. There is also limited personnel who have the knowledge to operate and troubleshoot the digesters. Staff also lacked confidence in their ability to address failures in the WWTP final effluent channel/outfall; stating they have the skillset to fix equipment, but not training on how to approach it, given its limited accessibility. There is only one certificated technician and two instrument technicians to maintain the electrical and controls system, and there is limited institutional knowledge on motor control center (MCC) and electrical layout and connections within the plant. Overall, most training is based on institutional knowledge transfer and there is limited to no formal training or emergency preparedness training plans for both the WWTP and the collection system. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 62 4.1.5.2.4 Workforce Safety Features and Culture The Workforce safety features and culture are a gauge for the appropriateness and effectiveness of the safety policies that are in place, including but not limited to, signage, labels, guarding, clearances, Safety Data Sheets, The City maintains strong safety policies and encourages staff to be accountable while performing work. The BRVA identified that while safety practices are in place, and that staff feel adequately safe while working, there are opportunities for greater implementation of physical safety controls (including but not limited to signage, striping, and guarding). Specifically, signage and striping around electrical hazards and appropriate clearances should be implemented. The BRVA also identified that working on much of the collection system and the WWTP outfall would require significant traffic control and hiring 3rd party services. The most impactful and urgent safety concern noted was about the need for arc flash testing throughout the WWTP and collection system. 4.1.5.2.5 Process Resiliency Process Resiliency is a measure of the consistent ability of a defined process to produce the desired outcome with minimal errors. This is outlined in the detailed steps and guidelines within the standard operating procedure (SOP), essentially signifying how dependable and predictable the process is when followed accurately. The O&M staff stated they do not have a complete list of documented procedures for various major assets SOPs, limited abnormal operating plans (AOPs), and little to no emergency response plans (ERPs) documented. There should also be more standard procedures for routine and planned inspections for major assets at the WWTP, such as the Digesters, final effluent channel/outfall, thickening tanks, and chlorine contact basins. There are also asset reliability issues including lacking a robust spare parts program and instances where equipment that should be run in a lead-lag setting is not operated as such. This operational strategy impacts the reliability of equipment and may affect the rate of component level wear and tear. If certain assets are operated with equal run times, the anticipated timing for repairs or replacement may coincide, potentially leaving the City exposed to limited or no redundancy if a failure were to occur. 4.1.6 Engineering for Maintenance Reliability and Asset Performance Maintenance reliability uses engineering practices to improve the reliability and performance of physical assets by documenting system functions at the unit process level, leveraging a formal risk methodology, and using root cause analysis processes for key engineering tools. These can support O&M, leverage reliability principles during the development of capital improvement strategies and design projects and formalize a management of change process. During staff interviews it was noted that O&M would like more tools available to them such as CCTV footage of underground pipes, specifically highly critical areas like the Crosstown Pipeline, WWTP channels, and siphons, and the ability to track this overtime. Additionally, a consistently updated hydraulic model of the system would allow City staff to determine what areas of the system might have capacity concerns as flows increase over time. For the siphons, and in particular the Port Washington Narrows Siphon, there was cathodic protection installed along the rock wall next to CE-1, but it has not been used in almost a decade: cathodic protection is vital in identifying and adequately preventing corrosion. For assets that have limited ability to be inspected, such as the siphons, utilizing the technology the City already has installed, should be City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 63 of a high priority. There is a need for a unifying framework for strategic asset management programming that allows the integration of capital improvement planning, longer term design planning, and annual budget planning activities across the various facilities and systems. A goal of this WWCP is to provide a strategic approach and framework to bridge organizational policies and business activities (e.g., Capital Improvement Projects [CIP] and Maintenance Projects [MP]) for sustaining the City’s service level obligations. 4.1.6.1 BRVA Findings The intent of the BRVA is to identify the most vulnerable unit processes that might impact the performance of the City’s facilities and systems; systems that might put the City at risk regarding safety, public regulation, service, image, and economic categories. After the BRVA was completed, risk ranking for each unit process was calculated by taking the weighted arithmetic mean of the criticality scores and multiplying it by the arithmetic mean of the vulnerability scores. Figure 4-3 illustrates the preliminary risk scores for City assets. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 64 Figure 4-3: Preliminary Risk Score 1.Port Washington Narrows Siphon 2.WWTP Electrical Systems 3.Crosstown Pipeline & Central Bremerton Force Main 4.Final Effluent Channel/Outfall 5.Anaerobic Digesters 6.Oyster Bay Basin City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 65 Based on the feedback from City staff, the assets considered highly critical and in need of attention are listed below, with scores ranging from 14.2 to 9.1. • Port Washington Narrows Siphon • Electrical system • Crosstown Pipeline • Central Bremerton Force Main • Final Effluent Channel/Outfall • Anaerobic Digesters • Oyster Bay Basin Collections System Figure 4-4 illustrates the risk score results on a scatter plot for the 43 assets evaluated. Assets shown in the upper right red area indicate higher risks from a criticality and vulnerability perspective than those shown in the yellow or green areas. This data visually shows that 13 of the 43 assets are listed as either needing improvements or of high concern to the City, 21 are in fair condition or moderate concern to the City, and 7 are considered to be in good condition or little concern to the City, not including two which were denoted as “Out of Service” and they were not scored. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 66 Figure 4-4: Preliminary Risk Score – BRVA Heat Map City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 67 4.1.7 Risk Score Validation & Calibration Following the BRVA, both desktop and field evaluations were completed and further discussed in Sections 6 and 7. The field investigations confirmed many of the findings from the BRVA interviews however some asset scores were recalibrated to reflect existing conditions more accurately. Adjustments to the preliminary risk score are made where appropriate after these evaluations to achieve the final risk profile. Typically, these adjustments are done for Asset Condition and Workforce Safety Features and Culture, however some extenuating circumstances can lead to modifications to other scoring metrics as needed. 4.1.8 Likelihood of Failure The estimated likelihood of failure is directly related to the condition evaluation. These estimates are a useful indicator of expected functional performance that may initiate root cause analyses, a tool to assist with proactive maintenance strategies, and in some cases life expectancies of fixed asset classes. The estimated probability of failure provides a convenient way to view the information from an alternative perspective. Although the probability of failure is a variable that is typically included with a risk analysis, we did not apply this variable to develop the initial risk score during the BRVA because we focused our analyses at a system level and not at the asset or component level. Probability of failure was implemented after the condition assessments, WWTP analysis, and collection system hydraulic modeling. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 68 Section 5: Historical and Projected Flows and Loads 5.1 Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to provide information on existing hydraulic conditions within the City’s collection system, and hydraulic, organic, and solids loading to the City’s existing WWTP and to present projections of future flows and loads through the 20-year planning period. Quantifying the existing loads to the WWTP is necessary to determine the level at which the existing wastewater treatment systems are operating relative to their current capacities, and to project performance under future flows and loads. 5.2 Historical WWTP Flows and Loads The discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) for the influent flows and loads were provided for the period January 2018 through December 2023. This period includes periods for pre-COVID 19 pandemic years (2018-2019). The high flows observed during the winter months have necessitated the seasonal characterization of the waste stream. The flows for the two designated seasons are described as follows: • Dry Weather/Summer Season: Lasting from May 1 to September 30, the primary contributors during this period are residential and commercial sanitary sewage, along with contract flows. • Wet Weather/Winter Season: Spanning from October 1 to April 30. • Average Annual: This reflects the average flow or loading condition calculated over the entire year. For each of these periods, flows are further classified according to the following parameters, which are based on standard plant design criteria and help assess plant performance under various operating conditions: • Average Dry Weather: The average of the total daily influent flow during the dry/summer season. • Maximum Month: The highest 30-day rolling average of total daily influent flow during the specified period. • Peak Day: The maximum total influent flow recorded over a single day during the specified period. Historical data from 2018 through 2023 were analyzed to determine the average daily and maximum month influent flows, as well as CBOD5 and TSS loads, for the whole-year and seasonal conditions. The results are summarized in Table 5-1 and Table 5-2, respectively. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 69 Table 5-1: Historical WWTP Flow Summary (2018-2023) Parameter 2018 (MGD) 2019 (MGD) 2020 (MGD) 2021 (MGD) 2022(1) (MGD) 2023(1) (MGD) Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) 4.2 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.2 Annual Average Flow (AAF) 5.1 4.4 4.8 5.2 4.6 4.2 Maximum Month DWF (MM DWF) 4.6 4.0 4.0 3.9 4.3 3.6 Peak Day DWF (PD DWF) 6.2 8.7 10.4 7.3 6.9 5.8 Maximum Month Wet Weather Flow (MM WWF) 9.3 7.2 9.5 10.7 9.9 8.7 Peak Day WWF (PD WWF) 19.3 22.3 18.4 22.4 26.0 26.0 (1) Due to issues with influent measurement, effluent flow has been recorded as influent flow in the DMR since 2022. Table 5-2: WWTP Historical Influent Loads Parameter 2018 (ppd) 2019 (ppd) 2020 (ppd) 2021 (ppd) 2022 (ppd) 2023 (ppd) Average Annual Load (AAL) for CBOD5 8,100 7,100 6,200 6,500 7,100 5,900 Maximum Month Load (MML) for CBOD5 9,900 8,400 8,300 7,700 14,000 7,500 Peak Day Load (PDL) for CBOD5 15,700 12,200 17,400 13,200 21,300 10,700 AAL for TSS 9,300 9,100 8,400 7,500 8,900 7,000 MML for TSS 12,100 10,000 10,600 9,400 17,700 8,500 The average dry weather flow (ADWF) at the WWTP has remained relatively constant between 2019 and 2022, although it was reduced somewhat in 2023. The average annual CBOD5 load remained relatively stable, ranging between 6,000 and 7,000, with a slight decline observed in 2023. In contrast, both the maximum month CBOD5 and TSS loads saw substantial increases in 2022, with CBOD5 nearly doubling and TSS increasing by approximately 50%. Aside from 2022, maximum month loads have remained at consistent levels. Through discussions with the City held in June 2024, this event was identified as an outlier and excluded from the peaking factor settings for the load projection. Figures were created to depict both the annual average and the 30-day rolling average for influent flows (Figure 5-1), as well as CBOD5 (Figure 5-2) and TSS loads (Figure 5-3). These visualizations allow for the identification of any emerging trends or patterns over time, helping to detect seasonal variations or long-term shifts in influent characteristics. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 70 Figure 5-1: Influent Flow in MGD (2018-2023) City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 71 Figure 5-2: Influent CBOD5 Load in ppd (2018-2023) City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 72 Figure 5-3: Influent TSS Load in ppd (2018-2023) City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 73 The figures show that maximum month flow typically occurs between December and February, aligning with the wet season, and the 30-day rolling average follows a consistent, repetitive trend. However, the maximum month load has been observed at various times throughout the year rather than at a fixed period. Peaking factors for flow and load were calculated each year from historical influent flow, CBOD5, and TSS load data, using ratios of various flow and load conditions, such as MM WWF/AAF and PDL/AAL. These peaking factors, summarized in Table 5-3 were used to establish additional design flows and loads based on the baseline values in the following sections. Table 5-3: Influent Flow and Load Peaking Factors 2018-2023 Parameter (Dimensionless) 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Average ADWF/AAF 0.83 0.84 0.75 0.69 0.77 0.75 0.77 MM DWF/AAF 0.90 0.91 0.83 0.76 0.93 0.84 0.86 PD DWF/AAF 1.20 1.97 2.16 1.41 1.52 1.37 1.61 MM WWF/AAF 1.81 1.64 1.99 2.07 2.18 2.06 1.96 MML/AAL for CBOD5 1.22 1.19 1.35 1.20 1.97 1.27 1.24 PDL/AAL for CBOD5 1.94 1.72 2.83 2.04 3.02 1.82 2.07 MML/AAL for TSS 1.30 1.10 1.26 1.25 2.00 1.22 1.23 Notes: (1) The 2022 anomaly was excluded from the determination of peaking factors. (2) The highest value among the five peaking factors was selected as the design peaking factor for projecting maximum monthly loads. 5.3 Projected Wastewater Flows and Loads This section presents the projected populations, wastewater flows, and loads for the WWTP service area. The population, flow and loading estimates are determined for the base year (2023) through the year 2044 for a planning period of 20 years beginning in 2024. 5.3.1 Sewered Population Projections The projections use demographic data prepared by Kitsap County as part of its Countywide Planning Policies (CPP), amended and adopted in October 2021, along with additional data developed by the Department of Community Development (DCD) for its service area using Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs). Kitsap County’s CPP includes population data for 2020 and projected population figures for 2044, reflecting anticipated growth during the planning period from 2020 to 2044 for both the City and the Bremerton Urban Growth Area (UGA). The DCD provides data exclusively for the City, covering a planning period from 2024 to 2044. These two sets of demographic data and projections develop population estimates for 2024 to 2044 for the areas served by the WWTP, excluding the population associated with the PSIC area. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 74 The sewered population is estimated with the following assumptions and steps: • 2024 Residential and Employment Populations for the City and UGA: o The 2024 residential population for the City is based on the estimate provided by the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM). o The 2024 City employment population, as well as the UGA residential and employment populations, are interpolated using projections from the Kitsap County CPP, assuming a constant growth rate over the 24-year planning horizon. o The growth projected by the TAZ data from the DCD is applied to the residential and employment populations for the City for the planning period of 2024 to 2044. o The growth projected in the Kitsap County CPP is adjusted to start in 2024 for the residential and employment populations in the UGA. • Adjustments for excluding PSIC Area: o The PSIC’s residential and employment populations of 515 and 872 for 2023, as provided in the TAZ map, are subtracted from the 2024 City’s residential and employment populations. o The projected employment growth for the PSIC area, totaling 9,639, is subtracted from the City’s employment growth figures. o No residential growth is projected for the PSIC area, and the adjusted figures from the Kitsap CPP for the planning period starting in 2024 remain unchanged. o A constant growth rate is assumed, and the 2034 milestone growth has been estimated using the calculated constant growth rate for each population category. • Sewered Portion of the Population: o The sewered portions of the current residential and employment populations are assumed to be 76% and 95%, respectively, as outlined in the 2014 WWCP Update for the planning horizon from 2013 through 2033. These assumptions were City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 75 discussed with the City and accepted for use during the flow and load projection review meeting held on June 14, 2024, for the current population. o For new growth, 100% of the City growth and 25% of the UGA growth are assumed to be sewered, according to the direction of the City. The projection of the sewered population, starting with 2024 as the base year and including the milestone years 2034 and 2044, is provided in Table 5-4. Table 5-4: City of Bremerton Sewered Population Projection Residential Population Projection Year City UGA City Growth UGA Growth 2024 44,875 (1) 10,520 0 0 2034 53,736 11,635 8,862 1,114 2044 64,349 12,867 19,474(2) 2,347 Employment Population Projection Year City UGA City Growth UGA Growth 2024 45,308(3) 1,657 0 0 2034 48,270 2,521 2,962 864 2044 51,426 3,835 6,118(4) 2,178 Residential Sewered Population Projection(5) Year 2024 City and UGA City Growth UGA Growth Residential Sewered 2024 42,100 0 0 42,100 2034 42,100 8,862 279 51,241 2044 42,100 19,474 587 62,161 Employment Sewered Population Projection(6) Year 2024 City and UGA City Growth UGA Growth Employment Sewered 2024 44,617 0 0 44,617 2034 44,617 2,962 216 47,795 2044 44,617 6,118 544 51,279 Notes: (1) The residential population in 2023 for PSIC areas was estimated to be 515 by multiplying 242 dwelling units by 2.13 capita pe r multi-dwelling unit, based on the demographic data provided by the DCD. This number was subtracted from the City's 2024 residential population of 45,390, which is the estimate provided by the Washington State’s OFM. (2) The growth is assumed to be the same as the growth estimate provided by the DCD from 2023 to 2044. (3) The employment population in 2023 for PSIC areas of 872 was subtracted from the City’s 2024 employment population of 46,180, which was interpolated for 2024 from the projection provided in Kitsap’s CPPs. (4) The employment growth estimate for PSIC of 9,639 was subtracted from the employment growth estimate of 15,757 by the DCD from 2023 to 2044. (5) Residential sewered population = 76% x 2024 City and UGA population + 100% x City Growth + 25% x UGA Growth (6) Employment sewered population = 95% x 2024 City and UGA population + 100% x City Growth + 25% x UGA Growth City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 76 5.3.2 Sewer Flow and Waste Load Projections According to the 2020 Water System Plan by the City of Bremerton Water Utility, water consumption per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) was estimated at 143 gallons per day (gpd) from 2013 through 2019. Assuming an average of 2.33 people per ERU, residential water consumption was estimated at 61 gallons per day per capita (gpcd). The employment water consumption rate was assumed to remain the same as the 42 gpdc estimated in the 2014 WWCP Update. In the 2014 WWCP Update, the sewer generation factor was calculated by assuming a reduction from the water consumption factor to align the estimated sewer generation with the 2012 Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF). This same methodology was used to determine the reduction from the updated residential water consumption rate and the 2014 employment water consumption rate to the corresponding sewer generation factor. A 20% reduction from water to sewer was assumed to match the calculated sewer generation with each historical ADWF from 2020 through 2023, with an average difference of 2% overall. With the 20% reduction, the following sewer generation factors were assumed for each sector: • Residential sector: 49 gpdc • Employment sector: 34 gpdc The ADWF projections were developed using sewer generation factors applied to the projected sewered population as summarized in Table 5-5. Table 5-5: Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) Projection Year Sewered Population Base Flow ADWF Projection (MGD) Residential Employment Residential Employment ADWF 2024 42,100 44,617 2.1 1.5 3.6 2034 51,241 47,795 2.5 1.6 4.1 2044 62,161 51,279 3.1 1.7 4.8 To establish other design flow baselines, historical peaking factors of AAF to ADWF, and those of peak day (PD) and maximum month (MM) flows to AAF were estimated from DMR data over the past six years for both wet weather flow (WWF) and dry weather flow (DWF). The average of the six peaking factors (PFs) was used to project all flows except for the MM WWF, where the highest PF among the six historical PFs was used. These additional projected design flows are listed in Table 5-6. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 77 Table 5-6: Additional Design Flow Projections (MGD) Year ADWF AAF MM DWF PD DWF MM WWF 2024 3.6 4.6 4.0 7.4 10.1 2034 4.1 5.3 4.6 8.6 11.7 2044 4.8 6.2 5.3 9.9 13.5 Peaking Factors 0.77 1.00 0.86 1.61 2.18 The projection for peak day flow adhered to the methodology from the 2014 WWCP Update, where a peak day flow was estimated by adding a constant inflow/infiltration (I/I) of 23 MGD— derived from a 2012 storm event—to the projected ADWF. Recent five-year data for primary influent flow showed that the difference between the PDF and ADWF was estimated to be 22.8 MGD, nearly matching the previous I/I figure. An additional I/I for a new service area of 2,321 acres defined in Table 4-8 of the 2014 WWCP Update was added, separate from the final PDF projected over the planning horizon. Based on the sanitary sewer flow projections provided in Chapter 4.2.3 of the 2014 WWCP Update, this new service area encompasses eight sub-areas: Marine Drive, Port Blakely, Rocky Point, West Hills, State Route 304 (Sherman Heights), Trenton, Tracyton, and Tracyton Beach. As the City has no confirmed plans for the development of these new service areas or the extension of the sewer collection system, the previous planning figures from 2014 WWCP Update were assumed for the projection. It was further assumed that the new service area would be added evenly over the planning horizon. The peak hour flow (PHF) was estimated using a multiplier of 1.78, derived from the average of six historical peaking factors (PHF/PDF) to the projected PDF. Table 5-7 provides a summary of the flow projections. Table 5-7: Peak Wet Weather Flow Projection (MGD) Year ADWF Current I/I New Area I/I PD WWF PHF 2024 3.6 22.8 0 26.4 46.9 2034 4.1 22.8 2.8 29.7 52.9 2044 4.8 22.8 5.6(2) 33.2 59.0 Notes: (3) PHF = PD WWF x 1.78 (calculated as the average of six historical peaking factors: PHF/PD WWF). (4) Additional I/I for assumed new area estimated at 2,400 gal/day/acre for 2,321 acres, following the method from the 2014 WWCP Update. To project the loading associated with residential and employment areas, the loading factors estimated by King County for their three WWTPs in the 2014 WWCP Update for treatment plant flow and waste load projections were used. Although the City is not part of King County and neither the City nor its county has specific loading data available, King County's figures were adopted, with the assumption that they would be comparable for this region. The use of these values was further supported by checking the assumptions against historical data, which demonstrated that they align closely with local conditions. According to the report, the average City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 78 BOD loading factors for residential and commercial areas were 0.15 and 0.04 pounds per day per capita (ppdc), respectively, and the average TSS loading factors were 0.16 and 0.04 ppdc, respectively. Using these assumptions, the total BOD and TSS loads were estimated to be close to the historical influent BOD and TSS loads in 2020, 2021, and 2022, with an average difference of less than 2%. The average annual load (AAL) projections were developed by applying these BOD and TSS load generation factors to the projected sewered residential and employment population and summarized in Table 5-8. Table 5-8: Average Annual Load Projections Year Sewered Population AAL for BOD (ppd) AAL for TSS (ppd) Residential Employment 2024 42,100 44,617 8,100 8,500 2034 51,241 47,795 9,600 10,100 2044 62,161 51,279 11,400 12,000 To establish additional design loads, historical peaking factors for maximum month load (MML), maximum week load (MWL), and peak day load (PDL) relative to annual average load (AAL) were estimated using six years of DMR data. The average of five peaking factors, after excluding an outlier from 2022, was used to project both MWL and PDL. For the MML, the highest peaking factor among the remaining five historical values was applied to the projected AAL to estimate the MML. Table 5-9 summarizes the projected BOD and TSS design loads. Table 5-9: BOD and TSS Load Projection BOD Projection (ppd) TSS Projection (ppd) Year AAL MML PDL AAL MML 2024 8,100 10,900 16,800 8,500 11,100 2034 9,600 13,000 19,900 10,100 13,100 2044 11,400 15,400 23,600 12,000 15,600 Peaking Factors 1.00 1.35 2.07 1.00 1.30 All projected MM DWF, MM WWF, MM BOD, and TSS loads were below the limits currently allowed in the permit. These projected flows and loads were utilized to evaluate the current facility's capacity and identify any potential shortages. For the processes identified with capacity shortages, improvements will be developed based on the flows and loads permitted under the current Permit, with projected values adjusted to correspond to the Permit’s maximum monthly flows and loads. 5.4 Sewer Basin Existing and Projected Flows Kitsap County Planning Policies informed the flow projections across the entire Bremerton service area in Section 5.3. For sewer basin-specific existing and projected flows that can be leveraged for modelling analysis in Section 5, the following information was leveraged • City water metering data for the 2023 year City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 79 • Select pump station flow data for the 2023 year • Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) projections developed by Kitsap County over the planning period of 2024- 2044. It should be noted that basins analyzed in the following sections account for all of the flow within the City’s collection system. 5.4.1 Sewer Basin Average Dry Weather Flows The existing and projected ADWF across Bremerton’s service area broken down by basin are summarized in Table 5-10. Table 5-10: Existing and Projected ADWF – Basin Specific Existing Flows (2024) Projected Growth Flows (2024-2044) Projected Flows (2044) Basin ADWF (gpm) ADWF (MGD) ADWF (gpm) ADWF (MGD) ADWF (gpm) ADWF (MGD) East Bremerton(1) - - - - - - Oyster Bay 355 0.51 24 0.04 380 0.55 Kitsap Lake 60 0.09 53 0.08 113 0.16 Anderson Cove 166 0.24 4 0.01 170 0.24 Warren Avenue 889 1.28 507 0.73 1396 2.01 Callow Basin 681 0.98 16 0.02 697 1.00 Pacific Avenue 105 0.15 106 0.15 211 0.30 Sinclair Park(2) 244 0.35 270 0.39 514 0.74 Kitsap Sewer District No. 1(2) Southwest Bremerton(2) Total 2,500 3.60 981 1.41 3,481 5.01 Notes: (1) During dry weather, all East Bremerton basins flow into Warren Avenue via CE-1. (2) 2023 Pump station data unavailable. Basins combined for analysis. 5.4.2 Sewer Basin Average Dry Weather Flows Methodology To define the existing basin-specific ADWF, City water meter data from 2023 was leveraged with an assumed 96% sewer generation rate. In GIS, the sewer basin boundaries were overlain on the water meters attribute, and a report was generated. During the initial basin-specific analysis, the total ADWF calculated was 3.04 MGD. A 18% global adjustment was applied to match the WWTP influent data per Table 5-5. To define the projected growth in ADWF across the planning horizon of 2024-2044, KJ performed basin-specific analyses based on the County-provided Traffic Analysis Zone data. The demographic projections from the County and City are allocated to small geographic areas called Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs). TAZs for the City are developed by Kitsap County to City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 80 estimate population and employment growth throughout the County. The TAZ boundaries are independent of Bremerton’s sewer service areas. Therefore, GIS analysis was used to determine which portions of the TAZ fall within Bremerton’s sewer service area. The TAZ data was overlain onto the City’s service area and a report was generated, factoring in the sewer generation rates. Ultimately, the calculated ADWF at the end of the planning horizon (2044) was calculated to be 5.01 MGD (see table above), 4.4% higher than the projected WWTP 2044 influent ADWF per Table 5-5. The disagreement is likely due to the application of the sewer generation factors related to UGA vs. non-UGA growth, which the populations TAZ-based population growth forecasts do not include. The difference is considered minor, and basin- specific flows are considered acceptable in utilization for later analyses. 5.4.3 Sewer Basin Peak Hour Flows The existing and projected wet weather PHF across Bremerton’s service area broken down by basin are summarized in Table 5-11. Table 5-11: Existing and Projected PHF – Basin Specific Existing Flows (2024) Projected Flow Increase (2024-2044) Projected Flows (2044) Basin PHF (gpm) PHF (MGD) PHF (gpm) PHF (MGD) PHF (gpm) PHF (MGD) East Bremerton(1) - - - - - - Oyster Bay 2,188 3.2 133 0.2 2,321 3.4 Kitsap Lake 749 1.1 649 0.9 1,405 2.0 Anderson Cove 5,144 7.4 995 1.4 6,139 8.8 Warren Avenue 6,774 9.8 3,507 5.0 10,281 14.8 Callow Basin 12,968 18.7 459 0.7 13,427 19.3 Pacific Avenue 1,458 2.1 1,474 2.1 2,932 4.2 Sinclair Park(2) 2,336 3.4 1,021 1.5 3,357 4.8 Kitsap Sewer District No. 1(2) Southwest Bremerton(2) Total 31,617 45.7 8,238 11.8 39,855 57.5 Notes: (1) During dry weather, all East Bremerton basins flow into Warren Avenue via CE-1. (2) 2023 Pump station data unavailable. Basins combined for analysis. For projected growth flows and 2044 projected flows, nominal peaking factor applied. 5.4.4 Sewer Basin Peak Hour Flows Methodology 5.4.4.1 Existing Flows (2024) Analyzing select pump station data for the 2023 year provided by the City, the peak hour flow was identified and correlated to its associated basin. These maximum values in the data sets City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 81 provided were compared to the augmented ADWF in 2024 for each basin as described in Table 5-10 to yield peaking factors. The peaking factors were then applied to the collection system model to yield the peak hourly flows as shown in Table 5-11. The validation of this methodology is explained further in Section 6 of the report. For sewer basins where no pump station data was available, a nominal peaking factor of 8.5 was applied. The total peak hour flow calculated, 45.7 MGD is within 2% of the total projected flow determined at the WWTP per Table 5-7. 5.4.4.2 Projected Flow Increases (2024- 2044) The same approach leveraging TAZ data as explained in Section 5.4.2 was utilized to determine the ADWF increase for each basin analyzed. The same peaking factors determined in Section 5.4.4.1 were applied to the ADWFs. 5.4.4.3 Projected Flows (2044) The existing flows and projected growth flows were combined to determine the projected peak hour flows. The total peak hour flow calculated, 57.5 MGD is within 2% of the total projected flow determined at the WWTP per Table 5-7. 5.5 Design Criteria Table 5-12 summarizes both the projected 2044 conditions and the influent conditions allowed under the current permit. The projected 2044 conditions were used as the basis for assessing WWTP capacity, while the permit conditions and other influent conditions extended in relation to the permit conditions, were assumed as the design criteria for developing improvement alternatives. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 82 Table 5-12: Summary of Design Criteria Parameter Projected 2044 NPDES Permit Design Criteria Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF), MGD 4.8 - 5.5 Average Annual Flow (AAF), MGD 6.2 - 7.1 Maximum Month Dry Weather Flow (MM DWF), MGD 5.3 11.0 11.0 Peak Day Dry Weather Flow (PD DWF), MGD 9.9 - 11.4 Maximum Month Wet Weather Flow (MM WWF), MGD 13.5 15.5 15.5 Peak Day Wet Weather Flow (PD WWF), MGD 33.2 - 33.9 Peak Hour Flow (PHF), MGD 59.0 - 60.3 Average Annual BOD Load (AA BODL), ppd 11,400 - 13,400 Maximum Month BOD Load (MM BODL), ppd 15,400 18,100 18,100 Maximum Day BOD Load (MD BODL), ppd 23,600 - 27,700 Average Annual TSS Load (AA TSSL), ppd 12,000 - 17,400 Maximum Month TSS Load (MM TSSL), ppd 15,600 22,600 22,600 The existing and projected flows and loads are leveraged for collection system evaluation and WWTP evaluation in Sections 6 and 7 respectively. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 83 Section 6: Collection System Evaluation 6.1 Collection System Development A key element of understanding the capacity of the City’s collection system under existing and future sewer flows involved the development of the collection system hydraulic model. AquaTwin Sewer Modelling software was used to develop the hydraulic model. The development of the hydraulic model involved several steps including importing the City’s existing GIS sewer geodatabase, reviewing model connectivity, calculating and assigning existing and future flows to the model, and calibrating the model using flow meter data. This section provides an overview of the hydraulic model development, model calibration process, comprehensive capacity analysis, and modeling results. 6.2 Hydraulic Model Development The City’s hydraulic modeling needs were assessed to help define the software and approach needed in the development of the hydraulic model. The wastewater collection system model was developed in AquaTwin Sewer Version 15.0. The hydraulic model horizontal datum is based on the Washington State Plane Coordinate System, North American Datum (NAD 83). The preferred approach was to develop a trunk model that includes all pipes with diameters greater than or equal to 10-inches within the existing collection system. A trunk model is a skeletal model which is less detailed than a full pipe model. These types of hydraulic models are used for high level decision-making and system planning. This approach was selected based on the level of detail and analysis required for this WWCP. The model uses Manning’s equation to calculate friction losses throughout the system with a Manning’s roughness coefficient of 0.013. The model does not include cleanouts and fittings included in the City’s GIS sewer geodatabase. Portions of the 8-inch pipes were added to the model to assure proper connectivity and stability for running the model. 6.2.1 Model Approach, Assumptions and Update During model development, the physical network of sewers, manholes, and pump stations was established based on the City’s GIS database, specifically the physical information contained therein for the existing collection system. A review of the existing collection system, parcel, and land use information in the GIS database was completed prior to model development which provides quality enhancements to the sanitary GIS data. The data review was undertaken in GIS in both ESRI ArcMap and hydraulic modeling software utilizing built-in AquaTwin Sewer analysis tools. A review was conducted of the hydraulic continuity and suitability of physical sewer data in terms of profile connectivity. The following approach was taken where information, such as diameters and inverts, were not available for conduits: City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 84 When inverts were missing in intermediate gravity sections where upstream and downstream information was known, the inverts were interpolated using the known inverts as well as the length of the conduit with missing invert information. When only downstream inverts were available, the upstream inverts were calculated using the known downstream invert, the length of the conduit, and an assumed constant slope. When connectivity information was completely missing, appropriate assumptions were made based on engineering judgement and consultation with the City’s staff to build the network. For manholes for which information was unknown, a rim elevation was taken from Google Earth and verified using the latest topographic data available from United States Geological Survey (USGS). For manholes for which rim elevation was populated based on NGVD 29 and the former City of Bremerton datum; approximately 112 feet was subtracted to covert to NAVD 88. South Bremerton has been defined for this WWCP to include the Gorst, Anderson Hill Road, and PSIC basins as shown in the inset in Figure 6-1. Figure 6-1 shows the collection system basin boundaries, and the locations of the pump stations that were included in the hydraulic model analysis. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 85 Figure 6-1: Sewer Basin Map City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 86 6.2.2 Sewer Inflow Allocation This section explains the methods used to allocate both the average existing and future sewer flows to the hydraulic model. 6.2.2.1 Existing Sewer Average Daily Flows Calculation from Water Billing Data Sewer flows are not directly metered at each individual customer and must be estimated based on the customer’s corresponding water demand. The billed water demand was calculated based on one year of complete water billing data from 2023. Table 6-1 shows both the total billed water and sewer demand by usage type. Customers that use water for irrigation have no return flow, as the water is fully consumed and does not return to the sewer collection system. Regarding water demand, 45% of it is comprised of residential customers, 18% multifamily residential, and 13% commercial. Sewer only usage from various classes, such as the U.S. Navy, hospital sewer, and others, comprises 24%. Sewer annual and winter average flows were calculated for each water customer usage type. The calculation was accomplished by dividing the total flow between meter readings by the number of days between meter readings. Sewer return flow ratios were then developed for each water customer usage type to calculate average sewer demand for each customer. The sewer return flow ratio represents what portion of the water demand being consumed by a water customer is then returned to the collection system as waste. The estimated billed water demand is 3.16 MGD, with a 96% sewer generation rate, resulting in an average annual sewer flow of 3.04 MGD. Table 6-1: Annual (2023) Billed Water and Sewer Demand by Usage Type Land Use Total Water Use (Hundred Cubic Feet) Total Water Use (gpm) Total Water Use (MGD) Sewer Return Flow Ratios (%) Average Sewer Demand (MGD) COMM I 109,000 155 0.22 95 0.21 COMM II 58,012 83 0.12 95 0.11 COMM III 31,030 44 0.06 95 0.06 RESIDENTIAL 691,583 984 1.42 95 1.35 MULTI-FAMILY 273,668 389 0.56 95 0.53 VARIOUS CLASS 378,365 538 0.78 100 0.78 TOTAL 1,544,835 2,198 3.16 3.04 As described in Section 5.3.2, calculated sewer generation with each historical ADWF from 2020 through 2023 shows an ADWF of 3.60 MGD. The calculated average sewer demand in Table 6-1 shows a value of 3.04, therefore an 18% global adjustment was applied to align with the WWTP influent data, which is considered the more consistent data source, spanning several years. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 87 6.2.2.2 Existing Sewer Inflow Allocation Sewer inflow allocation consists of assigning sewer flow to the appropriate manholes (nodes) in the model. The goal is to distribute the flow throughout the model to best represent actual system response. The base flow component is comprised of sanitary flow (i.e., residential, commercial, and industrial sewage) and groundwater infiltration during dry periods. This component was developed based on the methodology described in the previous section, using 2023 water billing records. The water billing data was geolocated within GIS based on parcel number and address information. Using GIS, each customer account was geocoded and spatially joined within the existing sewer collection system. AquaTwin Sewer inflow allocation tool was then used to load the hydraulic model with the calculated sewer demands, using the “nearest pipe” allocation method. The sewer demand was assigned to the next upstream manhole. This process was the first step, prior to the manual adjustments made as detailed below: • Location 1: East Bremerton flow was assigned incorrectly to locations like CW-4 and CE-4. After manual adjustments, all flow from East Bremerton was redirected to the manhole upstream of Pump Station CE-1, as it is conveyed to CE-1 via the inverted siphons and then pumped into the WWTP through the Crosstown Pipeline. • Location 2: For South Bremerton, a portion of the inflow was redirected to the manhole upstream of Pump Station SB-3, as this portion is discharged into the Southwest Bremerton Sewer Force Main and directly conveyed to the WWTP. The remaining portion was assigned to South of Sinclair Inlet. 6.2.2.3 Future Sewer Demand Allocation A buildout model was developed to assess the future infrastructure needs of the City’s collection system as development progresses. In this context, "buildout" refers to the scenario in which all areas designated for service by the collection system are fully developed according to the densities specified in the current land use plan. To project future demands on the system, the model accounts for expected increases in water usage and sewer flows driven by new developments. These projections are based on the 2044 Traffic Analysis Zone projections provided by Kitsap County, as discussed in Section 5.4.2. This growth, however, is not evenly distributed across the City. The basins in the East Bremerton and South Bremerton areas are expected to see the largest increases, each contributing approximately 28% of the total projected growth in demand. These projections provide a foundation for determining the appropriate sizing of the collection system infrastructure to meet both existing and future flows. The future average dry sewer demand of 1.4 MGD associated with these areas was allocated in the hydraulic model using the allocation method described earlier. The specific locations of these demands are illustrated in Figure 6-2, which shows how the projected growth is distributed across the various basins. This allocation ensures that the infrastructure is City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 88 appropriately sized to handle the anticipated growth and maintain system efficiency as development continues. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 89 Figure 6-2: Future Average Dry Weather Flow Map City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 90 6.2.3 Flow Meter Data Collection Due to lack of good flow metering data throughout the City’s collection system, the City provided total volume data for the one-year period from January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 which was based on the permanent flow meters located at several City pump stations. A schematic showing the observed ADWF at each of the pump stations during the dry season months (June through September) resulting in a total flow of 3.15 MGD is shown in Figure 6-3. The Kitsap Lake Basin consists of several pump stations, with KL-1 being the primary station in the area. All other pumps within this basin are tributary to KL-1. The KL-2 pump station, which is a large facility, discharges into KL-1. KL-3 discharges to KL-2, and KL-4 discharges to KL-3. The Anderson Cove Basin includes CW-4. Discharge from CW-4 can be redirected depending on the season. During wet weather months, CW-4 pumps into the Crosstown Pipeline in order to minimize overflows at OF-11. During the dry weather months, it pumps into the beach main at the end of High Avenue, which discharges to CW-1 to ensure that flushing velocities are maintained in the beach main during periods of low flow. CW-1 discharges into the Crosstown Pipeline at 13th and Naval Avenue. Lift station CW-2 discharge can also be redirected seasonally. CW-2 normally pumps to the Callow Basin, making it tributary to WB-3. During dry weather, flow from CW-2 can be directed (via valving at 19th Street and Snyder Avenue) to CW- 1 to minimize the wet well retention time during dry weather low flows to reduce odors. Recently WW staff decided to direct the CW-2 flow to the Callow Basin at all times, though the option still exists to redirect to CW-1 as needed. The Pacific Avenue Basin is served by two main pump stations. CE-4 receives all the wastewater flow from the downtown waterfront area and the east end of the shipyard, and it pumps this flow into the Central Bremerton Force Main. CE-6, which receives flow from streets west of Pacific Avenue, east of Warren Avenue, and bounded on the north by MLK Way, pumps into a force main along Park Avenue, enters the gravity sewer near MLK Way, then flows to CE- 1. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 91 Figure 6-3: ADWF Schematic from PS Flow Meters 6.2.4 Model Calibration Methodology In this calibration effort, the discrepancy of total ADWF from flow meters, water billing data and historical influent data from WWTP was considered. Due to limited availability of data sets that occurred during a similar interval of time, an average daily wastewater flow generated from water billing was imported into the model as a basis of our ADWF calibration. Following the data import, the 2023 water billing were adjusted to align with the WWTP influent data set, which, as discussed earlier, covers the period from 2018 to 2023. Given that 2023 was a dry year with minimal rainfall and that the ADWF at the WWTP remained stable from 2019 to 2022, a global adjustment of 18% was applied to the calculated sewer generation based off the 2023 water billing data. This adjustment was made to adopt a conservative approach and ensure consistency with the broader dataset. The calibration of the WWF involved reviewing rainfall data and flow data from the collection system to establish the relationship between rainfall and system flow, both across the entire system and at the WWTP. The storm chosen for calibration occurred on November 4, 2023, which saw the highest peak rainfall of 2.3 inches. Additionally, according to the previous annual CSO report, two CSO events took place in November 2023, coinciding with this storm event. A peaking factor was applied to approximate peak WWF conditions, allowing a preliminary assessment of system performance under peak conditions. While this approach provided City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 92 insights into peak flow locations, it is important to acknowledge the steady-state simulation may not fully capture the dynamic nature of the collection system. Future data collection efforts should aim to include ongoing flow monitoring meters at various points of the collection system to generate detailed flow patterns to enhance the calibration process and improve model accuracy. 6.2.5 Rainfall Data The City provided rainfall data for two City rain gauges which were monitored at fifteen-minute intervals from 3/2/2023 to 12/31/2023. During this period, 38 rainfall events were recorded. The meter data was reviewed to identify suitable storms for calibration. The storm selected for calibration occurred on November 4, 2023, which had the highest peak rainfall of 2.3 inches. Although the storm on December 4, 2023, lasted longer, its peak rainfall was only 0.47 inches. Table 6-2 presents the rainfall summary statistics (event, date, time, duration, and peak rainfall) for events with rainfall of at least 0.25 inches. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 93 Table 6-2: Rainfall Event Summary Event Date Duration (h) Maximum Rainfall (in) 1 3/11/2023 12:00 7.25 1.003 2 3/12/2023 20:45 16.25 0.28 3 3/31/2023 18:30 7.75 0.262 4 4/2/2023 16:00 7.25 1.329 5 4/3/2023 13:15 7.25 0.352 6 4/6/2023 13:45 7.25 0.251 7 4/10/2023 17:30 7.25 0.2795 8 4/16/2023 21:30 7.25 0.271 9 4/17/2023 18:30 7.25 0.2515 10 4/19/2023 13:45 7.25 0.6195 11 5/3/2023 20:15 7.5 0.6375 12 6/18/2023 12:30 11 1.083 13 6/19/2023 16:45 7.5 0.49 14 9/19/2023 23:00 8.75 0.321 15 9/24/2023 19:45 12.25 0.2865 16 9/25/2023 16:00 7.75 2.157 17 9/26/2023 11:00 8.25 0.8885 18 9/27/2023 4:45 15.5 0.43 19 9/28/2023 11:30 7.25 0.3205 20 10/10/2023 7:45 7.25 0.27 21 10/11/2023 1:45 7.25 0.2875 22 10/16/2023 7:00 7.5 0.409 23 10/24/2023 18:45 23 0.332 24 11/1/2023 21:30 17 0.423 25 11/3/2023 20:00 20.25 2.318 26 11/5/2023 5:30 20.75 0.8275 27 11/6/2023 14:00 13.5 0.34 28 11/9/2023 14:15 7.25 0.282 29 11/11/2023 4:30 7.25 0.2815 30 11/12/2023 13:15 8.5 0.3175 31 12/1/2023 3:15 9.25 0.3105 32 12/1/2023 21:30 11 0.459 33 12/4/2023 6:30 30 0.4695 34 12/5/2023 19:00 7.25 0.2605 35 12/7/2023 0:15 13.5 0.6005 36 12/22/2023 8:15 7.75 0.288 37 12/25/2023 10:00 7.25 0.36 38 12/27/2023 21:15 8 0.4705 City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 94 6.2.6 Calibration Statistics When evaluating calibration results, it is crucial to define the acceptable tolerance between actual and measured data. For this calibration, best practice model calibration criteria, as obtained from the Wastewater Planning Users Group's (WaPUG) Code of Practice for Hydraulic Modelling of Sewers were adopted. Additionally, the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) Code of Practice for the Hydraulic Modeling of Urban Drainage Systems (2017) provides the same criteria for assessing simulated peak flows during both dry- and wet-weather events. The following calibration statistics criteria listed in Table 6-3 were used to guide the calibration process. Table 6-3: Calibration Statistics Criteria Criteria Recommended Range Dry Weather Peak Flow -10% to +20% Wet Weather Peak Flow -10% to +25% 6.2.7 Dry Weather Flow Calibration The initial step in determining the Dry Weather Flow (DWF) component of the flow data involved identifying dry and wet days. By analyzing the rainfall data graph, the DWF period was selected during the dry season months (June to September). No flow data was available from pump stations located at Sinclair Park, Kitsap Sewer District No. 1 or South Bremerton. Peak flow from the Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) scenario was recorded at the pipe upstream of each of the pump stations. The dry weather flows predicted by the model were compared with the afield-measured flow data from the 9 permanent flow meters. Table 6-4 presents the results of the dry weather flow calibration. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 95 Table 6-4: Existing DWF Calibration Results Pump Names Basin Name ADWF FROM PS DATA (gpm) Conduit Model ID Peak Flow Error ADWF_Model Results (gpm) CE-1 Warren Avenue 1,014 2610 13% 887 CE-4-P1 Pacific Avenue 48 3636 -10% 105 CE-4-P2 48 CW-1& CW-4 Anderson Cove 79 4309 -72% 136 CW-2(1) 40 711 26% 30 KL-1 Kitsap Lake 65 1411 8% 60 OB-P1 Oyster Bay 265 1951 -1% 356 OB-P2 89 OB-P3 Assumed it doesn’t need to operate, only P1 & P2 WB-3 Callow Basin 580 C152 -17% 680 No pump info received Sinclair Park & Kitsap Sewer District No. 1 & South Bremerton None 3892 N/A 244 Total (gpm) 2,228 2,498 Total (MGD) 3.15 3.60 Notes: (1) CW-2 normally pumps to the Callow Basin, making it tributary to WB-3 Overall, the model calibration results for peak flow during dry weather conditions aligned with the criteria outlined in Section 6.2.6, with the exception of the Callow Basin (WB-3) and Anderson Cove (CW-1), which receives flow from CW-4 under dry weather flow conditions. 6.2.8 Wet Weather Flow Calibration As previously mentioned, the calibration of Wet Weather Flow (WWF) involved reviewing rainfall data and peak hourly flow measurements gathered at pump stations during the November 4, 2023 storm event. The flow data from this event was utilized to estimate peaking factors for the different basins within the collection system. These factors were adjusted to represent the impact of a storm event that would yield a total peak flow rate of approximately 47 MGD, corresponding to the total peak hourly flow projection for 2024, as described in Section 5.4.3. No pump station data was available for the Sinclair Park, Kitsap Sewer District No. 1, and South Bremerton basins, a peaking factor of 8.5 was assumed for these areas, based on the peaking factors calculated for the other basins. Table 6-5 summarizes the results of the wet weather flow calibration and the corresponding peaking factors applied in the collection system model. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 96 Table 6-5: Existing WWF Calibration Results Pump Names Basin Name PHF from PS DATA (gpm) Total PHF from PS DATA (gpm) Calculated PF PHF_Model Results (gpm) Percentage Error CE-1 Warren Avenue 6,774 6,774 7.3 6,748 0.39% CE-4-P1 Pacific Avenue 729 1,458 13.9 1,462 -0.27% CE-4-P2 729 CW-4 Anderson Cove 254 5,398 30.6 254 -0.17% CW-1 3,921 3,516 10.32% CW-2 1,223 41.1 1,224 -0.11% KL-1 Kitsap Lake 749 749 12.5 748 0.15% OB-P1 Oyster Bay 1,325 2,188 6.1 2,172 0.73% OB-P2 863 OB-P3 Assumed it doesn’t need to operate, only P1 & P2 WB-6 Callow Basin 5,635 12,968 19.1 13,069 -0.78% WB-3 7,333 No pump info received Sinclair Park & Kitsap Sewer District No. 1 & South Bremerton None 8.5(1) 2,693 N/A Total (gpm) 29,535 29,535 31,887 Total (MGD) 42.53 42.53 45.92 Notes: (1) Assumed peaking factor in relation to other basins The calibration results for peak flow during wet weather conditions were consistent with the criteria outlined in Section 6.2.6. However, due to the limited availability of data sets from similar time periods and the peaking factor derived from the 2024 projected peak hourly flow, future monitoring efforts should focus on collecting ongoing flow data at various points within the system. This will allow for a more detailed understanding of flow patterns, which will improve the calibration process and enhance the overall accuracy of the model. 6.2.9 Future Flow Results Two scenarios, based on the TAZ 2044 projections developed by Kitsap County, were assessed for future growth. To represent the projected flow, a growth projection of 1.4 MGD was applied, reflecting anticipated localized growth within each basin, which accounted for future dry weather flow conditions. A proportional inflow and infiltration (I/I) rate was assumed, consistent with the existing peak wet weather flow, to model the impact of a storm event resulting in a total peak flow rate of approximately 57 MGD. This aligns with the peak hourly flow projections for 2044, as outlined in Section 5.4.3. Consequently, the same peaking factors derived from the existing wet weather flow (WWF) were applied to the future WWF scenario. Table 6-6 summarizes the results for the peak wet weather flow projections. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 97 Table 6-6: Future Peak Hourly Flow Results 6.2.10 Hydraulic Model Capacity Evaluation This section describes the capacity analyses performed using the calibrated sewer system model as well as the hydraulic model findings. 6.2.10.1 Existing Flow Conditions 6.2.10.1.1 d/D Capacity Analysis The capacity requirements for the wastewater collection system vary between the combined and separated sewer basins. In the combined basins, combined sewer overflows (CSOs) are allowed no more than once per year per outfall. In the separated basins, sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) are not permitted. Existing facilities must meet these capacity requirements. One of the key performance indicators (KPIs) of a sewer collection system is limiting the occurrence of sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). This objective hinges on the ability of each pipe within the collection system to convey accumulated upstream sewer flows without exceeding full pipe capacity. When a gravity sewer pipe transitions from gravity to pressurized flow, known as surcharging, the risk of an SSO drastically increases. Flow depth has long been a key design parameter in sewer design, exemplified by the flow depth-to-diameter (d/D) ratio. This ratio is calculated as d/D, where 'd' represents the flow depth in inches, and 'D' is the sewer diameter in inches. Gravity sewers are typically designed with some reserve capacity, the degree of which can vary based on various design recommendations. For instance, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Water Environment Federation (WEF) recommend that sewers up to 15 inches in diameter maintain Pump Names Basin Name Added 2044 Future Demands (gpm) PHF_Future Model Results (gpm) CE-1 Warren Avenue 507 9,098 CE-4-P1 Pacific Avenue 106 2,932 CE-4-P2 CW-4 Anderson Cove 4 254 CW-1 3,889 CW-2 1,251 KL-1 Kitsap Lake 53 1,405 OB-P1 Oyster Bay 24 2,321 OB-P2 OB-P3 Assumed it doesn’t need to operate, only P1 & P2 WB3 & WB6 Callow Basin 16 13,358 No pump info received Sinclair Park & Kitsap Sewer District No. 1 & South Bremerton 270 4,844 Total (gpm) 981 39,350 Total (MGD) 1.4 56.7 City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 98 dry weather d/D ratios below 50%, and larger sewers keep these ratios under 75%. Sewers are not intended to operate under surcharge conditions, hence wet weather d/D ratios should ideally remain below 100%. In the scenario analysis, pipes were categorized based on their flow depth-to-diameter ratio into five groups: less than 20%, 20%-40%, 40%-60%, 60%-80%, and greater than 80% full. Pipes with a d/D ratio greater than 80% were flagged for capacity improvements and marked in red on the model output. Figure 6-4 shows the results of the existing flow DWF d/D capacity analysis. Figure 6-5 shows the results of the existing flow WWF d/D capacity analysis. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 99 Figure 6-4: Existing System DWF d/D Capacity Results City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 100 The output from the existing WWF scenarios indicates localized capacity limitations in several segments of the collection system, including the Sinclair Park, Callow Basin, Anderson Cove and Kitsap Sewer District No. 1 Basins. These deficiencies are primarily observed in 8-inch, 10- inch and 12-inch pipes, which can be addressed by upsizing the sewer lines to 10-inch, 12-inch and 14-inch, respectively. Additionally, in the Kitsap Sewer District No. 1 Basin, the 24-inch main along Bayview Drive to the Westside WWTP also shows capacity deficiencies. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 101 Figure 6-5: Existing System WWF d/D Capacity Results City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 102 6.2.10.1.2 Pipe Velocity Analysis The other main KPI for collection systems is the range of sewer flow velocities. Pipe velocity is driven by pipe diameter, pipe slope, and sewer flow rates. Pipe velocities should be high enough to prevent debris and solids from settling and collecting at the bottom of the pipe, but low enough to avoid significant flow turbulence/hydraulic jumps, which releases more corrosive gasses that could lead to manhole corrosion and/or odor complaint issues. The calibrated hydraulic model was used to evaluate system pipe velocities to identify any potential areas not achieving the City’s design velocity criteria. According to the Department of Ecology’s Criteria for Sewage Works Design, sewer mains must uphold a minimum velocity of 2 feet per second (fps) and a maximum of 15 fps, adhering to a minimum pipe slope of 0.4%. The primary goal under ADWF conditions is to maintain a minimum velocity to achieve effective scouring. Scour velocity is crucial in addressing issues related to impacts of Fats, Oils, and Greases (FOGs) as well as sanitary products, such as baby wipes. The typical industry standard for minimum sewer velocity is 2 fps. Even using this less conservative minimum velocity criterion, the hydraulic evaluations reveal that under ADWF, 66% of collectors and 71% of trunk sewers did not meet the 2 fps criterion. Consequently, these areas with low velocities may require more maintenance to maintain system efficiency and reliability. This goal will improve both the effectiveness of wastewater management and the longevity of the sewer infrastructure. Figure 6-6 shows the results of the analysis. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 103 Figure 6-6: Existing System DWF Velocity Results City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 104 6.2.10.2 Future Flow Conditions 6.2.10.2.1 d/D Capacity Analysis An identical d/D capacity analysis was performed for the future sewer flow conditions. Figure 6-7 illustrates the results of the future flow DWF d/D capacity analysis. Figure 6-8 illustrates the results of the future flow PWWF d/D capacity analysis. The growth projection model discussed in Section 6.2.9. indicates that a significant proportion of the projected growth is anticipated to occur within Sinclair Park & South Bremerton. The existing WWF scenario indicates that infrastructure within the Sinclair Park, Callow Basin, Anderson Cove, and Kitsap Sewer District No. 1 are already at capacity. When considering the future growth, these basins, along with the Pacific Avenue Basin, are projected to experience capacity limitations. These deficiencies are most easily addressed by upsizing sewer lines and correcting notable I/I concern. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 105 Figure 6-7: Future Flow DWF d/D Capacity Results City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 106 Figure 6-8: Future Flow WWF d/D Capacity Results City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 107 6.2.10.2.2 Pipe Velocity Analysis An identical pipe velocity analysis was performed for the future sewer flow conditions. Figure 6-9 illustrates the results of the future pipe velocity analysis. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 108 Figure 6-9: Future Flow DWF Velocity Results City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 109 6.2.11 Inflow & Infiltration Analysis I&I refers to the entry of groundwater (infiltration) and stormwater (inflow) into a sewer system. When a collection system is compelled to handle a flow greater than for what it was designed, I&I can result in pipeline surcharging and downstream impacts to pumping and/or wastewater treatment facilities. This increased effluent not only poses challenges for wastewater treatment facilities but also escalates costs since the stormwater and groundwater mix with sewage and the entire volume must be processed at the treatment plant. I&I can constitute a significant portion of annual flow to treatment plants; this excess burden can overwhelm the collection system and lead to several adverse consequences. • Uncontrolled SSOs: I&I can exceed the capacity of pipelines, pumping stations, or treatment plants, causing raw sewage to overflow and pollute the environment. • Pipe Failures: Excess flow due to I&I, can stress and damage pipes, increasing the risk of leaks and breaks. • Soil Subsidence and Sinkholes: I&I can undermine the supporting soil around pipes, potentially leading to ground collapse and sinkholes. These issues highlight the importance of addressing I&I effectively to safeguard public health, environmental quality, and infrastructure integrity. Calculating I&I involves flow monitoring, where wastewater flow in the system is measured over time and compared with a baseline flow estimate. These measurements are crucial for determining the extent of I&I in the sewer system. Flow monitoring not only aids in identifying and prioritizing areas for further inspection but also serves as a basis for visual inspection methods to assess the severity of I&I in a given area. 6.2.11.1 Graphical Identification of I&I Inflow is usually recognized graphically by large-magnitude, short-duration spikes immediately following a rain event. Infiltration is often recognized graphically by a gradual increase in flow after a wet-weather event. The increased flow typically sustains for a period after rainfall has stopped and then gradually drops off as soil becomes less saturated and as groundwater levels recede to normal levels. Figure 6-10 illustrates rainfall and wastewater flow data for CE-1 collected between March and December 2023. The storm event used for I&I analysis was November 4, 2023 storm as the calibration period. The wet-weather flow hydrograph represents the total inflow volume, while it is overlaid with the dry-weather flow hydrograph, which includes sanitary flow and infiltration from the days preceding the storm. The difference between these two-time series represents the volume of I&I entering the collection system. Figure 6-11 provides a visualization from a portion of flow meter data for CE-1. The total I&I volume serves as an indicator of the combined inflow and infiltration, which was calculated for all basins using available flow meter data to identify the basins with the highest levels of I&I. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 110 Figure 6-10: CE-1 Wastewater & Rainfall Hyetograph City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 111 Figure 6-11: Overlay of Wet and Dry Weather Events for CE-1 6.2.11.2 I&I Results Analysis To compare I&I levels across different basins, several methods can be used to normalize the analysis metrics. One common approach is to report as gallons per day per inch-diameter mile (gpd/idm). This unit accounts for both pipe diameter and length, allowing for meaningful comparisons even when basins have different layouts. Using gpd/idm, basins can be ranked based on their highest I&I rates. This ranking helps prioritize areas with the most severe I&I problems. Table 6-7 summarizes the calculations and rankings for the basins based on highest I&I rate using this unit. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 112 Table 6-7: I&I Analysis – November 2023, 24-Hour Storm Ranking(1) Basins Average Pipe Diameter (Inch) Total Length (Feet) Inch- Diameter Mile (idm) Design Storm Total Inflow Volume (Gallons) Design Storm Total Inflow Rate (Gpd/idm) % Total I&I(2) 1 Callow Basin 9.9 114,280 214 2,368,704 11,059 34% 2 Anderson Cove 8.8 62,939 105 952,668 9,090 14% 3 Oyster Bay 7.9 46,234 69 483,638 6,990 7% 4 Warren Ave & East Bremerton 9.2 379,401 662 3,035,922 4,588 43% 5 Kitsap Lake 8.0 50,517 77 155,418 2,027 2% 6 Pacific Avenue 10.4 14,374 28 52,012 1,839 1% 7 **Kitsap Sewer District No. 1 10.7 3,713 8 0 0 N/A 8 **Sinclair Park 8.9 56,181 94 0 0 N/A TOTAL 727,639 7,048,362 100% Notes: (1) Ranking based on Highest I&I Rate (gpd/idm) (2) Sinclair Park and Kitsap Sewer District No. 1 not included in analysis because of missing flow data. KJ brought two teams to perform prioritized, as-needed condition and performance assessments at the WWTP and collection system PSs for assets identified as risks during the BRVA. Selection of these assets was based on first the overall risk score, and subsequently assets that received scores of 4 and 5 for either their physical condition or safety condition. Assessments focused on rotating and fixed mechanical equipment and structural visual, non- destructive evaluations. Field investigations included condition assessments at the WWTP and throughout the collection system. 6.2.12 Field Inspections Eight of the City’s PSs and one odor control station were evaluated to identify major equipment needing to be replaced or rehabilitated. The team assessed: CE-4, CW-1, EB-2, EB-3, KL-1, KL-2, OB-1, WB-3, and OCS-1. Notable observations are described below. • CE-4: There is excessive corrosion on piping and the painting/coating systems are in poor condition. The knife gate valves are difficult to close. Consider actuated valves which staff would access without entering confined space. Excessive corrosion was noted in the wet well, most likely due to its proximity to the shoreline. The City should consider ultrasonic testing (UT) on pipe within the wet well. Arc Flash testing should be conducted as soon as possible. • CW-1: The wet well lining is the biggest issue, staff indicated that the wet well was recently recoated, but with there is still visible evidence behind the coating showing heavy spalling and scaling. Unless the poor concrete underneath is addressed, new relining will only continue to serve as a short-term remedy. Additionally, level floats should be added at this station to provide backup control; when the transducer goes out, City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 113 all three pumps turn on in idle mode and need to be manually turned off. This causes unnecessary stress on pump motors. Smaller observations include dry rot on pipe gaskets, CV-1’s weighted spring mechanism was removed and not replaced, and the motor for the HVAC system on the roof is chirping, indicating minor bearing issues. There are no safety alarms at this site, and Arc Flash testing should be conducted as soon as possible. • EB-2: There is excessive corrosions on piping and the painting/coating systems are in poor condition. The wet well has excessive corrosion, most likely due to its proximity to the shoreline. The wet well concrete shows significant signs of spalling, efflorescence, delamination, scaling and cracking. Vault will fill with water from high tides which is evident from corroding pies and severely damaged seals. Consider UT on all exposed pipe. There are sink holes around the site due to tidal influence, there is a link seal bulge in the high-water check valve vault, and the DLC valve vault will backflow at high water levels, which O&M noted has historically caused the manhole lid to pop. O&M also indicated significant ragging at this site. Arc Flash testing should be conducted as soon as possible. • EB-3: The wet well hatch was bolted down for odor control and could not be assessed as part of this evaluation. There is also an odor control 55-gallon drum buried behind the building that was not able to be assessed. There is a new generator onsite. Overall, the drywell is in good to fair condition, with no excessive signs of corrosion, leaks, vibration, or noise from piping and pumping equipment and all alarms are functional. • KL-1: The concrete wet well has spalling, scaling, delamination, and the coating is in failure The concrete wet well has spalling, scaling, delamination, and the coating is in failure, which O&M indicated to inspectors was original (1970s). Most notably, issues within the wet well are located at the base were 14-inch holes were drilled to convert the original wet well/dry well into a single wet well. This causes unequal water levels due to ragging and plugging of the core-drill holes and the pumps to work harder. Consider further rehabilitation to fully convert this into a more functional wet well that is not inhibited by clogging and intern, excess maintenance. Corrosion was also noted on piping. At the time of inspection, Pump No. 2 had failed and not all electrical systems were functioning so much of the equipment was not able to be observed in operation. Arc Flash testing should be conducted as soon as possible. • KL-2: Overall, this site was in good condition. The drywell, piping and mechanical equipment and structure all look new and in good condition. Wet well observations were limited so consider future inspections when the well is able to be physically entered for a more comprehensive evaluation. O&M staff indicated they would like bigger pumps so as to bypass KL-1 and have this PS flow directly to the force main. Arc Flash testing should be conducted as soon as possible. • OB-1: The concrete wet well has spalling, scaling, and delamination. Staff indicated that the wet well was recently recoated, but with there is still visible evidence behind the coating showing not just heavy spalling and scaling, but large chunks of concrete missing and noticeable structural deformities. Unless the poor concrete underneath is addressed, new relining will only continue to serve as a short term remedy. There was moderate corrosion on joints, and pipes should be recoated and UT should be performed. The corrosion is so extensive in the wet well, an entire section of pipe was broken off and observed in the base of the well. The pumps cycle every few minutes; with this low capacity, a surge tank should be considered to relieve pressure. Staff also City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 114 pointed out difficulties in removing the pumps from service for maintenance. Consider alternative methods. Arc Flash testing should be conducted as soon as possible. • WB-3: The concrete in the wet well was in good to fair condition. There is notable corrosion, poor paint/coating, and minor leaks along the piping system and pumps. The connecting pipes are in a configuration inhibiting proper operations. Staff noted capacity issues and there was evidence of leaking. Staff indicated to inspectors they are actively working on a bypass project to avoid these connections. Arc Flash testing should be conducted as soon as possible. • OCS-1: The station walls, floors, doors, electrical switches and conduit, among other equipment, showed significant corrosion; the concrete was spalling and scaling, and major deterioration was noted to the building envelope. Considerable chemical deposits were built up in the containment area. Ventilation louvers where also physically blocked with packing material and taped over. Staff indicated this act is something they do in the winter to keep the room well insulated, however the time of the inspections indicate that this packing was in place through the spring, summer, and now fall. Without the ability to well ventilate the station, and by locking in added heat and humidity that would come during the spring and summer months, corrosion is only exacerbated and increases safety hazards for staff. 6.2.13 Conclusion In conclusion, the current wastewater facilities generally have sufficient capacity to accommodate existing flows, with the exception of some localized capacity limitations in certain segments of the collection system, including the Sinclair Park, Callow Basin, Anderson Cove, and Kitsap Sewer District No. 1 Basins. The growth projection model predicts significant growth in East Bremerton, Sinclair Park and South Bremerton. South Bremerton has been defined for this WWCP to include the Gorst and PSIC basins. The main trunklines in these areas, along with those in the Callow Basin, Kitsap Sewer District No. 1, Pacific Avenue Basin, and Anderson Cove, are already facing capacity constraints, as indicated by the future WWF scenarios. These deficiencies can be addressed through upsizing sewer lines and mitigating I&I issues. Based on the highest rankings from the combined I&I analysis, which accounts for the total volume (in gallons) of both inflow and rainfall-dependent infiltration during the November 4, 2023 storm event, the top-ranked basins with the highest normalized combined I/I are Callow Basin and Anderson Cove. It is recommended that future flow metering efforts prioritize these basins within the collection system to better understand and manage excessive I/I. This may lead to the need for improvements to the existing conveyance system to accommodate projected flows. Additionally, flow monitoring should be considered for the Sinclair Park and Kitsap Sewer District No. 1 basins, as they are currently facing capacity limitations. Although these areas were not included in the calibration or I/I analysis due to a lack of data, monitoring will help evaluate the potential impacts of future growth and inform necessary improvements. Based on results from the field inspections, and among other observations noted, the most critical concerns revolve around pump station wet well degradation, pipe corrosion, and arc flash testing. Long term restoration efforts should be considered to increase the reliability of these assets. Some of the pump stations have limited accessibility, are near bodies of water, and/or would be difficult to have long-term bypassing effort in the event of a failure. Many observed wet wells have severely degraded concrete and placing a liner or simple coating over City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 115 this concrete will not address the underlying issues. UT should also be considered at all pump station locations, particularly sites noted above that have severe corrosion and known leaking or broken pipes. Additionally, system wide arch flash testing should be completed to maintain a safe working environment and meet WAC requirements. Proactive rehabilitation efforts to restore these pump stations now before a failure would lower the City’s risk and increase safety. Since these recommendations do not relate to a single station, a programmatic approach to addressing these concerns should be considered. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 116 Section 7: Treatment Facilities Evaluation 7.1 WWTP Treatment Facilities The WWTP is one of two wastewater treatment plants owned and operated by the City to treat wastewater collected within its sewer service area. Located in West Bremerton along State Route 3, the facility provides year-round secondary wastewater treatment and discharges the treated effluent through an outfall into Sinclair Inlet. The secondary treatment process was originally designed with a biofilter followed by an activated sludge system. However, the biofilter was placed offline due to the perceived lack of benefit and significant odor concerns. The City has no plans to return it to service without further evaluation at this time. Currently, wastewater undergoes screening, grit removal, and primary clarification, followed by processing in aeration basins and secondary clarifiers. The secondary effluent is then disinfected with sodium hypochlorite, dechlorinated, and discharged into Sinclair Inlet. Primary sludge and thickened wasted activated sludge (WAS) are treated through anaerobic digestion and dewatered using centrifuges to produce Class B biosolids. The biosolids are transported and land applied on a City-owned silvicultural site. 7.1.1 References All process components and system configurations referenced herein were gathered from staff interviews during the BRVA workshops and document review. The following documents were included in this review: • 1985 Schedule A & B Wastewater Treatment Plant drawings • 1986 Designer’s Operations Memorandum • 1995 Wastewater Treatment Plant Odor Control Project drawings • 2005 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update • 2008 Wet Weather Facilities Upgrade Project Drawings • 2009 Major Facilities Upgrade • 2010 Mixing Zone Study Update • 2014 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update 7.1.2 Liquid Stream Processes 7.1.2.1 Headworks Screens Influent at the City’s WWTP first enters the headworks system equipped with three, 15 mm mechanical bar screens manufactured by Parkson. These screens operate automatically, responding to influent flow signals. Screen #3, installed in 2008 as the middle screen, is always open to assist with flow management, while screens #1 and #2, installed in 1995, transition to City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 117 high flow mode when influent flow exceeds 20 MGD to handle the increased influent. The design criteria for the headworks screens are provided in Table 7-1 below: Table 7-1: Design Criteria for Headworks Screens Headworks Screens #1 and #2 Quantity 2 Type Mechanical Bar Screens Screen Channel Width 3 ft Screen Opening Size 15 mm Capacity, each 15 MGD Motor 2 hp Year Installed 1995 Screen #3 Quantity 1 Screen Channel Width 4 ft Opening Size 15 mm Capacity 18 MGD Motor 2 hp Year Installed 2008 All three chambers have sluice gates to isolate them horizontally and vertically. City staff have noted that biosolids are generally clean, however, there was a significant amount of debris that was disposed of during a recent digester cleaning, indicative of moderate to below-average screening performance. The effluent from the three screens is collected in a common effluent channel, which then divides into two open channels that direct flow into two grit chambers. 7.1.2.2 Grit Removal Raw wastewater from the headworks is conveyed into the aerated grit removal chambers. The operational set up includes two grit tanks and two Roots© blowers, configured for continuous operation without flow pacing. The system employs coarse air diffusers on manifolds positioned behind walls for optimized air distribution. Grit removal is facilitated by a sloped floor directing debris to buckets on a chain, constructed from mild steel coated in polyurethane, with recent replacements ensuring functionality. Both chains operate simultaneously, allowing for maintenance on one during low flow periods. Design criteria for the grit removal chamber are provided in Table 7-2 below: City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 118 Table 7-2: Design Criteria for Grit Removal Chambers Grit Removal Chamber Quantity 2 Type Aerated Grit tank Installed 1995 Volume, each 5,264 cu ft/each Capacity 15 MGD/each The grit removal system may not be functioning efficiently, as evidenced by periodic digester inspections revealing significant grit accumulation that necessitates approximately 60 vactor truck loads for removal every seven years. Operational strategies involve recycling the center well and hopper from the primary to the front of the screens to maximize grit capture, supplemented by grinders upstream to increase the service life of the sludge pumps. The structure’s integrity, particularly susceptible to hydrogen sulfide degradation above the waterline, should prompt consideration for recoating. Plans include bundling structural maintenance with the plant’s CIP schedule. 7.1.2.3 Primary Clarifiers The effluent from the grit process flows into the two primary clarifiers before flowing into aeration basins. The primary clarifiers are circular in design and equipped with aluminum covers. Adjacent to the north side of the weir lies the pre-aeration tank which is currently non- operational. Design criteria for the primary clarifiers are provided in Table 7-3 below: Table 7-3: Design Criteria for Primary Clarifiers Primary Clarifiers Number of Basins 2 Diameter 80 ft Surface Area, each 5027 sq ft Side Water Depth 10 ft Installed 1986 The primary clarifiers consist of the influent line, dual flumes, paired tanks, odor control suction conduits, rakes, motors, and weirs, each contributing to the operational framework. New gear boxes were installed in 2016. Recoating of the rake outs was conducted in 2018, with periodic monitoring of overtorque via alarm systems linked to the SCADA interface. Operational features include spray nozzles for scum layer manipulation, fiberglass baffles and v-notch weirs subject to annual cleaning due to delamination and breakage. Aluminum covers, each equipped with a separate P-trap drainage system remain in good condition. The primary clarifiers are not pressure washed, and instead are washed manually by hose on an annual basis. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 119 7.1.2.4 Primary Effluent Pumps Effluent from the primary clarifiers flows into a wet well at the biofilter, where it is transferred to the aeration basins by gravity. There are five primary effluent pumps, each with a capacity of 7,600 gpm at 50 feet of head (upgraded in 2013), that handle typical flows of 4 to 5 MGD under normal conditions and up to 30 MGD during storm events. During peak flows, three pumps are operational, and while the system is capable of running four pumps, it is avoided to protect the pipe. Three pumps running at full speed achieve 33 MGD, which is the hydraulic capacity of the plant, and secondary bypass begins when flows reach 32.5 MGD. The primary effluent pumps are FLYGT dry pit/submersible units, located in a ventilated and well-lit basement accessible by stairs. They include level control mechanisms, flow meters, transducers, and backup transducers to ensure efficient operation. Design specifications for these pumps are detailed in Table 7-4 below: Table 7-4: Design Criteria for Primary Effluent Pumps Primary Effluent Pumps Type Dry pit/submersible from FLYGT Installed 2013 Capacity, each 7,600 gpm at 50 ft head Wet Well Surface Area 507 sq ft Wet Well Volume 26,548 gallons Flow meters are installed to measure the flow, with backup transducers available to ensure continuous monitoring. Pump fail alarms are integrated into the system to promptly alert operators in case of malfunction. Furthermore, a secondary bypass alarm diverts flows into the contact chamber in the event of an overflow, enhancing system resilience. Standard operating procedure dictates that during normal flows, one pump is utilized, with occasional activation of the second pump as dictated by demand. Activation of a second and third pump is automatic, while that of fourth and fifth is manual to protect the conveyance pipes before introducing higher flow rates. 7.1.2.5 Aeration Basins The primary effluent pumps transfer the primary effluent flow to the biofilter wet well, where the effluent then flows by gravity to the aeration basins. Air is supplied by Aerostrip diffusers, installed in 2001, a substantial portion of which underwent replacement in 2020. A divider wall was constructed in 2001 in each aeration basin to create an upstream anaerobic selector zone aimed at improving sludge settleability, and a floating mixer was installed at the same time to enhance mixing. Operating under the purview of a four-blower arrangement, the system was initially equipped with three, 200 hp Hoffman blowers, installed in 1985. Currently, one is in use as a backup. Two, 100 hp Neuros Turbo blowers (2014) and a 75 hp Roots blower (2015) have been added. Augmenting the structural integrity of the system, zinc-based cathodic protection mechanisms are integrated within the tank infrastructure. Design criteria for the aeration basins are provided in Table 7-5 below: City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 120 Table 7-5: Design Criteria for Aeration Basins Aeration Basins Quantity 2 Volume, each 55,600 cu ft Installed 1986 Anaerobic Length (assumed) 16 ft Anaerobic Area 1,500 sq ft Aerobic Area 6,700 sq ft Side Water Depth 13.5 ft Anaerobic Zone Mixer Quantity 2 Motor Size 3 hp Blowers Quantity 4 Positive Displacement Blowers (Hoffman) One, 200 hp, 2,655 cfm at 7.1 psi Turbo Blowers (added 2001) Two, 100 hp, 2,500 cfm at 8.5 psi Roots Blowers (added 2001) One, 75 hp Diffusers Type Strip Aerators Total Diffuser Area 674 sq ft Specific Air Rate 1.43 scfm/sq ft 7.1.2.6 Secondary Clarifiers The mixed liquor from the aeration basins flows into a secondary clarifier influent splitter box, where it is divided between two flumes, which then feed into the connected secondary clarifiers. The secondary clarifiers are equipped with circular rake arms and sludge withdrawal pipes, also known as organ pipes. The settled activated sludge is drawn up through the organ pipes and conveyed to the center RAS (Return Activated Sludge) collection box, then flows by gravity to an individual inlet box attached to the common RAS wet well at the Secondary Recirculation Pump Station. Both the splitter box and the RAS wet well contain a reserved channel and box for connecting an additional secondary clarifier in the future. Design criteria for the secondary clarifiers are provided in Table 7-6 below: Table 7-6: Design Criteria for Secondary Clarifiers Secondary Clarifiers Number of Basins 2 Diameter 110 ft Basin Surface Area, each 9,503 sq ft Side Water Depth 14 ft Installed 1985 The organ pipes require daily flushing and manual operation via T-handles, necessitating maximal RAS flow for effective cleaning. Recent upgrades include drives and gearboxes City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 121 installed in 2017, complementing the original 1985 rake arms, which were recoated in 2018. The scum removal system mirrors that of the primary clarifiers, with overtorque alarms providing additional safety measures. Occasionally, one clarifier may be taken offline during the summer months for maintenance in order to avoid the disruption of the sludge blanket caused by storm- induced large inflows. 7.1.2.7 RAS System The settled activated sludge in the secondary clarifiers is drawn up through the organ pipes and conveyed to the RAS collection box, then flows by gravity to an individual inlet box attached to the common RAS wet well at the secondary recirculation pump station. The RAS system is responsible for returning a portion of the sludge from the secondary treatment process back to the aeration basin to maintain desired biomass population for biological treatment. The sludge is directed through organ-like pipes into an individual inlet box attached to a common wet well. When one secondary unit is taken offline, the system functions similarly to a splitter box, redirecting flow accordingly. Design criteria for the RAS pump are provided in Table 7-7 below: Table 7-7: Design Criteria for RAS Pump RAS Pump Type Dry pit/ submersible pump Quantity 2 Capacity, each 3,900 gpm Motor 35 hp Installed 2019 Two centrifugal pumps, installed in 2019, handle the flow within the RAS system. These pumps, which have a motor control center located in a dry pit, are vital to the operation. One pump typically runs with a VFD to control its speed, while the other pump serves as a backup. Based on the DMR data, RAS flow ranges between 1.7 to 5.7 MGD. The sludge is returned to the aeration basin through a single line that has a tee and two valves. This allows the flow to be directed either to the aeration basin splitter box or to a biofilter wet well. The biofilter is currently out of service. Maintenance of the pumps is largely handled in-house, with routine inspections focusing on components like impellers, which are pulled annually to ensure they are in good condition. The system is integrated into the plant's SCADA system, which alerts staff to any operational changes, such as fluctuations in power use, allowing them to address issues promptly. 7.1.2.8 Chlorine Disinfection Contact Chambers The chlorine disinfection system uses sodium hypochlorite. Pump speed regulation is automated to maintain optimal performance. Chlorination is facilitated by a dedicated day tank containing hypochlorite solution, with dosing rates dynamically adjusted based on flow conditions, utilizing a flow-based dose approach. Chemical delivery logistics are managed by a reliable contractor, ensuring timely and reliable supply, with contingencies in place such as backup suppliers in Tacoma to mitigate potential supply chain disruptions. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 122 Dechlorination follows the chlorination process and involves the utilization of sodium bisulfite. Initially stored in large fiberglass tanks, chemical storage has since transitioned to the use of plastic for hypochlorite while retaining fiberglass for sodium bisulfite. Hypochlorite is injected at the mixing box, while sodium bisulfite is injected at the final effluent weir. Design criteria for the disinfection chambers and equipment are provided in Table 7-8 below: Table 7-8: Design Criteria for Chlorine Disinfection Contact Chambers Chlorine Disinfection Contact Chambers Channels 2 Volume, each 28,000 cu ft Side Water Depth 15 ft Chlorination System Injection Pumps, each 2 pumps 31.8 GPH Sodium Hypochlorite Tank Volume, each 6,000 gallons Installed 1996 Dechlorination System Injection Pumps, each 2 pumps 8.5 GPH Sodium Bisulfite Tank Volume, each 1,500 gallons 7.1.3 Solids Stream Processes 7.1.3.1 Primary Sludge Pumping Primary sludge is pumped continuously as a thin sludge from the primary clarifiers directly to the anaerobic digesters. Two primary sludge pumps, each 4-inch, 35 gpm diaphragm pumps, are located in the primary sludge pump station in the primary clarifier building; both are equipped with grinders. The system operates on timed cycles with simultaneous utilization of both primary sludge pumps. The primary scum pumps are used as backups for the primary sludge pumps. During maintenance or downtime, the scum pumps are exclusively activated to provide redundancy and ensure continued operation. These pumps are calibrated to deliver sludge with a solids concentration ranging from 4-5%, obviating the need for additional thickening measures as a 3% concentration is targeted within the digesters. Gauging of system performance is facilitated by torque arm readings, typically falling within the 0-5 range. Situated in the primary effluent basement for accessibility, routine maintenance focuses on the wet ends, with built- driven mechanisms ensuring operational efficiency. Recent enhancements include upgraded pressure tanks for scum handling. Daily checks encompass flow and pressure monitoring, supported by a comprehensive check-sheet regimen and routine sample collection performed on-site three times weekly. Design criteria for the primary sludge pumps are provided in Table 7-9 below: City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 123 Table 7-9: Design Criteria for Primary Sludge Pump Primary Sludge Pumps Type Diaphragm Pump (equipped with grinders) Quantity 2 Capacity, each 35 gpm TDH 25 psig Motor 5 hp Installed 2010 Primary Scum Pumps Type Diaphragm Pump Quantity 2 Capacity, each 35 gpm TDH 25 psig Installed 2007 7.1.3.2 Waste Activated Sludge System The WAS system is located inside the secondary recirculation pump station and is thickened using the rotary drum thickeners prior to anaerobic digestion. The system was installed in 2008 and equipped with VFD technology. It operates under the guidance of laboratory test results, conducted three times weekly to assess sludge thickness, with a target of 0.8-1% solids concentration serving as the basis for waste determination. The system includes centrifugal pumps with dry pit configurations and mechanical seals to facilitate sludge transfer. Operational procedures entail continuous adjustments to avoid adverse effects on the activated sludge process. The system’s operational parameters, including flow rates and wastage, are remotely monitored and controlled via the SCADA system. The system can sustain operations for approximately four days without wastage. Design criteria for the WAS system are provided in Table 7-10 below: Table 7-10: Design Criteria for WAS System WAS Pump Type Vertical Non-Clog pump Quantity 2 Capacity, each 225 gpm TDH 16 ft Motor 2 hp Installed 2008 7.1.3.3 Thickening Process The thickening process was updated in 2008, with a new thickening room added on the roof of the existing sludge thickener tank to accommodate two rotary drum thickeners (RDTs). The RDTs are operated to achieve solids concentrations in the range of 4-7% for the thickened WAS (TWAS). Polymer addition is facilitated through a dry poly-batch system. The mixing apparatus, City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 124 likely original or replaced in the 1990s, is comprised of PVC components, including a 1,000- gallon mixing tank and a corresponding 1,000-gallon day tank, with polymer batches automatically initiated when levels are low. Utilized on a daily basis, the RDT represents a transition from a dissolved air floatation thickener (DAFT) system in 2008. As a precautionary measure, system redundancy is ensured through monthly rotation of backup equipment. Design criteria for the RDTs is provided in Table 7-11 below: Table 7-11: Design Criteria for Thickening Process Thickening process Type Rotary Drum Thickeners Number 2 Capacity 225 gpm Motor, each 20 hp Installed 2008 TWAS Pumps Capacity 36.97 gpm Motor 7.5 hp Installed 2009 Polymer procurement has not posed any significant challenges, with a typical pallet lasting approximately 1.5 months and two contractors supplying dry and liquid polymer variants, namely Polydyne and BASF, respectively. Operational oversight involves adjustments to feed and polymer rates, with periodic inspections supplemented by routine lead-driven assessments. The system is primarily automated, although occasional repairs to motors, mixers, and sprayers are undertaken, with particular attention directed towards belt and bearing maintenance. To mitigate odor concerns, a louver and exhaust fan are used, operating continuously, and modulated based on temperature conditions. 7.1.3.4 Anaerobic Digesters The plant utilizes two anaerobic digesters to treat both the primary sludge and the TWAS; digesters are equipped with floating lids. Mixing within the digesters is accomplished using recycle pumps. Both digesters operate in parallel and treat to Class B biosolids standards. Gas generated during digestion is flared using a candlestick system, with the resulting digester gas utilized for heating the boilers without the use of scrubbers, maximizing gas utilization. Cleaning of digesters occurs approximately every seven years, triggered by grit level accumulation. A preferred hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 30-35 days is targeted, with shortened HRTs leading to odor issues. The gas system includes compressors directed towards boiler heating, with spare compressors available for immediate replacement if needed. Monitoring and maintenance of the gas system are conducted regularly to ensure operational compliance. Foaming issues are managed through drainage systems and daily checks. Design criteria for the anerobic digesters are provided in Table 7-12 below: City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 125 Table 7-12: Design Criteria for Anaerobic Digesters Anaerobic Digesters Number of Units 2 Active Digestion Volume, Each 39,200 ft3 Sludge Storage Volume, Each 11,800 ft3 Total, Each 51,000 ft3 Diameter 50 ft Maximum Side Water Depth 26 ft Side Wall Depth 34.33 ft Effective Gas Storage Volume 21,000 ft3 Installed 1986 Recirculation Pumps Capacity 350 gpm Motor 4 hp Installed 2019 Boiler Capacity 50 hp Installed 2009 Heat Exchanger Type Serpentine Heat Exchangers Capacity 1,000,000 BTU(1)/hr Installed 2014 Gas Burner Capacity 66 SCFH(2) Installed 2009 (1) BTU – British Thermal Unit (2) SCFH – Standard cubic feet per hour 7.1.3.5 Sludge Dewatering The sludge dewatering system operates on a centrifuge-based setup, consisting of one centrifuge, two feed pumps, two cake pumps, and a polymer addition system. Liquid polymer, sourced from totes, is used for optimal processing efficiency. The centrifuge has a capacity of 150 gpm, producing an average cake concentration of 22-23%. Typically, one polymer tote is in use while a second is kept in reserve. The centrifuge system is elevated on a pad to mitigate flooding risks and is powered by an adjacent Motor Control Center (MCC). The system receives sludge through piping connected to two basement pumps, each equipped with suction grinders. Operating hours generally span six hours per day, with flexibility to increase as flow rates rise. Regular maintenance and alarm monitoring are performed to ensure smooth operation. Contingency plans include maintaining an inventory of spare parts and monitoring for potential issues, such as pipeline bursts, which could impact operations. Discharge procedures route dewatered sludge to a wet cake pump which discharges to a dumpster before being loaded into trucks for designated disposal at City- owned forestlands. Since late 1992, 100% of the Class B biosolids produced at the WWTP have City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 126 been beneficially utilized on forestlands owned by the Bremerton Water Utility. The biosolids are stored in three storage ponds located in the permitted application area and application occurs an average of 3-5 days a month depending on quantity. The City Forestry division manages applications and the associated infrastructure including the three storage ponds, two applicator vehicles, and one front end loader. Design criteria for sludge dewatering equipment are provided in Table 7-13 below: Table 7-13: Design Criteria for Sludge Dewatering Centrifuge Feed Pump Capacity 200 gpm at 39 psig Motor 40 hp Installed 2009 Centrifuge Type Centrifuge Capacity 150 gpm Motor 100 hp Installed 2009 Cake pump Capacity 50 gpm at 66 psig Motor 3.72 hp Installed 2009 7.1.4 Other Processes The WWTP has two separate odor control systems: one for the Headworks and another for the Biofilter. 7.1.4.1 Headworks Odor Control System The headworks odor control system is a two-stage wet scrubber designed to handle hydrogen sulfide at concentrations up to 150 parts per million (ppm), targeting a 99% removal efficiency. The system utilizes 12.5% sodium hypochlorite and 50% caustic solution as the primary chemical agents for neutralizing odors. The first stage achieves 80% removal, with the second stage serving as a polishing step to achieve the removal efficiency. The scrubber uses plastic media, last replaced approximately in 2019. Media flushing is performed annually, and inspections include diffuser checks and monthly odor measurements using handheld devices. The performance remains consistent with minimal improvements after cleaning, and the media lifespan is estimated at around two years. The scrubber operates with two 6,000-gallon hypochlorite tanks, which require delivery every 1.5 weeks in the summer, and two 1,500-gallon caustic tanks, which last about 2-3 months during the summer and all winter on a single tank. Additionally, there is a 250-gallon acid tote used for cleaning the media. Probes monitor the system's pH, with a set point of pH 10.0, and keep track of abnormal sodium City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 127 hypochlorite usage, which could indicate leaks affecting the primary system or causing issues downstream. 7.1.4.2 Biofilter Odor Control System The biofilter odor control system consists of a single-stage wet scrubber, designed for 1 ppm hydrogen sulfide removal with a 99% efficiency target. This system draws suction from the lid of the biofilter and underdrains, as well as the splitter box, which directs primary effluent into the aeration basins. Similar to the headworks system, the scrubber relies on sodium hypochlorite and caustic chemicals for odor treatment. Chemical storage includes two 1,000-gallon sodium hypochlorite tanks and a 500-gallon caustic tank. The wet scrubber employs plastic media that was replaced in 2014.The media is flushed annually, with no signs of plastic degradation observed. Like the headworks scrubber, this system undergoes annual inspections and monthly odor checks. 7.2 WWTP System Analysis Overview The following sections assess the plant's current capacity and performance under 2044 projected conditions in accordance with the with the Ecology‘s Criteria for Sewage Works Design (Orange Book), and ensure compliance with or exceed the design and construction standards referenced in WAC 173-240. This assessment was carried out using the following three primary methods: • Plant Hydraulic Analysis: A hydraulic model was developed to assess the plant’s hydraulic profile and overall capacity. • Process Modeling Analysis: A process model was created to simulate the performance of the secondary biological process. Desktop calculations were performed to validate the model results and evaluate the capacity of other processes and major equipment directly related to the secondary process. • Desktop Calculations: The remaining unit processes and major equipment were analyzed using desktop calculations, with their performance compared against design criteria from literature and regulatory guidelines. Each method and its results are explained in detail in the following sections. 7.3 WWTP Hydraulic Capacity A hydraulic model was developed using Visual Hydraulics Version 5.1 software by Innovative Hydraulics to evaluate the plant's overall hydraulic capacity. The goal of this assessment was to verify that the existing facilities can handle the design flows without overtopping the structures' walls and to confirm the proper operation of the flow split structure. The hydraulic profile was established from the headworks to the Sinclair Inlet. Field measurement data was collected by City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 128 plant operators on March 30 and May 20, 2024 and used to evaluate the current hydraulic conditions. The hydraulic model of the existing WWTP was created based on record drawings provided by the City. Model results were then compared to field measurements. Water elevation estimates, calculated from freeboard height, were matched against the model-predicted water levels. The modeled water levels closely aligned with the field-measured data, except the following areas: 1. Primary Clarifier (PC) Effluent Boxes: The measured water level was 20 to 24 inches higher in PC1 and 8 to 12 inches higher in PC2. Additionally, the primary influent flow rates recorded in the DMR were unbalanced, with 47% going to PC1 and 53% to PC2. Uneven flow entry and mixing through the old screen channels may contribute to this imbalance, resulting in lower flow rates in PC1 and more severe grit accumulation along its flow path, further worsening the disparity. The outlet pipe from the PC effluent box to the primary effluent (PE) pump station wet well is also 27 feet longer on the PC1 side, which increases the likelihood of grit fouling in the outlet pipe. This fouling may further explain the greater difference between the modeled and measured water levels in PC1, highlighting potential operational issues not captured by the model. 2. Biofilter Pump Station Wet Well: The measured water level was 6 to 8 inches higher than the modeled level. The effluent box in this area is inaccessible, so no downstream measurements were available. Combined PE and RAS flow enters the wet well, passes through three submerged openings at the bottom of the divider wall, and exits through the effluent channel to the 42-inch aeration basin influent line. The first submerged opening is located near the pipe entrance and exit, which could cause higher headloss across the divider wall by allowing more flow through that opening. If any fine grit accumulates here, it could block the passage and increase headloss, leading to the higher water levels measured in this location. 3. Aeration Basin Outlet Box: The measured water level was 18 to 28 inches higher than the modeled level. The turbulent water movement and presence of air in the deep outlet box may have contributed to some of this discrepancy in measurements. Additionally, the flow velocity in the outlet pipe slows to around 1 fps under typical conditions, which could lead to grit accumulation in the pipe. This buildup might increase headloss and contribute to the higher water levels observed. 4. Chlorine Contact Chamber Effluent Weir: The measured water level was 7 to 11 inches higher than the modeled level. Since the effluent flow is clean, fouling on the exposed weir is not a concern. The difference may be due to elevation discrepancies from the record drawings. Changes in elevation from the original design may have contributed to some discrepancies. To address this, it is recommended to survey key elevations and update the plant’s hydraulic profile. Grit accumulation, especially in uneven structural areas, is also likely a major factor. Improvements should focus on redesigning these flow distribution areas for more balanced flow. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 129 The model has not been calibrated for these differences yet, as these differences may be attributed to several factors: • Higher water levels were measured in areas with sufficient remaining freeboard. • Headloss issues may be resolved through inspection and cleaning. • The availability of limited high-flow measurement data has precluded precise calibration. These factors will be revisited as more data becomes available. However, the uneven flow distribution between the two primary clarifiers was simulated under future flow conditions to estimate the hydraulic conditions through PC2 at a higher proportion of the flow. The following scenarios listed in were checked to identify hydraulic bottlenecks in the plant hydraulic profile. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 130 Table 7-14: Hydraulic Scenarios for Plant’s Flow Capacity Assessment Scenario Summary of Operating Conditions Purpose of Scenario S1 • 2044 PHF = 59 MGD • Primary influent flow to PC2 = 33.6 MGD • Primary effluent flow pumped = 30 MGD • Record high tide at 127.96 ft Assess the plant’s hydraulic profile at projected PHF S2 • Primary influent flow to PC2 = 57% of influent flow • Primary effluent flow pumped = influent flow if influent flow < 30 MGD, if not 30 MGD. • Effluent flume under submerged condition • At least 6-inch free board at chlorine contact chamber • Record high tide at 127.96 ft Estimate the maximum flow capacity under record high tide and defined hydraulic conditions. S3 • Primary influent flow to PC2 = 57% of influent flow • Primary effluent flow pumped = influent flow if influent flow < 30 MGD, if not 30 MGD. • Effluent flume under non-submerged condition • Record high tide at 127.96 ft S4 • Primary influent flow to PC2 = 57% of influent flow • Primary effluent flow pumped = influent flow if influent flow < 30 MGD, if not 30 MGD. • No overtopping or pressurized conditions through outfall pipes and manholes • Record high tide at 127.96 ft S5 • Primary influent flow to PC2 = 57% of influent flow • Primary effluent flow pumped = influent flow if influent flow < 30 MGD, if not 30 MGD. • Effluent flume under non-submerged condition • 22 nozzles at outfall pipe • Mean high water at 124.13 ft Compare with the 32.4 MGD estimate from the 2008 Rerating Study where assumed: • Effluent flume under non-submerged condition • 20 nozzles at outfall pipe • Previous record high tide of 124.8 ft and 20 nozzles at the outfall pipe. The key results of the simulated scenarios are summarized below: City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 131 • Scenario 1, the WWTP is expected to be unable to handle the projected 2044 Peak Hour Flow (PHF) at the record high tide due to: o Water levels overtopping walls or finish grade in secondary processes, the chlorine contact chamber, and outfall manholes/pipes. o Submerged conditions at the influent flumes of the primary clarifiers. o Approximately 1 foot of freeboard remained at the screen channels in the headworks. • Maximum Flow Capacities Under Different Scenarios: o Scenario 2: 34.0 MGD to maintain at least a 6-inch freeboard at the chlorine contact chamber. o Scenario 3: 30.5 MGD to keep the effluent flume in non-submerged conditions. o Scenario 4: 23.5 MGD to prevent overtopping or pressurizing the outfall pipes and manholes. • Scenario 5: Validates the 2008 Rerating Study findings, with the plant's maximum flow capacity estimated at 34 MGD, aligning closely with the 32.4 MGD estimated in the 2008 study. • Outfall System as a Hydraulic Bottleneck: o The outfall system limits hydraulic capacity and causes constraints in upstream processes. o Instances of high flow exceeding rated capacities (23.5 MGD, 30.5 MGD, 34 MGD) occurred 210, 66, and 41 times, respectively, between February 2019 and December 2023. • Operational Observations: o The plant's O&M team resealed manhole covers following recent storm events, highlighting the need for further investigation and repair of the outfall system to address potential leaks or pressure-related issues.. o These storm events caused manhole covers to lift off, indicating pressurized flow or elevated water levels in the outfall piping. If pressure release points are absent, hydraulic issues could transfer upstream, potentially causing the effluent flume to become submerged. Based on these findings, the effluent outfall is the primary hydraulic bottleneck limiting the plant’s capacity. Recommendations include: • Conducting a thorough investigation and repair of the outfall system to address leaks and pressurization, particularly in the section between the southeast corner of the facilities and the manholes located between State Highway 3 and the State Highway 204 ramp. This includes the section from the Onsite Manhole through Manhole 1 to Manhole 2, as well as from Manhole 2 to Manhole 4. • Implementing measures to enhance the hydraulic capacity of the outfall and improve overall WWTP performance. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 132 The original design peak flow was 29.5 MGD, as indicated by 1986 record drawings. The 2008 Rerating Study also identified the outfall system and effluent flume as capacity bottlenecks. Historical data suggest that previous flow exceedances likely occurred during times of lower water levels in Sinclair Inlet, minimizing apparent impacts. Given the frequency of high flow events, coupled with potential risks from severe storm conditions, addressing the hydraulic constraints in the outfall system is critical for long-term WWTP operation. 7.4 WWTP Secondary Process Performance and Capacity A biological process simulation was performed to assess the performance of the plant's secondary process, supported by desktop calculations. A plant process model was created using BioWin Simulator Version 6.2, developed by Envirosim. The BioWin model leverages complex biological interactions to predict material transformations and pollutant removal across various processes within a plant, offering detailed insights into wastewater characteristics at each stage of treatment. 7.4.1 Process Model Calibration The process model was configured to represent the existing WWTP processes, as shown in the Figure 7-1. Following the City's decision to remove the biofilter, which was out of use for over 10 years due to odor and performance issues, the biofilter was excluded from the secondary process capacity evaluation. Plant daily monitoring data from January 2018 through September 2023, along with additional sampling data collected between October 16 and December 18, 2023, were used to develop the detailed influent wastewater characteristics for the model. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 133 Figure 7-1: BioWin Simulator Layout for Bremerton WWTP City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 134 7.4.1.1 Existing Wastewater Characterization An existing wastewater characterization was conducted to improve the accuracy of the biological process modeling. Additional water quality samples were collected from the plant influent from October 16 through December 18, 2023. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) was also measured from grab samples collected from the centrate, from the centrifuge five times during the same period. The following parameters were provided for the plant influent: • Chemical oxygen demand (COD) • Filtered COD (fCOD) • 5-day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5) • Total suspended solids (TSS) • Volatiles suspended solids (VSS) • Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) • Ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N) • Total phosphorus (TP) • Oil and grease • Alkalinity as calcium carbonate (CaCO3). The analytical results were used to establish ratios between normally monitored influent and effluent parameters, such as CBOD5, and parameters that are not routinely monitored, but required as the inputs in process modeling, such as COD. Table 7-15 contains a list of the wastewater characteristics ratios which are used as the modeling inputs. Table 7-16 contains a summary of results from the sampling and analysis. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 135 Table 7-15: Ratios Used to Establish BioWin Modeling Input Parameters Parameter Value Source Sampling Average Typical COD to CBOD5 1.90(1) Calibrated 1.75 1.9 - 2.2(2) fCOD/COD 0.32(1) Calibrated 0.28 0.3 - 0.5(2) VSS/TSS 0.76 Sampling 0.76 - NH3-N /TKN 0.67 Sampling 0.67 0.5 - 0.8(2) TKN/CBOD5 0.20(3) Historical 0.21 0.17 - 0.20(4) TP/CBOD5 0.022 Sampling 0.022 0.027 - 0.036(4) Alkalinity, mg/L as CaCO3 280 Sampling 280(5) - Notes: (1) Adjusted to the selected value during calibration to match the biomass yield for the historical data. (2) Typical range provided in Influent Specifier Template for raw wastewater provided by EnviroSim. (3) Average from 2019 through 2022 historical data. (4) Typical range estimated for raw wastewater (Table 3-18 and Table 3-21 in Metcalf & Eddy / AECOM Wastewater Engineering Treatment and Resource Recovery, 5th Ed, 2014). (5) Average of the supplemental samples after removing the lowest and highest value. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 136 Table 7-16: Water Quality Characteristics for Influent and Centrate from Supplemental Sampling Influent Parameter COD fCOD CBOD5 TKN NH3-N TP TSS VSS Alkalinity 10/16/2023 - - - - 23.9 - - - - 10/23/2023 - - - - 34.3 - - - - 10/30/2023 - - - - 29.8 - - - - 11/6/2023 260 46 107 25 18.6 2.6 174 139 5.5 11/7/2023 230 ND 104 31 - 3.2 171 125 6.4 11/9/2023 280 58 - 34 - 3.6 - - 10.3 11/13/2023 - - - - 21.4 - - - - 11/14/2023 260 32 164 33 - 3.4 185 133 11.1 11/15/2023 320 100 - 33 - 4.1 - - 7.8 11/19/2023 - - 124 - - - 181 137 - 11/20/2023 - - 161 - 30 - 192 140 - 11/26/2023 430 100 216 40 - 4.1 262 212 17.6 11/27/2023 280 78 257 38 22.9 4.1 223 186 12.7 11/28/2023 280 70 188 42 - 4.5 247 197 20.8 12/3/2023 120 75 159 28 - 2.7 187 131 13.9 12/4/2023 - - - - 18.1 - - - - 12/6/2023 100 ND 68 15 - 1.8 106 73 6.2 12/10/2023 - - - - 21.2 - - - - 12/18/2023 - - - - 22.6 - - - - Centrate 11/6/2023 11/7/2023 11/9/2023 11/14/2023 11/15/2023 TKN 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,400 1,500 (Unit: mg/L) City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 137 7.4.1.2 Calibration and Validation Results The WWTP BioWin model was calibrated for the average conditions observed between April 16 and May 15, 2022. Model validation was performed by applying the calibrated model for the average conditions for November 16 and December 15, 2022 and comparing the model results to measured values. Table 7-17 summarizes a list of key calibration and validation modeling inputs and outputs. Table 7-17: Secondary Process Modeling Calibration Results Parameters Unit Calibration for April 16 to May 15, 2022 Validation for November 16 to December 15 2022 Model DMR(1) % Diff.(2) Model DMR(1) % Diff. (2) Model Input Parameters Influent Wastewater Flow MGD 4.04 4.04 0.0 4.64 4.64 0.1 COD mg/L 308 NA - 323 NA - CBOD5 mg/L 162 162 0.0 170 170 0.0 TSS mg/L 211 210 0.4 211 211 0.1 VSS mg/L 160 NA - 190 NA - TKN mg N/L 40.5 NA - 32.0 32 0.0 Ammonia mg N/L 27.3 27 0.0 28.5 28 0.1 TP mg P/L 3.6 NA - 3.8 NA - Alkalinity mg/L as CaCO3 280 NA - 280 NA - Process Primary Clarifier Area sf 10,053 10,053 0 10,053 10,053 0 Aeration Basin Volume MG 0.83 0.83 0 0.83 0.83 0 Secondary Clarifier Area sf 19,007 19,007 0 19,007 19,007 0 Anaerobic Digester Volume MG 0.65 0.65 0 0.68 0.68 0 Model Operating Parameters Temperature °C 14.4 14.4 0.2 13.7 13.7 0.1 AB SOTE(3) % 26% NA - 26% NA - RAS Flow MGD 3.02 3.02 0.0 2.96 2.96 0.1 Aeration DO mg/L 4.1 4.10 0.0 4.9 4.92 0.1 Model Output Parameters Primary Clarification Primary Sludge Flow gpd 15,500 14491 7.0 14,200 13,835 2.6 TSS Removal Rate(4) % 71% NA - 67% NA - CBOD5 Removal Rate % 41% NA - 38% NA - TKN Removal Rate % 13% NA - 7% NA - TSS mg/L 61.3 NA - 69.2 NA - CBOD5 mg/L 96.4 NA - 105.9 NA - TKN mg/L 40.7 NA - 33.0 NA - Aeration Basins SRT(5) days 3.9 NA(5) - 3.3 NA(5) - HRT hours 4.9 NA - 4.3 NA - MLSS mg/L 1,196 1,228 2.6 1,338 1,261 6.0 MLVSS mg/L 983 NA - 1,127 NA - MLVSS/MLSS - 0.82 0.84 2.0 0.84 0.82 2.9 City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 138 Parameters Unit Calibration for April 16 to May 15, 2022 Validation for November 16 to December 15 2022 Model DMR(1) % Diff.(2) Model DMR(1) % Diff. (2) Aeration Basin DO mg/L 4.1 4.10 0.0 4.9 4.92 0.1 Airflow(6) scfm 1,218 NA - 1,699 NA - Other Operating Parameters RAS TSS mg/L 2,781 NA - 3,418 NA - WAS Flow MGD 0.09 0.09 0.6 0.099 0.09 7.6 WAS TSS ppd 2,111 NA - 2,822 NA - Secondary Effluent CBOD5 mg/L 8.0 9.0 11.5 8.1 8.0 1.9 TSS mg/L 12.6 11.6 8.3 12.1 12.2 1.4 pH 7.1 7.2 0.9 7.1 7.3 3.4 Ammonia 33.7 33.1 1.8 25.9 30.0 13.6 TKN 36.1 NA - 27.8 NA - NO3-N 0.0 NA - 0.0 NA - Alkalinity mg/L as CaCO3 304.0 NA - 273.2 NA - RDT(7) Thickened TSS (TS) % 7.5% (7.4%) - 7.0% (7.5%) - Thickened TSS ppd 1,938 NA - 2,622 NA - Thickened VSS ppd 1,579 NA - 2,191 NA - Anaerobic Digestion SRT (HRT) days 35.6 NA - 36.3 NA - TSS (TS) % 2.8% (2.5%) - 3.3% (3.0%) - VSS % 1.5% NA - 1.7% NA - VSS/TSS (VS/TS) % 51.7% (65.5%) - 52.1% (65.7%) - Gas scfd 39,561 NA - 50,930 NA - Gas/VS Fed scf/lbs 7.3 NA - 8.0 NA - VSS destruction % 58% NA - 58% NA - Centrifuge(8) Dewatered TSS (TS) % 22% (22%) - 22% (22%) - Cake Dry TSS ppd 3,672 (3,229) - 4,206 (4,829) - Centrate TKN ppd 1,536 NA(9) - 973 NA(9) - Centrate Flow 16,700 NA - 16,400 NA - Notes: (1) Average of the operating data for the selected period, unless otherwise noted. (2) % Difference = (Measured Value - Modeled Value) / Measured Value x 100 (3) SOTE was assumed to be 2%/feet water depth with 13 ft submergence. SOTE provided in the product submittal by Sanitaire in 2001 indicated that the SOTE of the Type T3 strip aerators was 35.6%, assuming 13.5 ft of submergence. (4) Historical TSS removal rate was recorded only from 3 January 2019 through 5 July 2020 and varied from 29% to 75%. In the calibration and validation, the TSS removal rates were adjusted to get a good match for MLSS, MLVSS/MLSS in the aeration basins and TS and VS/TS in the anaerobic digestion. (5) Estimated MCRTs are provided in DMR and the average was 1.5 in 2022, calculated using the following formula: MCRT = AB MLSS inventory/(Final effluent TSS + WAS TS). Typical WAS TS can be ranged from 4,000 mg/L to 12000 mg/L and is much greater than WAS TSS per typical ranges provided for untreated activated sludge (Table 13-5 in Metcalf & Eddy / AECOM Wastewater Engineering Treatment and Resource Recovery, 5th Ed, 2014). Using WAS TSS could result in a much shorter MCRT. (6) Typically, the plant has run two blowers. Severe air leakage was observed during the site visit for condition assessment. (7) TSS capture rate is assumed to be 95% for RDTs. (8) TSS capture rate is assumed to be 97% for centrifuge. (9) TKN ranged from 1,200 to 1,500 mg/L from additional sampling grab samples City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 139 The objective of model calibration is to minimize the error between the simulator predictions and a selected data set with minimal change to model input, kinetic, and stoichiometric parameters. An acceptable calibration is achieved when simulation results are within 20% of actual values from two different data sets at steady state operating conditions. Using this criterion, an acceptable calibration was achieved using the April through May 2022 data sets. The calibration was validated against average operating conditions for separate period of November and December 2022. The calibrated parameters were used in the modeling for secondary process capacity estimation. 7.4.1.3 Limitations of BioWin Modeling Certain aspects of biological process design are beyond the predictive capabilities of a biological process simulator, and it is not feasible to fully examine performance of a wastewater treatment facility using biological simulation alone. It should be noted that this evaluation and the process simulations may not fully account for: • Potential for changes in sludge quality and secondary clarifier performance with changing process mean cell residence time (MCRT) and food to microorganism ratio. • Potential for hydraulic limitations of infrastructure and capacity limitations of equipment. • Potential for changes to digester performance due to changes in loading. • Potential for complex chemical and biological interactions that may occur in a full-scale system, such as foaming, solids bulking, mixing limitations, tank geometry, short circuiting, poor solids distribution, and impacts to microbiology by inhibitors. These potential impacts are beyond the scope of this evaluation or beyond the ability to predict using a biological process simulator. 7.4.2 Process Modeling and Capacity Assessment The primary role of the secondary process at the WWTP is to remove CBOD5 and TSS. Table 7-18 summarizes the average monthly effluent quality goals based on the current NPDES permit limitations on these parameters. Table 7-18: Effluent Quality Goal Design Criteria Units* NPDES Permit Requirements CBOD5 Average Monthly mg/L 25 TSS Average Monthly mg/L 30 pH Average Monthly 6.0 to 9.0 The current NPDES permit doesn’t include any limits on nitrogen or phosphorus, but the City has made an effort to optimize nitrogen removal and planning activities required by the Puget City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 140 Sound Nutrient General Permit (PSNGP), which went into effect on January 1, 2022. The current planning doesn’t include any direct improvements on the secondary process but monitoring and investigating the side-stream nitrogen load and its reduction as potential methods to reduce the total inorganic nitrogen load in the final effluent. An anaerobic selector zone was added to the existing aeration basins to improve sludge settleability. Therefore, it is recommended that the plant maintain an optimal solids retention time (SRT) range of 4 to 5 days that is sufficient for CBOD5 removal while avoiding excessively long SRTs that could inhibit nitrification. The treatment capacity of the secondary process was assessed based on the design SRT required to meet the effluent CBOD5 goals. Additionally, the typical secondary clarifier operation parameters were considered to meet the TSS goal. Table 7-19 summarizes the key operation criteria used for the assessment. Table 7-19: Operation Criteria for Secondary Process Capacity Assessment Design Criteria Unit Value Aeration Basins Total SRT days 4 to 5(1) Targeted DO Concentration in Aerobic Zone mg/L 2 (1)(2) Anaerobic Selector Zone Volume% 20%(3) Process MLSS mg/L 1,500 or 2,500(4) Current RAS Pumping Capacity MGD 1.7 to 5.7(5) Secondary Clarifier Side Water Depth of Current Clarifiers ft 14 Sludge Volume Index mL/g 250(6) Solids Loading Rate- Average lbs/sf/day 19 to 28(7) Solids Loading Rate- Peak lbs/sf/day 48(7) Surface Overflow Rate - Average gal/sf/d 400 to 600(7) Surface Overflow Rate – Peak gal/sf/d 1,000 to 1,200(7) Notes: (1) For BOD removal, a typical SRT of 3 to 5 days is recommended, depending on the process temperature. At temperatures around 10°C, an SRT of 5 to 6 days is recommended for BOD removal only. The original SRT of the aeration basins was estimated to be 2 to 3 days when the process was designed as a contact basin following the biofilter. The equivalent SRT of the biofilter in the original design was estimated to be about 1.3 days, based on the correlation curve provided for BOD loading versus equivalent SRT for trickling filters, sourced from “Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Resource Recovery” (5th Edition, 2014, by Metcalf & Eddy). (2) Minimum DO at 1 mg/L is assumed to be maintained under peak day BOD loading conditions. (3) No record drawing is available for the anaerobic zone, and the volume is assumed to be 20% of the aeration basin by roughly estimating the horizontal length of the anaerobic basin using Google Maps. (4) Due to poor settleability, the maximum MLSS in the aeration basins is currently limited to 1,500 mg/L , which is the limit that plant operations staff currently consider feasible given high SVI. The assessment was provided for two MLSS concentrations: one for the current limit and the other at 2,500 mg/L. Typical MLSS concentration could be 3,000 to 4,000 mg/L for the Anaerobic/Oxic (A/O) process, according to Metcalf & Eddy . (5) Historical RAS pumping rates from the recent DMR. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 141 (6) In the last two years, the annual average SVI and the maximum monthly average SVI at the plant were 250 and 440 milliliters per gram (mL/g), respectively. The annual average SVI was assumed to assess the secondary clarifier capacity. (7) Typical design ranges for the activated sludge process are provided. A higher range is recommended for the activated sludge process with a properly functioning selector. Table 7-20 summarizes the operating scenarios evaluated through process modeling, along with additional scenarios used in desktop calculations to assess aeration and clarification capacity. Table 7-20: Operating Scenarios for Modeling and Desktop Calculations Scenario Summary of Operating Conditions Purpose of Scenario Assess Existing Aeration Basin Capacity (Modeling and Desktop Calculations) S1 2044 MML – Most Conservative Monthly Average • Two aeration basins and two secondary clarifiers in service • Primary clarification – 46% TSS and 25% CBOD removal assumed • Lowest monthly average temperature=11.5°C • Aeration basin max MLSS at 2,500 • Desktop calculations only for S1b with MLSS at 1,300 mg/L Determine if the SRT can reach the target of 5 days under the most conservative monthly loading condition and the lowest monthly average temperature. S2 2044 AAL – Typical Condition • All aeration tanks in service • Annual average temperature=17°C • Aeration basin max MLSS at 2,500 mg/L • Desktop calculations only for S2b with MLSS at 1,300 mg/L Investigate whether the SRT can be maintained at 4 days under average annual wastewater load and temperature. S3 2044 AAL – Maintenance • One aeration basin offline • Annual average temperature=17°C • Aeration basin max MLSS at 2,500 mg/L • Desktop calculations only for S3b with MLSS at 1,300 mg/L Assess if one aeration basin can be taken offline during maintenance while still maintaining an SRT of 4 days. Assessment of Aeration Capacity (Desktop Calculations Only) S4 2044 MML • Aerobic tank DO at 2.0 mg/L • Maximum average monthly temperature=22°C Estimate the aeration demand under MML during dry months. S5 2044 PDL and PD DWF • Aerobic tank DO at 1.0 mg/L • Maximum average monthly temperature=22°C Estimate the aeration demand under PDL during dry months. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 142 Scenario Summary of Operating Conditions Purpose of Scenario S6 2044 PDL and PD WWF • Aerobic tank DO at 1.0 mg/L • Average annual temperature=17°C • PE flow to secondary limited at 22.8 MGD Estimate the aeration demand under PDL during wet months. Assessment of Secondary Clarifier Capacity (Desktop Calculations and State Point Analysis) S7 2044 MM WWF • All secondary clarifiers online • MLSS = 2,500 mg/L • RAS = 5.7 MGD • SVI = 250 mL/g Verify that the clarifiers operate within the typical operational ranges recommended for average conditions under 2044 MM WWF. S8 2044 AAF - Maintenance • One secondary clarifier offline • MLSS = 2,500 mg/L • RAS rate = 75% of AAF • SVI = 250 mL/g Confirm that the clarifiers operate within typical operational ranges during maintenance. S9 22.8 MGD (Limit recommended from 2008 Rerating Study) • All secondary clarifiers online • PE flow to aeration basins = 22.8 MGD • MLSS = 1,500 mg/L • RAS = 5.7 MGD • SVI = 175 mL/g Validate the capacity assessed in the previous study with the assumed conditions. S10 MMF and PHF Capacity assuming • All secondary clarifiers online • MLSS = 2,500 mg/L • RAS = 5.7 MGD • SVI = 250 mL/g Estimate the peak flow that the secondary clarifiers can handle under assumed conditions. S11 MMF and PHF Capacity assuming • All secondary clarifiers online • MLSS = 1,300 mg/L • RAS = 5.7 MGD • SVI = 250 mL/g Estimate the peak flow that the secondary clarifiers can handle under assumed conditions. The results for secondary treatment capacity depend on the performance of primary clarification. Therefore, the estimated flow capacity can be increased if additional treatment capacity is added to the primary treatment. For the existing capacity assessment, no expansion was assumed for the primary clarifier. The performance of the primary clarifier was estimated based on the effluent TSS concentrations reported in DMR’s for 2019 and 2020. A trace line between hydraulic retention time and primary TSS removal rates was used to determine the primary clarifier TSS and the corresponding CBOD5 removal rates for each scenario. The following section summarizes the results of the secondary capacity assessment based on these scenarios. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 143 7.4.3 Aeration Basin Capacity Assessment Table 7-21 summarizes the results of the aeration tank capacity assessment and predicted operating and effluent conditions from the modeling. The detailed modeling results are provided in Appendix D. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 144 Table 7-21: Summary of Aeration Basin Capacity Assessment Parameter Unit S1 Design MML S2 Design AAL S3 Maintenance Aeration Basin Volume, in Service gallons 828,200 828,200 414,100 Total Design SRT days 5.0 4.0 4.0 Anaerobic SRT days 1.0 0.8 0.8 Aerobic SRT days 4.0 3.2 3.2 Secondary Process HRT hours 1.5 3.3 1.7 Estimated Observed Yield lbs MLSS /lbs PE BOD 0.77 0.70 0.70 Max MLSS Concentration mg/L 2,500 2,500 2,500 PE CBOD5 Load Capacity at Max MLSS lbs BOD/day 4,500 6,200 3,100 PE CBOD5 Load lbs BOD/day 9,500 6,400 6,400 PE CBOD5 Concentration mg/L 87 127 127 Corresponding Design Flow MGD 6.2 5.8 2.9 Corresponding AAF at Capacity MGD 2.8(1) 5.8 2.9 If Capacity ≥ Design Load? No Maybe No Key Outputs from Process Model(2) MLSS Concentration mg/L 2,500 2,500 2,500 Simulated Total SRT days 2.4 4.0 2.0 Is Modeled SRT ≥ Design SRT? No Yes No Secondary Process HRT hours 1.5 3.2 1.6 Total Airflow Demand scfm 2,000 1,700 1,400 Secondary Effluent CBOD mg/L 14 12 17 Secondary Effluent Soluble CBOD mg/L 4 2 4 Secondary Effluent TSS mg/L 20 24 24 Secondary Effluent NH3-N mg/L 18 29 29 Secondary Effluent pH - 7.0 7.1 7.1 Additional Scenarios Unit S1b Design MML S2b Design AAL S3b Maintenance Max MLSS Concentration mg/L 1,300 1,300 1,300 PE CBOD5 Load Capacity at Max MLSS lbs BOD/day 2,300 3,200 1,600 Corresponding Design Flow MGD 3.2 3.0 1.5 Corresponding AAF at Capacity MGD 1.5(1) 3.0 1.5 If Load Capacity at Design Load or Larger? No No No Notes: (1) Corresponding AAF = Design MMF/(PF of MMF/AAF) (2) Simulated for the maximum MLSS allowed. The following summarizes the aeration basin capacity assessment: City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 145 • The existing two aeration basins will be capable of handling the design AAL if the MLSS in the basins can be increased to 2,500 mg/L, but not if MLSS is limited to 1,500 mg/L. • The existing aeration basins can’t handle the design MML or AAL during a maintenance period, even if the MLSS in the process is increased to 2,500 mg/L. The limited CBOD5 treatment capacity was estimated to be 4,500 ppd at the lowest monthly average temperature and an influent MMF of 6.2 MGD, which can occur when the AAF reaches 2.8 MGD. The assessment shows the typical SRT can’t be met under AAL conditions if the MLSS is limited to 1,500 mg/L. In recent years, the aeration basins have been operated around 4 to 5 days SRT under typical load conditions and at 3 days SRT for a month or two at about 1,300 mg/L of MLSS. Therefore, they can be considered already running at treatment capacity, particularly during months with higher monthly average loads. With the plant operation team’s efforts, there have been no violations in terms of CBOD5, but it is becoming more challenging to adjust operational parameters to consistently meet permit requirements. Therefore, some earlier action is required to address the capacity shortage. 7.4.4 Aeration Capacity Assessment To assess the required upgrades for the aeration system, the maximum aeration demands in the existing basins were calculated for both the design MML and PDL conditions. Aeration demand escalates with increasing water temperature, as the dissolved oxygen (DO) saturation concentration diminishes with rising temperatures. Additionally, the demand varies depending on the minimum DO concentration maintained in the aeration basins, which is dictated by the targeted SRT and water temperature. Table 7-22 summarizes the estimated aeration demand for the three selected scenarios summarized in Table 7-21 taking these factors into account. Table 7-22: Summary of Aeration Demand Assessment Parameter Unit S4 Design MML S5 Design PDL S6 Design PDL Temperature °C 22 22 17 DO in Aeration Basins mg/L 2.0 1.0 1.0 Air Demand(1) scfm 3,690 4,750 2,690 Aeration Capacity of Turbo Blower cfm/each 2,655 at 7.1 psig, 2 each Aeration Capacity of Centrifugal Blower cfm/each 2,500 at 8.5 psig, 1 each Is Existing Aeration Capacity Sufficient? Maybe if no increase in back pressure Diffuser Aeration Capacity(1) scfm/sq ft 1.43 to 7 Airflow per Basin(2) scfm/each 964 to 4,700 Notes: (1) Calculations assume a 13 ft submergence with a 2% SOTE per foot. (2) Estimates from the Aeration System Evaluation, based on the diffuser specifications, assume a 13.5 ft submergence and a total SOTE of 35.6%. In all three evaluated scenarios, the air demand was less than the capacity of two turbo blowers, assuming a back pressure of 7.1 psig. The plant also has an old centrifugal blower from the City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 146 1986 design. The city’s aeration system evaluation indicates that supplying 964 scfm of air to one basin results in an air pressure of 6.7 psig at the top of the dropleg. Based on information from the operation team, one turbo blower is typically run at a reduced speed to maintain the DO demand in the aeration basin, switching to the centrifugal blower during storm periods or for cleaning the diffusers on the aeration tank floor. Generally, the turbo blower will trip if back pressure rises above its capacity, and the centrifugal blower can provide the same amount of air at a higher back pressure. At the plant, a back pressure rise is expected in the following situations: • The buried air pipe from the blower building to the aeration basin is experiencing significant air leakage, as evidenced by bubbles observed rising from water puddles during the site visit. This air loss can increase air demand, leading to a rise in back pressure. • During storm periods, the service blower is often switched from the turbo blower to the centrifugal blower to meet the increased air demand. The rise in water levels in the aeration basin due to increased flow or reduced primary CBOD5 removal can lead to an increase in air demand, resulting in higher back pressure. • Maintenance for inspecting and cleaning the diffusers is typically recommended once a year. Instead of taking one aeration basin offline, the operation team has used the centrifugal blower to increase airflow to the aeration basin to clean the diffusers occasionally. Operators have reported that using the centrifugal blower to clean the diffusers causes the MLSS in the aeration basin to increase by about 300 mg/L, suggesting that fine grit may be causing diffuser fouling, which becomes another factor increasing back pressure in the air pipes. • Over time, the oxygen transfer efficiency of the diffusers decreases, leading to an increased airflow requirement to meet the oxygen demand. Resolving these issues may reduce the back pressure demand and allow the two turbo blowers to run together and meet the high demand. The final recommendations for improvement will depend on the selected upgrades for the aeration basins. Since the basins are already running at or above the estimated capacity, if new basins are added to address the capacity issues, that should be considered in determining the final improvements for air distribution and blower selection. 7.4.5 Secondary Clarifier Capacity Assessment The capacity of the secondary clarifiers was assessed for a MMF, a maintenance scenario at AAF and a peak flow scenario. The capacity of the secondary clarifier was evaluated by comparing the SOR and SLR with the typical design limits used for an activated sludge system in secondary treatment. Additionally, a state point analysis was performed to assess how the capacity changes, especially when considering the sludge volume index (SVI). City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 147 SVI affects the treatment capacity of a secondary clarifier by indicating the settleability of the sludge. A higher SVI suggests poor settling, leading to slower sludge settling rates and potentially overloading the clarifier, reducing its capacity. Conversely, a lower SVI indicates better settling, which can improve the clarifier's capacity to handle higher flow rates or solids loading without compromising performance. State point analysis helps assess the clarifier capacity by graphically comparing the hydraulic and solids loading rates with the settling characteristics of the sludge, which are influenced by the SVI. A higher SVI indicates poorer sludge settling, shifting the settling curve down and potentially limiting the clarifier’s capacity, as it may struggle to separate solids efficiently. In the last two years, the annual average SVI and the maximum monthly average SVI at the plant were 250 and 440 mL/g, respectively, which are much higher than 175 mL/g assumed in 2008 Rerating Study to determine the capacity of the two secondary clarifiers and therefore the recommended maximum primary effluent pumped flow to the secondary process. The annual average SVI of 250 mL/g was assumed to assess the secondary clarifier capacity, but calculations were developed to confirm the rerated capacity from 2008 rerating study for validation of the calculations. The assessment results for the design conditions and validation run for 2008 Rerating Study are summarized in Table 7-23. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 148 Table 7-23: Summary of Secondary Clarifier Capacity Assessment Parameter Unit S7 Design MM WWF S8 Design AAF S9 2008 Rerating Study Secondary Clarifiers, in Service each 2 1 2 Total Surface Area sf 19,007 9,503 19,007 Secondary Effluent Flow MGD 13.5 6.2 22.8 RAS Flow MGD 5.7 4.6 5.7 RAS TSS Concentration mg/L 8,400 5,800 7,500 MLSS in Mixed Liquor mg/L 2,500 2,500 1,500 SOR gal/d/sf 710 650 1,200 SLR ppd/sf 21 24 19 Is SOR within typical? No No Yes Is SLR within typical? Yes Yes Yes State point position relative to gravity flux line Above Touching Below Parameter Unit S10 MLSS at 2,500 mg/L S11 MLSS at 1,300 mg/L Secondary Clarifiers, in Service each 2 1 Total Surface Area sf 19,007 9,503 RAS Flow MGD 5.7 5.7 Flow Condition MGD MMF PHF MMF PHF Max Capacity MGD 10.4 10.4 13.5 24.0 RAS TSS Concentration mg/L 7,100 7,100 4,400 6,800 SOR gal/d/sf 550 550 710 1.260 SLR ppd/sf 18 18 11 17 Is SOR within typical? Yes Yes No No Is SLR within typical? Yes Yes Yes Yes State point position relative to gravity flux line Touching Touching Below Touching The existing two secondary clarifiers are unable to handle the design MM WWF conditions. They can only manage AAF conditions under a maintenance scenario, assuming an MLSS of 2,500 mg/L from the aeration basins and an SVI of 250 mL/g. Lowering the MLSS to 1,300 mg/L allows the clarifiers to handle 13 MGD of MMF and 24 MGD of PHF, respectively. However, reducing MLSS to increase clarifier capacity decreases the treatment capacity of the aeration basins. The treatment capacity of the secondary clarifiers can be improved through three main strategies: adding new clarifiers, increasing RAS capacity (which has limited impact), or enhancing sludge settleability. Among these, improving sludge settleability is the most viable solution. Despite the 2009 construction of an anaerobic selector intended to improve sludge settleability, recent data indicate that settleability has deteriorated. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 149 The anaerobic selector was designed by adding a divider wall in the aeration basin, directing wastewater from the anaerobic to the aerated zone via a weir wall. A surface-floating mixer circulates DO to the bottom, preventing true anaerobic conditions and promoting bacteria associated with sludge bulking. Additionally, high loading and reduced SRT in the aeration basin hinder the maintenance of anaerobic conditions, further impairing sludge settleability. Research shows that properly functioning anaerobic selectors can reduce SVI to 60–90 mL/g. The key findings and recommendations are summarized as follows: • The current secondary clarifiers are insufficient for design MM WWF conditions and depend on MLSS and SVI adjustments for AAF conditions. • Enhancing sludge settleability is the most practical solution for increasing clarifier capacity. • Modifications to the existing anaerobic selector should focus on achieving true anaerobic conditions by addressing DO recirculation issues. • Future aeration basins should incorporate properly functioning anaerobic selectors to enhance sludge settleability and overall performance. 7.5 WWTP Unit Process Capacity The capacity of the remaining major process units was evaluated through desktop calculations, comparing key design and operational parameters with typical values recommended and ranges from Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Resource Recovery (5th Edition, 2014, by Metcalf & Eddy), as well as the requirements outlined in the WA Orange Book. The results of this assessment are provided in the following sections. 7.5.1 Headworks Screening The WWTP currently utilizes three mechanical bar screens and two grit chambers at its headworks facility, thereby meeting the requirements for Reliability Class I according to the Orange Book. The total capacity of the three screens was designed for 48 MGD. However, this capacity must be increased to handle the 2044 PHF of 58.7 MGD to maintain the desired freeboard at the headworks and prevent overtopping. While increasing capacity is the immediate priority, addressing I/I issues in the service areas could help reduce peak flow impacts over time. However, reducing I/I will require significant time and cost, making capacity improvements the main focus at this stage. The City is currently evaluating the replacement of two screens that are approaching 30 years of service, having been installed in 1995. The replacement project should also consider increasing the screening capacity or maximizing the capacity within the existing channel size to meet future flow demands effectively. 7.5.2 Grit Removal The current design capacity of the grit removal system is reported to be 30 MGD under PHF conditions, as outlined in the 2008 Rerating Study. Due to grit accumulation in the anaerobic digesters and discrepancies observed in the plant's hydraulic analysis that may be attributed to City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 150 grit, the facility should consider either adding additional capacity or replacing the current system with an alternative. For wastewater mixed with CSO, grit production can range from 0.5 to 27 cf/MG, which can be up to five times higher than that of separated sewer systems. Therefore, replacing the existing system with one that offers higher grit removal efficiency for a wider range of particle sizes, even at high flow rates, could be a viable option. The estimated retention time in the existing grit chambers will be reduced further in the design PDF and PHF as summarized in Table 7-24. The cells highlighted indicate processes that surpass the existing design capacity or fall short of the typical design standards as outlined in Metcalf & Eddy or Orange Book. Table 7-24: Grit Removal Capacity Assessment Grit Removal Criteria Capacity Type and Number 2 Aerated grit tanks Total Volume, cf 10,528 Flow Condition 30 MGD(1) 2044 PD WWF 2044 PH WWF Detention Time, minutes 3.8 3.4 1.9 Typical Range in Orange Book 3-5 at PDF Notes: (1) Peak day flow capacity rated in 2008 Study. 7.5.3 Primary Clarifier According to the requirements of the Orange Book, the remaining primary clarifier must be able to handle 50% of the total design flow when the largest primary clarifier is out of service. Both the SOR under this maintenance scenario at the design MMF and at the design PD WWF will be increased above the acceptable operation range provided in the Orange Book. Therefore, additional primary removal capacity needs to be added. Table 7-25 the primary removal capacity assessment. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 151 Table 7-25: Primary Removal Capacity Assessment Primary Removal Criteria Capacity Flow Condition 20 MGD(1) 2044 MM WWF 2044 PD WWF Number in Service, each 2 Total Surface Area in Service, sf 10,053 SOR, gal/d/sf 1,990 1,300 3,300 Typical Range in Orange Book 800-1,200 at Average 2,000-3,000 at Peak Notes: (1) Maximum month flow capacity rated in 2008 Study. 7.5.4 Disinfection According to the requirements of the Orange Book, the remaining chlorine contact chamber must be capable of handling 50% of the total design flow when the other chamber is out of service. Additionally, the contact chamber must be sized to provide a minimum detention time of 1 hour at the average design flow or 20 minutes at the peak daily flow, whichever is greater. Redundancy is also required for chlorine feed equipment. The WWTP disinfection system meets the redundancy requirements. However, additional capacity is necessary to achieve the required detention time under peak flow conditions. Furthermore, the chemical feed pumping capacity must be expanded to meet the maximum daily demand estimated for the design PD WWF. The storage duration will be maintained at more than 2 weeks under AAF conditions but reduced to about 2 weeks under MM WWF conditions. Table 7-26 the disinfection system capacity assessment. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 152 Table 7-26: Disinfection System Capacity Assessment Disinfection Criteria Capacity Chlorine Contact Chamber Assessment Flow Condition 30 MGD(1) 2044 AAF 2044 PD WWF CCC Detention Time, min 20 101 18 Min Required in Orange Book 20 60 20 Chemical Feed System Assessment Flow Condition 2044 AAF 2044 MM WWF 2044 PD WWF Chlorine Dose Assumed, mg/L 4(2) 4(2) 8.6(2,3) Chlorine Demand, ppd 210 450 2,380 Chlorine Demand, gpd 200 430 2,290 Current Max Injection Pump Rate, gpd 760 Demand Assumed for Odor Control System, gpd 350(4) Active Chlorine Storage Tank Volume Assumed, gallons 9,920(5) Storage Duration, days 18 13 NA NaHSO3:Cl2 Assumed 1.6(6) NaHSO3 Demand, ppd 330 720 3,830 NaHSO3 Demand, gpd 80 180 930 Current Max Injection Pump Rate, gpd 204 Active NaHSO3 Storage Tank Volume Assumed, gallons 2,400(5) Storage Duration, days 30 14 NA Notes: (1) Peak day flow capacity rated in 2018 Study (2) The typical chlorine dosage for secondary effluent, as stated in the Orange Book, ranges from 2 to 8 mg/L. Therefore, a dosage of 4 mg/L is assumed for estimating chlorine requirements under AAF and MMF conditions. (3) Under the design PD WWF, only 22.8 MGD is assumed to flow to the aeration basins, while the remaining 11.1 MGD bypasses the secondary process. According to the Orange Book, the typical chlorine dosage for primary effluent ranges from 5 to 10 mg/L. The chlorine dosage for the combined flow of 22.8 MGD of secondary effluent and 11.1 MGD of primary effluent is estimated by assuming a dosage of 8 mg/L for the primary effluent. (4) The plant typically orders 5,200 gallons of sodium hypochlorite solution every 10 days. The chlorine demand for the odor control system is estimated by subtracting the chlorine demand required for the disinfection of the historical AAF of 5.16 MGD. (5) 80% of the total tank volume is assumed to be utilized as active storage volume. (6) Assumed to be 10% greater than the theoretical does of 1.46 mg/L required to neutralize 1 mg/L of chlorine. 7.5.5 Solids Stream Handing Processes The Orange Book does not prescribe specific redundancy requirements for solids stream processes, but all pumps that perform separate functions must meet the pumping redundancy requirements. The WWTP utilizes two pieces of equipment for the primary sludge pumps, WAS pumps, RDTs, and TWAS pumps, which meet the redundancy requirements. The current capacity of this equipment is sufficient to handle the anticipated production under the design loads, as summarized in Table 7-27. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 153 Table 7-27: Solids Stream Handling System Capacity Assessment Solids Stream Criteria Capacity Load Conditions 2044 MML 2044 AAL Primary TSS Removal Assumed, % 46%(1) 59%(1) Primary Sludge TSS, ppd 9,400 8,800 Primary Sludge Flow, gpd 22,400(2) 21,000(2) Primary Sludge Pump Capacity, gpd/each 50,400 WAS TSS Production Estimated, ppd 7,500(3) 4,600(3) WAS Flow, gpd 128,000(4) 78,000(4) WAS Pump Capacity, gpd/each 324,000 RDT Flow Capacity, gpd/each 324,000 TWAS TSS Production Estimated, ppd 7,000(5) 4,200(5) TWAS Flow, gpd 16,700(6) 10,200(6) TWAS Pump Capacity, gpd/each 53,200 Notes: (1) Historical primary TSS removal rates were analyzed in relation to hydraulic retention time, and the assumed TSS removal rates were determined using the regression line derived from this correlation. (2) The primary TSS concentration is assumed to be 5%. (3) The estimate is calculated as the product of PE CBOD₅ load and the observed yield from Table 7-21. (4) The WAS TSS concentration is assumed to be 7,000 mg/L. (5) The TSS capture rated is assumed to be 93%. (6) The TWAS TSS concentration is assumed to be 5%. 7.5.6 Anaerobic Digestion The anaerobic digestion capacity is evaluated using typical design parameters from Metcalf & Eddy, as the Orange Book does not specify requirements for this process. The anaerobic digesters appear capable of handling sludge production under 2044 loading conditions, with the HRT remaining above 15 days and the volatile solids (VS) loading rate staying below the typical limits recommended for mesophilic digestion, as summarized in Table 7-28. While the existing centrifuge capacity is adequate to process the digested sludge, adding a redundant unit is recommended to enhance process reliability. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 154 Table 7-28: Anaerobic Digestion Process Capacity Assessment Digestion Process Criteria Capacity Load Conditions 2044 MML 2044 AAL Primary Sludge + TWAS Flow, gpd 39,100 31,200 HRT, days 20 25 Typical HRT, days 15 Primary Sludge VS Load, ppd 6,600(1) 6,100(1) TWAS VS Load, ppd 5,200(2) 3,400(2) VS Loading Rate, ppd/cu.ft 0.11 0.09 Typical VS Loading Rate, ppd/cu.ft 0.15 @ 5% TS and 15 days HRT VS Destruction Rate 56%(3) Digested Sludge TS, ppd 9,700 7,700 Centrifuge Feed Flow, gpd 39,100 31,200 Centrifuge & Feed Pump Capacity, gpd 288,800 Dewatered Biosolids TS, ppd 8,000(4) 6,300(4) Notes: (1) The VS to TS ratio in the primary sludge is assumed to be 0.7. (2) The VS to TS ratio in the TWAS is assumed to match the values estimated for WAS sludge from the process modeling: 0.82 at MML and 0.79 at AAL. (3) Typical VS destruction rate at the typical VS roading rate at 15 days of SRT, according to Metcalf & Eddy. (4) The current TS capture rate is assumed to be 82% per process calibration modeling. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 155 Section 8: Capital Improvement Program This section describes the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the WWTP and the wastewater collection system, including recommended improvements, cost estimates developments for the CIP, and funding sources. 8.1 Basin Plans Basin plans encompassing basin descriptions, facility information, and recommended CIP improvements are available in Appendix B. Originally created in 2014, these basin plans have been modified and updated for the current iteration and projection period of this WWCP. Since being developed as part of the 2014 WWCP update, very few of the growth-related projects in the basin plans have been completed; however, for completeness and preservation of previous project concepts that may be valuable in the future, descriptions, un-escalated project costs stemming from original analysis, and project locations are included in this WWCP in Section 8.2.5, Figure 8-1, and Appendix B respectively. 8.2 Recommended System Improvements Improvements are presented in multiple categories below with the respective naming convention: C = Collection System F = Facilities and Equipment T = Wastewater Treatment Plant M = Operations and Maintenance NS = New Service Areas New Service Area: Improvements related to New Service Areas (called NS projects) were not examined as part of this 2024 WWCP update. Very few of the NS projects identified in the 2014 WWCP update have been completed and were consequently excluded from the 2024 CIP. It is anticipated that any NS projects will be financed through grants or developer contributions, ensuring no impact on the City’s existing financial framework as presented in Section 8.4. The NS projects identified in the 2014 WWCP have been included for completeness in this 2024 WWCP. 8.2.1 WWTP Improvements T1 – Centrifuge Addition The project scope will include the installation of a secondary centrifuge unit to enhance capacity for anticipated future growth and to provide redundancy during equipment downtime. Since 2019, the treatment plant has operated with a single centrifuge unit, leading to a cessation of dewatering processes during scheduled or emergency maintenance, thereby incurring increased sludge hauling costs. Additionally, the project will incorporate a solids cake pump to City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 156 facilitate the transfer of thickened solids to the dumpster. This project is listed as WW00087.01 in the Wastewater CIP. T2 – Boiler System Reliability Improvements The project will entail addition of a second boiler along with a gas scrubbing system to improve the life of the boilers. A separate room will be created in the existing shop space in the digester complex to accommodate the second boiler. Additions and modifications to the existing gas piping system will need to be made for the new boiler location and the gas treatment system. This project is listed as WW00087.05 in the Wastewater CIP. T3 – Primary Clarifier Recycle Pumps Replacement The treatment plant uses two pumps to recycle primary clarifier contents back to headworks, drain the clarifiers, and pump down the septage receiving wet well. These pumps have been in operation since the plant’s original construction in 1985 and have reached the end of their service life. T3 will involve replacing the pumps with ones of similar capacity, maintaining the vortex-style impeller to handle heavy grit contents, but transitioning from a belt-drive to a direct- drive pump/motor combination. T4 – Headworks Screen Improvements The project will include a structural effort to introduce finer screens and increase the size of the headworks channels for screens 1 and 2. Additionally, there will be improvements to the I&C and electrical. A washer/compactor system is included in this scope to improve the condition of the screenings being hauled away. This project is listed as WW00087.10 in the Wastewater CIP. T5 – Odor Control Stack Reinstallation The project will be an installation of a single, 48-inch diameter, free standing exhaust stack that will connect to the existing fans. The City has reported noticeable odors near the plant at times, and there is belief that reinstalling the discharge stacks will solve the problem by discharging the treated air at a higher elevation and facilitating dilution of any residual odors. This project is listed as WW00087.13 in the Wastewater CIP. T6 – Primary Effluent Line Rehabilitation The existing primary effluent line dates from the original plant construction and the material, concrete cylinder pipe, is prone to failure. This project will replace the section of piping between the primary clarifiers and the PE pumps. T7 – Headworks Odor Control System Upgrades At the time of this project in the 20-year CIP, the existing odor control system for the headworks will have reached the end of its useful and will need to be replaced. T8 – Digester Improvements City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 157 The project will consist of demolition of the existing mixing system and its replacement with a new pumped mixing system. Additionally, this project also includes replacing the existing floating covers on the two digesters with fixed covers which will result in reduced odors. The existing floating covers are from the original construction and have reached the end of their useful life. This project listed as WW00020 in the Wastewater CIP. T9 – Third Digester – Study A study will be conducted in order to understand the impacts from installation of a third anaerobic digester. Some of the considerations in this study will address redundancy concerns, capacity and future growth, hydraulic and solids loading, process efficiency, and operational and energy considerations. T10 – Aeration Basin Supply Piping Replacement and Improvements for Selector This improvement will replace the existing carbon steel air piping with stainless steel pipe of the same diameter (14-inch). The existing pipe is damaged and leaking air. The piping to be replaced is located between the blower room discharge header and the connection at the gooseneck at each aeration basin. Additionally, to improve the process efficiency, the configuration of anaerobic selectors will be modified by raising up divider walls with wooden planks and demolishing one side of the divider wall. This project is listed as WW00087.02 in the Wastewater CIP. T11 – New Aeration Basins This improvement will consist of installation of two, new 4-stage Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) aeration basins. It is anticipated this project will be required to meet compliance requirements due to the Nutrient General Permit. T12 – Additional Secondary Clarifier – Study Installation of a third secondary clarifier will be studied under this improvement project. A third clarifier was a recommendation from the hydraulic modeling of the WWTP completed with the current WWCP Update in 2024. T13 – Grit System Upgrades This project will include the demolition of the existing aerated grit chambers and installation of new grit chambers with new classifiers for each chamber. Modifications to the old headworks and the raw sewer line are also included. The existing lack of performance of grit chamber is resulting in overloading of grit to primary clarifiers and digester. The project will include an evaluation leading to the desired alternative, design, and construction. T14 – Outfall Inspection This project is study to inspect the existing WWTP outfall conditions. The outfall is original construction from the mid-1980s. The inspection results will support the City’s evaluation to replace or upgrade the existing outfall system at the Westside WWTP. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 158 T15 – Mixing Study This pre-design study aims to evaluate the key design parameters influencing the mixing of outfall discharge with the surrounding receiving waters at Sinclair Inlet. The findings will guide necessary outfall improvements by determining the optimal location, quantity, and size of the discharge ports. T16 – WWTP Outfall Improvements – New Parallel Pipe to MH-4 This improvement involves potential improvements to the City’s outfall system and will consist of new parallel pipe from the chlorine contact chambers effluent pipe to what is known as MH 4 in order to prevent a surcharging at upstream unit processes. The scope and feasibility of this project will depend on the findings from Project T14 (Outfall Inspection). Based on those results, the City will conduct further evaluations and studies to identify appropriate next steps. The current cost estimate is a planning-level (Class 5) estimate and is intended to support financial planning only. Additional project details will be further developed in a future phase. T17 – WWTP Outfall Improvements – New Outfall This project will include installation of a new deepwater outfall to replace or parallel the existing outfall. The new outfall pipe will allow discharge of larger volumes of treated wastewater. This project is expected to involve multiple technical and regulatory components, and implementation could be complex and span a longer timeframe. The scope and feasibility of this project will depend on the findings from Project T14 (Outfall Inspection). Based on those results, the City will conduct further evaluations and studies to identify appropriate next steps. The current cost estimate is a planning-level (Class 5) estimate and is intended to support financial planning only. Additional project details will be further developed in a future phase. T18 – WWTP Disinfection System Improvements This improvement project involves installing an additional chlorine contact chamber (CCC) for the disinfection process, along with modifications to the inlet and outlet channels. However, based on further discussions with city operations staff, converting to a UV disinfection system is the preferred approach versus adding an additional CCC due to costs and availability concerns of chemical. The costs outlined in the CIP are based on the installation of an additional CCC. T19 – Primary Filtration Feasibility Study This study will evaluate and make recommendations to improve the efficiency of the existing primary clarification process. T20 – Arc Flash Testing Arc flash testing will be done for the electrical equipment system at the treatment plant to evaluate the potential hazards from equipment arc flash and to evaluate the safety and performance of the personal protective equipment (PPE) when exposed to the intense energy of an arc flash event. T21 – Nutrient General Permit Improvements Program City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 159 This program is an annual retainer for on-call consultant services to assist the City in navigating upcoming changes at the WWTP due to the Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit. This is listed as project WW00053 in the Wastewater CIP. 8.2.2 Collection System Improvement Projects The locations of collection system improvement projects are shown on Figure 8-2. Additional information of these projects is available in Appendix B. C1 – North PSIC Wastewater Improvements Improvements in North PSIC will consist of the design and construction of new pump stations and conveyance infrastructure sized for 20-year projected build-out flows. The flow from PSIC will be pumped to existing pump station SB-3 in Gorst. The City anticipates that private or grant funding would be required for the construction of this infrastructure. A separate analysis of several alternatives for PSIC was performed and is available in Appendix H. C2 – South PSIC Wastewater Improvements Improvements in South PSIC will consist of the design and construction of new pumping and conveyance infrastructure to send flows generated from this area to North PSIC and Mason County. An agreement with Mason County will be required to send flow to Mason County. The City anticipates that private or grant funding would be required in the near term for the construction of this infrastructure. A separate analysis of several alternatives for PSIC was performed and is available in Appendix H. C3 – Crosstown Pipeline Improvements – Phase 1 Improvements on the Crosstown Pipeline will consist of installing a new pipeline to the WWTP beginning near the intersection of 9th Street and Montgomery Avenue. This new pipeline will increase the overall capacity of the Crosstown Pipeline and allow for additional redundancy. Loan or grant funding would be required for the construction of this new pipeline. A separate analysis of two (2) conceptual alternatives for the new pipeline was performed and is available in Appendix G. C4 – Crosstown Pipeline Improvements – Phase 2 After construction of Phase 1 is complete, the new pipeline will be placed online while the existing pipeline will be taken offline to undergo rehabilitation. Loan or grant funding would be required for the construction of this project. A separate analysis of two (2) conceptual alternatives for the new pipeline and rehabilitation of the existing pipeline was performed and is available in Appendix G. C5 – Oyster Bay Sewer Basin Upgrades This upgrade includes design and construction of low-pressure sewer systems for properties along Shorewood Drive and part of Madrona Point Drive that front Ostrich Bay which will allow the City to decommission beach sewers or convert them to dedicated force mains with no lateral connections. The properties are between pump stations OB-5 and OB-2 and OB-3 and OB-2. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 160 Upgrading OB-2 is also part of this project and will allow the City to pump into the upland 4,000 foot, 12-inch HDPE force main installed in 2022 and abandon the existing 12-inch force main located along the bottom of Oyster Bay. The City anticipates loan funding for this work. Additionally, the City is considering extending the beach sewer decommissioning further north to OB-6 (on Navy property), which would require loan or grant funding. These projects are currently listed as individual projects in the Wastewater CIP (WW00011, W00012, and WW00065). A detailed technical memorandum is attached in Appendix I. C6 – Central Bremerton Force Main Improvements Sections of the Central Bremerton Force Main (CBFM) were determined to be failing in December 2023. This critical force main conveys sewage from downtown Bremerton and the east half of the Navy shipyard. This project will replace approximately 3,100 LF of the CBFM from Montgomery Avenue to the surge chamber at Gregory Way and High Avenue. The construction is funded by a grant and is listed as project WW00091 in the Wastewater CIP. C7 – EB Beach Main Replacement (OF-4 to OF-3) The existing beach sewer between OF-3 and OF-4 is made of 18-inch ductile and located in an intertidal zone. Metallic pipe in this type of environment is more prone to failure from corrosion. The project will replace the existing 2500 feet of metallic pipe with a plastic pipe (e.g. HDPE) to increase the longevity and reduce the potential for a sanitary sewer discharge in the marine environment. It is anticipated that this project will be loan funded and is project WW00051 in the Wastewater CIP. C8 – EB-2 Seawall The existing seawall supporting the EB-2 wet well and an adjacent stormwater outfall is undermining and has cracked due to wave action. This project will design and replace the wall. This is project is WW00090 in the Wastewater CIP. C9 – Decommission Beach Sewer in Manette (OF-4 to EB-2) The existing 1,500 LF of 8-inch sanitary sewer buried along the beach between E. 16th Street and EB-2 (next to the Manette Bridge) is very difficult to access for maintenance and the City desires to remove sanitary sewers from the marine environment when feasible. The project will construct a municipal pump station at E. 16th Street and an upland low pressure sewer system for the properties that discharge to this sewer in order to decommission this beach sewer. The design and construction of this project is loan funded and is project WW00004 in the Wastewater CIP. C10 – Force Main Corrosion Testing This project will assess the condition of the force mains to identify corrosion risks, including the two critical siphon mains that are located along the bottom of Port Washington Narrows between East and West Bremerton. This is project WW00006 in the Wastewater CIP. C11 – Sewer Main Replacement and Rehab Program City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 161 This is an annually funded program for replacement or rehabilitation of sewer mains that are determined to be failing or near failure. The work may be done by City staff or a contractor. This is project WW00014 in the Wastewater CIP. C12 – Sewer Main Replacement with Pavement Reconstruction This is an annually funded program for replacement or rehabilitation of sewer mains determined to be failing or near failure. The work is typically done in anticipation of a future road reconstruction project or the work will require significant roadway repair. The work may be done by City staff or a contractor. This is project WW00015 in the Wastewater CIP. C13 – Tracyton Beach Main Conversion In order to avoid surcharging, the existing gravity sewer along Tracyton Beach Road must be maintained nearly weekly by City staff due to poor velocity and flow through the pipe. The City will convert the existing gravity sewer along this road between NW Carter Farms Ct and Gerard Place to a standard force main with two pump stations and some gravity sewer. This is project WW00036 in the Wastewater CIP and is loan-funded. C14 – CIPP Rehabilitation Project This is an annual program for rehabilitating sewer mains using the cure-in-place-pipe method. The work is done by a contractor and also includes video and inspection of additional mains to program for future rehabilitation projects. Typically 6,000 to 8,000 feet of pipe is rehabilitated each summer. This is project WW00003 in the Wastewater CIP. 8.2.3 Operations and Maintenance M1 – PE Pump Room Controls Relocation/Improvements Improvements related to the controls in primary effluent pump room are included in this project. The existing control panel is located in the same below-grade room as the PE pumps and could be exposed to flooding by sewage in the event of pump failure or a pipe break. The project will relocate the controls to a more secure location. This is project WW00072 in the Wastewater CIP. M2 – Machinery/Equipment – Utility Operations Manager This is an annual program for any machinery or equipment for operations and maintenance to be installed between the years 2025-2030. M3 – Pump Station SCADA and Controls Upgrade This is an annual program to continually improve and upgrade the SCADA system and controls at the pump stations. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 162 M4 – Installation of Emergency Generator Program This is an annual program to provide emergency power generation at the pump stations for resiliency. M5 – Pump Station Improvements Program This is an annual program to continually upgrade and improve pump stations, including pumps, electrical systems, piping, and facilities. M6 – I&I Reduction Program This is an annual program to reduce the I&I in the City’s sewer collection through disconnection of downspouts and catch basins, lateral lining, main lining, and manhole lining. Reducing I&I will reduce flow to pump stations and the treatment plant and reduce potential for surcharges in the sewer system. M7 – Collection System Capacity Improvements This is an annual program and includes collection system capacity improvements due to growth for the 20-year horizon. 8.2.4 Facilities and Equipment F1 – Installation of Emergency Generator Program This is an annual program to provide emergency power generation at the pump stations for resiliency during power outages. 8.2.5 New Service Area Improvements All New Service Area (NS) Improvements will be funded by developer, grant or LID. The costs of these projects have been taken from the previous 2014 comprehensive plan update (un- escalated), and do not impact the financial analysis. Due to the minimal number of NS projects completed since the adoption of the 2014 WWCP, sewer collection system or treatment plant impacts from NS projects have not been factored into their respective analyses throughout this WWCP. For clarity, these project locations are included in Appendix B. NS-1 – NS-8 – East and West Bremerton UGA Sewerage – ULID Kitsap County ULID funding would be used for the expansion of sewer service to the East and West Bremerton UGA areas (Marine Drive, Rocky Point, SR 304, West Hills, Trenton, Tracyton, Tracyton Beach, and Port Blakely). NS-1 – Marine Drive Marine Drive is a residential area that is within the City adjacent to Ostrich, Oyster, and Mud Bay. The area is mostly built-out but not served by City sewer lines. The improvements described in the plan are sub-divided into two projects described below: City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 163 NS-1A – Sewer Collection – Sub-Basin MD-1 Install approximately 6,450 LF of 6-inch low pressure main along Marine Drive and approximately 1,200 LF of 3-inch low-pressure main along South Marine Drive. Both mains would connect to approximately 450 LF of 8-inch gravity sewer to convey flow to the proposed pump station MD-2 (project NS-2C “Pump Station MD-3”). NS-1B – Sewer Collection – Sub-Basin MD-2 Install approximately 2,420 LF of 8-inch gravity sewer along Marine Drive from Dora Avenue to the proposed pump station MD-2 (project NS-2C “Pump Station MD-3”). Install approximately 1,380 of 3-inch low-pressure main along Lower Marine Drive to the 8-inch gravity sewer. NS-2 – Rocky Point Rocky Point is an unsewered area north of the City and is part of the West Bremerton Urban Growth Area (UGA) which could become part of the City in the future. The improvements described in the plan are sub-divided into eight projects described below: NS-2A – Phinney Bay Extension (Sub-Basin RP-3) Install approximately 4,600 LF of 8-inch sewer main along NW Phinney Bay Drive, Jackson Drive, Cloward Way, and Cartier Drive. This project would extend sewer service and eliminate failing septic systems to meet total maximum daily load (TMDL) compliance. The PB-1 pump station capacity should be evaluated based on the additional flows from this project and project NS-2F “Jackson Drive to Corbet Drive (Sub-Basin RP-3)”. NS-2B – Pump Station MD-2 Construct pump station MD-2 near Marine Drive and Kelly Road to convey flows from the Marine Drive and Rocky Point service areas east to the Callow Basin via approximately 6,000 LF of 12-inch force main. One potential discharge location is into an existing 30-inch sewer main at 11th Street and Meade Avenue. A preliminary estimate of the pump station capacity is 1,620 gpm based on projected flows in the service area. An estimated 6,100- gallon wet well volume would be needed. NS-2C – Pump Station MD-3 Construct pump station MD-3 along Rocky Point Road near Holly Beach Court to convey sewer flow from sub-basins RP-1 and RP-2 south to MD-2 via approximately 2,400 LF of 10- inch force main. A preliminary estimate for the pump station capacity is 1,050 gpm at 120- feet of TDH based on projected flows in the sub-basins. An estimated 4,000-gallon wet well volume would be needed. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 164 NS-2D – Sewer Collection in Sub-Basin RP-1 Install approximately 2,800 LF of 10-inch gravity main along Rocky Point Road from Brygman Street to Chrey Lane to collect sewer flows from sub-basin RP-1. This project would connect to a proposed gravity main installed in project NS-2F “Jackson Drive to Corbet Drive (Sub-Basin RP-3)”. NS-2E – Sewer Collection – Sub-Basin RP-2 Install approximately 2,200 LF of 12-inch gravity main along Rocky Point Road from Chrey Lane to proposed pump station MD-3 and approximately 2,800 LF of 8-inch gravity sewer along Rocky Point Road from 19th Street to MD-3 to convey sewer flows from sub-basins RP-1 and RP-2. Construct in conjunction with project NS-2C “Pump Station MD-3”. NS-2F – Jackson Drive to Corbet Drive (Sub-Basin RP-3) Install approximately 2,200 LF of 8-inch gravity sewer from Jackson Drive to Corbet Drive along an easement. The central part of sub-basin RP-6 will flow by low pressure sewer (LPS) to the City’s existing sewers along Corbet Drive or proposed gravity sewers along Morgan Road to pump station PB-1. NS-2G – Sewer Collection – Sub-Basin RP-4 Install approximately 900 LF of 8-inch gravity sewer along Shamrock Road and 1,000 LF of 12-inch gravity sewer along Kelly Road to the proposed pump station MD-2 to convey sewer flow from sub-basins RP-3 and RP-4. Pump station MD-3 pumps through a 10-inch force main which discharges to a 12-inch gravity sewer conveying flow to the proposed pump station MD-2. Construct in conjunction with project NS-2B “Pump Station MD-2”. NS-2H – Sewer Collection – Sub-Basin RP-5 Approximately 4,500 LF of 8-inch gravity sewers would be installed along 18th Street, Bertha Avenue, and Rocky Point Road to the 8-inch gravity sewer along Marine Drive that would be installed in project NS-1B “Sewer Collection – Sub-Basin MD-2”. NS-3 – SR 304 Area A portion of the SR 304 service area is currently sewered and referred to as Sewer District 1. This project would expand sewer service to the remainder of the SR 304 service area utilizing the existing 12-inch gravity sewer main parallel to SR 3. Approximately 9,420 LF of 8-inch gravity sewer would be installed along Sherman Heights Road, Kent Avenue, and Viking Street to extend sewer service. Grinder pumps and low-pressure sewer mains could be implemented where gravity conveyance is not possible. NS-4 – West Hills – Ostrich Bay Extension The West Hills service area is located in the West Bremerton UGA just west of KCSD No. 1 between Dyes and Sinclair Inlet. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 165 NS-4A – Ostrich Bay Extension The Ostrich Bay Extension project would extend sewer service to an area within West Hills between Harlow Drive and Werner Road and would eliminate failing septic systems to meet TMDL compliance. This project would allow for sewer conveyance, as described in the West Hills service area plan, by installing approximately 2,900 LF of 18-inch gravity sewer along Harlow Drive from Price Road to Sunnyhill Road and 5,800 LF of 8-inch gravity sewer south of Harlow Drive along Sunnyhill Road, Ida Street, and Broad Street. NS-4B – North Extension This project would allow for sewer conveyance, as described in the West Hills service area plan, by installing approximately 3,350 LF of 8-inch sewer along Price Road to connect to the existing sewer main on 6th Street. NS-5 – Trenton The Trenton service area is within the East Bremerton UGA. The improvements described in the plan have been sub-divided into nine projects. NS-5A – Pump Station TA-1 Construct pump station TA-1 at the northern end of Bahia Vista Drive to convey sewer flow from sub-basin TRT-2 to Sylvan Way and Olympus Drive via approximately 6,400 LF of 6- inch force main. A preliminary estimate of the pump station capacity is 350 gpm at 500-feet of TDH based on projected flows in the sub-basins. An estimated 1,350-gallon wet well volume would be needed. NS-5B – Pump Station TA-2 Construct pump station TA-2 in the vicinity of Helm Street and Trenton Avenue to convey sewer flow from sub-basin TRT-4, 5, and 6. A preliminary estimate of the pump station capacity is 1,350 gpm at 210-feet of TDH based on the projected flows in the sub-basins. An estimated 5,000-gallon wet well volume would be needed. Install approximately 3,900 LF of 10-inch force main along Sheridan Road to discharge into the Cherry Avenue Basin in the vicinity of Schley Boulevard and Sheridan Road. Install a new gravity sewer along Sheridan Avenue, Cherry Avenue, Callahan Drive, and Wheaton Way with approximately 4,800 LF of 18-inch gravity main to provide conveyance for flows from TA-2 through the Cherry Avenue Basin to the East Bremerton beach main. NS-5C – Pump Station TA-3 Construct pump station TA-3 along Enetai Beach Drive to convey sewer flow from sub-basin TRT-1. A preliminary estimate of the pump station capacity is 900 gpm at 230-feet of TDH based on the projected flows in the sub-basins. An estimated 3,300-gallon wet well volume would be needed. Install approximately 3,900 LF of 8-inch force main along Enetai Beach Road and Holman Street to convey flow to Perry Avenue. NS-5D – Pump Station TA-4 City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 166 Construct pump station TA-4 in the vicinity of Forest Drive and Ivy Road to convey sewer flow from sub-basin TRT-7. A preliminary estimate of the pump station capacity is 350 gpm at 35-feet of TDH based on the projected flows in the sub-basins. An estimated 500-gallon wet well volume would be needed. Install approximately 700 LF of 4-inch force main along Ivy Road to convey flow to a new gravity main on Olympus Drive. NS-5E – Sewer Collection – Sub-Basin TRT-1 Install approximately 4,200 LF of 8-inch gravity sewer from 30th Street along Enetai Beach Drive to proposed pump station TA-3 and along Holman from Trenton Avenue to Enetai Beach Road. Construct in conjunction with project NS-5C “Pump Station TA-3”. NS-5F – Sewer Collection – Sub-Basin TRT-2 Install approximately 8,200 LF of 8-inch gravity sewer in sub-basin TRT-2 along 30th Street, Ridgeview Drive, and Bahia Vista Drive to convey flow to proposed pump station TA-1. Construct in conjunction with project NS-5A “Pump Station TA-1”. NS-5G – Sewer Collection – Sub-Basin TRT-4 Install approximately 4,400 LF of 8-inch gravity sewer along 30th Street from Hillside Drive to Trenton Avenue and between Trenton Avenue and Perry Avenue from Franklin Street to Helms Street. Install approximately 3,400 LF of 10-inch gravity sewer along Trenton Avenue from Sylvan Way to the proposed pump station TA-2. Construct in conjunction with project NS-5B “Pump Station TA-2”. NS-5H – Sewer Collection – Sub-Basin TRT-6 Install approximately 5,400 LF of 8-inch gravity sewer along Forest Drive from Ivy Road to Warner Street and along Olympus Drive from Ivy Road to Warner Street. Install approximately 4,500 LF of 10-inch gravity sewer along Perry Avenue from Sylvan Way to TA-2. NS-5I – Sewer Collection – Sub-Basin TRT-7 Install approximately 3,900 LF of 8-inch gravity sewer along Olympus Drive and Clemens Street to Forest Drive and along Forest Drive from Riddell Road to Ivy Road and connect to TA-4. Construct in conjunction with project NS-5D “Pump Station TA-4”. NS-5J – Sewer Collection – Sub-Basin TRT-8 Install approximately 4,500 LF of 8-inch gravity sewer along Windermere Drive, Clemens Street, and Ivy Road to convey flow into the existing sewer collection system west of Petersville Road and along Olympus Drive to convey flow to a new gravity sewer along Sylvan Way. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 167 NS-6 – Tracyton The Tracyton service area is within the East Bremerton UGA. The improvements described in the plan have been sub-divided into four projects. NS-6A – Pump Station TB-1 Construct pump station TB-1 in the vicinity of Riddell Road and Naomi Avenue to convey sewer flow from sub-basins TRC-3 and TRC-4. TRC-4 is a low-pressure sewer area that would utilize grinder pumps to convey flow into the proposed pump station TB-1. Install approximately 1,400 LF of 6-inch force main along Riddell Road from Naomi Avenue to Tracyton Beach Road and connect to a proposed 10-inch gravity sewer as part of project NS-6D “Sewer Collection- Sub-Basin TRC-2”. A preliminary estimate of the pump station capacity is 350 gpm at 130-feet of TDH based on the projected flows in the sub-basins. An estimated 1,350-gallon wet well volume would be needed. NS-6B – Pump Station TB-2 Construct pump station TB-2 along Tracyton Beach Road to convey sewer flow from sub- basinsTRC-2, 3 and 4. A preliminary estimate of the pump station capacity would be 700 gpm at 95-feet of TDH based on the projected flows in the sub-basins. An estimated 2,650 gallons wet well volume would be needed. Install approximately 1,200 LF of 8-inch force main from the proposed pump station to the existing 8-inch ductile iron pressure gravity main on Tracyton Beach Road that would be converted into a force main. The additional flows from TB-2 are projected to exceed the capacity of pump station EB-6 and pumping upgrades to the pump station may be considered if and when needed. NS-6C – Tracyton Beach Road Main Conversion The existing 8-inch ductile iron main along Tracyton Beach Road would be converted to a force main for the TB-2 pump station. Gravity connections to the existing main would be disconnected. A small package pump station would be installed to convey flow from services along Sulphur Springs Lane to pump station TB-2 and from services north of Sheridan Road to EB-6. Grinder pump stations for private properties may also be installed once the existing sewer main is converted to a force main. NS-6D – Sewer Collection – Sub-Basin TRC-2 Install approximately 3,100 LF of 10-inch gravity sewer along Tracyton Beach Road from Riddell Road to the proposed pump station TB-2 (project NS-6B “Pump Station TB-2”). Install approximately 5,200 LF of 8-inch gravity sewer along Riddell Road from Pine Road to Tracyton Beach Road and along Essex Road to Tracyton Beach Road. This project would extend gravity sewer to sub-basin TRC-2. NS-6E – Sewer Collection – Sub-Basin TRC-4 City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 168 Approximately 1,900 LF of 8-inch gravity sewer would be installed along Pinecone Drive to extend gravity sewer to a residential area that is not currently sewered. NS-7 – Tracyton Beach The Tracyton Beach service area is within the East Bremerton UGA. Sewer service would be extended to the remaining unsewered portion of the service area by installing approximately 1,200 LF of 8-inch gravity sewer along Alta Drive. NS-8 – Port Blakely Connection A proposed development in the Port Blakely service area would require additional sewer conveyance facilities to provide sewer service. A pump station within the development and force main would be installed to convey flow south of Kitsap Lake to KL-2. The capacity of the Kitsap Lake main is limited in capacity and pumping flow directly to KL-2 would avoid upgrades to KL- 3, KL-4, and the lake main. This project would be developer funded. No cost estimate is developed at this time because there is no defined plan for development at the property. This project is a placeholder. Figure 8-1 below shows the opinion of probable project cost for the NS projects described above. As previously mentioned, NS project funding is anticipated from sources other than funding or loans serviced by the City, and subsequently the below costs have no impact on the CIP funding analysis described in Section 8.4. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 169 Figure 8-1: New Service Area Improvements City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 170 Figure 8-2: Collection System Improvement Projects City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 171 8.3 Project Prioritization The risk scores developed as described in Chapter 4 of this WWCP update were leveraged in part to guide the prioritization of recommended improvements. The correlation between developed risk scores and identified areas for improvement can be seen in Figure 8-3. Some program-based recommendations are apparent through the entire collection system and are not assigned a specific asset area, including C11-C13, and M1-M7. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 172 Figure 8-3: System Risk Evaluation and Identified CIP Improvements 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 Functional Risk ScoreCoF x BV x LoFT1 T2, T8, T9, T15 T4 T7 T3, T19, M1 T5 T6 T10,T11 T12 T13 T14,T16, T17 T18 T20 C1, C2 C3, C4, C6, C10 C5 C7,C8, C9 C13 City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 173 8.4 CIP Development and Cost Estimates The 20-year CIP schedule summary shown in Figure 8-4 below was developed to address infrastructure needs to meet growth, environmental regulations, and improvements in existing operations and reliability. Costs for each project are based on engineering estimates and actual costs from similar engineering and construction work. Costs include a construction contingency of 30% as well as allowances for engineering, construction management, owner’s administration (where applicable), permitting, startup, taxes, administrative fees, and contractor overhead & profit. Estimated costs are in 2024 dollars and based on Engineering News Record (ENR) material and building cost indexes. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 174 Figure 8-4: 20-Year CIP Schedule City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 175 8.5 Financial Plan This section was prepared by FCS to provide a financial program that allows the City of Bremerton wastewater utility to remain financially viable during the planning period. This financial viability analysis considers the historical financial condition, current and identified future financial and policy obligations, operation and maintenance needs, and the financial impacts of the capital projects identified in this Wastewater Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, this chapter provides a review of the wastewater utility’s current rate structure with respect to rate adequacy and customer affordability. 8.5.1 Past Financial Performance This section includes a historical summary of financial performance as reported by the City, including fund resources and uses arising from cash transactions. 8.5.1.1 Comparative Financial Statements The City legally owns and operates a wastewater utility. Transactions shows a summary of wastewater fund resources and uses arising from cash transactions for the 6-year period of 2017 through 2022. The 2023 and 2024 financial statements were not available at the time the chapter was developed. Table 8-2 shows a summary of assets and liabilities, with the difference between the two reported as “net position”. Increases and decreases in net position are useful indicators of the financial position of the City’s utility. Noteworthy findings and trends for the historical performance and condition of the City’s wastewater utility are then discussed. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 176 Table 8-1: Summary of Historical Fund Resources and Uses Arising from Cash Transactions 8.5.1.2 Table 8-1 Findings and Trends • The City’s sewer charges for services increased from $14.9M in 2017 to $17.9M in 2022. The average annual increase was approximately 3.8 percent per year, with a total increase of 20.4 percent from 2017 to 2022. Charges for service increased each year, except for 2019 where revenues fell by 1.8 percent. Operating expenditures increased by $3.4M across the six years with an average annual increase of 4.7 percent. Expenditures increased each year except for 2020 where expenses fell by 0.6 percent. While the growth in operating expenses has outpaced growth in operating revenues, the operating income has been positive in five of the last six years, with 2019 being the exception, where the utility posted an operating loss of $11,000. • The O&M coverage ratio (total operating revenues divided by total operating expenses) was 112.6 percent in 2017. With relatively stable revenues and expenses, this metric has maintained its stability, ending 2022 at 107.8 percent. A ratio of 100.0 percent or greater shows that operating revenue will successfully cover operating expenses, and OPERATING REVENUES Charges for Services 14,879,928$ 15,544,747$ 15,266,217$ 15,963,782$ 16,454,900$ 17,913,394$ Other Operating Revenues 17,636 17,079 15,829 6,889 - 29,088 Total Operating Revenues 14,897,564$ 15,561,826$ 15,282,046$ 15,970,671$ 16,454,900$ 17,942,482$ OPERATING EXPENSES Operations and Maintenance 9,306,135$ 10,743,147$ 10,761,240$ 10,078,565$ 10,783,182$ 11,629,604$ Customer Service and Marketing 160,259 175,447 206,800 198,885 301,952 390,093 General Administration 73,393 138,470 198,985 726,266 157,941 218,661 Depreciation and Amortization 3,694,103 3,626,201 4,125,945 4,202,688 4,376,318 4,407,876 Total Operating Expenses 13,233,890$ 14,683,265$ 15,292,970$ 15,206,404$ 15,619,393$ 16,646,234$ Operating Income (Loss)1,663,674$ 878,561$ (10,924)$ 764,267$ 835,507$ 1,296,248$ NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES) Interest and Investment Revenue 92,723$ 231,648$ 241,156$ 54,704$ 3,167$ (49,917)$ Interest Expense (514,674) (405,010) (353,208) (310,470) (261,045) (305,640) Gain (loss) on Capital Asset Disposal (147,218) (17,880) (12,838) (15,273) - - Other Nonoperating Revenue/Expense 141,656 89,990 365,312 78,133 102,543 5,148 Total Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses)(427,513)$ (101,252)$ 240,422$ (192,906)$ (155,335)$ (350,409)$ Income (Loss) Before Contributions and Transfers 1,236,161$ 777,309$ 229,498$ 571,361$ 680,172$ 945,839$ Capital Contributions 1,614,984 2,144,398 95,062 1,454,741 2,000,664 1,328,946 Transfers From Other Funds - 114,543 - - - - Change In Net Position 2,851,145$ 3,036,250$ 324,560$ 2,026,102$ 2,680,836$ 2,274,785$ Total Net Position - Beginning 87,578,789 90,429,934 93,466,184 93,790,745 97,640,845 100,488,922 Prior Period Adjustment - - - 1,824,000 167,242 - Total Net Position - Ending 90,429,934$ 93,466,184$ 93,790,744$ 97,640,847$ 100,488,923$ 102,763,707$ O&M Coverage Ratio 112.6%106.0%99.9%105.0%105.3%107.8% Net Operating Income as a % of Operating Revenue 11.2%5.6%-0.1%4.8%5.1%7.2% Debt Service Coverage Ratio 2.30 2.09 1.92 2.79 4.58 3.98 Note: Table may include minor differences from statements due to rounding. 2022Description20172018201920202021 City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 177 the utility has remained above this ratio for 5 of the last 6 years. With 2019 being the exception when the ratio decreased to 99.9 percent. • Net operating income as a percentage of operating revenue was 11.2 percent in 2017, decreasing to negative 0.1 percent in 2019, before recovering back to 7.2 percent by 2022. Similar to the O&M coverage ratio, these trends show how successfully operating revenue actually covered operating expenses, with higher positive numbers being the best and negative numbers showing a need for improvement. In addition, these trends demonstrate the ability of the utility to invest in capital, whether through direct cash transfers or the issuance and servicing of debt. • The debt service coverage ratio measures the amount of cash flow available to meet principal and interest payments. Typically, revenue bond debt service coverage requires a minimum factor of 1.25 during the life of the loans. This ratio is calculated by dividing cash or net operating income (operating revenues less operating expenses) by annual revenue bond debt service. The City’s annual reports did not separate the debt service between revenue bond debt and junior lien debt; therefore, the coverage ratios were calculated on total debt, which is a more conservative comparison. The total debt service coverage ratio for all outstanding debt ended 2017 at 2.3, decreased to 1.9 in 2019 as operating revenues decreased and operating expenses increased before rebuilding to 4.0 in 2022. The fact that this ratio has sustained levels higher than the minimum target of 1.25 indicates a stable capacity for new debt and will likely result in favorable terms when entering the bond market. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 178 Table 8-2: Summary of Historical Comparative Statements of Net Position ASSETS AND DEFERRED OUTFLOWS Current Assets: Cash and Cash Equivalents 5,609,732$ 4,798,123$ 2,981,649$ 3,360,451$ 2,912,178$ 4,939,491$ Restricted Cash 641,128 678,214 307,478 384,329 378,416 131,966 Investments 6,566,614 6,551,413 3,126,643 2,528,042 1,392,100 3,555,558 Restricted Investments 898,543 886,389 799,332 683,720 554,332 659,093 External Receivables 2,730,833 2,613,478 2,745,349 2,694,635 2,238,938 2,162,103 Interest Receivables 19,722 23,821 17,072 12,589 4,856 19,108 Due From Other Funds 430,916 53,320 318,439 2,982,127 5,621,471 3,510,952 Inventories 582,295 577,021 577,710 587,758 629,782 662,540 Total Current Assets 17,479,783$ 16,181,779$ 10,873,672$ 13,233,651$ 13,732,073$ 15,640,811$ Noncurrent Assets: Net Pension Asset -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,736,303$ 658,724$ Capital Assets Not Being Depreciated - - 8,466,819 3,150,523 7,500,113 11,379,780 Capital Assets Net of Depreciation 94,061,888 96,522,265 92,126,926 96,065,525 93,213,617 92,704,550 Total Noncurrent Assets 94,061,888$ 96,522,265$ 100,593,745$ 99,216,048$ 102,450,033$ 104,743,054$ Total Assets 111,541,671$ 112,704,044$ 111,467,417$ 112,449,699$ 116,182,106$ 120,383,865$ Deferred Outflows of Resources 168,046$ 190,330$ 253,900$ 261,796$ 232,171$ 693,638$ Total Assets and Deferred Outflows 111,709,717$ 112,894,374$ 111,721,317$ 112,711,495$ 116,414,277$ 121,077,503$ LIABILITIES AND DEFERRED INFLOWS Current Liabilities: Accounts/Contract Payable 280,677$ 930,317$ 1,483,081$ 616,828$ 468,842$ 483,508$ Due to Other Funds 348,620 446,195 514,601 574,100 837,923 206,017 Employee Wages Payable 195,547 220,543 129,463 121,678 128,376 118,646 Other Accrued Liabilities 72,078 61,631 129,111 111,026 90,233 147,350 Current Portion of Long-Term Debt 2,327,106 2,156,563 2,142,795 1,778,608 1,137,512 1,434,378 Custodial Accounts - 30,292 - 36,235 34,310 34,310 Other Current Liabilities - - 58,170 5,611 13,990 55,270 Total Current Liabilities 3,224,028$ 3,845,541$ 4,457,221$ 3,244,086$ 2,711,186$ 2,479,479$ Noncurrent Liabilities: Bonds, Notes and Loans Payable 16,614,318$ 14,419,022$ 12,236,698$ 10,791,514$ 11,150,085$ 14,710,616$ Net Pension Liability 1,071,868 585,488 659,063 715,402 173,138 367,851 Compensated Absences 155,423 150,187 114,421 101,889 86,450 76,376 Total Noncurrent Liabilities 17,841,609$ 15,154,697$ 13,010,182$ 11,608,805$ 11,409,673$ 15,163,622$ Total Liabilities 21,065,637$ 19,000,238$ 17,467,403$ 14,852,891$ 14,120,859$ 17,643,101$ Deferred Inflows of Resources 214,146$ 427,952$ 463,170$ 217,759$ 1,804,496$ 670,695$ Total Liabilities and Deferred Inflows 21,279,783$ 19,428,190$ 17,930,573$ 15,070,650$ 15,925,355$ 18,313,796$ NET POSITION Net Investment in Capital Assets 75,847,117$ 79,946,680$ 86,214,252$ 86,645,925$ 88,426,133$ 87,930,545$ Restricted for Capital Assets 726,654 - - - - - Restricted for Debt Service 1,541,784 1,476,711 1,507,371 1,068,049 932,748 791,059 Restricted for Pension - - - - 316,955 697,172 Unrestricted 12,314,379 12,042,793 6,069,122 9,926,872 10,813,086 13,344,931 Total Net Position 90,429,934$ 93,466,184$ 93,790,745$ 97,640,846$ 100,488,922$ 102,763,707$ Current Ratio 5.42 4.21 2.44 4.08 5.06 6.31 Debt to Net Position Ratio 0.21 0.18 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.16 Debt to Noncurrent Capital Asset Ratio 0.20 0.17 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.16 Note: Table may include minor differences from statements due to rounding. 2022Description20172018201920202021 City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 179 8.5.1.3 Table 8-2 Findings and Trends • The current ratio is calculated by dividing unrestricted current assets by current liabilities and measures an entity’s ability to pay short-term obligations. This ratio ranges from a low of 2.4 in 2019 to a high of 6.3 in 2022. Anything above 2.0 for this liquidity ratio is good. • The Debt to Net Position Ratio compares total debt to total net position, which is the difference between total assets and liabilities. This ratio ranged from a high of 0.21 or 21 percent in 2017 to a low of 0.12 or 12 percent in 2021. For utilities, a ratio of 40 to 60 percent helps to moderate rate impacts by spreading costs over a longer period of time. Based on these results, the City may consider utilizing debt service for future capital investments, especially if it benefits system expansion. At 40 to 60 percent the wastewater utility’s total borrowing would range between $38 million to $59 million based on historical metrics. • The Debt to Noncurrent Capital Asset Ratio compares total debt to noncurrent capital assets, which are also known as property, plant and equipment. This ratio begins at 0.20 or 20 percent debt to 80 percent noncurrent assets in 2017. Noncurrent capital assets increase by $10.0 million throughout the six-year history while debt decreased by $1.9 million, and the ratio decreased to 16 percent by 2022. Similar to the debt to net position ratio, these results indicate the utility has ample borrowing capacity and may consider utilizing debt service for future capital investments, especially if it benefits system expansion. A ratio of 40 percent debt to 60 percent equity or below is a general industry target. At 40 percent the wastewater utility’s total borrowing would be approximately $38 million based on historical metrics. 8.5.2 Financial Plan The wastewater utility is responsible for generating sufficient revenue to meet all of its costs. The primary source of funding is derived from ongoing monthly service charges, with additional revenue coming from miscellaneous non-rate revenues and interest earnings. The City controls the level of user charges and, with City Council approval, can adjust user charges as needed to meet financial objectives. The financial plan can only confirm financial feasibility if it considers the total system costs of providing wastewater services, both operating and capital. To meet these objectives, the following elements have been completed. 1. Capital Funding Plan. Identifies the total capital improvement plan (CIP) obligations of the planning period. The plan defines a strategy for funding the CIP, including an analysis of available resources from rate revenues, existing reserves, connection charge revenues, debt financing, and any special resources that may be readily available (e.g., grants, developer contributions, etc.). The capital funding plan impacts the financial plan through the use of debt financing (resulting in annual debt service) and the assumed rate revenue made available for capital funding. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 180 2. Financial Forecast. Identifies future annual non-capital costs associated with the operation, maintenance, and administration of the wastewater system. Included in the financial plan is a reserve analysis that forecasts cash flow and fund balance activity, along with testing for satisfaction of actual or recommended minimum fund balance policies. The financial plan ultimately evaluates the sufficiency of utility revenues in meeting all obligations, including cash uses such as operating expenses, debt service, capital outlays, and reserve contributions, as well as any coverage requirements associated with long-term debt. The plan also identifies the future adjustments required to fully fund all utility obligations in the planning period. 8.5.2.1 Capital Funding Plan To properly evaluate future capital funding needs, capital costs were escalated by 4.00 percent annually to the year of planned spending. The CIP developed for this WWCP identifies $178.1M in escalated project costs over the 2024 budget year and 10-year planning horizon from 2025- 2034. The budget year and 20-year period, through 2044, includes $429.3M in total escalated project costs. A summary of the 2024 budget year and 10-year and 20-year CIPs are shown in Table 8-3. As shown, each year has varied capital cost obligations depending on construction schedules and infrastructure planning needs. Table 8-3: Budget and 10-Year and 20-Year CIPs Table 8-4Error! Reference source not found. provides more detail for the 2024 budget year and 10-year CIP. 2024 7,246,253$ 7,246,253$ 2025 21,361,000 22,215,440 2026 15,982,000 17,286,131 2027 8,210,000 9,235,133 2028 6,100,000 7,136,137 2029 2,700,000 3,284,963 2030 4,400,000 5,567,404 2031 15,951,000 20,990,428 2032 18,975,000 25,968,598 2033 16,474,000 23,447,639 2034 24,122,000 35,706,453 Total 141,521,253$ 178,084,578$ 2035-2044 144,658,000 251,171,346 Total 286,179,253$ 429,255,925$ Year 2024 $Escalated $ City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 181 Table 8-4: Budget Year and 10-Year CIP Centrifuge Addition 1,514,240$ Boiler System Reliability Improvements 2,680,205 Primary Clarifier Recycle Pumps Replacement 626,384 Headworks Screen Improvements 2,710,922 Odor Control Stack Reinstallation 406,640 Primary Effluent Line Rehabilitation 1,081,600 Aeration Basin Supply Piping Replacement and Improvements for Selector 446,701 New Aeration Basins 5,693,247 27,858,197 Grit System Upgrades 4,295,669 Outfall Inspection 260,000 Mixing Study 260,000 WWTP Outfall Improvements - New Parallel Pipe to MH-4 2,865,158 WWTP Outfall Improvements - New Outfall 9,178,624 9,545,769 9,926,177 Arc Flash Testing 885,723 South PSIC Wastewater Improvements 520,000 1,189,760 Crosstown Pipeline Improvements - Phase I 8,553,557 8,895,699 Crosstown Pipeline Improvements - Phase II 4,789,992 4,981,591 Oyster Bay Sewer Basin Upgrades 104,000 324,480 3,487,078 2,339,717 Central Bremerton Force Main Improvement 800,000 7,488,000 EB Beach Main Replacement (OF4 to OF3)364,996 1,771,447 EB-2 Seawall 216,320 337,459 233,972 Eastside Treatment Plant - UV Disinfection Improvements 1,040,000 3,244,800 WWTP Facility Plan 520,000 PE Pump Room Controls Relocation/Improvements 1,754,788 Decommission Beach Sewer in Manette (OF-4 to EB-2)500,000 4,336,800 1,127,027 Force Main Corrosion Testing 200,000 208,000 Machinary/Equipment - Utility Operations Manager 50,000 52,000 54,080 56,243 58,493 60,833 63,266 Sewer Main Replacement and Rehab Program 340,000 260,000 270,400 281,216 292,465 304,163 316,330 328,983 342,142 355,828 370,061 Sewer Main Replacement with Pavement Reconstruction 210,000 312,000 324,480 337,459 350,958 364,996 379,596 394,780 410,571 426,994 444,073 Tracyton Beach Main Conversion 500,000 4,576,000 Pump Station SCADA and Controls Upgrade 400,000 312,000 324,480 337,459 350,958 364,996 379,596 394,780 410,571 426,994 444,073 Nutrient General Permit Improvements Program 150,000 104,000 108,160 112,486 116,986 121,665 Installation of Emergency Generator Program 100,000 104,000 108,160 112,486 116,986 121,665 126,532 Pump Station Improvements Program 300,000 312,000 324,480 337,459 350,958 364,996 379,596 394,780 410,571 426,994 444,073 I&I Reduction Program 260,000 270,400 281,216 292,465 304,163 316,330 328,983 342,142 355,828 370,061 CIPP Rehabilitation Program 900,000 780,000 811,200 843,648 877,394 912,490 948,989 789,559 821,141 853,987 888,147 Collection System Capacity Improvements 592,098 Salinity Impact Study 45,330 Wastewater Comp Plan 635,910 Eastside Treatment Plant UV Replacement 500,000 Non-Potable Pump Replacements 106,531 West Side Treatment Plant Upgrade 730,644 PSIC Sewer Design & Construction 25,000 E11th Street and Perry Avenue Reconstruction 247,887 Quincy Square on 4th Street 75,000 6th Street Phase III 195,275 Washington Avenue Roundabout 164,706 View Ridge Elementary (Almira SRTS) Phase 1 19,970 Naval Avenue Road Diet 50,000 Total Escalated 7,246,253$ 22,215,440$ 17,286,131$ 9,235,133$ 7,136,137$ 3,284,963$ 5,567,404$ 20,990,428$ 25,968,598$ 23,447,639$ 35,706,453$ 2034Year2024202520262027202820292030203120322033 City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 182 8.5.3 Available Funding Assistance and Financing Resources 8.5.3.1 City Resources Resources appropriate for funding capital needs include accumulated cash in the capital fund, rate revenues designated for capital spending purposes, developer contributions, and capital- related charges such as general facilities charges. The first two resources will be discussed in the Fiscal Policies section of the Financial Forecast. Capital-related charges are discussed below. 8.5.3.1.1 General Facilities Charges A connection charge such as the City’s general facilities charge (GFC) refers to a one-time charge imposed on new customers as a condition of connecting to the wastewater system. The purpose of the GFC is two-fold: 1) to promote equity between new and existing customers; and 2) to provide a source of revenue to fund capital projects necessary for meeting growth. This revenue can only be used to fund utility capital projects or to pay debt service incurred to finance those projects. In the absence of a connection charge, growth-related capital costs would be borne in large part by existing customers. In 2024, the City charged all new customers a GFC of $8,103 per meter capacity equivalent (MCE) and has adopted a charge of $8,411 for 2025. MCEs are defined by the American Water Works Association and represent the maximum safe operating flow capacity in gallons per minute, relative to the base meter size. 8.5.3.1.2 Local Facilities Charges While a connection charge is the manner in which new customers pay their share of system investment costs, local facilities charge funding is used to pay the costs of local facilities that connect each property to the system’s infrastructure. Local facilities funding is often overlooked in rate forecasting because it is funded upfront by either connecting customers and developers, or through an assessment to properties, but never from rates. A number of mechanisms can be considered toward funding local facilities. One of the following scenarios typically occurs: (a) the utility charges a connection fee based on the cost of the local facilities (under the same authority as the facilities assessment fee); (b) a developer funds an extension of the system to its development and turns those facilities over to the utility (contributed capital); or (c) a local assessment is set up called a Utility Local Improvement District (ULID/LID) or a Local Utility District (LUD), which collects tax revenue from benefited properties. A local facilities charge (LFC) is a variation of the connection charge. It is a city-imposed charge to recover the cost related to service extension to local properties. Often called a front-footage charge and imposed on the basis of footage of the main “fronting” a particular property, it is usually implemented as a reimbursement mechanism to a city for the cost of a local facility that directly serves a property. It is a form of a connection charge and thus can accumulate up to 10 years of interest. It typically applies in instances when no developer-installed facilities are needed through developer extension due to the prior existence of available mains already serving the developing property. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 183 The developer extension is a requirement that a developer install on-site and sometimes off-site improvements as a condition of extending service. These are in addition to the connection charge required and must be built to City standards. Part of the agreement between the City and the developer planning to extend service might include a latecomer agreement (also called reimbursement agreements), resulting in a latecomer charge to new connections for the developer extension. Latecomer charges are a variation of developer extensions, whereby new customers connecting to a developer-installed improvement make a payment to the City based on their share of the developer’s cost. The City passes this charge on to the developer who installed the facilities. As part of the developer extension process, this defines the allocation of costs and records latecomer obligations on the title of affected properties. No interest is allowed, and the reimbursement agreement cannot exceed 20 years in duration. ULID/LID is another mechanism for funding infrastructure that assesses benefited properties based on the special benefit received by the construction of specific facilities. Most often used for local facilities, some ULIDs also recover related general facilities costs. Substantial legal and procedural requirements can make this a relatively expensive process, and there are mechanisms by which a ULID can be rejected. 8.5.3.2 Outside Resources This section outlines various grant, loan, and bond opportunities available to the City through federal and state agencies to fund the CIP identified in the WWCP. 8.5.3.2.1 Grants and Low-Cost Loans Historically, federal and state grant programs were available to local utilities for capital funding assistance. However, these assistance programs have been mostly eliminated, substantially reduced in scope and amount, or replaced by loan programs. Remaining grant programs are generally lightly funded and heavily subscribed. Nonetheless, the benefit of low-interest loans makes the effort of applying worthwhile. The State of Washington’s Department of Commerce maintains a document currently entitled “Funding Programs for Drinking Water and Wastewater Projects; Updated 9-17-2024”, which contains details on government programs, eligibility requirements, and contact information, should the City wish to inquire about program offerings and eligibility requirements. 8.5.3.2.2 Bond Financing General Obligation Bonds – General obligation (G.O.) bonds are bonds secured by the full faith and credit of the issuing agency, committing all available tax and revenue resources to debt repayment. With this high level of commitment, G.O. bonds have relatively low interest rates and few financial restrictions. However, the authority to issue G.O. bonds is restricted in terms of the amount and use of the funds, as defined by the Washington constitution and statute. Specifically, the amount of debt that can be issued is linked to assessed valuation. The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 39.36.020 states: City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 184 (2)(a)(ii) Counties, cities, and towns are limited to an indebtedness amount not exceeding one- and one-half percent of the value of the taxable property in such counties, cities, or towns without the assent of three-fifths of the voters therein voting at an election held for that purpose. (b) In cases requiring such assent counties, cities, towns, and public hospital districts are limited to a total indebtedness of two and one-half percent of the value of the taxable property therein. While bonding capacity can limit the availability of G.O. bonds for utility purposes, these can sometimes play a valuable role in project financing. A utility rate savings may be realized through two avenues: the lower interest rate and related bond costs, and the extension of repayment obligation to all tax-paying properties (not just developed properties) through the authorization of an ad valorem property tax levy. Revenue Bonds – Revenue bonds are commonly used to fund utility capital improvements. The debt is secured by the revenues of the issuing utility. With this limited commitment, revenue bonds typically bear higher interest rates than G.O. bonds and require security conditions related to the maintenance of dedicated reserves (a bond reserve) and financial performance (added bond debt service coverage). The City agrees to satisfy these requirements by resolution as a condition of bond sale. Revenue bonds can be issued in Washington without a public vote. There is no bonding limit, except perhaps the practical limit of the utility’s ability to generate sufficient revenue to repay the debt and provide coverage. In some cases, poor credit might make issuing revenue bonds problematic. 8.5.3.2.3 Capital Financing Strategy An ideal capital financing strategy would include the use of grants and low-cost loans when debt issuance is required. However, these resources are very limited and competitive in nature and do not provide a reliable source of funding for planning purposes. It is recommended that the City pursue these funding avenues but assume revenue bond financing to meet the needs which can’t be met by available cash resources. The capital financing strategy developed to fund the CIP identified in this WWCP assumes the following funding resources: • Accumulated cash reserves, • Transfers of excess cash (over minimum balance targets) from the Operating Fund, • General facilities charge revenue, • Interest earned on Capital Fund balances, • Contributions in aid of construction such as grants and / or developer donations, • Low interest loan financing, and • Revenue bond financing. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 185 The cash resources described above are anticipated to fund 52.1 percent of the budget year and 10-year CIP and 57.4 percent of the budget year and 20-year CIP. The remaining funding is assumed to be from new debt obligations of $85.3M in the budget year and next 10-year planning period and an additional $97.5M between 2035-2043. Table 8-5 presents the budget year and 10-year and 20-year capital financing strategy. Table 8-5: Budget Year and 10-Year and 20-Year Capital Financing Strategy 8.5.4 Financial Forecast The financial forecast, or revenue requirement analysis, forecasts the amount of annual revenue that needs to be generated by user rates. The analysis incorporates operating revenues, O&M expenses, debt service payments, rate-funded capital needs, and any other identified revenues or expenses related to operations. The objective of the financial forecast is to evaluate the sufficiency of the current level of rates. In addition to annual operating costs, the revenue needs also include debt covenant requirements and specific fiscal policies and financial goals of the City. For this analysis, two revenue sufficiency tests have been developed to reflect the financial goals and constraints of the City: cash needs must be met; and debt coverage requirements must be realized. In order to operate successfully with respect to these goals, both tests of revenue sufficiency must be met. Cash Test – The cash flow test identifies all known cash requirements for the City in each year of the planning period. Typically, these include O&M expenses, debt service payments, rate- funded system reinvestment funding or directly funded capital outlays, and any additions to specified reserve balances. The total annual cash needs of the City are then compared to projected cash revenues using the current rate structure. Any projected revenue shortfalls are identified, and the rate increases necessary to make up the shortfalls are established. Coverage Test – The coverage test is based on a commitment made by the City when issuing revenue bonds and some other forms of long-term debt. For the purposes of this analysis, 2024 7,246,253$ 1,056,859$ 1,844,305$ 4,345,089$ 7,246,253$ 2025 22,215,440 1,208,518 9,986,620 7,804,000 3,216,302 22,215,440 2026 17,286,131 1,272,731 7,934,593 1,424,480 6,654,327 17,286,131 2027 9,235,133 1,340,355 3,504,000 3,487,078 903,700 9,235,133 2028 7,136,137 546,420 4,250,000 2,339,717 7,136,137 2029 3,284,963 534,963 2,750,000 3,284,963 2030 5,567,404 3,382,325 2,185,079 5,567,404 2031 20,990,428 1,648,744 8,553,557 10,000,000 788,127 20,990,428 2032 25,968,598 1,736,347 13,685,691 10,546,560 25,968,598 2033 23,447,639 1,828,605 4,981,591 16,637,442 23,447,639 2034 35,706,453 1,925,765 28,362,558 5,418,130 35,706,453 Total 178,084,578$ 16,481,634$ 30,269,518$ 42,276,114$ 55,000,000$ 34,057,312$ 178,084,578$ 2035-2044 251,171,346 26,163,226 114,690,325 97,500,000 12,817,795 251,171,346 Total 429,255,925$ 42,644,861$ 30,269,518$ 156,966,439$ 152,500,000$ 46,875,107$ 429,255,925$ Total FinancingCIACYearCapital (Escalated)GFC Revenue Low Interest Loans Revenue Bonds Cash / Reserves City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 186 revenue bond debt is assumed for any needed debt issuance starting in 2030, outside of the City’s internally planned low interest loan assumptions for 2024 through 2029. As a security condition of issuance, the City would be required per covenant to agree that the revenue bond debt would have a higher priority for payment (a senior lien) compared to most other expenditures; the only outlays with a higher lien are O&M expenses. Debt service coverage is expressed as a multiplier of the annual revenue bond debt service payment. For example, a 1.00 coverage factor would imply that no additional cushion is required. A 1.25 coverage factor means revenue must be sufficient to pay O&M expenses, annual revenue bond debt service payments, and an additional 25.0 percent of annual revenue bond debt service payments. The excess cash flow derived from the added coverage, if any, can be used for any purpose, including funding capital projects. Targeting a higher coverage factor can help the City achieve a better credit rating and provide lower interest rates for future debt issues. 8.5.4.1 Current Financial Structure The City maintains a fund structure and implements financial policies that target management of a financially viable and fiscally responsible wastewater system. 8.5.4.1.1 Fiscal Policies A summary of the key financial policies employed by the City, as well as those recommended and incorporated in the financial program, are discussed below. Operating Reserve – Operating reserves are designed to provide a liquidity cushion to ensure that adequate cash working capital will be maintained to deal with significant cash balance fluctuations, such as seasonal fluctuations in billings and receipts, unanticipated cash expenses, or lower than expected revenue collections. Like other types of reserves, operating reserves also serve another purpose: they help smooth rate increases over time. Target funding levels for an operating reserve are generally expressed as a certain number of days of O&M expenses, with the minimum requirement varying with the expected revenue volatility. Industry practice for utility operating reserves ranges from 30 days (8.0 percent) to 120 days (33.0 percent) of O&M expenses, with the lower end more appropriate for utilities with stable revenue streams and the higher end more appropriate for utilities with significant seasonal or consumption-based fluctuations. The City’s current goal is to maintain a minimum balance in the Operating Fund equal to 12 percent of O&M expenses (approximately 44 days). Capital Reserve – A capital contingency reserve is an amount of cash set aside in case of an emergency should a piece of equipment or a portion of the utility’s infrastructure fail unexpectedly. The reserve also could be used for other unanticipated capital needs, including capital project cost overruns. Industry practices range from maintaining a balance equal to 1.0 to 2.0 percent of fixed assets, an amount equal to a 5-year rolling average of CIP costs, or an amount determined sufficient to fund equipment failure (other than catastrophic failure). The final target level should balance industry practices with the risk level of the City. The City does not have a formal policy for a Capital Reserve target. Referencing industry practices in conjunction with historic City practice, this analysis utilized a target of 2.0 percent of fixed assets. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 187 System Reinvestment – System reinvestment funding promotes system integrity through ongoing repair and replacement of system infrastructure. Ideally, a detailed asset management plan would guide the level of rate funded system reinvestment, however, in absence of this level of effort, annual depreciation expense is commonly used as a measure of the decline in asset value associated with routine use of the system. Particularly for utilities that do not already have an explicit system reinvestment policy in place, implementing a funding level based on full depreciation expense could significantly impact rates. An alternative benchmark is annual depreciation expense net of debt principal payments on outstanding debt. This approach recognizes that customers are still paying for certain assets through the debt component of their rate and intends to avoid simultaneously charging customers for an asset and its future replacement. The specific benchmark used to set system reinvestment funding targets is a matter of policy that must balance various objectives, including managing rate impacts, keeping long-term costs down, and promoting “generational equity” (i.e., not excessively burdening current customers with paying for facilities that will serve a larger group of customers in the future). The City does not currently have a policy in place for system reinvestment funding. No dedicated system reinvestment funding is assumed in this financial plan; however, current practice is to transfer cash above the minimum operating target balance to the capital fund as cash-funded capital. On average, the study assumed an annual transfer of approximately $2.7 million per year within the budget and 10-year planning period. Debt Management – It is prudent to consider policies related to debt management as part of a broader utility financial policy structure. Debt management policies should be evaluated and formalized, including the level of acceptable outstanding debt, debt repayment, bond coverage, and total debt coverage targets. The City has two outstanding wastewater revenue bonds, four Public Works Trust fund loans, and fifteen other low interest loans. The City’s existing bond covenants require a 1.25 debt coverage target. Because the City intends to continue using revenue bonds as a significant source of capital funding, the City’s policy and this financial plan targets coverage at a minimum of 1.50. Targeting a higher than required coverage factor helps the City maintain its credit rating and may provide lower interest. 8.5.4.1.2 Financial Forecast The financial forecast is primarily based upon the City’s budgets for 2024, 2025 and 2026 and takes into consideration other key factors and assumptions needed to develop a complete portrait of the City’s annual wastewater utility financial obligations. The following is a list of the key revenue and expense factors and assumptions used to develop the financial forecast. • Growth – Rate revenue is escalated utilizing a 1.3 percent average annual growth rate developed based on the forecasted sewer flow projections identified in this WWCP. • Revenue – The City has two general revenue sources: 1) wastewater service charges (rate revenue); and 2) miscellaneous (non-rate) revenue. In the event of a forecasted annual shortfall, rate revenue can be increased to meet the annual revenue requirement. For the purpose of this financial forecast, rate revenues are tied to budget for 2024 City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 188 through 2026 and are forecasted to increase with growth starting in 2027. Non-rate revenues are forecast to increase with general cost inflation or growth with the exception of interest earnings which are calculated based on projected balances and assumed investment rates. • General Facilities Charges Revenue – based on existing City practice, the general facilities charges are escalated annually by an accredited construction cost inflation index. The analysis assumes the 2025 adopted charges of $8,411 per meter capacity equivalent are increased by 4.0 percent per year and are applied to the projected new meter capacity equivalent connections to forecast the future revenue. General facilities charge revenues are forecast to generate an average of $1.5 million annually from 2024 through 2034. This equates to an average of 150 new meter capacity equivalents per year. General facilities charge revenue is directed towards annual capital needs. • Expenses – O&M expense projections are based on the City’s budgets through 2026 with general cost inflation increases of 3.5 percent, labor cost inflation of 3.0 percent and benefit cost inflation increases of 10.0 percent per year thereafter. • Taxes – Budget figures were used for taxes in 2024 through 2026. Future taxes are calculated based on forecasted revenues and prevailing tax rates. Taxes are assessed utilizing a 3.85 percent state excise tax rate applicable to the collection share of rate revenue, approximately 17.0 percent, and 1.75 percent business and occupation tax rate applicable to the treatment and transmission share of rate revenue, approximately 87.0 percent, non-rate revenues and general facilities charges revenues. In addition, the City assesses a utility tax on the wastewater rate and non-rate revenues of 20.0 percent. • Existing Debt – The wastewater utility has twenty-one (21) outstanding debt issues: two (2) revenue bonds, four (4) Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF) loans and fifteen (15) other low interest loans. Total annual existing debt service obligations begin 2024 at $1.7 million, decreasing to $1.0 million by 2034 as sixteen (16) of the twenty-one (21) loans are fully repaid. • Future Debt – The capital financial strategy developed for this WWCP forecasts the need for $89.2M in new debt proceeds in eleven (11) separate instances throughout the budget year and 10-year forecast period. Based on discussion with the City, the analysis assumes nine (9) of the new debt issuances will utilize low interest loan financing, such as, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program, or equivalent. The remaining debt issuances will be through revenue bond financing. Annual debt service obligations are forecasted to begin in 2024 at $22,100, increasing to $6.7 million by 2034. • Transfers to Capital - Operating fund balance above the minimum requirement is assumed to be available to fund capital projects and projected to be transferred to the Capital Fund each year, if needed. In total, the utility is forecast to fund $30.1 million in capital projects from excess operating fund cash within the budget year and 10-year forecast period. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 189 Although the financial plan is completed through 2044, the rate strategy focuses on the shorter- term planning period of 2024 through 2034. It is recommended that the City revisit the proposed rates every 3 to 4 years to ensure that the rate projections developed remain adequate. Any significant changes should be incorporated into the financial plan and future rates should be adjusted as needed. Table 8-6, following, summarizes the annual revenue requirements based on the forecast of revenues, expenditures, fund balances, and fiscal policies. Table 8-6: Budget Year and 10-Year Financial Forecast The financial forecast indicates that at existing rate levels the utility will become deficient in 2027 by $601,000 as growth in expenses outpaces growth in revenues and new debt is issues to meet capital needs. The deficiency is projected to increase up to $8.7 million by 2034 as the utility begins to incur additional new debt to help fund the capital improvement plan contained in this WWCP and keep up with inflationary pressures from operating and maintenance expenses. The City has adopted a 3.50 percent rate increase for 2025 and is anticipating additional 3.50 percent annual rate increases through 2029. In order to address the remaining projected deficiencies, an annual increase of 8.4 percent is projected from 2030 through 2034. The higher increases starting in 2030 may be conservative utilizing revenue bond financing, assuming no low interest loans will be available. Historically, the City has been successful in acquiring a combination of grants and low interest loans and should revisit the rate strategy as better information becomes available. 8.5.4.1.1 City Funds and Reserves Table 8-7 shows a summary of the projected Operating Fund and Capital Fund ending balances through 2034 based on the rate forecasts presented above. The Operating Fund is maintained at a minimum of 12 percent, or 44 days, of O&M expenses, and the Capital Fund balance Revenues Rate Revenues Under Existing Rates 19,500,000$ 19,000,000$ 19,000,000$ 19,239,935$ 19,482,900$ 19,728,933$ 19,978,073$ 20,230,359$ 20,485,831$ 20,744,529$ 21,006,494$ Non-Rate Revenues 487,459 388,000 360,000 288,236 274,433 260,760 246,563 211,211 225,284 230,663 276,136 Total Revenues 19,987,459$ 19,388,000$ 19,360,000$ 19,528,171$ 19,757,333$ 19,989,693$ 20,224,635$ 20,441,570$ 20,711,114$ 20,975,192$ 21,282,630$ Expenses Cash Operating Expenses 15,217,323$ 16,942,066$ 16,978,380$ 17,398,430$ 17,990,693$ 18,611,536$ 19,262,870$ 19,946,420$ 20,665,683$ 21,422,096$ 22,219,181$ Existing Debt Service 1,717,104 1,523,536 1,496,160 1,429,100 1,181,270 1,143,160 1,100,145 1,021,397 1,024,153 1,017,858 1,019,010 New Debt Service 22,132 446,599 846,787 1,301,607 1,527,178 1,771,800 1,901,790 2,772,202 2,755,718 6,730,267 6,713,783 Total Expenses 16,956,558$ 18,912,201$ 19,321,328$ 20,129,137$ 20,699,141$ 21,526,496$ 22,264,805$ 23,740,019$ 24,445,553$ 29,170,220$ 29,951,975$ Net Surplus (Deficiency)3,030,901$ 475,799$ 38,672$ (600,966)$ (941,808)$ (1,536,803)$ (2,040,170)$ (3,298,449)$ (3,734,439)$ (8,195,028)$ (8,669,345)$ Annual Rate Adjustment 0.00%3.50%3.50%3.50%3.50%3.50%8.40%8.40%8.40%8.40%8.40% Cumulative Annual Rate Adjustment 0.00%3.50%7.12%10.87%14.75%18.77%28.75%39.56%51.28%63.99%77.77% Rate Revenues After Rate Increase 19,500,000$ 19,665,000$ 20,353,275$ 21,331,660$ 22,357,075$ 23,431,783$ 25,720,809$ 28,233,446$ 30,991,541$ 34,019,071$ 37,342,357$ Additional Taxes from Rate Increase - 147,012 299,169 462,418 635,394 818,589 1,269,547 1,769,243 2,322,497 2,934,603 3,611,369 Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase 3,030,901$ 993,787$ 1,092,779$ 1,028,341$ 1,296,974$ 1,347,458$ 2,433,020$ 2,935,396$ 4,448,774$ 2,144,911$ 4,055,149$ Coverage After Rate Increases 17.21 14.56 15.74 15.87 16.35 17.05 19.37 8.56 9.67 2.93 3.36 2034Revenue Requirement 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 190 continues to meet or exceed the minimum targeted of 2.00 percent of fixed assets in every year of the forecast. Table 8-7: Ending Cash Balance Summary 8.5.5 Current and Projected Rates 8.5.5.1 Current Rates The existing wastewater rates consist of a monthly fixed rate and a commodity charge per hundred cubic feet (HCF). Fixed charges vary by class of service and apply on a per account basis, with the exception of duplex and multi-family accounts, where the charges apply on a per unit basis. Commodity charges also vary by class of service, increasing with the assumed concentration of influent for commercial classes of service. A low-income senior and low-income disabled citizen discount of 40.0 percent is available. Customers located outside the City limits pay a rate that is 1.50 times the in-City rate based on class of service. Table 8-8 provides the existing wastewater rate schedule. Operating Fund 1,834,417$ 2,042,331$ 2,046,709$ 2,097,345$ 2,168,741$ 2,243,582$ 2,322,099$ 2,404,500$ 2,491,206$ 2,582,390$ 2,678,477$ Capital Fund 13,429,165 11,299,237 6,185,780 6,476,788 8,762,322 11,206,108 9,783,390 11,946,593 5,882,067 36,357,673 6,900,124 Total 15,263,582$ 13,341,568$ 8,232,489$ 8,574,133$ 10,931,063$ 13,449,691$ 12,105,490$ 14,351,093$ 8,373,273$ 38,940,063$ 9,578,601$ Combined Target 5,115,454$ 5,767,677$ 6,117,778$ 6,353,116$ 6,567,235$ 6,707,776$ 6,897,641$ 7,399,850$ 8,005,928$ 8,566,064$ 9,376,280$ 2034Ending Fund Balances 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 191 Table 8-8: Existing Schedule of Rates 8.5.5.2 Projected Rates The financial forecast discussed above indicates the need for annual rate adjustments in order to satisfy all forecasted financial obligations. The City has adopted a 3.50 percent rate increase for 2025 and is anticipating additional 3.50 percent annual increases through 2029. Additional increases of 8.4 percent annually are forecasted from 2030 through 2034. Table 8-9 shows the projected rates with increases applied uniformly to the wastewater fixed and commodity components of all classes, where applicable. Single Family Base Charge (per acc.)39.98$ Commodity Charge (per HCF)5.37 Duplex on 1 Meter or 2 Bldgs. On 1 Meter Base Charge (per unit)31.66$ Commodity Charge (per HCF)5.37 Mulit-Family Base Charge (per unit)31.66$ Commodity Charge (per HCF)5.37 Low-Income Senior and Low Income Disabled Citizen Base Charge (per acc.)23.99$ Commodity Charge (per HCF)3.22 Commercial I Base Charge (per acc.)59.10$ Commodity Charge (per HCF)5.53 Commercial II Base Charge (per acc.)59.53$ Commodity Charge (per HCF)7.08 Commercial III Base Charge (per acc.)60.12$ Commodity Charge (per HCF)8.64 Commercial IV Base Charge (per acc.)60.71$ Commodity Charge (per HCF)10.22 Commercial V Base Charge (per acc.)66.78$ Commodity Charge (per HCF)12.77 Commercial VI Base Charge (per acc.)73.45$ Commodity Charge (per HCF)15.95 Commercial VII Base Charge (per acc.)80.80$ Commodity Charge (per HCF)18.63 Commercial Special Base Charge (per acc.)88.88$ Commodity Charge (per HCF)24.93 Beverage Production Base Charge (per acc.)60.12$ Commodity Charge (per HCF)5.62 Commercial Fountains - Separately Metered Base Charge (per acc.)59.10$ Commodity Charge (per HCF)1.82 Septage Disposal Per gallon of tank capacity 0.30$ Individual Residential Grinder Pumps Standard 12.89$ Low-Income Senior and Low Income Disabled Citizen 7.73 Note : a 1.50 multiplier applies to customers Outside City limits. Description 2024 Inside City City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 192 Table 8-9: Proposed Schedule of Rates 8.5.6 Affordability A common affordability metric used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to measure the relative financial impact wastewater rates have on a community as a whole considers whether rates exceed 2.50 percent of a community’s median household income. The average median household income for the City was $74,399 between 2013 and 2023, expressed in 2023 dollars, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The 2023 value is escalated based on the actual rate of inflation in 2024 (January through November month to month average based on data available) of 2.96 percent and the 3.50 percent inflation rate used in the financial forecast to project the median household income in future years. Table 8-10 presents the City’s monthly wastewater bill projected to 2034 and tested against the 2.50 percent monthly affordability threshold. 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Single Family Base Charge (per acc.)41.38$ 42.83$ 44.33$ 45.88$ 47.49$ 51.48$ 55.80$ 60.49$ 65.57$ 71.08$ Commodity Charge (per HCF)5.56 5.75 5.95 6.16 6.38 6.92 7.50 8.13 8.81 9.55 Duplex on 1 Meter or 2 Bldgs. On 1 Meter Base Charge (per unit)32.77$ 33.92$ 35.11$ 36.34$ 37.61$ 40.77$ 44.19$ 47.90$ 51.92$ 56.28$ Commodity Charge (per HCF)5.56 5.75 5.95 6.16 6.38 6.92 7.50 8.13 8.81 9.55 Mulit-Family Base Charge (per unit)32.77$ 33.92$ 35.11$ 36.34$ 37.61$ 40.77$ 44.19$ 47.90$ 51.92$ 56.28$ Commodity Charge (per HCF)5.56 5.75 5.95 6.16 6.38 6.92 7.50 8.13 8.81 9.55 Low-Income Senior and Low Income Disabled Citizen Base Charge (per acc.)24.83$ 25.70$ 26.60$ 27.53$ 28.49$ 30.88$ 33.47$ 36.28$ 39.33$ 42.63$ Commodity Charge (per HCF)3.34 3.46 3.58 3.71 3.84 4.16 4.51 4.89 5.30 5.75 Commercial I Base Charge (per acc.)61.17$ 63.31$ 65.53$ 67.82$ 70.19$ 76.09$ 82.48$ 89.41$ 96.92$ 105.06$ Commodity Charge (per HCF)5.72 5.92 6.13 6.34 6.56 7.11 7.71 8.36 9.06 9.82 Commercial II Base Charge (per acc.)61.61$ 63.77$ 66.00$ 68.31$ 70.70$ 76.64$ 83.08$ 90.06$ 97.63$ 105.83$ Commodity Charge (per HCF)7.33 7.59 7.86 8.14 8.42 9.13 9.90 10.73 11.63 12.61 Commercial III Base Charge (per acc.)62.22$ 64.40$ 66.65$ 68.98$ 71.39$ 77.39$ 83.89$ 90.94$ 98.58$ 106.86$ Commodity Charge (per HCF)8.97 9.28 9.60 9.94 10.29 11.15 12.09 13.11 14.21 15.40 Commercial IV Base Charge (per acc.)62.83$ 65.03$ 67.31$ 69.67$ 72.11$ 78.17$ 84.74$ 91.86$ 99.58$ 107.94$ Commodity Charge (per HCF)10.58 10.95 11.33 11.73 12.14 13.16 14.27 15.47 16.77 18.18 Commercial V Base Charge (per acc.)69.12$ 71.54$ 74.04$ 76.63$ 79.31$ 85.97$ 93.19$ 101.02$ 109.51$ 118.71$ Commodity Charge (per HCF)13.22 13.68 14.16 14.66 15.17 16.44 17.82 19.32 20.94 22.70 Commercial VI Base Charge (per acc.)76.02$ 78.68$ 81.43$ 84.28$ 87.23$ 94.56$ 102.50$ 111.11$ 120.44$ 130.56$ Commodity Charge (per HCF)16.51 17.09 17.69 18.31 18.95 20.54 22.27 24.14 26.17 28.37 Commercial VII Base Charge (per acc.)83.63$ 86.56$ 89.59$ 92.73$ 95.98$ 104.04$ 112.78$ 122.25$ 132.52$ 143.65$ Commodity Charge (per HCF)19.28 19.95 20.65 21.37 22.12 23.98 25.99 28.17 30.54 33.11 Commercial Special Base Charge (per acc.)91.99$ 95.21$ 98.54$ 101.99$ 105.56$ 114.43$ 124.04$ 134.46$ 145.75$ 157.99$ Commodity Charge (per HCF)25.80 26.70 27.63 28.60 29.60 32.09 34.79 37.71 40.88 44.31 Beverage Production Base Charge (per acc.)62.22$ 64.40$ 66.65$ 68.98$ 71.39$ 77.39$ 83.89$ 90.94$ 98.58$ 106.86$ Commodity Charge (per HCF)5.82 6.02 6.23 6.45 6.68 7.24 7.85 8.51 9.22 9.99 Commercial Fountains - Separately Metered Base Charge (per acc.)61.17$ 63.31$ 65.53$ 67.82$ 70.19$ 76.09$ 82.48$ 89.41$ 96.92$ 105.06$ Commodity Charge (per HCF)1.88 1.95 2.02 2.09 2.16 2.34 2.54 2.75 2.98 3.23 Septage Disposal Per gallon of tank capacity 0.31$ 0.32$ 0.33$ 0.34$ 0.35$ 0.38$ 0.41$ 0.44$ 0.48$ 0.52$ Individual Residential Grinder Pumps Standard 13.34$ 13.81$ 14.29$ 14.79$ 15.31$ 16.60$ 17.99$ 19.50$ 21.14$ 22.92$ Low-Income Senior and Low Income Disabled Citizen 8.00 8.28 8.57 8.87 9.18 9.95 10.79 11.70 12.68 13.75 Note : a 1.50 multiplier applies to customers Outside City limits. Description Inside City City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 193 Table 8-10: Community Affordability Test Applying the 2.50 percent monthly affordability test, the City’s rates are forecasted to remain within the indicated affordability range through 2034. 8.5.7 Conclusion The results of this analysis indicate that at existing rate levels the utility will be deficient beginning in 2027. The City has adopted a 3.50 percent rate increase for 2025 and is anticipating additional 3.50 percent annual rate increases through 2029. In order to address the remaining projected deficiencies, an annual increase of 8.4 percent is projected from 2030 through 2034. The higher increases starting in 2030 may be conservative utilizing revenue bond financing, assuming no low interest loans will be available. Historically, the City has been successful in acquiring a combination of grants and low interest loans and should revisit the rate strategy as better information becomes available. It is recommended that the City regularly review and update the key underlying assumptions that compose the multi-year financial plan to ensure that adequate revenues are collected to meet the City’s total financial obligations. 2023 74,399$ 2024 2.96%76,599 159.58 72.20$ 1.13% 2025 3.50%79,280 165.17 74.74 1.13% 2026 3.50%82,055 170.95 77.33 1.13% 2027 3.50%84,927 176.93 80.03 1.13% 2028 3.50%87,900 183.12 82.84 1.13% 2029 3.50%90,976 189.53 85.77 1.13% 2030 3.50%94,160 196.17 93.00 1.19% 2031 3.50%97,456 203.03 100.80 1.24% 2032 3.50%100,867 210.14 109.27 1.30% 2033 3.50%104,397 217.49 118.43 1.36% 2034 3.50%108,051 225.11 128.38 1.43% % of Median HH IncomeYearInflationMedian HH Income 2.5% Monthly Threshold Projected Monthly Bill City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 194 Section 9: Operation and Maintenance This chapter focuses on the operation and maintenance aspects of the City's wastewater collection and treatment systems. It covers key components such as sewer gravity pipelines, pump stations, force mains, odor control facilities, and wastewater treatment plants. Topics addressed include responsibility and authority, standard system operations, routine and preventive maintenance, current and future staffing requirements, new construction, safety measures, and emergency response protocols. 9.1 Responsibility and Authority The Wastewater Utility operates under the authority of the Director of Public Works and Utilities (Director). The operations and maintenance responsibilities are divided between the Wastewater Manager and the Utilities Operations Manager, both of whom report directly to the Director. The Wastewater Manager is responsible for overseeing the Wastewater Division, which includes the operation and maintenance of sewer pump stations, odor control stations, and wastewater treatment facilities. Meanwhile, the Utilities Operations Manager supervises the Utilities Operations Division, which manages the operation and maintenance of the water distribution system, stormwater systems, and wastewater transmission and collection systems. The responsibility for the infrastructure is defined in Table 9-1 below: Table 9-1: Operations and Maintenance Responsibilities Title Certification Sewer Gravity and Force Mains Utility Operations Division Manholes Utility Operations Division Sewer Laterals Utility Operations Division Combination Valves Utility Operations Division Pump Stations Wastewater Division Odor Control Stations Wastewater Division WWTP Wastewater Division ESTP Wastewater Division CSO Outfalls Wastewater Division City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 195 Numerous individual grinder pumps are installed in areas where gravity sewer connections are not feasible. The City owns and maintains approximately 280 of these grinder pump stations and the number of these stations increases every year. These stations are installed by private developers when a gravity sewer connection is not feasible. They are also installed by contractors on City capital projects when a beach sewer is being decommissioned and the sewer connection must be redirected to an upland sewer system. They are typically installed at single family residences; however, they have also been used at condominiums, apartments, small businesses, and in the City right-of-way. Typical installation is a single (simplex) 1 hp grinder pump installed in a tank with sufficient storage for 1 to 2 days during a power outage. Larger installations require multiple pumps (duplex and triplex) with larger storage tanks. Service lines on private property are owned and maintained by the owner, and the service line in the right-of-way is owned by the City. The Owners are required to sign a Grinder Pump Service Agreement with the City which clearly defines the ownership and maintenance requirements. The pumps themselves are maintained by the City through a third-party maintenance contract (currently Correct Equipment). The property owners pay a fee on top of their regular sewer bill to cover the cost for maintaining the grinder pumps. The grinder pump stations that are part of this agreement must be manufactured by Environment One (E-One) Corporation. 9.2 Utility Organization The Director has the responsibility for the Wastewater Utility which includes planning, financing, operations, maintenance, the capital improvement program, and personnel. An organizational chart of the Department of Public Works and Utilities is shown in Figure 9-1. Figure 9-2 provides a more detailed breakdown about the Utility Operations Division. Figure 9-3 provides a more detailed breakdown of the Wastewater Division. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 196 Figure 9-1: Department of Public Works and Utilities organizational chart Director of Public Works and Utilities PWU Finance Manager (3 FTEs) City Engineer (24 FTEs) PW Operations Manager (Street and Electronics) (17 FTEs) WWTP Manager (20 FTEs) Utility Operations Manager (31 FTEs) Forestry (3 FTEs) Equipment Services/ Facilities/ Inventory (15 FTEs) Water Resources (10 FTEs) Administrative Assistant and PM City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 197 Figure 9-2: Utility Operations Division Utility Operations Manager Stormwater NPDES Compliance (2 FTEs) Sewer/Storm Utility (12 FTEs) Sewer/Storm Collection Supervisor Lead Utilities Service Specialist -Sewer Utilities Service Specialist Senior Utilities Service Specialist x 3 Lead Utilities Service Specialist -Storm Utilities Service Specialist Senior x 2 Utilities Service Specialist x 3 Compliance (3 FTEs)Water Distribution Utility (14 FTEs) City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 198 Figure 9-3: Wastewater Division City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 199 9.2.1 WWTP Personnel There are 20 personnel that work under the supervision of the Wastewater Manager. There are currently 8 employees, who are responsible for plant operations, and 8 employees who are responsible for pump station and plant maintenance, 2 instrumentation/control specialists, a lab technician, and two administrative staff. Currently, there is 1 vacant laborer position on the plant operations side. The Washington State Department of Ecology, under WAC 173-230, requires every operator in charge of a wastewater treatment plant to be certified at a level equal to or higher than the classification rating of the facility. A summary of staff minimum required certifications is outlined in the following table. Table 9-2: WWTP Staff Minimum Required Certifications Title Minimum Certification WW Manager WWTPO Group IV Lab Technician WWTPO Group II Operations Supervisor WWTPO Group III Operator II – Lead WWTPO Group III Operator I WWTPO Group II Operator Trainee Operator-in-training At the time of publication of this report, the City is fully compliant with and surpassing all minimum certification requirements. The standard progression pathway involves beginning as an Operator Trainee, subsequently qualifying for the WWPTO Group II certification, and advancing to Operator I. 9.2.2 Collection System Personnel Under the Utility Operations Manager's supervision, a team of 12 personnel manages the maintenance of both the wastewater and stormwater collection systems. The team's efforts are equally divided between the two utilities, with 2 full-time equivalents (FTEs) currently dedicated to street sweeping 3 days a week, and storm maintenance and improvement on other days. Consequently, approximately 4 FTEs are allocated annually to maintenance activities and capital improvements for the wastewater collection system. 9.3 Existing Operation and Maintenance Activities The operation and maintenance of the wastewater system is generally performed by City staff utilizing City-owned equipment. The City of Bremerton maintains and operates the required equipment to support both routine system functions and emergency response needs. Specialized or non-standard repairs may be carried out by external contractors. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 200 9.3.1 Collection System The Utility Operations Division is responsible for the operation and maintenance of both the wastewater and stormwater collection systems. Monitoring of CSO sites falls under the purview of the Wastewater Division. Core responsibilities of the Utility Operations Division include video inspections, street sweeping, responding to citizen complaints, cleaning catch basins and manholes, investigating collection system issues, repairing failing facilities, and supporting capital construction projects. This support encompasses design assistance, utility locates, constructability reviews, potholing, and construction of collection system extensions. The division also assists other departments with operations, maintenance, and construction tasks. The City has implemented a program for comprehensive video inspection of the wastewater collection system. Video inspection is conducted on a case-by-case basis to support the CIPP program, requiring inspection prior to implementation. A significant portion of the work is subcontracted, with the CIPP program focusing on rehabilitating sewer service laterals from the right-of-way (ROW) to the main sewer line. The program currently covers approximately 8,000 to 9,000 linear feet per year. Inspection videos are stored on a server and are integrated with the GIS mapping system for ease of access. This program requires an annual commitment of 1.5 FTEs. The sewer collection system is cleaned continuously, with the goal of maintaining a complete cleaning cycle every two years. Problematic areas prone to clogging, root intrusion, and grease accumulation are jetted on a routine schedule to ensure unobstructed flow. This activity requires a yearly allocation of 2.25 to 2.5 FTEs. The Utility Operations Division also maintains the stormwater collection system, dedicating 2 FTEs annually to system cleaning. The support during traffic control for manhole lining by contractor require approximately 0.5 FTEs per year. 9.3.2 Treatment Facilities and Pump Stations Since the completion of the 2014 WWCP, the City now operates a total of 40 pump stations. Maintenance staff typically inspect each pump station weekly, with larger pump stations receiving daily visits. This effort requires 2 FTEs annually. Issues encountered during routine inspections are documented in the City’s Cartegraph work order system where corrective maintenance can be planned and executed. This effort requires 2 FTEs annually, one for the west side and one for the east side of the City. Data Collection and Management Most operations 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 treatment facilities and pump stations is automatically stored/archived in an electronic format at the WWTP. Other operations data, such as laboratory results, operator inspection results, and process performance(s), is logged into the electronic archive system. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 201 WWTP and pump station maintenance data is managed by the Cartegraph system. The software allows for documentation and management of preventative maintenance, corrective maintenance, predictive maintenance, inventory management, and purchase orders. The software resides on the WWTP intranet system and is backed up automatically on a daily basis. Back up is done through two mirror drive servers. Collection system maintenance data and customer complaints are also tracked using Cartegraph software. The Cartegraph system is stored on a fault protected server using a redundant array of independent disks (RAID) which is backed up nightly. SCADA System The WWTP SCADA network operates within the City’s internal network but is securely segmented from it, with access limited to designated computers and authorized personnel. The SCADA network does not have direct internet connectivity, except in one or two controlled cases. Firewall configurations are designed and maintained in coordination with the City’s IT Department to ensure only essential ports required for SCADA operations remain open. Multiple servers exchange information within the network under strict authentication protocols; communication between servers is encrypted end-to-end and requires secure keys for authentication and decryption. Offsite access to the SCADA system is available only through a Virtual Private Network (VPN) utilizing multi-factor authentication, with separate credentials for VPN access and system login. Alarm notifications are transmitted through a landline modem and cellular modems, which are isolated from servers interfacing directly with the control system. All SCADA software and associated security patches are regularly updated to maintain system integrity and prevent unauthorized access. Sanitary Sewer Overflow Response Procedures The City maintains written policies and procedures for responding to SSOs, detailed in its Spill Response Plan (Appendix K). Field crews are trained to immediately contain and mitigate spills, identify the cause, and initiate cleanup to prevent discharge to surface waters, stormwater systems, or public areas. Upon discovery or notification of a spill, staff notify the Wastewater Division supervisor and Ecology’s Northwest Regional Office in accordance with state reporting requirements. If an overflow reaches surface water or poses a risk to wellhead protection zones, or storm drains, notifications are also made to the City’s Environmental Programs office, local health district, and downstream jurisdictions as applicable. Public notifications are issued when overflows may impact public access areas. Documentation of the event, including estimated volume, cause, corrective actions, and follow-up measures, is recorded in accordance with Ecology and City recordkeeping requirements. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 202 9.4 Staffing Needs Related to New and Expanded Facilities and Programs • Pump Station SCADA and Controls Upgrades – All the improvements related to the SCADA system and controls will be a part of this project. The annual maintenance and operations of the SCADA system and controls upgrades typically requires 1 FTE. • Installation of Emergency Generator Program – This program consists of the installation of an emergency generator at select City infrastructure in need of a generator or replacement generator. The installation of the emergency generator program typically requires 0.25 FTEs. • Pump Station Improvements Program – Based on the pump station inspections, improvements will be made under this program. This program is expected to require 2 FTEs. • I&I Reduction Program – This ongoing program includes efforts to reduce the I&I in the City’s sewer system. The I&I Reduction Program typically requires 1.5 FTEs. • PSIC – Staffing increases will be needed to operate and maintain collection system infrastructure in the PSIC region as development expands. • Westside WWTP – As improvements are made to comply with more stringent nutrient permit limits, more staff additions may be necessary for operations and maintenance of additional process equipment. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 203 Section 10: Implementation The adoption of a WWCP must align with the requirements of Ecology and Kitsap County, while ensuring compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The following sections outline the steps necessary for implementing the plan, as well as recommendations for future updates to the WWCP. 10.1 Plan Adoption The preparation, review, and adoption of WWCPs are governed by established local and state procedures. WWCPs should be updated and produced on a five-year cycle. Once prepared, the plan is reviewed by Ecology. Other entities granted access to the WWCP include Kitsap County, neighboring sewer systems, water purveyors, local libraries, and other stakeholders. Adoption by the City Council is required prior to plan implementation. 10.2 Coordination with Kitsap County Kitsap County maintains a county-wide comprehensive plan, which was most recently updated in December 2024. The City of Bremerton supports the objectives outlined in the County’s Comprehensive Plan and maintains active participation through the Director of Public Works and Utilities in the County Utility Coordinating Committee. Bremerton recommends the following guidelines for the County’s Comprehensive Plan: • Ensure environmental impacts, regulatory concerns, and public health and safety are addressed and funded through a consistent and unified approach. • Utilize sound engineering and economic principles to delineate service boundaries, forecast future usage and capacity, manage growth, and establish infrastructure and service standards. • Develop an area-wide plan, inclusive of urban areas within the County. 10.3 Environmental Impact Under SEPA (RCW 43.21C), environmental documentation is required for proposals related to legislation and other significant actions that may have a potential for adverse environmental impacts. Moving forward, it is expected that both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and SEPA requirements will be addressed on a project-specific basis. Additionally, it is anticipated that new developers will bear the costs of environmental impact studies as needed. 10.4 Financial Standing It is recommended that as the City delivers capital improvements and meets identified O&M goals, it evaluates the need for rate increases and changes to capital improvement priorities. Performing an annual assessment of capital expenditures and ratepayer expenses is City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 204 recommended to help the City meet its near term and long-term improvement goals, and to help stay current in identifying grants and loans that can ease ratepayer burden. 10.5 Future Additions to the WWCP It is recommended that Bremerton periodically review progress it has made in implementing the WWCP before the next WWCP is developed. Bremerton 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. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Page 205 References City of Bremerton. 1986. Schedule A and B Wastewater Treatment Plant Drawings. City of Bremerton. 1995. Wastewater Treatment Plant Odor Control Project Drawings. City of Bremerton. 2005. Wastewater Comprehensive Plan, December 2005 (CDM). City of Bremerton. 2008. Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant Rerating Study, July 2008 (MWH). City of Bremerton. 2008. Wet Weather Facilities Upgrade Project Drawings. City of Bremerton. 2010. Mixing Zone Study Update Re-Rating Analysis, April 2010. City of Bremerton. 2014. Wastewater Comprehensive Plan, December 2014 (HDR). City of Bremerton. 2016. Zoning Ordinance, May 18, 2016. City of Bremerton. 2018. Outfall Evaluation Report (Cosmopolitan) City of Bremerton. 2020. Water Use Efficiency Plan. City of Bremerton. 2021. Nitrogen Removal Planning Study, April 2021 (HDR). City of Bremerton. 2024. Nitrogen Optimization Plan and Report, March 2024 (HDR). American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA. 2007. Gravity Sanitary Sewer Design and Construction, ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 60. Charted Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM). 2017. Code of Practice for the Hydraulic Modelling of Urban Drainage Systems. Washington State Department of Ecology and Washington State University. May 2023. Sewage Works Design. Kitsap County Health District. 2023. Water Quality Monitoring Report. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 2013. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse. Boston: McGraw- Hill. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update A-1 Appendix A: NPDES Permit and Fact Sheet • Issuance Date: October 30, 2018 • Effective Date: December 1, 2018 • Expiration Date: November 30, 2023 City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update B-1 Appendix B: Basin Plans • Basin Plans produced as part of 2014 WWCP Update have been updated in this 2024 WWCP Update to reflect current conditions, including active pump stations and locations and descriptions of the CIP projects developed during this 2024 Update. • New Service Area (NS) projects are included in the dedicated overview for each basin for completeness. It is restated here that these projects have no financial impact to the analysis presented in Section 8.4, or infrastructure impacts to the sewer collection or WWTP in the various analyses throughout this WWCP. There are four pump stations (CW-1 through CW-4) along the collection system. CW-1 was upgraded to 3500 gpm in 2007 and pumps to the Crosstown Pipeline via the Naval Avenue Force Main. CW-2 pumps to either CW-1 or into the Callow Avenue Basin. CW-4 was upgraded in 2020 and flow can be directed to either the Crosstown Pipeline or to the beach sewer at the end of High Avenue via a force main along 17th Street. Estimated flows from major basin available in Tables 5-10 and 5-11. Refer to Tables 3-3 and 3-4 for this information. Refer to Table 3-5 and Appendix C. CIP Year 2024-2034 CIP Year 2035+ Timeline Cost ($1,000) or Appendix C. {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} 2025 Update by: PS {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} SB-2SB-2 Estimated flows from major basin available in Tables 5-10 and 5-11. Refer to Tables 3-3 and 3-4 for this information. Refer to Table 3-5 and Appendix C. SB-2 CIP Year 2024-2034 CIP Year 2035+ Timeline Cost ($1,000) or Appendix C. The Anderson Hill Road Basin is served by a gravity system that discharges to pump station SB-1. There is currently only on development, which is served by SB-2, so the flows in the basin are extremely low. Flows are pumped by SB-1 into Southwest Bremerton Sewer Force Main to WWTP. SB-1, SB-2 {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} 2025 Update by: {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} Estimated flows from major basin available in Tables 5-10 and 5-11. Refer to Tables 3-3 and 3-4 for this information. Refer to Table 3-5 and Appendix C. CIP Year 2024-2034 C3, C4 Crosstown Pipeline Improvements - Phase I and II The Crosstown Pipeline Improvements will be implemented in two phases to increase conveyance capacity and provide system redundancy for flows to the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Phase 1 involves constructing a new pipeline extending from near the intersection of 9th Street and Montgomery Avenue to the WWTP, which will expand the overall capacity of the Crosstown Pipeline and improve reliability. Phase 2 will commence after Phase 1 is operational, at which point the existing Crosstown Pipeline will be taken offline for rehabilitation while the newly constructed pipeline remains in service. Both phases will require loan or grant funding for construction. 2031-2032 $13,000 C3, C4 Crosstown Pipeline Improvements - Phase I and II The Crosstown Pipeline Improvements will be implemented in two phases to increase conveyance capacity and provide system redundancy for flows to the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Phase 1 involves constructing a new pipeline extending from near the intersection of 9th Street and Montgomery Avenue to the WWTP, which will expand the overall capacity of the Crosstown Pipeline and improve reliability. Phase 2 will commence after Phase 1 is operational, at which point the existing Crosstown Pipeline will be taken offline for rehabilitation while the newly constructed pipeline remains in service. Both phases will require loan or grant funding for construction. 2031-2033 2031-2033 C3 C4 2032-2033 $7,000 Timeline Cost ($1,000) Improvements on the Crosstown Pipeline will consist of installing a new pipeline to the WWTP beginning near the intersection of 9th Street and Montgomery Avenue. This new pipeline will increase the overall capacity of the Crosstown Pipeline and allow for additional redundancy. After construction of Phase 1 is complete, the new pipeline will be placed online while the existing pipeline will be taken offline to undergo rehabilitation. or Appendix C. Proposed improvements on the Crosstown Pipeline will consist of installing a new pipeline to the WWTP beginning near the intersection of 9th Street and Montgomery Avenue. This new pipeline will increase the overall capacity of the Crosstown Pipeline and allow for additional redundancy. For additional information, see Appendix G for the Crosstown Pipelines Alternatives Analysis. After construction of Phase I is complete, the new pipeline will be placed online while the existing pipeline will be taken offline to undergo rehabilitation. For additional information, see Appendix G for the Crosstown Pipelines Alternatives Analysis. Crosstown Pipeline Improvements - Phase I Crosstown Pipeline Improvements - Phase II {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} C6 CIP Year 2024-2034 C3, C4 Crosstown Pipeline Improvements - Phase I and II The Crosstown Pipeline Improvements will be implemented in two phases to increase conveyance capacity and provide system redundancy for flows to the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Phase 1 involves constructing a new pipeline extending from near the intersection of 9th Street and Montgomery Avenue to the WWTP, which will expand the overall capacity of the Crosstown Pipeline and improve reliability. Phase 2 will commence after Phase 1 is operational, at which point the existing Crosstown Pipeline will be taken offline for rehabilitation while the newly constructed pipeline remains in service. Both phases will require loan or grant funding for construction. 2031-2032 $13,000 C3 CIP Year 2035+ 2031-2033 2031-20332032-2033 $7,0002025$7,200 Sections of the Central Bremerton Force Main (CBFM) were determined to be failing in December 2023. This critical force main conveys sewage from downtown Bremerton and the east half of the Navy shipyard. This project will replace approximately 3,100 LF of the CBFM from Montgomery Avenue to the surge chamber at Gregory Way and High Avenue. Sections of the Central Bremerton Force Main (CBFM) were determined to be failing in December 2023. This critical force main conveys sewage from downtown Bremerton and the east half of the Navy shipyard. This project will replace approximately 3,100 LF of the CBFM from Montgomery Avenue to the surge chamber at Gregory Way and High Avenue. During the final draft of this document, the new section of force main was completed and placed back into service in November 2025. {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} 2025 Update by:S MONTGOMERY AVENC4 C6 C3 {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} 16" and 24" siphon mains, which lay along the bottom of the Port Washington Narrows and discharge to CE-1. From CE-1, flow is pumped into the Crosstown Pipeline. Estimated flows from major basin available in Tables 5-10 and 5-11. Refer to Tables 3-3 and 3-4 for this information. Refer to Table 3-5 and Appendix C.or Appendix C. CIP Year 2024-2034 CIP Year 2035+ Timeline Cost ($1,000) 1) Total area of developed parcels divided by the total of developed and undeveloped parcel area excluding parcels designated as right of way or water bodies. 2) Total area of developed parcels with available sewer service divided by the total developed parcel area. {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} 2025 Update by: C7 {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} To Cherry Avenue Basin, where it flows into the East Bremerton Beach Main Formerly OF-4. Flow redirected to Cherry Avenue Basin and Trenton Avenue Basin. Estimated flows from major basin available in Tables 5-10 and 5-11. Refer to Tables 3-3 and 3-4 for this information. Refer to Table 3-5 and Appendix C. To Cherry Avenue Basin, where it flows into the East Bremerton Beach Main Formerly OF-4, flow redirected to Cherry Avenue Basin and Trenton Avenue Basin Estimated flows from major basin available in Tables 5-10 and 5-11 Refer to Tables 3-3 and 3-4 for this information To Cherry Avenue Basin, where it flows into the East Bremerton Beach Main remove funding, purpose, related or Appendix C. Estimated flows from major basin available in Tables 5-10 and 5-11. Refer to Tables 3-3 and 3-4 for this information. 2029 - 2030 $1,700 CIP Year 2024-2034 CIP Year 2024-2034 C3, C4 Crosstown Pipeline Improvements - Phase I and II The Crosstown Pipeline Improvements will be implemented in two phases to increase conveyance capacity and provide system redundancy for flows to the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Phase 1 involves constructing a new pipeline extending from near the intersection of 9th Street and Montgomery Avenue to the WWTP, which will expand the overall capacity of the Crosstown Pipeline and improve reliability. Phase 2 will commence after Phase 1 is operational, at which point the existing Crosstown Pipeline will be taken offline for rehabilitation while the newly constructed pipeline remains in service. Both phases will require loan or grant funding for construction. 2031-2032 $13,000 C3 CIP Year 2035+ C7 Timeline Cost ($1,000) Combined 2029 - 2030 $1,700 C7C9 Decommission Beach Sewer in Manette (OF-4 to EB-2) 2025-2026 $5,212 The project will construct a municipal pump station at E. 16th Street and an upland low pressure sewer system for the properties that discharge to this sewer in order to decommission this beach sewer. {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} 2025 Update by:C7C7C9 {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} Estimated flows from major basin available in Tables 5-10 and 5-11. Refer to Tables 3-3 and 3-4 for this information. Refer to Table 3-5 and Appendix C. CIP Year 2024-2034 CIP Year 2035+ or Appendix C. Timeline Cost ($1,000) {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} 2025 Update by: {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} Significant housing developments constructed within the past 10 year at the south end of the basin have increased basin flow. This flow, which combines with discharge from KL-1 and flows to Sinclair Park Basin, led the City to construct a bypass along 3rd Avenue to reduce flow through the undersized piping along Jones and Cottman immediately west of the WWTP. Additional large housing developments in this basin are anticipated in the future which will continue to increase the pressure on the sewers in Kitsap Lake and Sinclair Park Basins. Collection system piping to Sinclair Park Basin to WWTP Estimated flows from major basin available in Tables 5-10 and 5-11. Refer to Tables 3-3 and 3-4 for this information. Refer to Table 3-5 and Appendix C. Significant housing developments constructed within the past 10 year at the south end of the basin have increased basin flow. This flow, which combines with discharge from KL-1 and flows to Sinclair Park Basin, led the City to construct a bypass along 3rd Avenue to reduce flow through the undersized piping along Jones and Cottman immediately west of the WWTP. Additional large housing developments in this basin are anticipated in the future which will continue to increase the pressure on the sewers in Kitsap Lake and Sinclair Park Basins. CIP Year 2024-2034 or Appendix C. Timeline Cost ($1,000) C3, C4 Crosstown Pipeline Improvements - Phase I and II The Crosstown Pipeline Improvements will be implemented in two phases to increase conveyance capacity and provide system redundancy for flows to the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Phase 1 involves constructing a new pipeline extending from near the intersection of 9th Street and Montgomery Avenue to the WWTP, which will expand the overall capacity of the Crosstown Pipeline and improve reliability. Phase 2 will commence after Phase 1 is operational, at which point the existing Crosstown Pipeline will be taken offline for rehabilitation while the newly constructed pipeline remains in service. Both phases will require loan or grant funding for construction. 2031-2032 $13,000 C3 Improvements on the Crosstown Pipeline will consist of installing a new pipeline to the WWTP beginning near the intersection of 9th Street and Montgomery Avenue. This new pipeline will increase the overall capacity of the Crosstown Pipeline and allow for additional redundancy. Proposed improvements on the Crosstown Pipeline will consist of installing a new pipeline to the WWTP beginning near the intersection of 9th Street and Montgomery Avenue. This new pipeline will increase the overall capacity of the Crosstown Pipeline and allow for additional redundancy. For additional information, see Appendix G for the Crosstown Pipelines Alternatives Analysis. Crosstown Pipeline Improvements - Phase IC5Oyster Bay Sewer Basin Upgrades 2025-2028 $5,500 This upgrade includes design and construction of low-pressure sewer systems for properties along Shorewood Drive and part of Madrona Point Drive that front Ostrich Bay which will allow the City to decommission beach sewers or convert them to dedicated force mains with no lateral connections. The properties are between pump stations OB-5 and OB-2 and OB-3 and OB-2. Upgrading OB-2 is also part of this project and will allow the City to pump into the upland 4,000 foot, 12-inch HDPE force main installed in 2022 and abandon the existing 12-inch force main located along the bottom of Oyster Bay. The City anticipates loan funding for this work. Additionally, the City is considering extending the beach sewer decommissioning further north to OB-6 (on Navy property), which would require loan or grant funding. {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} CIP Year 2035+ {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} 2025 Update by: C5 {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} Estimated flows from major basin available in Tables 5-10 and 5-11. Refer to Tables 3-3 and 3-4 for this information. Refer to Table 3-5 and Appendix C. CIP Year 2024-2034 CIP Year 2035+ or Appendix C. 2040+ $2,550 2040+ $1,320 Timeline Cost ($1,000) {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} 2025 Update by: C5 {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} OB-6 receives flow from the Naval facility (formerly known as Jackson Park). In 2022, the City constructed an upland sewer system and installed a 12-inch force main along Shorewood Drive and Kitsap Way. These improvements allow for decommissioning of the Oyster Bay gravity-pressure beach sewer and cross-bay force main between OB-2 and OB-1. Future projects will continue to focus on decommissioning beach sewers north of OB-2 along Ostrich Bay. Estimated flows from major basin available in Tables 5-10 and 5-11. Refer to Tables 3-3 and 3-4 for this information. Refer to Table 3-5 and Appendix C.or Appendix C. Timeline Cost ($1,000) CIP Year 2024-2034 C3, C4 Crosstown Pipeline Improvements - Phase I and II The Crosstown Pipeline Improvements will be implemented in two phases to increase conveyance capacity and provide system redundancy for flows to the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Phase 1 involves constructing a new pipeline extending from near the intersection of 9th Street and Montgomery Avenue to the WWTP, which will expand the overall capacity of the Crosstown Pipeline and improve reliability. Phase 2 will commence after Phase 1 is operational, at which point the existing Crosstown Pipeline will be taken offline for rehabilitation while the newly constructed pipeline remains in service. Both phases will require loan or grant funding for construction. 2031-2032 $13,000 C3 Improvements on the Crosstown Pipeline will consist of installing a new pipeline to the WWTP beginning near the intersection of 9th Street and Montgomery Avenue. This new pipeline will increase the overall capacity of the Crosstown Pipeline and allow for additional redundancy. Proposed improvements on the Crosstown Pipeline will consist of installing a new pipeline to the WWTP beginning near the intersection of 9th Street and Montgomery Avenue. This new pipeline will increase the overall capacity of the Crosstown Pipeline and allow for additional redundancy. For additional information, see Appendix G for the Crosstown Pipelines Alternatives Analysis. Crosstown Pipeline Improvements - Phase IC5Oyster Bay Sewer Basin Upgrades 2025-2028 $5,500 This upgrade includes design and construction of low-pressure sewer systems for properties along Shorewood Drive and part of Madrona Point Drive that front Ostrich Bay which will allow the City to decommission beach sewers or convert them to dedicated force mains with no lateral connections. The properties are between pump stations OB-5 and OB-2 and OB-3 and OB-2. Upgrading OB-2 is also part of this project and will allow the City to pump into the upland 4,000 foot, 12-inch HDPE force main installed in 2022 and abandon the existing 12-inch force main located along the bottom of Oyster Bay. The City anticipates loan funding for this work. Additionally, the City is considering extending the beach sewer decommissioning further north to OB-6 (on Navy property), which would require loan or grant funding. {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} CIP Year 2035+ 2025 Update by: {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} C5 Excerpted from City of Bremerton 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} Estimated flows from major basin available in Tables 5-10 and 5-11. Refer to Tables 3-3 and 3-4 for this information. Refer to Table 3-5 and Appendix C.or Appendix C. Timeline Cost ($1,000) CIP Year 2024-2034 CIP Year 2035+ {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} 2025 Update by: {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} Estimated flows from major basin available in Tables 5-10 and 5-11. Refer to Tables 3-3 and 3-4 for this information. Refer to Table 3-5 and Appendix C.or Appendix C. Timeline Cost ($1,000) CIP Year 2024-2034 CIP Year 2035+ {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} 2025 Update by: {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} Estimated flows from major basin available in Tables 5-10 and 5-11. Refer to Tables 3-3 and 3-4 for this information. Refer to Table 3-5 and Appendix C.or Appendix C. {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} Timeline Cost ($1,000) CIP Year 2024-2034 CIP Year 2035+ {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} 2025 Update by: C13 {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} City pump stations CE-4 and WB-3. Combined sewer from the PSND area flow to pump station WB-3, which discharges to the CTP and on to the WWTP Pump stations CE-4 and WB-3 Estimated flows from major basin available in Tables 5-10 and 5-11. Refer to Tables 3-3 and 3-4 for this information. Refer to Table 3-5 and Appendix C.or Appendix C. {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} CIP Year 2024-2034 CIP Year 2035+ Timeline Cost ($1,000) {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} 2025 Update by: C4 C6NAV {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} Estimated flows from major basin available in Tables 5-10 and 5-11. Refer to Tables 3-3 and 3-4 for this information. Refer to Table 3-5 and Appendix C.or Appendix C. {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} Timeline Cost ($1,000) CIP Year 2024-2034 2026-2028 $1,960 2026-2028 $830 CIP Year 2024-2034 CIP Year 2035+ 2036-2037 2037-2038 {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} 2038-2040 $1,910 2040+ $4,730 2040+ $2,380 2040+ $1,220 2040+ $2,180 2040+ $820 2025 Update by: C5 C13 {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} the Kitsap County Sewer District 1 pump station WB-1, and then to the WWTP via the Southwest Bremerton Sewer Force Main. The sewer system improvements that would extend service in the SR 304 service area are describes in detail in Sewer Urban Growth Area Planning (Feb, 2008). Estimated flows from major basin available in Tables 5-10 and 5-11. Refer to Tables 3-3 and 3-4 for this information. Refer to Table 3-5 and Appendix C. {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} Estimated flows from major basin available in Tables 5-10 and 5-11. Refer to Tables 3-3 and 3-4 for this information. Refer to Table 3-5 or Appendix C. Timeline Cost ($1,000) 2040+ $4,280 CIP Year 2024-2034 CIP Year 2035+ {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} 2025 Update by: {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} Estimated flows from major basin available in Tables 5-10 and 5-11. Refer to Tables 3-3 and 3-4 for this information. Refer to Table 3-5 and Appendix C.or Appendix C. {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} CIP Year 2024-2034CIP Year 2024-2034 CIP Year 2035+ Timeline Cost ($1,000) 2038-2040 $3,720 {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} 2040+ $1,450 2025 Update by: {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} C4 {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} The 2024 WWCP Update evaluates options for providing sewer service area, which include pumping to the treatment plant at the north end of Mason County, constructing an MBR facility at the Port of Bremerton, or pumping to Gorst and to the WWTP in Bremerton. The City will continue to evaluate these alternatives with stakeholder input, including engaging Mason County officials, to service this area as growth increases. Not determined Estimated flows from major basin available in Tables 5-10 and 5-11. Refer to Tables 3-3 and 3-4 for this information. Refer to Table 3-5 and Appendix C.or Appendix C. CIP Year 2024-2034 CIP Year 2035+ Timeline Cost ($1,000) See PSIC Memorandum in Appendix H {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} See PSIC Memorandum in Appendix H C1 C2 {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} 2025 Update by: {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} C2 C1 {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} Estimated flows from major basin available in Tables 5-10 and 5-11. Refer to Tables 3-3 and 3-4 for this information. Refer to Table 3-5 and Appendix C.or Appendix C. CIP Year 2024-2034 CIP Year 2035+ Timeline Cost ($1,000) {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} 2025 Update by: {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} Estimated flows from major basin available in Tables 5-10 and 5-11. Refer to Tables 3-3 and 3-4 for this information. Refer to Table 3-5 and Appendix C. CIP Year 2024-2034 or Appendix C. Timeline Cost ($1,000) CIP Year 2024-2034 2025 $4,400 C13 Tracyton Beach Main Conversion The City will convert the existing gravity sewer along this road between NW Carter Farms Ct and Gerard Place to a standard force main with two pump stations and some gravity sewer. 2025 $4,690 CIP Year 2035+ 2025 $4,690 2036-2038 $1,670 {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} 2036-2038 $1,580 2040+ $3,620 2025 $4,400 2040+ $3,500 2040+ $3,620 2025 $4,400 2040+ $3,500 2040+ $740 2040+ $3,500 2040+ $740 2040+ $580 2040+ $3,500 2040+ $740 2040+ $580 {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} 2025 Update by: {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} C13 {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} Estimated flows from major basin available in Tables 5-10 and 5-11. Refer to Tables 3-3 and 3-4 for this information. Refer to Table 3-5 and Appendix C.or Appendix C. CIP Year 2024-2034 2029 - 2030 $1,700 C7C9 Decommission Beach Sewer in Manette (OF-4 to EB-2) 2025-2026 $5,212 The project will construct a municipal pump station at E. 16th Street and an upland low pressure sewer system for the properties that discharge to this sewer in order to decommission this beach sewer. C8 EB-2 Seawall 2026-2028 $700 Timeline Cost ($1,000) The existing seawall supporting the EB-2 wet well and an adjacent stormwater outfall is undermining and has cracked due to wave action. This project will design and replace the wall. {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} 2040+ $6,100 2040+ $9,480 2040+ $6,000 2040+ $2,760 2040+ $1,630 2040+ $3,290 CIP Year 2035+ {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} 2040+ $3,370 2040+ $4,200 2040+ $1,520 2040+ $1,840 {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} 2025 Update by: {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} C8 C9 C7 {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} There are two pump stations (CE-1, CE-2), and an upland sewer system with grinder pumps within the Warren Avenue Basin. Pump stations CE-2 and CE-3 convey flows to CE-1. Pump station CE-6, located in the Pacific Avenue Basin, also pumps to CE-1. CE-1 conveys dry weather flows from all East Bremerton, as well as all flow from the Warren Avenue Basin to the WWTP via the CTP. Current and projected flows are within the capacity of the sewer system. Estimated flows from major basin available in Tables 5-10 and 5-11. Refer to Tables 3-3 and 3-4 for this information. Refer to Table 3-5 and Appendix C. There are two pump stations (CE-1, CE-2), and an upland sewer system with grinder pumps within the Warren Avenue Basin. Pump station CE-2 conveys flows to CE-1. Pump station CE-6, located in the Pacific Avenue Basin, also pumps to CE-1. CE-1 conveys dry weather flows from all East Bremerton, as well as all flow from the Warren Avenue Basin to the WWTP via the CTP. Current and projected flows are within the capacity of the sewer system. There are two pump stations (CE-1, CE-2), and an upland sewer system with grinder pumps within the Warren Avenue Basin. Pump station CE-2 conveys flows to CE-1. Pump station CE-6, located in the Pacific Avenue Basin, also pumps to CE-1. CE-1 conveys dry weather flows from all East Bremerton, as well as all flow from the Warren Avenue Basin to the WWTP via the CTP. Current and projected flows are within the capacity of the sewer system. or Appendix C. CIP Year 2024-2034 CIP Year 2035+ Timeline Cost ($1,000) {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} 2025 Update by: {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} {Revised and updated for 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update} City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update C-1 Appendix C: Pump Stations ParameterPump Station CE-2 CE-4 CE-6 CW-1 CW-2 CW-3TypeDry Well Dry Well Dry Well Dry Well Wet Well Wet WellNotes/DescriptionS&LL Package Pump Station-- Metal -- -- --Year Constructed1973 1989 1989 1984 1999 ~1970Significant Upgrades/Updates-- -- 2006 2004/2007 -- --Pump ManufacturerSulzer Flygt S&LL Flygt Flygt ABS Flygt ZoellerNumber of Pumps2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2Pump TypeDry-pit SubmersibleDry-pit SubmersibleDry-Pit Dry-pit SubmersibleDry-pit SubmersibleDry-pit SubmersibleSubmersible SubmersibleHorsepower128 385 3 160 12 201 75 2Lead-Lag or Standby?LL SB LL LLLL - 3rd Pump StandbyLL - 3rd Pump StandbyLL - 3rd Pump StandbyLSVFDs? (Y/N)Y Y N Y Y Y Y NSingle Pump Capacity (gpm)2100 7000 200 900 970 2600 1050 50Operating TDH (ft)167 167 -- -- 33 186 142 --Maximum Capacity (gpm)-- 1940 1600 3500 1260 50Maximum TDH (ft)-- 238 -- -- -- 40Backup PowerPortable Yes Yes Yes Yes PortableBasin / Upstream StationWarren Ave BasinPacific Avenue Basin, PSNSPacific Avenue BasinAnderson Cove BasinAnderson Cove BasinAnderson Cove BasinCSO Outfalls-- -- OF-16OF-8, OF-10A, OF-9, OF-11OF-8 --Discharge LocationPark Ave Sewer, gravity to CE-1Central Bremerton FM to CTPGravity Sewer @ 7th & ParkNaval Ave Force Main to CTPCallow Ave sewer, with intertie to CW-1Gravity sewer on 26th, flows to CW-2Note: Maximum Capacity and Maximum TDH does not include operation of the standby pump (e.g. 3 pumps at a station will include 2 pumps plus 1 standby. The standby pump will not operate unless one of the other pumps fails.)STATION--10000Start of CTPOF-13YesWarren Ave Basin, East Bremerton1985Dry Well32ft diameter segmented caissonCE-1--1 ParameterPump StationTypeNotes/DescriptionYear ConstructedSignificant Upgrades/UpdatesPump ManufacturerNumber of PumpsPump TypeHorsepowerLead-Lag or Standby?VFDs? (Y/N)Single Pump Capacity (gpm)Operating TDH (ft)Maximum Capacity (gpm)Maximum TDH (ft)Backup PowerBasin / Upstream StationCSO OutfallsDischarge LocationCW-4 KL-1 KL-2 KL-3 KL-4 MD-1 OB-1 OB-2 OB-3Wet Well Wet Well Dry Well Dry Well Dry Well Wet Well Dry Well Dry Well Dry Well--Converted Wet Well-- -- -- -- -- -- --2020 ~1970 ~1970 ~1970 ~1970 1994 1966 1966 1970--2013 (Conversion)-- -- -- -- -- -- --Flygt Flygt FlygtFairbanks MorseFairbanks MorseEssco Flygt Flygt Fairbanks2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2Submersible SubmersibleDry-pit SubmersibleDry-pit SubmersibleDry-pit SubmersibleSubmersibleDry-pit SubmersibleDry-pit SubmersibleDry-pit Submersible-- 30 85 5 5 40 65 15 5LS LS LS LS LS LSLL - 3rd Pump StandbyLS LLY N Y N N N Y Y N250 950 1150 450 475 950 950 750 20045 88 -- 14 16 -- 212 65 --450 950 1150 450 475 950 -- --45 -- 148 -- -- 212 -- -- --Portable Yes Yes Yes Yes Portable Yes Yes PortableAnderson Cove BasinKitsap Lake Basin, KL-2Kitsap Lake Basin, KL-3Kitsap Lake Basin, KL-4Kitsap Lake BasinMarine Drive BasinOB Basin, MD-1, OB-2OB Basin, OB-3, OB-5Madrona Point, OB-4-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --End of High Ave into beach sewer; intertie to CTP at 13th/OhioGravity Sewer Near Pendergast Field to WWTPKL-1 KL-2 KL-3Kitsap Way gravity sewer, flows to OB-1Gravity Sewer at Bremerton Blvd & Arsenal WayOB-1 OB-2Note: Maximum Capacity and Maximum TDH does not include operation of the standby pump (e.g. 3 pumps at a station will include 2 pumps plus 1 standby. The standby pump will not operate unless one of the other pumps fails.)STATION2 ParameterPump StationTypeNotes/DescriptionYear ConstructedSignificant Upgrades/UpdatesPump ManufacturerNumber of PumpsPump TypeHorsepowerLead-Lag or Standby?VFDs? (Y/N)Single Pump Capacity (gpm)Operating TDH (ft)Maximum Capacity (gpm)Maximum TDH (ft)Backup PowerBasin / Upstream StationCSO OutfallsDischarge LocationOB-4 OB-6 OB-7 PB-1 PB-2 PP-1 (PG) SB-1Dry Well Dry Well Wet Well Dry Well Dry Well Wet Well Wet Well-- -- --S&Ll Package Pump StationS&Ll Package Pump Station-- --1971 1966 ~1970 ~1970 ~1970 ~1990 ---- -- -- -- -- -- --Fairbanks Flygt Flygt Flygt Essco FlygtFairbank-MorseEssco Flygt2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2Dry-pit SubmersibleDry-pit SubmersibleDry-pit SubmersibleDry-pit SubmersibleSubmersibleDry-pit SubmersibleDry-pit Submersible Submersible5 12 15 15 50 20 -- 8 105LL Lead Lag LL LL LL LL LL LLN Y Y N N N N N Y150 350 -- 490 375 150 -- -- --46 -- -- 40 70 100 -- -- ---- -- -- -- 350 140 ---- -- -- -- -- 45 --Portable Portable No Portable Portable Portable YesMadrona PointOyster Bay BasinErlands Point ApartmentPhinney Bay BasinPhinney Bay BasinServices Pendergast ONLY---- -- -- -- -- -- --OB-3 OB-5Gravity sewer on Austin Dr 600’ NW of Olding RDCallow Avenue gravity sewerPB-1KL-1 discharge gravity sewer, south of Francis St.SW Bremerton Force MainNote: Maximum Capacity and Maximum TDH does not include operation of the standby pump (e.g. 3 pumps at a station will include 2 pumps plus 1 standby. The standby pump will not operate unless one of the other pumps fails.)STATION--500--OB-2--PortableOyster Bay Basin, OB-61966Dry WellMay be upgraded in near futureOB-53 ParameterPump StationTypeNotes/DescriptionYear ConstructedSignificant Upgrades/UpdatesPump ManufacturerNumber of PumpsPump TypeHorsepowerLead-Lag or Standby?VFDs? (Y/N)Single Pump Capacity (gpm)Operating TDH (ft)Maximum Capacity (gpm)Maximum TDH (ft)Backup PowerBasin / Upstream StationCSO OutfallsDischarge LocationSB-2 SB-3 SB-4 WB-1 WB-2 WB-4 WB-6Wet Well Wet Well Wet Well Wet Well Dry Well Dry Well Wet Well-- -- --Maintatined by KCSD#1Maintatined by KCSD#1S&Ll Package Pump StationCSO Flow Only-- -- -- 1989 1989 1971 2003-- -- -- -- -- -- --Flygt Flygt Flygt -- -- Flygt FairbanksSmith & LovelessFlo-Serve2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3Submersible Submersible Submersible Submersible --Dry-pit SubmersibleDry-pit SubmersibleDry-pit Submersible11 23 24 -- -- 20 238 5 200LL LL LL LL LL LLLL - 3rd Pump StandbyLLLL - 3rd Pump StandbyY Y Y -- -- Y Y N Y-- -- -- 230 780 950 5300 100 3750-- -- -- 50 70 55 110 42 130-- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- --Yes Yes Yes No No Portable Yes-- -- --Sinclair Park, BeachfrontKCSD #1Callow Ave BasinWB-3 Overflow-- -- -- -- -- -- OF-17SB-1SW Bremerton Force MainSW Bremerton Force MainCrosstown PipelineCrosstown PipelineFarragut St gravity sewer that goes to WB-3 Crosstown PipelineNote: Maximum Capacity and Maximum TDH does not include operation of the standby pump (e.g. 3 pumps at a station will include 2 pumps plus 1 standby. The standby pump will not operate unless one of the other pumps fails.)STATION----Crosstown PipelineOF-1710000YesCallow Ave, PSNS, Phinney Bay, Anderson CoveDry Well2002/03--WB-34 ParameterPump StationTypeNotes/DescriptionYear ConstructedSignificant Upgrades/UpdatesPump ManufacturerNumber of PumpsPump TypeHorsepowerLead-Lag or Standby?VFDs? (Y/N)Single Pump Capacity (gpm)Operating TDH (ft)Maximum Capacity (gpm)Maximum TDH (ft)Backup PowerBasin / Upstream StationCSO OutfallsDischarge LocationEB-3 EB-4 EB-5 EB-6 EB-7 EB-8 EB-9High Flow (Wet Well)Normal Flow (Wet Well)Dry Well Wet Well Wet Well Wet Well -- Dry Well Wet WellActive for high flowActive for low flow--Converted Wet WellConverted to Wet Well-- Pending (2025)S&Ll Package Pump Station--1972 ~1940 ~1970 1947 -- 1971 ~19701984, 2005 -- 1995 2004 -- -- --Flowserve Flygt Flygt Flygt Zoeller Flygt --Smith & LovelessFlygt3 2 2 2 2 3 -- 2 2Submersible SubmersibleDry-pit SubmersibleSubmersible Submersible Submersible -- Dry-pit Submersible75 5 30 7.5 2 45 -- 10 10LL - 3rd Pump StandbyLL LS LL LLLL - 3rd Pump Standby-- LL LLY N Y N N Y -- N N2175 450 750 100 245 650 -- 200 10091 30 64 80 50 102 -- 51 751400 -- -- 1200 -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- --Yes Portable Portable Yes -- Portable PortableTrenton Ave BasinTrenton Ave BasinTrenton Ave BasinTracyton Beach Basin--Pine Road BasinPine Road BasinOF-7 -- -- OF-6 -- -- --Gravity sewer on E. 10th, flows to EB-2Gravity sewer on Jacobsen Blvd by Trenton AveTrenton Ave at Holman St gravity sewerGravity sewer at Lebo BLVD and Hefner St--Gravity sewer at Sugar Pine Dr and Pinecone DrGravity sewer on NE Pinecrest DrNote: Maximum Capacity and Maximum TDH does not include operation of the standby pump (e.g. 3 pumps at a station will include 2 pumps plus 1 standby. The standby pump will not operate unless one of the other pumps fails.)STATION4100--Eastside BeachmainYesTrenton Ave BasinOF-72003EB-219735 City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update D-1 Appendix D: Treatment System Modeling Results Bremerton Westside WWTP Aeration Basin Capacity Modeling Summary S1 S2 S3 Design Year 2044 2044 2044 Influent Flow MM WWF AAF AAF Influent Load MML AAL AAL Influent Data Notes Influent Flow, MGD 13.50 6.19 6.19 Influent COD, mg/L 218 352 352 Influent cBOD, mg/L 115 185 185 Influent TSS, mg/L 139 232 232 Influent VSS, mg/L 105 177 177 Influent TKN, mg/L as N 23.0 37.1 37.1 Influent Ammonia, mg/L as N 15.5 25.0 25.0 Influent TP, mg/L as P 2.6 4.1 4.1 Influent Alkalinity, mg/L as CaCO3 280 280 280 Process Primary Clarifier Area, sqft 10053 10053 10053 Aeration Basin Volume, MG 0.83 0.83 0.41 Secondary Clarifier Area, sqft 19007 19007 19007 Anaerobic Digester Volume, MG 0.68 0.68 0.68 Primary Clarification Primary Sludge Flow, GPD 21300 20800 20200 Primary TSS Removal Rate, % per Influent 45%59%59% Primary CBOD Removal Rate, , % per Influent 25%33%33% Primary TKN Removal Rate, , % per Influent -5%-2%-4% Primary Effluent TSS, mg/L 76.3 94.7 94.5 Primary Effluent CBOD, mg/L 85.6 124.3 124.5 Primary Effluent TKN, mg/L 24.2 37.8 38.5 Aeration Basin Aeration Basin Total SRT, days 2.4 4.0 2.0 Target = 5 days ( WWF ), 4 days (AAF) Total HRT, hrs 1.5 3.2 1.6 MLSS Concentration, mg/L 2509 2487 2532 MLVSS Concentration, mg/L 2058 1982 2255 VSS/TSS Ratio 0.82 0.80 0.89 Aeration Basin DO, mg/L 2.0 2.0 2.0 Aeration Basin Airflow, scfm 2008 1715 1384 Solids Production and Yield Yield, lbs TSS/lbs PE CBOD 0.74 0.66 0.69 (WAS TSS+Eff TSS)/PE CBOD RAS TSS, mg/L 8504 5211 5301 WAS Flow, MGD 0.10 0.10 0.10 WAS, lbs/d at RAS TSS Calculated 7156 4259 4417 RAS Rate, MGD 5.60 5.60 5.60 RAS Flow Fraction 0.41 0.90 0.90 Secondary Effluent CBOD, mg/L 14 12 17 Permit: '<25 mg/L Soluble CBOD, mg/L 4 2 4 TSS, mg/L 20 24 24 Permit: '<30 mg/L pH 7.0 7.1 7.1 NH3-N, mg/L 18 29 29 TKN, mg/L 20.1 31.8 32.5 NO3-N, mg/L 0.0 0.0 0.0 Alkalinity, mg/L as CaCO3 289.1 289.1 289.1 DO, mg/L 2.0 2.0 2.0 Temperature, C 11.5 17.0 17.0 RDT (Thickening) Thickened TSS, %7.2%7.0%7.3% Thickened TSS to Digester, ppd 6656 3983 4112 Thickened VSS to Digester, ppd 5456 3156 3660 Anaerobic Digestion Digester Volume, MG 0.68 0.68 0.68 HRT, days 20.9 24.6 25.1 Digested TSS (model), TS (DMR), %3.4%3.3%3.2% Digested VSS (mode), VS (DMR), %1.8%1.7%1.6% VS/TS,%52.5%52.1%51.2% Gas, scfd 84602 60665 69879 GAS/VS Fed, scf/lbs 7.6 7.1 7.7 VSS destruction, %57%54%59% Centrifuge Dewatered TSS, %22%22%22% Cake Dry, PPD 7470 6079 5994 Centrate TKN, mg/L 1691 1428 1614 Centrate Flow, GPD 28400 24200 23800 Aeration Total SOTR, lb/hr 545 464 375 Aeration Basin SOTE 26.0%25.9%26.0% Aeration Basin OUR, mg/L/hr 13.1 13.1 13.1 Airflow, scfm 2008 1715 1384 Prepared By: Eun Kim Date: May 16, 2024 Checked By: David Seymour Summary- A summary of the modeling results for three scenarios is provided below. The targeted SRT of the aeration basins was met for Scenario 2, where the aeration basins are in service to treat the 2044 AAF and AAL. However, the SRT for the MML and the AAL in the maintenance scenario did not meet the targeted City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update E-1 Appendix E: Interagency Agreements • Agreement 1: Interlocal Agreement KC 111-93 – Removal of Sanitary Sewer Meters. • Agreement 2: Water & Sewer Service Agreement with US Navy for Water & Wastewater Rates. 08/09/2007 15:25 3604732330 BREMERTON UTILITIES PAGE 01 pt,';'''.‘`-j7''.',iiii.-*',. n. 4. . .. .-- .•'tin --ydi. Arr . •. a i?. _ :: P PEMO`'.1 C44 PUBLIC WORKS& UTILITIES y'rt,,n:; Director's Once August 7, 2007 Mr. Barry Loveless Kitsap County Public Works 614 Division Street, MS-26 Port Orchard,WA 98366 Re: Interlocal Agreement KC 111-93—Removal of Sanitary Sewer Meters Dear Barry: The City of Bremerton requests this letter serve as evidence of an understanding between our agencies with regard to the removal of two sanitary sewer meters located in the Kitsap County Sewer District#1 system. In accordance with the existing Interlocal Agreement, sewer fees for the system are based on a wholesale rate and accompanying flow rate. If average flow exceeds .4 mgd per day, rate adjustment provisions are applied for the additional flow. The City wishes to remove these meters for the following reasons: In over 2 years, average flow has not exceeded the base flow rate. As such, the City is currently expending funds to calibrate the meters yearly, plus crew time to read the meters, maintain, and service them. The benefit here to the County is that the utility billing will remain the same, any flows exceeding the wholesale rate will not be metered or billed. As you are aware, the City has been negotiating with the County to take over responsibilities for this system. Upon transfer, the meters will no longer be needed. Transfer of the system should be within the year. As the City and County currently have our joint project, the SR 304 T.l.P.; Navy Yard Highway Phase, working adjacent to the meter at 1550 Charleston Beach Road tiis would be-an-opportune time to remove the meter and vault now. Removal of the meters would be done at no expense to the County. If you agree to their removal, please sign and return the letter. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Gunnar Fridriksson at 360.473.2354. C2(kel.." 4 Phil Williams • Director of Public Works&Utilities I concur with the City's request. cc: Mike Mecham, City Engineer Lynn Price, Project Manager Gunnar,Fridriksson, Civil Engineer II Ann Finnegan, Utility Billing Supervisor Stella Vakares, P.E., Kitsap County COPY OF SEWER SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH KITSAP COUNTY FOR DISTRICT 1 SEWER DISCHARGE TO CITY SYSTEM 23 PAGES TOTAL EXPIRES: IF EITHER PARTY DECIDES TO TERMINATE RENEWS: EVERY 5 YEARS LAST REVIEWED: MAY 1, 2014 Contract Number Vendor Sub ect Department File Class Begin Date End Date Review Date Vault Date 5317 KITSAP COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT #1 ILA - Discharge of Sewer Public Works LEG 12-1 8/1/1991 5/1/2014 Comments Renews every 5 years unless termed Il I 4,ti INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR DISCHARGE OF SEWER SEWER DISTRICT #1 THIS AGAEEMENT, between Kitsap County Sewer District #l, a municipal corporation, duly orqanized and existinq under the laws of he State of Washinqton, hereinafter referred to as "DISTRICT and the City of Bremerton, a municipal corporation orqanized and existinq under the laws of the State of Washinqton, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", is entered into pursuant to and in conformity with RCW 39.34, the Interlocal Corporations Act and RCW 39.67.300 THE PARTIES AGREE as followst Section l. Purpose and Scope of Contract The CITY $hall receive from, treat, and dispose of the DISTRICT's wastewater in accordance with the terms and apecifications as hereinafter set forth. This aqreentent replaces and supersedes all previous aqree uents entered into between the CITY and the DISTRICT for service. ection 2. TQ,n of Contract Thie contract will be in effect for a period of five years from 1 August 1, 1991. The agreement will automatically renew for an additional five year term, unless one of the parties gives written notice of an intent to terminate not less than 1B0 days in advance of the end of the initial five year term. provided, however, that the CITY may not termfnate this aqreement unless the DISTRICT hae a suitable alternate source for treatment of its wastewater. 8'/ly ection Definitions s i Z For the purpose of this agreement, unless it is plainly evident from the context that a different meaninq is intended, the following words and phrases when used, are defined as follows: Allocated Flow means the maximum average flow that the DISTRICT is perlpitted to discharqe into the CITY System. Averaqe Flow° means the average daily discharge of sewage computed by dividing the total quantity discharged durinq a month by the total number of days in said month. The sesult is expressed in million qallons per day (MGD). eiocbemical Oxygen De uandN (H00) means the quantity of oxygen used in the biochemical oxidation of organic matter in a epecified time 2 0 and at a specified temperature. BOD shall be the standard measure of sewaqe strength. Capital Costs" means costs relatinq in whole or in part to the CITY treatment system and conveyance system which CITY has incurred or plans to incur for the purpose of new or expanded facilities and equipment to accommodate population, commercial and industrial qrowth; to meet federal, state, reqional and local regulatory reguirerpents; to replace deteriorated or inefficient facilitiea and equipment that are beyond the scope of normal maintenance; or for mo itoring and data collection facilities. Such costs shall include, but not be limited to both direct and indirect costs for planning, design, construction, equipment, inspection, chanqe orders and claims settlements. CITY means authorized employees and officials of the City of Bremerton or ite desiqnated agent. City Treataaent System" means the City of Hremerton Wastewater Treatment Plant, any sludqe processing facilities (wherever located) designed to be operated in coordination or conjunction with the foreqoinq facility, and appurtenances necessary for the operation of the saiae. Conveyance System° means all main line gravity sewers and force maine and pwnp stations, including appurtenancea necessary or 3 0 convenient to the operation thereof. Said appurtenances include, but are not limited to, flow metering stations, control equipment, maintenance and cleanout facilities, and easementB. These improvements may also be referred to in thie contract as the Transmiesion System". Direct Costs" mean those costs to CITY which are identified specifically with a particular project. Diect coste may include, but are not limited to, direct labor; costs of materials acquired, expended, or consumed; costs of construction contracts; costs of consultant contrects and costs of energy to operate the treatment and conveyance facilities. DISTRICT" means authorized employees and/or officials of Kitsap County Sewer District No. 1 or its designated agent. DISTRICT System" means all wastewater collection and conveyance facilities owned and operated by DISTRICT includiaq gravity sewers, force mains, and pwnp stations. Domestic Sewage° mea s wastewater from ordinary livinq processes di charged from dwellings, business buildinqs, and institutions. Aomestic Sewaqe Strength" is defined as not to exceed 220 mg/L BOD and/or TSS. 4 i ` ExcesB Flow" meana flow over the average flow allocated to the DISTRICT. Indirect Costs" eana those costs to CITY which are applicable to a project or activity but are allocated amonq orqanizational units in relation to benefits derived in accordance with generally accepted accountinq principles. Indirect costs may include, but are not limited to, labor expenses for elected officials and their staffs, for commissions, and for performance of administrative end supexvisory functions; and expenses for data processing services, building services, utilities and materials. Infiltrationp meens water other than wastewater which enters a sewer system from the ground through such means as defective pipes, pipe joints, connections, or access structures. Infiltration does not include, and is distinquished from, inflow. Inflow" means water other than wastewater which enters a sewer system from sources such as roof leaders, cellar drains, yard drains, area drains, drains from springs and swampy areas, access structure covers, cross connections between storm sewers and sanitary aewers, cetch basins, stona waters, surface runoff, or drainage. Inflow does not include, and is distinquished from, infiltration. MGD' meane million gallons per day of wastewater flow. 5 r Peek Flow" aaeans the highest instantaneous rate of discharge, expressed ae a volwne per unit of time. Point of Delivery" meane any connection of a DISTRICT Sewer to the CITY Sytem. Service Area" means the areas located within the City or County jurisdiction desiq ated to be served by CITY or DISTRICT. A Bervice area may extend beyond the CITY or DISTRICT boundaries respectively. Respective Service areas in the vicinity of the DISTRICT shall be as defined in this aqreement. Sludqe" meana the accwaulated settled solids deposited from wastewater or industrial wastes, raw or treated. System Capacity" meane the annual averaqe design capacity of the City System. System Average Flow" means the system volume divided by the number of time units in a ca,lendar year. 4 System VolumeN means the volume of sewage treated in the CITY System during a calendar year. Total Suspended SolidsN (TSS) means solide that either float on the surface of, or are euepended in water, wastewater, or other 6 c liquide and are largely removable by laboratory filtrations. TSS is a standard measure of sewage strength. Waatewater" means the combination of the liquid and water - cerried wastea discharqed from esidences, commercial aad industrial establishments, toqether with infiltration and 3nflow that may be present. Wholesale RateN means a negotiated charge per unit of wastewater discharqed to the City system by a customer whose discharge volume represents a significant portion of system volwae such that direct cost allocations are feasible. Section 4. Service Levels A. Allocated Flow The DISTRICT is allocated an average flow of .4 million qallons per day into the city treatment system. All discharqes by the DISTRICT to the CITY system shall be through the three flow meterinq stations= Pwnp Station WH-1 Flow Metering Station Pump Station WH-2 Flow Meterinq Station C Street Flow Meterinq Station No other points of discharge to the CITY system are presently known. Should additional points of discharqe be identified in the future, the method of ineterinq such discharges shall be as 7 C desiqnated by the CITY e. Sewage Strength All waBtewatex discharge by the DISTRICT to the CITY system shall be domestic sewage strength as defined in Section 3 above. Section 5. W olesale Rate A. Initial Wholesale Rate Commencing with the month of August 1991, the DISTRICT shall pay a wholesale rate of $15,970 per month. This rate assumes the DISTRICT's average flow does not exceed .4 mgd per day. Yf the average flow exceeds this limit, the rate adjustment provisions found in subsection D below shall apply. H• Basis for Initial Wholesale Rate. The CITY and the DISTR CT agree that the initial monthly wholesale rate is eatablished usinq the figures set forth below. The CYTY and tbe DISTRICT agree these nwabers represent the DISTRICT's app opriate ehare of the system expense, given the DISTRICT's allocation o plant capacity. The basis for the monthly wholesale rate is as follows: Capital Cost Debt Service 130,915.00 Operations and Maintenance City overhead SUBTOTAL 41,175.00 6,176.25 ie,a66.2s e 0 8& O tax of 6$ Excise tax of 1.5$ Total payment in firet year of contract Monthly Kitsap Sewer Dietrict WholeBale Rate 10,695.98 2.673.99 191,636.22 + 12 15,970.00 C. Adjustments to Initial Wholesale Rate 1) August lst of each year, the operation and maintenance, and CITY overhead numbers, will be adjusted upward by the percentage increase in the Seattle/Everett all item consumer price index durinq the preceding calendar year, or the succeseor to this index. If there ia not successor, then any generally accepted index showing the inflation rate, if any, for the United States as a whole shall be used to establish the increase in the rate. 2j At the CITY's request, the capital cost figure will be adjusted upward to reflect the DISTRICT's proportionate share of any treatwent eystem capital cost incurred. Provided, however, thie does not include treatment system capital costs to increase plant capacity. The additional debt service shall be computed a ter deductinq any portion of tbe treatment syatem capital cost pafd by the United States Navy, or grants. 3) The B& O tax and excise tax expenses shall be ad jueted in the next calendar month after any change in their rate. These taxes shall also be adjueted in the next calendar month after any change in the DISTRICT'B share of the capitol cost, operation end 9 maintenance, and CITY overhead expense. 4j For any given calendar month, the wholesale rate ahall be the swa of the pISTRICT' responsibility for capitol cost debt eervice, operation and maintenance, CITY overhead, B& O taxes, and excise taxes, as they may be adjusted above. It is the CITY's responsibility to advise the DISTRICT of the need for these adjustments, and the basis for their assessment. D. Adjuetment for Excess Averaqe Flow 1) The DISTRICT's allocated flow is .4 mgd. As provided in Section 6(Aj, the CITY will measure the DISTRICT's wholesale flow on the first Monday of each calendar month. For any measuring period when the total wholesale flow exceeds .4 mgd times the nwnber of days in the measurinq period, the DISTRICT shall pay the wholesale rate as established under Paraqraph 5(A) above, plus the followinq additional charqes a. For up to 3 million qallons of flow beyond the allocated flow, $2.14 per thousand gallons in flow, or part thereof. 2 b. For all flow beyond 3 million gallons over the allocated flow, $2.81 per thousand qallons, or part thereof. 2) The additional charqe for excees flow will not apply until two years after the date this agreeme t is executed and approved by both the CITY and KITSAP COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT #1. August 1 of each year, beginning with the firBt Auqust 1 after the additionai 10 charge for excess flow is in effect, the rates for excess flow shall be adjusted upward by the percentaqe increase in the Seattle/Everett All Item Consumer price Index durinq the precedinq calenda= year, or the successor to this index. If there is no successor, than any qenerally accepted index showinq the inflation rate, if any, for the United States as a whole shall be used to establish the increase in the rates. E. Wholesale Rate Adjustments for Excess Domestic Sewage Strenqth X X X X x X X X X X X X X X 11 1. The CITY will periodically test the etrength of the DISTRICT's sewage. If for any three consecutive teste, the DISTRICT's sewage strength exceeds Mdomeatic sewage strength" as defined in Section 3 above, the CITY reserves the right to reopen thie contract on the iesue of whether there should be a surcharqe for excess sewage strength. For the purpose of this subparagraph, the CITY shall use the utwenty-four hour composite sample" method to test the sewage strength. Section 6. Meterinq, Biliinq, a_yent A• The CITY will be responsible for measuring flows at the pointe of delivery identified in Section 4 above. The CITY shall install, operate, and maintain the required metering equipment. The CITY will read the flow meters on the first Monday of each month. e• The CITY shall eubmit a monthly bill for wholesale sewer service to the DISTItICT based on the contract rates defined in this agreement. The bill will include a statement of the DISTRICT's total monthly flows to the CITYs sewage system at each flow monitoring stetion. ; The pISTRICT shall pay the CITY for services rendered within 60 daya of receipt of the bill from the CITY Interest at the rate o ' per motth will be cbarged on any invoice not paid with the 60 day limit. A minimum of one month•s interest will be charged for 12 l all late payments. 0. On a bi-monthly basis, the CITY shall provide tbe DISTRICT with a computerized list showinq the domestic water consumption for all CITY water customers found within the service area boundary of the DYSTRICT. Section 7. Service Area Boundarv e) For the purposes of this aqreement, the boundaries of the DISTRICT service area shall be defined as followss Beginninq at a point that is the junction of the East right- of-way line of McCollum Avenue and the boundary of Sinclair Inlet meander line, then NE alonq McCollwn Avenue to the NW right-of-way line of SR304 the NE along SR304 riqht-of-way epproximately 760 feet, then NW to Lafayette Avenue, then SW alonq Lafayette Avenue to McCollwn Avenue, then North along McCollwa Avenue to Preble Street, then West alonq Preble Street to the center of Section 22 T24N R1E, then North ( alonq the center of section line) 360 feet, then West from the center of section line to a point 250 feet East of National Avenue, then North parallel to National Avenue to a point 150 feet South of lst Street, then West parallel to lst Street to Oyster Bay Avenue, then South along Oyeter eay Avenue and to SR3, then South alonq the east margin of SR3 to the South 13 eection line (Section 22, Township 24 North, Range 1 East) then West alorg the section line to the 1/8 section corner of Section 28, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, then South alonq said 1/8 section line to Davis Street, then West on Davis Street to Rent Avenue and South on Kent Avenue to the center of section line (Section 28, Township 24 North, Range 1 East) then East of the center line to Sinclair Inlet. b) The CITY agrees to not extend service to any resident within the DISTRICT's service area boundaries, except by written perntission of the DISTRICT or as may be defined pursuant to R.C.W. 35.13A. The DISTRICT aqrees to not extend service or expand its boundaries to any resident beyond the DISTRICT service area boundaries except by written permission of the CITY. c) If the DISTRICT chooses to reassign any of its allocated flow to the CITY, tbe DISTRICT s wholesale rate, and the formula for establishing excess flow charges, shall be adjueted proportionate to the reassignment. ec ion B. Facilities Ownershipand Operation Res,ponsibilities The CITY and AISTRICT with the execution of thie agreement acknowledge that ownership of all facilitiea lying within the DISTRICT and upetreaaa of the CITY's meterinq stations shall remain the p operty of the DISTItICT. The CITY assumes no responsibility 14 0 for operating, maintaininq or replacing the DISTRICT•e facilities by thie aqreeatent. At the request of the DISTRYCT, the CITY may, at its option based upon available resources, provide additional services to the DISTRICT on a time and materials basis. Other services may include, but not be limited to, operation, maintenance or repair of facilities owned and operated by the DISTRICT, surveys, comprehensive planning,and utility billing. The CITY reserves the riqht to construct, use, own and maintain transmission mains and appurtenances for the purposes of conveyance of CITY wastewater from the CITY's system across the DISTAICT to the CITY s Wastewater Treatment Plant, subject to the terma of its existinq and future local and state franchise agreements. ection 9_ Transfer Owners p of Facilitiee The DISTRICT agrees to discontinue use, vacate, and transfer ownership to the CITY the 21- to 24-inch diameter sewaqe tansmission main, originating at a connecion point to the CITY's sytem at Rodgers Road and Auto Center Way and continuing South alonq the west side of State Highway No. 3, to a connection point to the CITY'a ystem at the north property line of the CITY's Wastewater Treatment Plant. Together with those collection system mains and appurtenances lyinq West of SR3 and north of the south 15 f section line Qf Section 21, Township 24 North, Range 1 Eaet. The CITY agree to discontinue use, vacate, and transfer ownership to the DISTRICT the 14- to 21-inch diameter sewage transmission main oriqinatinq at a connection point with the CITY system at Oyster Bay Hlvd. and Arsenal Way and continuinq south along the east eide and across State Highway No. 3 to a connection point with the CityB system at D Street and Sayview Drive. Se_ ction 10 Requlatory Compliance The DISTRICT agrees to comply with the provisions of all federal, state, and local rules and regulations governinq Bewage systems and the introduction of prohibitive discharges. The DISTRICT further agrees to insure that DISTRICT customers comply with all federal, atate, and local rules and requlations regardinq sanitary sewer conetruction. xn the case of discrepancies between rules or regulations, the most strinqent shall apply. ection 11 General Conditions a) Tbis document, including the exhibits incosporated herein, embodiea the entire agreement between the CYTY and the DISTRICT. No verbal agreements or conversatione with any officer, agent, or e aployee of the CITY or DISTRICT prior or eubsequent to the execution of thie aqreeutent shall affect, or modify any of its 1 16 C ternas or obliqations. Deviation of any sort from the agreement texms must be authorized formally, in writinq. No other autbority for deviation from this agreement will be recoqnized as prior or official. The parties expressly reserve the right to reneqotiate the provisions hereto, includinq the terms of this aqreement, from time to ti ne as may be necessary and to amend this agreement in response to current and future regulatory or other applicable requisements, provided however, that no alteration or modification of the terms or conditions hereof shall be valid and binding unless made in writinq and signed by the authorized representatives of the parties. b) This aqreement sall be biadinq upon the successors and assigns of each of the parties. But neither party will assign this aqreement without the written consent of the other. This written coneent will not be unreasonably withheld, and at execution of this agreement, the CITY underatands and accepts that the DISTRICT intends to aseign its rights and responsibilities unde this contract to Kitsap County at some time in the future. c) It is understood that the relatio ship of the CITY to the DISTAICT is independent. None of the employeee or aqents of the reapective p$rties shall be considered employees of the other. 17 id) Each party warrants and repreeente that it has authosity to enter into thit eqreement. e) All notices to be given by either of the parties hereto to the other party shall be in writinq and may either be delivered pereonally or may be deposited in the United Statee Mail, poatage prepaid, as eitber certified or regular mail, addressed as Specified below, or to euch other designate in writinq. Notices sent by mail shall be deemed to have been given 48 hours after properly mailed; the postmark affixed by the United StateB Post Office shall be conclusive evidence of the date of mailinq. City= Director of Utilities 3027 Olympus Drive eremerton, WA 98310 City Clerk 239 Fourth Street B=eraerton, WA 96310 Oietrictt SeKer Dfstrict No. 1 702 Charlotte Ave S Bremerton WA 98312 f) In the event that any provision herein is declared illeqal or iatvalid, no other provisions of this aqreement shall be affected, iB and tbie agreement shall then continue in full force and effect as though such illeqal or invalid proviaions had not been contained herein. g) This aqreement shall be conatrued and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. The venue of any action brought hereunder shall be the Superior Court of Kiteap County, Washington. h) The DYSTRICT aqrees to complete and present to the CITY by December 31, 1993, a complete infiltration and inflow study,, and an engineerinq report/comprehensive plan establishing the DISTRICT capital needs, estimated costs for construction, and a schedule for construction, to repair any infiltration and inflow problems or other capital deficiencies found within the DISTRICT's syetem. i) The City will aqree to defend, and hold the Dietrict, and ite aesiqns, harmlese from, the pending litiqation over the sewer plant, includinq the coats of litigation. Provided, that if the City is required to provide any capital improvements to the plant, or purchase land to resolve the litigation, the District and .ts asigne will pay 6.34$ of the average annual debt service for this expenee. i) Yf either party to this agreement is req ired to use the 19 er ricee of an attorney to enforce any provieione in thie aqreeme t, the prevailinq party in that diepute shall be entitled to an aw$rd of coste, and a reasonable attorney•s fee. DAT D this day of J ...s2 y . 19 c.. CIT OF HRE RTON HYs LOUIS MENTO , yor ATTESTt KATHLEEN L. McCLUSREY, Cle k DEPAATMENT APpROVALs BY= WILLIAM DUFFY, Utilities Director RO D AS TO FORM: SIEVERS, City Attorney KITSAPTY SEWER DISTRICT 1 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTx OF KITSAP s es. On thie day personally appeared before me Louie Mentor,Bremerton City 1rt8yor, and Kathleen L. McCluskey, Bremerton CityC1erk, to me knowm to be the individuals described in and whoexecytedth within and foreqoinq inBtrument, and acknowledqed thattbeyeiqnedthesameaetheirfreeandvoluntaryactanddeedfo= 20 r ` / I l ` the uses and purposee therein mentioned. Given under my hand and official seal this .' day of i . r' . if ; c,• STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KITSAP 1 tary Public in and for the State of lashinqton, residinq at ,[2t,ry ,,N , My Commiseion Expires: !v -iI_' y . t es. On this day personally appeared before meJAMESHOOD , LYNN JOHNSON andGEORGEMURKER , of Ritsap County Sewer District l, to me nowri to be the individuals described in and who executed the within and foreqoing instrument, and acknowledged that they=signedthe ame ae their free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Given under my nd and official se l this ` da of qrs , 19 , y 4 `- , y ` r j j w :Y r i : r' i i `. w ~ i'ic1 '', t i , c:c s 4I,,+ ` . : `. . Notary Pu xic in and for Washinqto f, residing at My Commiseion Expires: 21 State of r_rr . Y CODE Hour) PAGE(S) until local time X A X B X C D EX X G F H RATING PAGE OF PAGES 7. ISSUED BY Date) 30-Nov-2017 IMPORTANT - Award will be made on this Form, or on Standard Form 26, or by other authorized official written notice. Previous Edition is Unusable 33-134 STANDARD FORM 33 (REV. 9-97) Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.214(c) CHARLES D. BENSON 122 If other than Item 7) 15A. NAME 16. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO AND ADDRESS SIGN OFFER (Type or print) OF OFFEROR GOV'T POC AMENDMENT NO. DATE 15B. TELEPHONE NO (Include area code)17. SIGNATURE 360-473-5296 15C. CHECK IF REMITTANCE ADDRESS IS DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE - ENTER SUCH ADDRESS IN SCHEDULE. 18. OFFER DATE CITY OF BREMERTON 100 OYSTER BAY AVE N BREMERTON WA 98312-3455 1. THIS CONTRACT IS A RATED ORDER UNDER DPAS (15 CFR 700) 2. CONTRACT NO. N4425518C5002 N44255 8. ADDRESS OFFER TO See Item 7 9. Sealed offers in original and copies for furnishing the supplies or services in the Schedule will be received at the place specified in Item 8, or if handcarried, in the depository located in CAUTION - LATE Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals: See Section L, Provision No. 52.214-7 or 52.215-1. All offers are subject to all terms and conditions contained in this solicitation. 10. FOR INFORMATION CALL: A. NAME (NO COLLECT CALLS) 11. TABLE OF CONTENTS SOLICITATION/ CONTRACT FORM SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/ COSTS 1 2 X I CONTRACT CLAUSES DESCRIPTION/ SPECS./ WORK STATEMENT X PACKAGING AND MARKING 3 - 4 J LIST OF ATTACHMENTS INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE 5 6 K REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA 7 - 8 SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS OFFER (Must be fully completed by offeror) M L INSTRS., CONDS., AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD NOTE: Item 12 does not apply if the solicitation includes the provisions at 52.214-16, Minimum Bid Acceptance Period. is inserted by the offeror) from the date for receipt of offers specified above, to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item, delivered at the designated point(s), within the time specified in the schedule. 13. DISCOUNT FOR PROMPT PAYMENT See Section I, Clause No. 52.232-8) 14. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS( The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments AMENDMENT NO. DATE to the SOLICITATION for offerors and related documents numbered and dated): 04DN7 FACILITY 04DN7 12. In compliance with the above, the undersigned agrees, if this offer is accepted within calendar days (60 calendar days unless a different period SOLICITATION, OFFER AND AWARD chuck.benson@navy.mil X X)SEC. DESCRIPTION (X)SEC. DESCRIPTION PAGE(S) PART I - THE SCHEDULE 26. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)27. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 28. AWARD DATE EMAIL:TEL: 360-396-0052 (Signature of Contracting Officer) CODE CODE B. TELEPHONE (Include area code)C. E-MAIL ADDRESS AWARD (To be completed by Government) 19. ACCEPTED AS TO ITEMS NUMBERED 20. AMOUNT 21. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION 864,340.00 EST 22. AUTHORITY FOR USING OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION: X 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)( )1 41 U.S.C. 253(c)( )(4 copies unless otherwise specified) 23. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM 24. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 7) CODE 25. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY CODE N68732 DFAS CLEVELAND ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PO BOX 998022 CLEVELAND OH 44199-8022 PART IV - REPRESENTATIO NS AND INSTRUCTIO NS PART III - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS 9 - 21 PART II - CONTRACT CLAUSES NAVFAC NORTHWEST 1101 TAUTOG CIRCLE SILVERDALE WA 98315-1101 FAX: TEL: FAX: TEL: NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder". SOLICITATION 22 6. REQUISITION/PURCHASE NO.5. DATEISSUED4. TYPE OF SOLICITATION SEALED BID (IFB) NEGOTIATED (RFP) 3. SOLICITATION NO. See Item 7 COPY OF WATER & SEWER SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH US NAVY FOR WATER & WASTEWATER RATES 32 PAGES TOTAL EXPIRES: NOVEMBER 31, 2027 N4425518C5002 Page 2 of 22 Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 0001 399,740 Each $1.00 $399,740.00 EST Potable Water at NAVHOSP Bremerton FFP Price for metered water at the Naval Hospital shall be based on the City's retail water service rate for a six-inch meter (accounts 5352740 & 5352680) as indicated in the City of Bremerton Ordinance provided as Attachment J.1 to this contract. See Attachment J.2 for a listing of accounts and deduct meter sizes for water charges. FOB: Destination NET AMT $399,740.00 (EST.) ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 0002 464,600 Each $1.00 $464,600.00 EST Sewer Service at NAVHOSP Bremerton FFP Price for sewage at Naval Hospital Bremerton, (account 5352690) shall be based upon the City's retail wastewater service rate "Commercial 1" as shown on Attachment J.1 for rates and J.2 for cacluations. FOB: Destination NET AMT $464,600.00 (EST.) N4425518C5002 Page 3 of 22 Section C - Descriptions and Specifications DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE C.1 General Requirements: The contractor shall provide all labor, supervision, tools, equipment, and transportation necessary to provide for services under this contract. C.2 Premises to be Served: Naval Hospital Bremerton Buildings 01, 17, 87, and the Satellite Pharmacy Boone Road Bremerton, WA C.3 Points of Delivery (P.O.D.): CLIN – 0001 - Water shall be supplied by the City of Brremerton to the Naval Hospital via the two connections at Jackson Park Housing (contract N44255-18-C-5001). One P.O.D. is located near the southwesterly corner of Jackson Park Housing at Austin Drive and Olding Road, easterly along Olding Road approximately 400 feet. This P.O.D. is a 10” diameter supply pipe with a 10” meter. The second P.O.D. is located near the southeasterly corner of Jackson Park Housing, approximately 100 feet beyond Root Court and this is the 8” supply pipe and meter. The water used at the hospital is measured at the 6” meter found under account 5352740, (See the map in Attachment J.3) CLIN – 0002 – Account 5352690, Wastewater shall be received and metered by the City of Bremerton at the POD. near the City’s lift station #16 at the easterly end of Dowell Road. C.4 Estimated Service: CLIN 0001 - WATER Estimated annual volume: 20,000 HCF CLIN 0002 - SEWER Estimated annual Volume: 10,000 HCF C.5 Service to be Rendered: WATER: The City shall provide at its expense all necessary facilities and permits required to connect the City of Bremerton water distribution system to the Government water system at the points of delivery specified in this contract for the purpose of providing reliable water service to Naval Hospital Bremerton. The City shall take all reasonable efforts to proivde a peak fire flow demand (combined from both P.O.D.’s) of 3750 gpm at a residual pressure of approximately 75 psig at the Root Court connection and a residual pressure of approximately 40 psig at the Olding Road connection. The city shall maintain a minimum normal pressure range within 10% of these pressures at the respective P.O.D.s. The water supplied will be clear, potable, and safe for human consumption. The water supplied shall be in accordance with the applicable standards as promulgated by, and as may be revised by, Federal, state, and local agencies having regulatory authority. SEWER: The City shall provide at its expense all necessary facilities and permits required to receive, carry, treat, and dispose of sewage from Naval Hospital Bremerton at the point of delivery specified in this contract. The City shall receive, carry, treat, and dispose of sewage in a manner, and by such means, as will not constitute a hazard to the public health. The City shall operate its sewage facilities in conformity with applicable laws, rules, and regulations as promulgated by, and as may be revised by, Federal, state, and local agencies having regulatory authority. N4425518C5002 Page 4 of 22 C.6 Term of Service: This contract shall be in effect for a period of ten (10) years commmencing on 1 December 2017, (the day after the previous contract for services expires). or until terminated at the option of the Government by giving written notice to the City of Bremerton not less that 30 days in advance of the effective date of termination. C.7 Rate Schedule: Water and Sewer rates charged on this contract shall be in accordance with the City of Bremerton’s current rates and charges as shown in “Assessments, Rates, Fees, and Charges” provided as Attachment J.1. This rate schedule may also be found at the city’s website at the following link: http://www.ci.bremerton.wa.us/524/Utility-Billing Water charges at Bremerton Naval Hospital shall be based upon the retail rate for the six (6) inch meter, Inside City Limits and using the Non-Residential Commodity Charge”. Bremerton Naval Hospital is considered “Comercial I” for wastewater services Attachment J.2 provides a listing of water and sewer account information and Attachment J.3 provides a map of the Hospital site and meter locations. End of Section C N4425518C5002 Page 5 of 22 Section E - Inspection and Acceptance INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE TERMS Supplies/services will be inspected/accepted at: CLIN INSPECT AT INSPECT BY ACCEPT AT ACCEPT BY 0001 N/A N/A N/A Government 0002 N/A N/A N/A Government N4425518C5002 Page 6 of 22 Section F - Deliveries or Performance DELIVERY INFORMATION CLIN DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC / CAGE 0001 30-NOV-2027 399,740 NAVFAC NORTHWEST CHARLES D. BENSON 1101 TAUTOG CIRCLE SILVERDALE WA 98315-1101 360-396-0052 FOB: Destination N44255 0002 30-NOV-2027 464,600 (SAME AS PREVIOUS LOCATION) FOB: Destination N44255 N4425518C5002 Page 7 of 22 Section G - Contract Administration Data ACCOUNT & INVOICE INFORMATION G.1 Payments: The City shall be paid by the designated disbursing office for services furnished under the contract at the rates specified. All bills for regular monthly service shall be paid according to the Prompt Payment Act. The Government shall be entitled to any discounts customarily applicable to payment of bills by all customers of the City under like conditions of service. The Government shall notify the City, in writing, within 30 days following receipt of any disputed billing. The Government may pay the disputed billings in full under protest, pending a negotiated resolution pursuant to an appropriate audit, if required, and in accordance with the Disputes Clause of the contract. G. 2 Invoices: Invoices for water and sewage service provided under CLINS 0001 and 0002 shall contain statements of the meter readings at the beginning and end of the billing period, including the consumption during the billing period. Invoices will also clearly state the negotiated rate(s) or City rate applied to the appropriate CLINs. The fixed and volumetric components of the appropriate rate(s) shall be clearly identified. Navy contract number, N44255-18-C-5002, the individual city utility account and applicable meter numbers shall also be clearly presented on the invoice. Water and sewage billing shall be on a monthly basis. All copies of invoices shall be submitted directly to the following address: COMMANDING OFFICER, CODE 08 NAVAL HOSPITAL , ONE BOONE ROAD BREMERTON, WA 98312-1898 G.3 Other Communication: All other communication regarding this contract shall be addressed as follows: Utility Service Provider City of Bremerton Attn: Public Works Department 100OysterBayAveN Bremerton, WA 98312-3455 Government: Department of Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest Attention: Utilities Contracts 1101 Tautog Circle Silverdale, WA 98315-1101 G.4 Accounting and Appropriation Data: The Certifying Official shall cite funding for recurring services on each invoice. Nonrecurring services will normally be procured through contract modification and shall be separately invoiced. G.5 Base Access and Security Requirements: 5.1 Navy Installations Access - The Contractor shall ensure that all security/entrance clearances are obtained. All Contractor employees shall obtain the required employee and vehicle passes. Employee badges may be obtained either by visiting the Pass and ID Office daily to obtain a pass or utilizing the Defense Biometric Identification System (DBIDS). More information on DBIDS can be found at https://www.cnic.navy.mil/om/dbids.html . The Contractor is responsible for filling out all forms and providing all information necessary to request passes and/or badges. Heightened security requirements may cause unexpected delays. The Contractor is responsible for requesting badges in a timely manner. Each employee shall wear the Government issued badge over the front of the outer clothing. When working on site, if wearing the badge would be a safety hazard, the individual may remove the badge but shall retain it in his/her possession to show if N4425518C5002 Page 8 of 22 challenged. When an employee leaves the Contractor's or subcontractor's service, the employee's pass and/or badge shall be returned to the Government. Upon completion of the work, the Contractor shall return all identification items issued to him during the course of the contract. The Contractor shall provide accompanied escorts for contractor and subcontractor personnel as needed to meet installation security requirements. Contractor or subcontractor personnel who do not possess permanent access credentials shall not be left unattended. 5.2 Camera, Video and Recording Equipment — No camera, video, or recording equipment may be brought aboard an Activity without submission and approval of camera/video/recording Camcorder) equipment permit. The request must be submitted to the Activity Energy Manager/COR via the Contracting Officer. 5.3 Radio Transmitter Restrictions — Conform to the restrictions and procedures for the use of radio transmitting equipment, as directed. Do not use transmitters without prior approval. G.6 Rate Changes: The City shall notify the Navy of any rate changes as far in advance as is reasonable. Changes in rates or terms and conditions of service are subject to the provisions of FAR Clause 52.241-8, “Change in Rates or Terms and Conditions of Service for Unregulated Services (Feb 1995). CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT 252.204-0008 CONTRACT-WIDE: CONTRACTING OFFICER SPECIFIED ACRN ORDER. (SEP 2009) The payment office shall make payment in sequential ACRN order within the contract or order, exhausting all funds in the previous ACRN before paying from the next ACRN in the sequence order specified below: ACRN Order LOA will be cited at time of payment. End of clause) N4425518C5002 Page 9 of 22 Section I - Contract Clauses CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE 52.202-1 Definitions NOV 2013 52.203-3 Gratuities APR 1984 52.203-5 Covenant Against Contingent Fees MAY 2014 52.203-6 Restrictions On Subcontractor Sales To The Government SEP 2006 52.203-7 Anti-Kickback Procedures MAY 2014 52.203-8 Cancellation, Rescission, and Recovery of Funds for Illegal or Improper Activity MAY 2014 52.203-10 Price Or Fee Adjustment For Illegal Or Improper Activity MAY 2014 52.203-12 Limitation On Payments To Influence Certain Federal Transactions OCT 2010 52.204-4 Printed or Copied Double-Sided on Postconsumer Fiber Content Paper MAY 2011 52.204-7 System for Award Management OCT 2016 52.219-8 Utilization of Small Business Concerns NOV 2016 52.222-3 Convict Labor JUN 2003 52.222-21 Prohibition Of Segregated Facilities APR 2015 52.222-26 Equal Opportunity SEP 2016 52.222-50 Combating Trafficking in Persons MAR 2015 52.223-18 Encouraging Contractor Policies To Ban Text Messaging While Driving AUG 2011 52.232-1 Payments APR 1984 52.232-11 Extras APR 1984 52.232-19 Availability Of Funds For The Next Fiscal Year APR 1984 52.232-25 Prompt Payment JAN 2017 52.232-33 Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer--System for Award Management JUL 2013 52.232-39 Unenforceability of Unauthorized Obligations JUN 2013 52.233-4 Applicable Law for Breach of Contract Claim OCT 2004 52.237-2 Protection Of Government Buildings, Equipment, And Vegetation APR 1984 52.237-3 Continuity Of Services JAN 1991 52.241-2 Order of Precedence - Utilities FEB 1995 52.241-4 Change in Class of Service FEB 1995 52.241-5 Contractor's Facilities FEB 1995 52.241-11 Multiple Service Locations FEB 1995 52.249-1 Termination For Convenience Of The Government (Fixed Price) (Short Form) APR 1984 52.249-2 Termination For Convenience Of The Government (Fixed- Price) APR 2012 52.249-8 Default (Fixed-Price Supply & Service) APR 1984 52.253-1 Computer Generated Forms JAN 1991 252.203-7001 Prohibition On Persons Convicted of Fraud or Other Defense- Contract-Related Felonies DEC 2008 252.204-7000 Disclosure Of Information OCT 2016 252.204-7003 Control Of Government Personnel Work Product APR 1992 252.209-7004 Subcontracting With Firms That Are Owned or Controlled By The Government of a Country that is a State Sponsor of Terrorism OCT 2015 252.223-7006 Prohibition On Storage, Treatment, and Disposal of Toxic or Hazardous Materials SEP 2014 N4425518C5002 Page 10 of 22 252.241-7001 Government Access DEC 1991 252.243-7002 Requests for Equitable Adjustment DEC 2012 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT 52.222-26 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY (SEPT 2016) ALTERNATE I (FEB 1999) Notice. The following terms of this clause are waived for this contract: NA . a) Definitions. As used in this clause-- Compensation means any payments made to, or on behalf of, an employee or offered to an applicant as remuneration for employment, including but not limited to salary, wages, overtime pay, shift differentials, bonuses, commissions, vacation and holiday pay, allowances, insurance and other benefits, stock options and awards, profit sharing, and retirement. Compensation information means the amount and type of compensation provided to employees or offered to applicants, including, but not limited to, the desire of the Contractor to attract and retain a particular employee for the value the employee is perceived to add to the Contractor's profit or productivity; the availability of employees with like skills in the marketplace; market research about the worth of similar jobs in the relevant marketplace; job analysis, descriptions, and evaluations; salary and pay structures; salary surveys; labor union agreements; and Contractor decisions, statements and policies related to setting or altering employee compensation. Essential job functions means the fundamental job duties of the employment position an individual holds. A job function may be considered essential if-- 1) The access to compensation information is necessary in order to perform that function or another routinely assigned business task; or 2) The function or duties of the position include protecting and maintaining the privacy of employee personnel records, including compensation information. Gender identity has the meaning given by the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, and is found at www.dol.gov/ofccp/LGBT/LGBT_FAQs.html. Sexual orientation has the meaning given by the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, and is found at www.dol.gov/ofccp/LGBT/LGBT_FAQs.html. United States means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Wake Island. b)(1) If, during any 12-month period (including the 12 months preceding the award of this contract), the Contractor has been or is awarded nonexempt Federal contracts and/or subcontracts that have an aggregate value in excess of 10,000, the Contractor shall comply with this clause, except for work performed outside the United States by employees who were not recruited within the United States. Upon request, the Contractor shall provide information necessary to determine the applicability of this clause. 2) If the Contractor is a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society, the requirements of this clause do not apply with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on of the Contractor's activities (41 CFR 60-1.5). c) (1) The Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin. However, it shall not be a violation of this N4425518C5002 Page 11 of 22 clause for the Contractor to extend a publicly announced preference in employment to Indians living on or near an Indian reservation, in connection with employment opportunities on or near an Indian reservation, as permitted by 41 CFR 60-1.5. 2) The Contractor shall take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin. This shall include, but not be limited to, (i) employment, (ii) upgrading, (iii) demotion, (iv) transfer, v) recruitment or recruitment advertising, (vi) layoff or termination, (vii) rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and (viii) selection for training, including apprenticeship. 3) The Contractor shall post in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment the notices to be provided by the Contracting Officer that explain this clause. 4) The Contractor shall, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the Contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin. 5)(i) The Contractor shall not discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because such employee or applicant has inquired about, discussed, or disclosed the compensation of the employee or applicant or another employee or applicant. This prohibition against discrimination does not apply to instances in which an employee who has access to the compensation information of other employees or applicants as a part of such employee's essential job functions discloses the compensation of such other employees or applicants to individuals who do not otherwise have access to such information, unless such disclosure is in response to a formal complaint or charge, in furtherance of an investigation, proceeding, hearing, or action, including an investigation conducted by the employer, or is consistent with the Contractor's legal duty to furnish information. ii) The Contractor shall disseminate the prohibition on discrimination in paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this clause, using language prescribed by the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), to employees and applicants by— A) Incorporation into existing employee manuals or handbooks; and B) Electronic posting or by posting a copy of the provision in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment. 6) The Contractor shall send, to each labor union or representative of workers with which it has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, the notice to be provided by the Contracting Officer advising the labor union or workers' representative of the Contractor's commitments under this clause, and post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment. 7) The Contractor shall comply with Executive Order 11246, as amended, and the rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary of Labor. 8) The Contractor shall furnish to the contracting agency all information required by Executive Order 11246, as amended, and by the rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary of Labor. The Contractor shall also file Standard Form 100 (EEO-1), or any successor form, as prescribed in 41 CFR part 60-1. Unless the Contractor has filed within the 12 months preceding the date of contract award, the Contractor shall, within 30 days after contract award, apply to either the regional Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) or the local office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for the necessary forms. 9) The Contractor shall permit access to its premises, during normal business hours, by the contracting agency or the OFCCP for the purpose of conducting on-site compliance evaluations and complaint investigations. The Contractor shall permit the Government to inspect and copy any books, accounts, records (including computerized N4425518C5002 Page 12 of 22 records), and other material that may be relevant to the matter under investigation and pertinent to compliance with Executive Order 11246, as amended, and rules and regulations that implement the Executive Order. 10) If the OFCCP determines that the Contractor is not in compliance with this clause or any rule, regulation, or order of the Secretary of Labor, this contract may be canceled, terminated, or suspended in whole or in part and the Contractor may be declared ineligible for further Government contracts, under the procedures authorized in Executive Order 11246, as amended. In addition, sanctions may be imposed and remedies invoked against the Contractor as provided in Executive Order 11246, as amended; in the rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary of Labor; or as otherwise provided by law. 11) The Contractor shall include the terms and conditions of this clause in every subcontract or purchase order that is not exempted by the rules, regulations, or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued under Executive Order 11246, as amended, so that these terms and conditions will be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor. 12) The Contractor shall take such action with respect to any subcontract or purchase order as the Director of OFCCP may direct as a means of enforcing these terms and conditions, including sanctions for noncompliance; provided, that if the Contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a subcontractor or vendor as a result of any direction, the Contractor may request the United States to enter into the litigation to protect the interests of the United States. d) Notwithstanding any other clause in this contract, disputes relative to this clause will be governed by the procedures in 41 CFR part 60-1. End of clause) 52.222-35 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR VETERANS (OCT 2015) ALTERNATE I (JUL 2014) Notice: The following term(s) of this clause are waived for this contract: -------------------NA a) Definitions. As used in this clause-- Active duty wartime or campaign badge veteran,'' ``Armed Forces service medal veteran,'' ``disabled veteran,'' protected veteran,'' ``qualified disabled veteran,'' and ``recently separated veteran'' have the meanings given at FAR 22.1301. b) Equal opportunity clause. The Contractor shall abide by the requirements of the equal opportunity clause at 41 CFR 60-300.5(a), as of March 24, 2014. This clause prohibits discrimination against qualified protected veterans, and requires affirmative action by the Contractor to employ and advance in employment qualified protected veterans. c) Subcontracts. The Contractor shall insert the terms of this clause in subcontracts of $100,000 or more unless exempted by rules, regulations, or orders of the Secretary of Labor. The Contractor shall act as specified by the Director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, to enforce the terms, including action for noncompliance. Such necessary changes in language may be made as shall be appropriate to identify properly the parties and their undertakings. End of clause) 52.232-40 PROVIDING ACCELERATED PAYMENTS TO SMALL BUSINESS N4425518C5002 Page 13 of 22 SUBCONTRACTORS (DEC 2013) a) Upon receipt of accelerated payments from the Government, the Contractor shall make accelerated payments to its small business subcontractors under this contract, to the maximum extent practicable and prior to when such payment is otherwise required under the applicable contract or subcontract, after receipt of a proper invoice and all other required documentation from the small business subcontractor. b) The acceleration of payments under this clause does not provide any new rights under the Prompt Payment Act. c) Include the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (c), in all subcontracts with small business concerns, including subcontracts with small business concerns for the acquisition of commercial items. End of clause) 52.233-1 DISPUTES. (MAY 2014) -- ALTERNATE I (DEC 1991) a) This contract is subject to 41 U.S.C. chapter 71, Contract Disputes. b) Except as provided in 41 U.S.C. chapter 71, all disputes arising under or relating to this contract shall be resolved under this clause. c) Claim, as used in this clause, means a written demand or written assertion by one of the contracting parties seeking, as a matter of right, the payment of money in a sum certain, the adjustment or interpretation of contract terms, or other relief arising under or relating to this contract. However, a written demand or written assertion by the Contractor seeking the payment of money exceeding $100,000 is not a claim under 41 U.S.C. chapter 71 until certified. A voucher, invoice, or other routine request for payment that is not in dispute when submitted is not a claim under 41 U.S.C. chapter 71. The submission may be converted to a claim under 41 U.S.C. chapter 71, by complying with the submission and certification requirements of this clause, if it is disputed either as to liability or amount or is not acted upon in a reasonable time. d)(1) A claim by the Contractor shall be made in writing and, unless otherwise stated in this contract, submitted within 6 years after accrual of the claim to the Contracting Officer for a written decision. A claim by the Government against the Contractor shall be subject to a written decision by the Contracting Officer. 2) (i) Contractors shall provide the certification specified in subparagraph (d)(2)(iii) of this clause when submitting any claimexceeding $100,000. ii) The certification requirement does not apply to issues in controversy that have not been submitted as all or part of a claim. iii) The certification shall state as follows: "I certify that the claim is made in good faith; that the supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief; that the amount requested accurately reflects the contract adjustment for which the Contractor believes the Government is liable; and that I am authorized to certify the claim on behalf of the Contractor. 3) The certification may be executed by any person authorized to bind the Contractor with respect to the claim. e) For Contractor claims of $100,000 or less, the Contracting Officer must, if requested in writing by the Contractor, render a decision within 60 days of the request. For Contractor-certified claims over $100,000, the Contracting Officer must, within 60 days, decide the claim or notify the Contractor of the date by which the decision will be made. N4425518C5002 Page 14 of 22 f) The Contracting Officer's decision shall be final unless the Contractor appeals or files a suit as provided in 41 U.S.C. chapter 71. g) If the claim by the Contractor is submitted to the Contracting Officer or a claim by the Government is presented to the Contractor, the parties, by mutual consent, may agree to use ADR. If the Contractor refuses an offer for alternative disputes resolution, the Contractor shall inform the Contracting Officer, in writing, of the Contractor's specific reasons for rejecting the request. When using arbitration conducted pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 575-580, or when using any other ADR technique that the agency elects to handle in accordance with the ADRA, any claim, regardless of amount, shall be accompanied by the certification described in subparagraph (d)(2)(iii) of this clause, and executed in accordance with subparagraph (d)(3) of this clause. h) The Government shall pay interest on the amount found due and unpaid from (1) the date the Contracting Officer receives the claim (certified, if required); or (2) the date that payment otherwise would be due, if that date is later, until the date of payment. With regard to claims having defective certifications, as defined in (FAR) 48 CFR 33.201, interest shall be paid from the date that the Contracting Officer initially receives the claim. Simple interest on claims shall be paid at the rate, fixed by the Secretary of the Treasury as provided in the Act, which is applicable to the period during which the Contracting Officer receives the claim and then at the rate applicable for each 6- month period as fixed by the Treasury Secretary during the pendency of the claim. i) The Contractor shall proceed diligently with performance of this contract, pending final resolution of any request for relief, claim, appeal, or action arising under or relating to the contract, and comply with any decision of the Contracting Officer. End of clause) 52.241-3 SCOPE AND DURATION OF CONTRACT (FEB 1995) a) For the period of 10 years commencing on 30 November 2017 and ending 29 November 2027 the Contractor agrees to furnish and the Government agrees to purchase Water and Sewer utility service in accordance with the applicable tariff(s), rules, and regulations as approved by the applicable governing regulatory body and as set forth in the contract. b) It is expressly understood that neither the Contractor nor the Government is under any obligation to continue any service under the terms and conditions of this contract beyond the expiration date. c) The Contractor shall provide the Government with one complete set of rates, terms, and conditions of service which are in effect as of the date of this contract and any subsequently approved rates. d) The Contractor shall be paid at the applicable rate(s) under the tariff and the Government shall be liable for the minimum monthly charge, if any, specified in this contract commencing with the period in which service is initially furnished and continuing for the term of this contract. Any minimum monthly charge specified in this contract shall be equitably prorated for the periods in which commencement and termination of this contract become effective. End of clause) 52.241-6 SERVICE PROVISIONS (FEB 1995) a) Measurement of service. (1) All service furnished by the Contractor shall be measured by suitable metering equipment of standard manufacture, to be furnished, installed, maintained, repaired, calibrated, and read by the Contractor at its expense. When more than a single meter is installed at a service location, the readings thereof may be billed conjunctively, if appropriate. In the event any meter fails to register (or registers incorrectly) the service N4425518C5002 Page 15 of 22 furnished, the parties shall agree upon the length of time of meter malfunction and the quantity of service delivered during such period of time. An appropriate adjustment shall be made to the next invoice for the purpose of correcting such errors. However, any meter which registers not more than 3% percent slow or fast shall be deemed correct. 2) The Contractor shall read all meters at periodic intervals of approximately 30 days or in accordance with the policy of the cognizant regulatory body or applicable bylaws. All billings based on meter readings of less than 28 days shall be prorated accordingly. b) Meter test. (1) The Contractor, at its expense, shall periodically inspect and test Contractor-installed meters at intervals not exceeding 5 year(s) The Government has the right to have representation during the inspection and test. 2) At the written request of the Contracting Officer, the Contractor shall make additional tests of any or all such meters in the presence of Government representatives. The cost of such additional tests shall be borne by the Government if the percentage of errors is found to be not more than 3% percent slow or fast. 3) No meter shall be placed in service or allowed to remain in service which has an error in registration in excess of 3% percent under normal operating conditions. c) Change in volume or character. Reasonable notice shall be given by the Contracting Officer to the Contractor regarding any material changes anticipated in the volume or characteristics of the utility service required at each location. d) Continuity of service and consumption. The Contractor shall use reasonable diligence to provide a regular and uninterrupted supply of service at each service location, but shall not be liable for damages, breach of contract or otherwise, to the Government for failure, suspension, diminution, or other variations of service occasioned by or in consequence of any cause beyond the control of the Contractor, including but not limited to acts of God or of the public enemy, fires, floods, earthquakes, or other catastrophe, strikes, or failure or breakdown of transmission or other facilities. If any such failure, suspension, diminution, or other variation of service shall aggregate more than 24 hour(s) during any billing period hereunder, an equitable adjustment shall be made in the monthly billing specified in this contract (including the minimum monthly charge). End of clause) 52.241-8 CHANGE IN RATES OR TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE FOR UNREGULATED SERVICES (FEB 1995) a) This clause applies to the extent that services furnished hereunder are not subject to regulation by a regulatory body. b) After one year , either party may request a change in rates or terms and conditions of service, unless otherwise provided in this contract. Both parties agree to enter in negotiations concerning such changes upon receipt of a written request detailing the proposed changes and specifying the reasons for the proposed changes. c) The effective date of any change shall be as agreed to by the parties. The Contractor agrees that throughout the life of this contract the rates so negotiated will not be in excess of published and unpublished rates charged to any other customer of the same class under similar terms and conditions of use and service. d) The failure of the parties to agree upon any change after a reasonable period of time shall be a dispute under the Disputes clause of this contract. e) Any changes to rates, terms, or conditions as a result of such negotiations shall be made a part of this contract by N4425518C5002 Page 16 of 22 the issuance of a contract modification. End of clause) 52.243-1 CHANGES--FIXED-PRICE (AUG 1987) - ALTERNATE I (APR 1984) a) The Contracting Officer may at any time, by written order, and without notice to the sureties, if any, make changes within the general scope of this contract in any one or more of the following: 1) Description of services to be performed. 2) Time of performance (i.e., hours of the day, days of the week, etc.). 3) Place of performance of the services. b) If any such change causes an increase or decrease in the cost of, or the time required for, performance of any part of the work under this contract, whether or not changed by the order, the Contracting Officer shall make an equitable adjustment in the contract price, the delivery schedule, or both, and shall modify the contract. c) The Contractor must assert its right to an adjustment under this clause within 30 days from the date of receipt of the written order. However, if the Contracting Officer decides that the facts justify it, the Contracting Officer may receive and act upon a proposal submitted before final payment of the contract. d) If the Contractor’s proposal includes the cost of property made obsolete or excess by the change, the Contracting Officer shall have the right to prescribe the manner of the disposition of the property. e) Failure to agree to any adjustment shall be a dispute under the Disputes clause. However, nothing in this clause shall excuse the Contractor from proceeding with the contract as changed. End of clause) 52.252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998) This contract incorporates one or more clauses by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available. Also, the full text of a clause may be accessed electronically at this/these address(es): https://www.acquisition.gov/?q=browsefar End of clause) 252.204-7012 SAFEGUARDING COVERED DEFENSE INFORMATION AND CYBER INCIDENT REPORTING (OCT 2016) a) Definitions. As used in this clause-- Adequate security means protective measures that are commensurate with the consequences and probability of loss, misuse, or unauthorized access to, or modification of information. N4425518C5002 Page 17 of 22 Compromise means disclosure of information to unauthorized persons, or a violation of the security policy of a system, in which unauthorized intentional or unintentional disclosure, modification, destruction, or loss of an object, or the copying of information to unauthorized media may have occurred. Contractor attributional/proprietary information means information that identifies the contractor(s), whether directly or indirectly, by the grouping of information that can be traced back to the contractor(s) (e.g., program description, facility locations), personally identifiable information, as well as trade secrets, commercial or financial information, or other commercially sensitive information that is not customarily shared outside of the company. Controlled technical information means technical information with military or space application that is subject to controls on the access, use, reproduction, modification, performance, display, release, disclosure, or dissemination. Controlled technical information would meet the criteria, if disseminated, for distribution statements B through F using the criteria set forth in DoD Instruction 5230.24, Distribution Statements on Technical Documents. The term does not include information that is lawfully publicly available without restrictions. Covered contractor information system means an unclassified information system that is owned, or operated by or for, a contractor and that processes, stores, or transmits covered defense information. Covered defense information means unclassified controlled technical information or other information, as described in the Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Registry at http://www.archives.gov/cui/registry/category- list.html, that requires safeguarding or dissemination controls pursuant to and consistent with law, regulations, and Governmentwide policies, and is-- 1) Marked or otherwise identified in the contract, task order, or delivery order and provided to the contractor by or on behalf of DoD in support of the performance of the contract; or 2) Collected, developed, received, transmitted, used, or stored by or on behalf of the contractor in support of the performance of the contract. Cyber incident means actions taken through the use of computer networks that result in a compromise or an actual or potentially adverse effect on an information system and/or the information residing therein. Forensic analysis means the practice of gathering, retaining, and analyzing computer-related data for investigative purposes in a manner that maintains the integrity of the data. Information system means a discrete set of information resources organized for the collection, processing, maintenance, use, sharing, dissemination, or disposition of information. Malicious software means computer software or firmware intended to perform an unauthorized process that will have adverse impact on the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of an information system. This definition includes a virus, worm, Trojan horse, or other code-based entity that infects a host, as well as spyware and some forms of adware. Media means physical devices or writing surfaces including, but is not limited to, magnetic tapes, optical disks, magnetic disks, large-scale integration memory chips, and printouts onto which covered defense information is recorded, stored, or printed within a covered contractor information system. Operationally critical support means supplies or services designated by the Government as critical for airlift, sealift, intermodal transportation services, or logistical support that is essential to the mobilization, deployment, or sustainment of the Armed Forces in a contingency operation. Rapidly report means within 72 hours of discovery of any cyber incident. N4425518C5002 Page 18 of 22 Technical information means technical data or computer software, as those terms are defined in the clause at DFARS 252.227-7013, Rights in Technical Data--Noncommercial Items, regardless of whether or not the clause is incorporated in this solicitation or contract. Examples of technical information include research and engineering data, engineering drawings, and associated lists, specifications, standards, process sheets, manuals, technical reports, technical orders, catalog-item identifications, data sets, studies and analyses and related information, and computer software executable code and source code. b) Adequate security. The Contractor shall provide adequate security on all covered contractor information systems. To provide adequate security, the Contractor shall implement, at a minimum, the following information security protections: 1) For covered contractor information systems that are part of an information technology (IT) service or system operated on behalf of the Government, the following security requirements apply: i) Cloud computing services shall be subject to the security requirements specified in the clause 252.239-7010, Cloud Computing Services, of this contract. ii) Any other such IT service or system (i.e., other than cloud computing) shall be subject to the security requirements specified elsewhere in this contract. 2) For covered contractor information systems that are not part of an IT service or system operated on behalf of the Government and therefore are not subject to the security requirement specified at paragraph (b)(1) of this clause, the following security requirements apply: i) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this clause, the covered contractor information system shall be subject to the security requirements in National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-171, ``Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Information Systems and Organizations'' (available via the internet at http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-171) in effect at the time the solicitation is issued or as authorized by the Contracting Officer. ii)(A) The Contractor shall implement NIST SP 800-171, as soon aspractical, but not later than December 31, 2017. For all contracts awarded prior to October 1, 2017, the Contractor shall notify the DoD Chief Information Officer CIO), via email at osd.dibcsia@mail.mil, within 30 days of contract award, of any security requirements specified by NIST SP 800-171 not implemented at the time of contract award. B) The Contractor shall submit requests to vary from NIST SP 800-171 in writing to the Contracting Officer, for consideration by the DoD CIO. The Contractor need not implement any security requirement adjudicated by an authorized representative of the DoD CIO to be nonapplicable or to have an alternative, but equally effective, security measure that may be implemented in its place. C) If the DoD CIO has previously adjudicated the contractor's requests indicating that a requirement is not applicable or that an alternative security measure is equally effective, a copy of that approval shall be provided to the Contracting Officer when requesting its recognition under this contract. D) If the Contractor intends to use an external cloud service provider to store, process, or transmit any covered defense information in performance of this contract, the Contractor shall require and ensure that the cloud service provider meets security requirements equivalent to those established by the Government for the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) Moderate baseline https://www.fedramp.gov/resources/documents/) and that the cloud service provider complies with requirements in paragraphs (c) through (g) of this clause for cyber incident reporting, malicious software, media preservation and protection, access to additional information and equipment necessary for forensic analysis, and cyber incident damage assessment. 3) Apply other information systems security measures when the Contractor reasonably determines that information systems security measures, in addition to those identified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) N4425518C5002 Page 19 of 22 of this clause, may be required to provide adequate security in a dynamic environment or to accommodate special circumstances (e.g., medical devices) and any individual, isolated, or temporary deficiencies based on an assessed risk or vulnerability. These measures may be addressed in a system security plan. c) Cyber incident reporting requirement. 1) When the Contractor discovers a cyber incident that affects a covered contractor information system or the covered defense information residing therein, or that affects the contractor's ability to perform the requirements of the contract that are designated as operationally critical support and identified in the contract, the Contractor shall-- i) Conduct a review for evidence of compromise of covered defense information, including, but not limited to, identifying compromised computers, servers, specific data, and user accounts. This review shall also include analyzing covered contractor information system(s) that were part of the cyber incident, as well as other information systems on the Contractor's network(s), that may have been accessed as a result of the incident in order to identify compromised covered defense information, or that affect the Contractor's ability to provide operationally critical support; and ii) Rapidly report cyber incidents to DoD at http://dibnet.dod.mil. 2) Cyber incident report. The cyber incident report shall be treated as information created by or for DoD and shall include, at a minimum, the required elements at http://dibnet.dod.mil. 3) Medium assurance certificate requirement. In order to report cyber incidents in accordance with this clause, the Contractor or subcontractor shall have or acquire a DoD-approved medium assurance certificate to report cyber incidents. For information on obtaining a DoD-approved medium assurance certificate, see http://iase.disa.mil/pki/eca/Pages/index.aspx. d) Malicious software. When the Contractor or subcontractors discover and isolate malicious software in connection with a reported cyber incident, submit the malicious software to DoD Cyber Crime Center DC3) in accordance with instructions provided by DC3 or the Contracting Officer. Do not send the malicious software to the Contracting Officer. e) Media preservation and protection. When a Contractor discovers a cyber incident has occurred, the Contractor shall preserve and protect images of all known affected information systems identified in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this clause and all relevant monitoring/packet capture data for at least 90 days from the submission of the cyber incident report to allow DoD to request the media or decline interest. f) Access to additional information or equipment necessary for forensic analysis. Upon request by DoD, the Contractor shall provide DoD with access to additional information or equipment that is necessary to conduct a forensic analysis. g) Cyber incident damage assessment activities. If DoD elects to conduct a damage assessment, the Contracting Officer will request that the Contractor provide all of the damage assessment information gathered in accordance with paragraph (e) of this clause. h) DoD safeguarding and use of contractor attributional/proprietary information. The Government shall protect against the unauthorized use or release of information obtained from the contractor (or derived from information obtained from the contractor) under this clause that includes contractor attributional/proprietary information, including such information submitted in accordance with paragraph (c). To the maximum extent practicable, the Contractor shall identify and mark attributional/proprietary information. In making an authorized release of such information, the Government will implement appropriate procedures to minimize the contractor attributional/proprietary information that is included in such authorized release, seeking to include only that information that is necessary for the authorized purpose(s) for which the information is being released. N4425518C5002 Page 20 of 22 i) Use and release of contractor attributional/proprietary information not created by or for DoD. Information that is obtained from the contractor (or derived from information obtained from the contractor) under this clause that is not created by or for DoD is authorized to be released outside of DoD-- 1) To entities with missions that may be affected by such information; 2) To entities that may be called upon to assist in the diagnosis, detection, or mitigation of cyber incidents; 3) To Government entities that conduct counterintelligence or law enforcement investigations; 4) For national security purposes, including cyber situational awareness and defense purposes (including with Defense Industrial Base (DIB) participants in the program at 32 CFR part 236); or 5) To a support services contractor (``recipient'') that is directly supporting Government activities under a contract that includes the clause at 252.204-7009, Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Third-Party Contractor Reported Cyber Incident Information. j) Use and release of contractor attributional/proprietary information created by or for DoD. Information that is obtained from the contractor (or derived from information obtained from the contractor) under this clause that is created by or for DoD (including the information submitted pursuant to paragraph (c) of this clause) is authorized to be used and released outside of DoD for purposes and activities authorized by paragraph (i) of this clause, and for any other lawful Government purpose or activity, subject to all applicable statutory, regulatory, and policy based restrictions on the Government's use and release of such information. k) The Contractor shall conduct activities under this clause in accordance with applicable laws and regulations on the interception, monitoring, access, use, and disclosure of electronic communications and data. l) Other safeguarding or reporting requirements. The safeguarding and cyber incident reporting required by this clause in no way abrogates the Contractor's responsibility for other safeguarding or cyber incident reporting pertaining to its unclassified information systems as required by other applicable clauses of this contract, or as a result of other applicable U.S. Government statutory or regulatory requirements. m) Subcontracts. The Contractor shall-- 1) Include this clause, including this paragraph (m), in subcontracts, or similar contractual instruments, for operationally critical support, or for which subcontract performance will involve covered defense information, including subcontracts for commercial items, without alteration, except to identify the parties. The Contractor shall determine if the information required for subcontractor performance retains its identity as covered defense information and will require protection under this clause, and, if necessary, consult with the Contracting Officer; and 2) Require subcontractors to-- i) Notify the prime Contractor (or next higher-tier subcontractor) when submitting a request to vary from a NIST SP 800-171 security requirement to the Contracting Officer, in accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B) of this clause; and ii) Provide the incident report number, automatically assigned by DoD, to the prime Contractor (or next higher-tier subcontractor) as soon as practicable, when reporting a cyber incident to DoD as required in paragraph (c) of this clause. End of clause) N4425518C5002 Page 21 of 22 252.225-7048 EXPORT-CONTROLLED ITEMS (JUNE 2013) a) Definition. ``Export-controlled items,'' as used in this clause, means items subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR Parts 730-774) or the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR Parts 120-130). The term includes-- 1) ``Defense items,'' defined in the Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. 2778(j)(4)(A), as defense articles, defense services, and related technical data, and further defined in the ITAR, 22 CFR Part 120; and 2) ``Items,'' defined in the EAR as ``commodities'', ``software'', and ``technology,'' terms that are also defined in the EAR, 15 CFR 772.1. b) The Contractor shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations regarding export-controlled items, including, but not limited to, the requirement for contractors to register with the Department of State in accordance with the ITAR. The Contractor shall consult with the Department of State regarding any questions relating to compliance with the ITAR and shall consult with the Department of Commerce regarding any questions relating to compliance with the EAR. c) The Contractor's responsibility to comply with all applicable laws and regulations regarding export-controlled items exists independent of, and is not established or limited by, the information provided by this clause. d) Nothing in the terms of this contract adds, changes, supersedes, or waives any of the requirements of applicable Federal laws, Executive orders, and regulations, including but not limited to— 1) The Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2401, et seq.); 2) The Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751, et seq.); 3) The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq.); 4) The Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR Parts 730-774); 5) The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR Parts 120-130); and 6) Executive Order 13222, as extended. e) The Contractor shall include the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (e), in all subcontracts. End of clause) N4425518C5002 Page 22 of 22 Section J - List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments CONTRACT ATTACHMENTS The following documents are appended to the contract and do not increase or alter the page count shown throughout the rest of contract document. Attachment J.1 City of Bremerton “Assessments, Rates, Fees, and Charges Effective July 1, 2017” Attachment J.2 Accounts and Adjustments for Naval Hospital Bremerton Attachment J.3 Naval Hospital Bremerton Base map with meter locations 1 of 7 Ordinance No. 5324 ASSESSMENTS, RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES EFFECTIVE July 1, 2017 2017 2018 Inside/Outside City Limits Inside/Outside City Limits GENERAL FACILITY CHARGES* Water based on meter size average normal flow 5/8” x 3/4” Residential and Commercial $4,448.58 $5,880.00 1” Residential $4,448.58 $5,880.00 1” Commercial $6,094.59 $8,056.00 1 1/2” Commercial $35,587.67 $47,040.00 2” Commercial $35,587.67 $47,040.00 3” Commercial $88,969.18 $117,600.00 4” Commercial $177,938.37 $235,200.00 Greater than 4” Case by Case basis Case by Case basis Wastewater based on meter size average normal flow 5/8” x 3/4” Residential and Commercial $5,714.91 $6,863.00 1” Residential $5,714.91 $6,863.00 1” Commercial $7,086.43 $8,510.00 1 1/2” Commercial $40,004.40 $48,041.00 2” Commercial $40,004.40 $48,041.00 3” Commercial $102,868.46 $123,534.00 4” Commercial $205,736.92 $247,068.00 Greater than 4” Case by Case basis Case by Case basis Stormwater (per IHSU) $2,443.00 $3,157.00 The Seattle Construction Index (SCI) set forth in BMC 15.06.020 shall not be applied to the January 1, 2017, and January 1, 2018, general facility charges unless approved by City Council. 2017 2017 Inside City Limits Outside City Limits CONNECTION FEES Water Connection Fees 5/8" x 3/4" $2,710.00 $4,065.00 1"$2,922.00 $4,383.00 1 1/2" $6,190.00 $9,285.00 2"$7,003.00 $10,505.00 3" - 4" x 4" - Service to property line $13,038.00 $19,557.00 3" - 4" x 6" - Service to property line $13,216.00 $19,824.00 3" - 4" x 8" - Service to property line $13,536.00 $20,305.00 3" - 4" x 10" - Service to property line $15,225.00 $22,838.00 3" - 4" x 12" - Service to property line $13,279.00 $19,919.00 4" - 4" x 4" - Service to property line $14,412.00 $21,619.00 4" - 4" x 6" - Service to property line $14,591.00 $21,886.00 4" - 4" x 8" - Service to property line $14,912.00 $22,367.00 4" - 4" x 10" - Service to property line $16,599.00 $24,899.00 4" - 4" x 12" - Service to property line $16,605.00 $24,906.00 6" - 6" x 6" - Service to property line $17,476.00 $26,214.00 6" - 6" x 8" - Service to property line $17,797.00 $26,695.00 6" - 6" x 10" - Service to property line $19,485.00 $29,227.00 6" - 6" x 12" - Service to property line $19,485.00 $29,227.00 8" - 8" x 8" - Service to property line $23,150.00 $34,725.00 N44255-18-C-5002 Attachment J.1 2 of 7 Ordinance No. 5324 ASSESSMENTS, RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES EFFECTIVE July 1, 2017 2017 2017 Inside City Limits Outside City Limits 8" - 8" x 10" - Service to property line $24,909.00 $37,363.00 8" - 8" x 12" - Service to property line $24,909.00 $37,363.00 10" - 10" x 10" - Service to property line $28,312.00 $42,468.00 10" - 10" x 12" - Service to property line $28,811.00 $43,216.00 Greater than 12" Actual Time & Materials Actual Time & Materials Wet Tapping (Water Main Only)* 4" x 4" - excluding excavation & backfill $3,075.00 $4,613.00 4" x 6" - excluding excavation & backfill $3,253.00 $4,879.00 4" x 8" - excluding excavation & backfill $3,574.00 $5,360.00 4" x 10" - excluding excavation & backfill $5,262.00 $7,893.00 4" x 12" - excluding excavation & backfill $5,267.00 $7,900.00 6" x 6" - excluding excavation & backfill $3,485.00 $5,226.00 6" x 8" - excluding excavation & backfill $3,805.00 $5,707.00 6" x 10" - excluding excavation & backfill $5,494.00 $8,240.00 6" x 12" - excluding excavation & backfill $5,494.00 $8,240.00 8" x 8" - excluding excavation & backfill $4,451.00 $6,675.00 8" x 10" - excluding excavation & backfill $6,211.00 $9,316.00 8" x 12" - excluding excavation & backfill $6,330.00 $9,495.00 10" x 10" - excluding excavation & backfill $7,077.00 $10,614.00 10" x 12" - excluding excavation & backfill $7,547.00 $11,321.00 12" x 12" - excluding excavation & backfill $7,457.00 $11,186.00 2" - service to property line $3,783.00 $5,674.00 4" x 4" - service to property line $8,992.00 $13,487.00 4" x 6" - service to property line $9,171.00 $13,756.00 4" x 8" - service to property line $9,491.00 $14,237.00 4" x 10" - service to property line $11,179.00 $16,768.00 4" x 12" - service to property line $11,184.00 $16,776.00 6" x 6" - service to property line $9,061.00 $13,592.00 6" x 8" - service to property line $9,382.00 $14,072.00 6" x 10" - service to property line $11,071.00 $16,606.00 6" x 12" - service to property line $11,071.00 $16,606.00 8" x 8" - service to property line $10,388.00 $15,581.00 8" x 10" - service to property line $12,148.00 $18,222.00 8" x 12" - service to property line $12,147.00 $18,220.00 10" x 10" - service to property line $13,672.00 $20,508.00 10" x 12" - service to property line $14,170.00 $21,255.00 12" x 12" - service to property line $15,077.00 $22,615.00 Fire Hydrant Installation* 6" x 8" and smaller - service to property line $11,731.00 $17,597.00 6"x 10" - service to property line $13,420.00 $20,130.00 6"x 12" service to property line $13,420.00 $20,130.00 PLAN CHECK/INSPECTION FEES Engineering Services** Plan Check Fees Main Extensions: per foot $0.30 $0.44 BUT not less than $249.00 $374.00 Includes hydrants and appurtenances and connection to water system) 3 of 7 Ordinance No. 5324 ASSESSMENTS, RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES EFFECTIVE July 1, 2017 2017 2017 Inside City Limits Outside City Limits Pump Stations $626.00 $939.00 Fireline Extension $100.00 $150.00 Irrigation Systems $100.00 $150.00 Miscellaneous (per hour) $83.00 $124.00 Storm Drainage Plan Review Fees *** Preliminary Drainage Plans Residential Development $387.00 N/A Non-Residential Development $268.00 N/A Plus per IHSU $11.65 N/A Final Detailed Drainage Plans Residential Development (per lot) 0 - 20 Lots $41.93 N/A 21 - 50 Lots $30.29 N/A 51 - 100 Lots $26.80 N/A 100+ Lots $23.30 N/A Minimum Charge $297.00 N/A Non-Residential Development per IHSU $23.30 N/A Minimum Charge $356.00 N/A Resubmittal Fees First Resubmittal No Charge N/A Subsequent Resubmittal $297.00 N/A Field Inspection Fees Water main extensions (per foot) $1.32 $1.98 but not less than: $487.00 $731.00 Pump Station $642.00 $963.00 Miscellaneous (per hour) $83.00 $124.00 Wastewater Connection Fees Lateral Connection at P/L $83.00 $124.00 Lateral Connection at Main $314.00 $472.00 Conveyance Facility Ext. (Per Foot) $1.74 $2.60 but not less than: $379.00 $568.00 Pump Station $630.00 $945.00 Miscellaneous (per hour) $83.00 $124.00 Storm Drainage Inspection Fees *** Residential Development (per lot) $17.48 N/A Non-Residential Development (per IHSU) $17.48 N/A Minimum Charge $179.00 N/A Conveyance Facility Extensions (per foot) $0.93 N/A Minimum Charge $356.00 N/A Unscheduled Inspections**** (per site visit) $83.00 N/A MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND CHARGES Office Services New Account (includes water turn-on) $20.00 $20.00 Account Maintenance $5.00 $5.00 Past Due Notice $3.00 $3.00 Lien Recovery Charge $102.00 $102.00 Close Account/Meter Read/Water Service Turn- off $20.00 $20.00 4 of 7 Ordinance No. 5324 ASSESSMENTS, RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES EFFECTIVE July 1, 2017 2017 2017 Inside City Limits Outside City Limits Utility/Lien Search Fee (Manual) per parcel $31.00 $31.00 Park Reservation Fee (non-refundable) $102.00 $102.00 Field Services Pavement Restoration Charge refundable, if assessed and not required) Asphalt Patch $709.00 $1,063.00 Concrete Patch $1,274.00 $1,911.00 Asphalt Trench $1,615.00 $2,423.00 Concrete Trench $1,632.00 $2,447.00 County Road Permit N/A Cost Water Meter Installation 3/4" & 1" $148.00 $148.00 1-1/2" & 2" $229.00 $229.00 3" and greater Actual Time & Materials Actual Time & Materials Water Meter Reactivation- Snowbirds $51.00 $51.00 Water Meter Tampering Tampering Fee $255.00 $255.00 Tampering Repair Actual Time & Materials Actual Time & Materials Fire Service - Detector, Meter & MXU $470.00 $470.00 Storz Adapter $242.00 $242.00 Water Service Turn-off/Turn-on Customer Request) Regular Hours $41.00 $41.00 After Hours $186.00 $186.00 Delinquency Notice $20.00 $20.00 Water Service Turn-off/Turn-on Delinquent Accounts) Regular Hours $61.00 $61.00 After Hours $186.00 $186.00 Flow and Pressure Test (Uncertified) 3/4" & 1" meters only $83.00 $83.00 1-1/2" & 2" meters only $151.00 $151.00 Larger than 2" Actual Time & Materials Actual Time & Materials Meter Test Fee (based on meter size) 3/4" & 1" $186.00 $186.00 1-1/2" & 2" 253.00 $253.00 3" or greater Actual Time & Materials Actual Time & Materials Utility Plant Locates Regular Hours No Charge No Charge After Hours $186.00 $186.00 Emergency No Charge No Charge Utility Compliance Specialist Inspection $83.00 $83.00 Administration Fee $35.00 $35.00 Utility Labor Rate Hourly (Equipment not included) $67.00 $67.00 5 of 7 Ordinance No. 5324 ASSESSMENTS, RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES EFFECTIVE July 1, 2017 2017 2017 Inside City Limits Outside City Limits RETAIL WATER SERVICE RATES General Service - Monthly Service Charge Meter Size 5/8 x 3/4 inches $12.84 $19.26 1 inch $14.68 $22.03 1 1/2 inch $20.87 $31.31 2 inch $28.04 $42.06 3 inch $53.20 $79.80 4 inch $98.86 $148.29 6 inch $351.51 $527.27 8 inch $1,284.01 $1,926.02 10 inch $4,579.50 $6,869.23 12 inch $17,215.80 $25,823.70 Residential Commodity Charge (per HCF) Per HCF/Month $2.22 $3.33 Non - Residential Commodity Charge (per HCF) $2.00 $3.00 Fire Protection - Monthly Service Charge Service Size 1 inch $26.65 $39.97 1 1/2 inch $40.11 $60.17 2 inch $52.15 $78.23 3 inch $57.46 $86.21 4 inch $62.64 $93.95 6 inch $78.18 $117.27 8 inch $104.09 $156.13 10 inch $145.66 $218.49 12 inch $208.09 $312.13 Commodity Charge (per HCF) $4.02 $6.02 For Usage Other Than Firefighting Low-Income Senior and Low-Income Disabled Citizen Monthly Service Charge Base Charge (per account) 5/8" x 3/4" $12.84 $19.26 Base Charge (per account) 1" $14.68 $22.03 Commodity Charge 0 - 5 HCF/Month No Charge No Charge Over 5 HCF/Month $2.22 $3.33 Temporary/Construction Meter 1" Meter Deposit $300.00 $300.00 Base Fee (per month) $14.68 $22.03 Set Up Fee & Removal Fee $296.00 296.00 Hydrant meter (3" Meter) Deposit $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Base Fee (per month) $53.20 $79.80 Set Up Fee $296.00 $296.00 Equipment Loss/Damage Actual Time & MaterialsActual Time & Materials Commodity Charge (per HCF) $2.00 $3.00 City Parks and Recreation Dept. - Irrigation Commodity Charge (per HCF) $1.00 N/A 6 of 7 Ordinance No. 5324 ASSESSMENTS, RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES EFFECTIVE July 1, 2017 2017 2017 Inside City Limits Outside City Limits Gold Mountain Golf Course Complex - Irrigation Commodity Charge (per HCF) $1.36 N/A RETAIL WASTEWATER SERVICE RATES Monthly Service Charge Single Family Base Charge (per account) $34.24 $51.36 Commodity Charge (per HCF) $4.59 $6.89 Duplex on 1 Meter or 2 Bldgs. on 1 Meter Base Charge (per unit) $27.12 $40.68 Commodity Charge (per HCF) $4.59 $6.89 Multi - Family Base Charge (per unit) $27.12 $40.68 Commodity Charge (per HCF) $4.59 $6.89 Low-Income Senior and Low-Income Disabled Citizen Base Charge (per account) $21.24 $32.26 Commodity Charge (per HCF) 0 - 5 HCF/Month No Charge No Charge Over 5 HCF/Month $4.59 $6.89 Commercial I Base Charge (per account) $50.61 $75.93 Commodity Charge (per HCF) $4.73 $7.10 Commercial II Base Charge (per account) $50.99 $76.48 Commodity Charge (per HCF) $6.06 $9.09 Commercial III Base Charge (per account) $51.49 77.24 Commodity Charge (per HCF) $7.40 $11.10 Commercial IV Base Charge (per account) $51.99 $77.99 Commodity Charge (per HCF) $8.74 $13.11 Commercial V Base Charge (per account) $57.19 $85.80 Commodity Charge (per HCF) $10.93 $16.40 Commercial VI Base Charge (per account) $62.91 $94.37 Commodity Charge (per HCF) $13.66 $20.49 Commercial VII Base Charge (per account) $69.20 $103.80 Commodity Charge (per HCF) $15.95 $23.93 Commercial Special Base Charge (per account) $76.12 $114.18 Commodity Charge (per HCF) $21.35 $32.00 Beverage Production Base Charge (per account) $51.49 $77.24 Commodity Charge (per HCF) $4.81 $7.21 Commercial Fountains - Separately Metered Base Charge (per account) $50.61 $75.93 Commodity Charge (per HCF) $1.56 $2.34 7 of 7 Ordinance No. 5324 ASSESSMENTS, RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES EFFECTIVE July 1, 2017 2017 2017 Inside City Limits Outside City Limits Septage Disposal (per gallon of tank capacity) $0.26 $0.38 Leachate Per Gallon of Tank Capacity Individual Residential Grinder Pumps Grinder Pump Surcharge $11.03 $16.55 Low-Income Senior and Low-Income Disabled Grinder Pump Surcharge $8.28 $12.42 RETAIL STORMWATER RATES Monthly Service Charge Residential I (Single Family/Duplex) Base Charge (per account) $13.73 N/A Exception: Duplex with 2 Meters (per account) $6.90 N/A Residential II - SW Impact Fee (per IHSU) 50% of the Res I Base Charge $6.87 N/A Residential III - SW Impact Fee (per IHSU) 100% of the Res I Base Charge $13.73 N/A Commercial I Base Charge (per IHSU) $13.73 N/A Commercial II - SW Impact Fee (per IHSU) 50% of the Comm I Base Charge $6.87 N/A Commercial III - SW Impact Fee (per IHSU) 100% of the Comm I Base Charge $13.73 N/A Public School Districts (per account) $13.73 N/A Low-Income Senior and Low-Income Disabled Citizen Base Charge (per account) $8.36 N/A Multi - Family & Commercial Rate Adjustment Water Quality (per IHSU) $1.52 N/A Water Quantity (per IHSU) $4.59 N/A Stormwater Penalty New Multi - Family & Commercial development without on-site detention Charge (per IHSU) $3.04 N/A Pavement Restoration Charge May Also Be Assessed. Fees include original review and one resubmittal review. Additional reviews will be charged at miscellaneous hourly rate (above). Does not apply to single family residence or duplex construction on an existing established lot. Unscheduled inspections shall be tracked through the course of a project and billed after the final site inspection. Fees for unscheduled inspections shall be paid prior to final occupancy approval.) N/A when noted means “not applicable.” R:\Legal\Legal\Ordinances\Public Works & Utilities\2017 Utilty Rates - REDLINED 05.12.2017.docx GENERAL FACILITY CHARGES 2016 2017 2018 5/8" x 3/4" 3,016.92$ 4,448.58$ 5,880.00$ 1" 3,016.92$ 4,448.58$ 5,880.00$ 1" Commercial 4,133.18$ 6,094.59$ 8,056.00$ 1 1/2" Commercial 24,135.35$ 35,587.67$ 47,040.00$ 2" Commercial 24,135.35$ 35,587.67$ 47,040.00$ 3" Commercial 60,338.37$ 88,969.18$ 117,600.00$ 4" Commercial 120,676.74$ 177,938.37$ 235,200.00$ Greater than 4"Case by Case basis 5/8" x 3/4" 4,566.83$ 5,714.91$ 6,863.00$ 1" 4,566.83$ 5,714.91$ 6,863.00$ 1" Commercial 5,662.87$ 7,086.43$ 8,510.00$ 1 1/2" Commercial 31,967.80$ 40,004.40$ 48,041.00$ 2" Commercial 31,967.80$ 40,004.40$ 48,041.00$ 3" Commercial 82,202.92$ 102,868.46$ 123,534.00$ 4" Commercial 164,405.83$ 205,736.92$ 247,068.00$ Greater than 4"Case by Case basis Case by Case basis Case by Case basis Stormwater (per IHSU)1,731.00$ 2,443.00$ 3,157.00$ The GFCs shall be effective January 1, 2016, January 1, 2017, and January 1, 2018 as noted, except that: Case by Case basis Wastewater based on meter size average normal flow 1) Projects with a complete building permit application or site development permit application which includes utility services filed with the City on or before December 31, 2015, or projects with land use approval granted by the City on or before December 31, 2015, shall be vested to the GFCs in effect on the date of filing the completed application or the date approval is granted if that amount is lower than the current rate. 2) The Seattle Construction Index (SCI) set forth in BMC 15.06.020 shall not be applied to the January 1, 2016, January 1, 2017 and January 1, 2018 charges unless otherwise approved by City Council. ASSESSMENTS, RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES EFFECTIVE January 1, 2016, January 1, 2017 and January 1, 2018 Inside and Outside City Limits Water based on meter size average normal flow City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update F-1 Appendix F: Outfall Evaluation Report Outfall Evaluation PO Box 623 Gig Harbor, WA 98335 (253) 265-2958 Fax (253) 272-7250 BFox@cosmopolitaneng.com NPDES S13 Outfall Evaluation Report Page 1 DATE: November 25, 2018 TO: Pat Coxon and Larry Willman, City of Bremerton FROM: Bill Fox, Cosmopolitan Marine Engineering RE: West Plant Outfall Evaluation Report This report documents the results of an inspection and evaluation of the City of Bremerton’s West Plant treatment facility outfall 001 in Sinclair Inlet. An inspection dive and video were conducted on November 8, 2018, covering the outfall from the terminus of the diffuser to the inshore end where the pipeline disappears below mudline. Outfall Drawing The as-built drawing for the West Plant Outfall from 1971 is attached. The drawing shows a 36- inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) outfall originating from a casing jacked under SR3 and the BNRR tracks, buried out to an elevation of approximately 82 feet city datum, then laid at a flat grade out to a 20-port diffuser. The drawing shows 30 inch high spalls to the springline of the pipe, with the crown 4 feet above native grade. The RCP outfall was constructed in 12-foot lengths, with gasketed bell-and-spigot joints. Joint restraint is by lugs at the springline drawn together by stainless steel all-thread rods and single backing nuts. Video Record Global Diving and Salvage vessel and personnel supported the inspection. The video record of the final dive is provided on thumb drives that are included in this report by reference. After finding and selectively cleaning marine growth from the outfall pipe and diffuser, Rhodamine WT fluorescent dye was injected into the effluent to aid in visualizing the discharge from the diffuser ports, and detection of leaks in the pipe. Two video files are included: 1. The first video file is 21 minutes in duration. It begins at the terminus of the diffuser, just prior to arrival of the dye in the effluent. The effluent is first observed at the second diffuser port working shoreward. The video continues shoreward, showing all diffuser ports, pipe joints and restraints, and anchors. The first video concludes at the point where the pipe disappears below mudline at the shoreward end. NPDES S13 Outfall Evaluation Report Page 2 2. The second video file is three minutes in duration. It returns to the terminus of the diffuser, providing a complete video assessment of the end cap, restraints, and minor leakage at that location. It also shows the dyed effluent plume from port #1 that was missed in the first video file. Outfall Evaluation This evaluation is required by NPDES Permit No. WA0029289, Condition S13. Specific assessments required by the NPDES permit, and that are documented in this report include: • Obtain GPS coordinates and confirm depths for beginning, midpoint and terminus of the diffuser. • Determine the extent of sediment accumulation in the vicinity of the diffuser. • Assess whether diffuser ports are free of obstructions and if they are flowing uniformly. • Assess the physical condition of the outfall pipe, pipe joints, concrete anchors, diffuser section and end cap. Diffuser Location and Depth. The dive team quickly found the end of the diffuser by descending a down line to temporary anchor deployed at previously recorded GPS coordinates. A downline was affixed to the diffuser end cap restraints and held tight in a vertical orientation. GPS coordinates were recorded over the vertical downline at the diffuser end, as were depths to the sea bottom and to the crown of the pipe. GPS coordinates for midpoint were determined from the diffuser end based on known distance and bearing. Elevations of the bottom and crown of pipe have been adjusted to MLLW datum, based on published tide of +6 ft MLLW when the soundings were taken. Depths and GPS locations of points of interest are tabulated below: Location Depth at Crown (MLLW datum) Bottom Depth (MLLW datum) Latitude (47o N) Longitude (122o W) Diffuser End Diffuser Midpt Diffuser Begin -28 ft -28 ft -28 ft -42 ft -41 ft -40 ft 32’ 46.9” 32’ 47.5” 32’ 48.0” 40’ 11.0” 40’ 11.3” 40’ 11.6” Sediment Accumulation. Sediments graded from medium to coarse sand near the diffuser pipe, to fine grained silt (mud) a few feet away. The coarser particles adjacent to the pipe are presumably due to the induced currents that the effluent plume creates, or the biota that are present near the pipe and outlets. Sediments further shoreward after the diffuser ends graded to finer particles. There is no observed accumulation or scour of sediments in the vicinity of the West Plant diffuser. The pipe has been in place for 47-years, and thus the local sediments have achieved an equilibrium with the outfall. Diffuser Ports. The dyed effluent in the video clearly reveals that all diffuser ports were open and flowing freely. An abandoned fishing net covered several of the offshore ports, but were not visually impeding effluent flow. NPDES S13 Outfall Evaluation Report Page 3 Physical Condition. The following observations of the physical condition of the outfall pipe and diffuser are noted: • During the initial dive pass there were points of interest cleaned for inspection and video recording. The points were in random order at multiple locations of hardware and diffusers. The outfall appeared to be in overall good condition based on this first pass. • The most noteworthy finding may be that there are 22 ports, not the 20 ports shown on the drawings. Previous inspections had noted that there was a discrepancy, and this inspection definitively confirmed that there are 22 ports. • The flush-wall diffusers on the outfall had moderate marine growth surrounding the outlet, consisting of anemones and tubeworms. Most of the growth was removed for the video, but was left in place for the nearshore ports to reveal that effluent flow was not impeded. • An abandoned fishing net has been snared by the diffuser at the end. This has occurred since the previous inspection in 2009. There has been no damage caused to the pipe, or impact on effluent flow from any of the ports. • There were no signs of cracking or damage to the pipe observed at any location. All joints were sealed in grout bands, and no leaking joints were observed. • The joint harnesses consisted of lugs at the springline, on both sides of the pipe, that were drawn together by stainless steel all-thread rods and single nuts. Each joint harness was inspected closely, including several that had all marine growth removed by wire brush. The all-thread was intact and shiny. The nuts retained the hex heads, that could probably accept a hex wrench if there were a need to action the nuts. • The outfall was originally held in place with chain tying it to pipe support pads made of 4x12” creosote mats that are 6’-6” in width. The chain that ties the outfall to these mats has deteriorated and no longer provides restraint for the outfall. The restraints may have been installed only for construction purposes and were not intended to be permanent. Regardless, the 47-year-old pipe is stable without any other restraint than the joint harnesses. • The diffuser end cap consists of a steel end plate held fast by C-shape mild steel channels running horizontal across the cap from 2- to 10-o’clock position and 8- to 4-o’clock position. The C-channels are restrained by stainless tie rods to lugs on the diffuser pipe. Minor leakage of effluent was observed at the end cap restraints, but this is thought to be inconsequential because the volume is very minor, and the function of this portion of the outfall is to diffuser effluent anyway. Summary The RCP outfall and diffuser are in good condition and operating as intended. The presence of 22 diffuser ports rather than 20 shown on the drawings is confirmed. NPDES S13 Outfall Evaluation Report Page 4 Photos Blind Flange, Offshore End of Outfall Showing C-Channel Restraints NPDES S13 Outfall Evaluation Report Page 5 Red Dye Leaking at Blind Flange Restraint, 10-O’Clock Position Typical Diffuser Port with Red Dye Discharge Typical Joint Grout Injection Band NPDES S13 Outfall Evaluation Report Page 6 Pipe Joint Restraining Rod Joint Restraining Lug Attached to RCP Pipe City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update G-1 Appendix G: Crosstown Pipeline Memorandum 32001 32nd Avenue South, Suite 300 Federal Way, WA 98001 (253) 835-6400 Crosstown Pipeline Alternatives Analysis 4 February 2025 Prepared for City of Bremerton 345 6th Street Bremerton, WA 98337 KJ Project No. 2397011*00 City of Bremerton, Crosstown Pipeline Alternatives Analysis ii Table of Contents List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. iii List of Figures............................................................................................................................. iii List of Appendices ...................................................................................................................... iii Section 1: Introduction ................................................................................. 1 Section 2: Alternatives Analysis ................................................................... 2 2.1 Alternative 1A – Larger Parallel Pipeline .............................................. 2 2.1.1 General Description .................................................................. 2 2.1.2 Pipeline Capacity ...................................................................... 4 2.1.3 Pipeline Alignment .................................................................... 5 2.1.4 Construction Sequencing .......................................................... 6 2.1.5 Alternative 1A Challenges ......................................................... 7 2.2 Alternative 1B – Smaller Parallel Pipeline............................................. 7 2.2.1 General Description .................................................................. 7 2.2.2 Pipeline Capacity ...................................................................... 8 2.2.3 Pipeline Alignment .................................................................... 8 2.2.4 Construction Sequencing .......................................................... 8 2.2.5 Alternative 1B Challenges ......................................................... 9 2.3 Alternative 2 – Alternate Alignment ...................................................... 9 2.3.1 Pipeline Capacity .................................................................... 11 2.3.2 Pipeline Alignment .................................................................. 12 2.3.3 Alternative 2 Challenges ......................................................... 12 2.4 Alternative Costs ................................................................................ 13 Section 3: Alternatives Evaluation ............................................................. 14 3.1 Criteria Descriptions ........................................................................... 14 3.1.1 Constructability........................................................................ 14 3.1.2 Capital Costs ........................................................................... 14 3.1.3 Redundancy ............................................................................ 14 3.1.4 Rehabilitation of the Existing CTP ........................................... 14 3.1.5 Operations & Maintenance ...................................................... 15 3.1.6 Permitting ................................................................................ 15 3.2 Alternatives Criteria Matrix ................................................................. 15 3.3 Alternative Criteria Matrix Scoring ...................................................... 17 3.3.1 Alternative 1A Scoring ............................................................. 17 3.3.2 Alternative 1B Scoring ............................................................. 18 3.3.3 Alternative 2 Scoring ............................................................... 18 3.3.4 Preferred Alternative Selection ................................................ 18 Table of Contents (cont'd) City of Bremerton, Crosstown Pipeline Alternatives Analysis iii https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/deliverables/ctp memo/ctp alt analysis memo_final.docx References ............................................................................................................................... 19 List of Tables Table 2-1: Pipeline Capacity Servicing 2024 Flows .................................................................... 4 Table 2-2: Pipeline Capacity Servicing 2044 Flows .................................................................... 5 Table 2-3: Alternative 1A Utility Crossings .................................................................................. 6 Table 2-4: Pipeline Capacity Servicing Dry Weather Flows ........................................................ 8 Table 2-5: Proposed Pipeline Capacity Servicing 2024-2044 Wet Weather Flows ................... 11 Table 2-6: Existing CTP Servicing 2024-2044 Flows (excluding CE-1 and CW-4) .................... 11 Table 2-7: Alternative 2 Utility Crossings .................................................................................. 12 Table 2-8: Alternative Capital Costs ......................................................................................... 13 Table 3-1: Criteria Evaluation Matrix ........................................................................................ 16 Table 3-2: Alternative Evaluation Scoring ................................................................................. 17 List of Figures Figure 2-1: Alternative 1A - Larger Parallel Pipeline Concept ..................................................... 3 Figure 2-2: Alternative 1B - Smaller Parallel Pipeline Concept ................................................... 7 Figure 2-3: Alternative 2 - Parallel Pipeline Concept................................................................. 10 List of Appendices A Engineer Opinion of Probable Construction Costs City of Bremerton, Crosstown Pipeline Alternatives Analysis Page 1 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/deliverables/ctp memo/ctp alt analysis memo_final.docx Section 1: Introduction The Crosstown Pipeline (CTP), originally constructed in 1984, plays a key role in the City of Bremerton’s (City’s) collection system infrastructure. The high-capacity pipeline extends from the northeast quadrant of West Bremerton approximately 20,000 linear feet (LF) to the Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)Starting at Sewage Pump Station CE-1, the pipeline is comprised of 24-inch cement-lined ductile iron pipe (DIP), 30-inch DIP (CIPP-lined in 2012), 36- inch HDPE (installed in 2012), 30-inch prestressed concrete cylinder pipe (PCCP), and 36-inch PCCP, which ends immediately upstream of the WWTP headworks. The CTP receives flows from pump stations CE-1, CW-1, CW-4, CE-4 (via the Central Bremerton Force Main), WB-3, WB-6, WB-1 and WB-2 (both owned and managed by Kitsap County Sewer District No. 1), SB- 1, SB-3, and SB-4. The CTP acts both as a gravity and pressure main. Approximately 11,000 LF of the initial section of the CTP starting at the WWTP is lower than the headworks and therefore always pressurized. Moving further upstream from the WWTP, the elevation of the CTP increases and flow occurs via gravity. However, these sections can become pressurized during high flow conditions caused by wet weather events. During these events, the pipeline is capable of safely conveying up to approximately 30 MGD to the WWTP. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. (Kennedy Jenks) has been retained by the City to develop conceptual alternatives for increasing the capacity and reliability of the CTP. This analysis has been performed in conjunction with the 2024 update to the City’s Wastewater Comprehensive Plan (WCP), for which Kennedy Jenks has also been retained. As such, the analyses herein consider collection system flows across the planning horizon of 2024-2044. Kennedy Jenks has assessed each conceptual alternative with respect to select criteria developed collaboratively with City personnel, yielding an overall score for each alternative. City of Bremerton, Crosstown Pipeline Alternatives Analysis Page 2 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/deliverables/ctp memo/ctp alt analysis memo_final.docx Section 2: Alternatives Analysis Per discussions with the City held September 27, 2024, Kennedy Jenks progressed two pipeline alignments through conceptual design. The different alignments include options for sizing the pipeline, based on the intended use of the new pipeline. A total of three alternatives were developed that utilize two different pipeline alignments. Each alternative developed includes proposed alignment routing, approximate quantity and type of utility crossings, constructability considerations, potential risks and a Class 5 cost estimate per the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) guidelines. 2.1 Alternative 1A – Larger Parallel Pipeline 2.1.1 General Description Alternative 1A proposes to install a pipeline beginning near the intersection of 9th Street and Montgomery Avenue that runs predominantly parallel to the existing CTP to the WWTP, approximately 11,500 LF. At the pipeline start, an existing blind flange at the intersection can be modified to convey upstream flow to either the existing CTP or the new, parallel CTP. A flow split structure or valving will be added at the junction of the CTP and the Central Bremerton Force Main (CBFM). Each pump station that conveys flow to the CTP downstream of the parallel pipeline origin will undergo pipeline connection improvements to allow for conveyance to the proposed parallel pipeline in addition to the existing connection to the existing CTP. Figure 2-1 below illustrates the alternative. City of Bremerton, Crosstown Pipeline Alternatives Analysis Page 3 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/deliverables/ctp memo/ctp alt analysis memo_final.docx Figure 2-1: Alternative 1A - Larger Parallel Pipeline Concept City of Bremerton, Crosstown Pipeline Alternatives Analysis Page 4 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/deliverables/ctp memo/ctp alt analysis memo_final.docx 2.1.2 Pipeline Capacity As part of the 2024 WCP Update (2024, Kennedy Jenks), the City’s population growth and subsequent collection system loading were assessed across the planning horizon of 2024-2044 with respect to each sewer basin. The proposed pipeline is sized as 30-inch and 36-inch, similar to the existing CTP, to allow for full redundancy and operational flexibility downstream of the origin point, with capacity for average dry weather and peak wet weather flows through 2044. Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 evaluate the proposed pipeline sizes for each segment against the projected 2024 and 2044 flows, respectively. Through the planning horizon, the velocity through the pipeline during the dry weather season is below two feet per second, the typical design standard for minimum flow through a sewer. Settling of solids within the pipeline may occur, which can cause odor control issues within the pipeline. Table 2-1: Pipeline Capacity Servicing 2024 Flows Wet Weather Dry Weather CTP Pipe Segment Cumulative PHF1 (gpm) Pipe Size (Inches) Pipe Velocity (ft/s) Cumulative ADWF1 (gpm) Pipe Size (Inches) Pipe Velocity (ft/s) Origin to CE-4 (CBFM/CTP Junction) 11,685 30 5.8 1,107 30 0.9 CE-4 to WB-6 12,234 30 6.0 1,111 30 0.9 WB-6 to WB-3 17,869 36 6.2 1,113 36 0.6 WB-3 to WB-12 24,798 36 8.5 1,693 36 0.8 WB-12 to WB-22 25,028 36 8.6 1,722 36 0.8 WB-22 to SBFM2,3 25,808 36 8.9 1,819 36 0.9 SBFM3 to WWTP 27,788 36 9.6 2,067 36 1.0 Notes: (1) Peak hourly flows (PHFs) and Average Dry Weather Flows (ADWFs) based on 2023 pump station data provided by City in gallons per minute (gpm). (2) No current pump station data provided. Flows based on 2013 pump station data per 2014 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update report. (3) Average dry weather flows (ADWFs) from SB-1, SB-3, and SB-4 conveyed via South Bremerton Force Main (SBFM) City of Bremerton, Crosstown Pipeline Alternatives Analysis Page 5 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/deliverables/ctp memo/ctp alt analysis memo_final.docx Table 2-2: Pipeline Capacity Servicing 2044 Flows Wet Weather Dry Weather CTP Pipe Segment Cumulative PHF1 (gpm) Pipe Size (Inches) Pipe Velocity (ft/s) Cumulative ADWF1 (gpm) Pipe Size (Inches) Pipe Velocity (ft/s) Origin to CE-4 (CBFM/CTP Junction) 14,289 30 6.5 1,762 30 0.8 CE-4 to WB-6 15,037 30 6.8 1,790 30 0.8 WB-6 to WB-3 20,673 36 6.5 1,792 36 0.6 WB-3 to WB-12 27,767 36 8.8 2,396 36 0.8 WB-12 to WB-22 27,997 36 8.8 2,425 36 0.8 WB-22 to SBFM2,3 28,777 36 9.1 2,522 36 0.8 SBFM3 to WWTP 32,564 36 10.3 2,983 36 0.9 Notes: (1) Peak hourly flows (PHFs) based on 2023 pump station data provided by City in gallons per minute (gpm). (2) No current pump station data provided. Flows based on 2013 pump station data per 2014 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update report. (3) Average dry weather flows (ADWFs) from SB-1, SB-3, and SB-4 conveyed via South Bremerton Force Main (SBFM) Per conversations with the City in November 2024, there are concerns and unknowns about the condition of the existing CTP. The proposed pipeline in this alternative is sized for full capacity of the contributing flows to the CTP, thereby reducing the criticality of failure for the existing CTP. 2.1.3 Pipeline Alignment The proposed alignment follows the existing CTP closely to limit the construction scope required to connect the downstream pump stations, Central Bremerton Force Main, and South Bremerton Force Main to the parallel pipeline. The connection points included in this alternative allow for the CE-4, WB-6, WB-3, WB-1, WB-2, and SB-1/3/4 (via SBFM) pump stations to convey into the existing CTP or the proposed parallel pipeline. A significant portion of the proposed pipeline runs within a Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) limited access-full control corridor along Charleston Boulevard. These types of corridors are historically difficult for contractually negotiating longitudinal pipeline access. The City already has two pipelines running longitudinally through this corridor: the existing CTP and an abandoned 20-inch cast iron pipeline. Per City GIS, the abandoned pipeline runs approximately from the connection point of WB-3 to the CTP to the WWTP. The proposed alternative assumes WSDOT will accept the design intent to utilize the trench to remove the abandoned line and replace it with the proposed 36-inch pipeline. The proposed parallel pipeline must cross State Route 3 to reach the WWTP. This section of the State highway is also a WSDOT limited access-full control corridor. Per conversations with WSDOT personnel in September 2024, perpendicular crossings of these types of corridors are historically viable. The existing CTP makes such a crossing in the same area as the proposed parallel pipeline. City of Bremerton, Crosstown Pipeline Alternatives Analysis Page 6 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/deliverables/ctp memo/ctp alt analysis memo_final.docx The proposed pipeline follows a similar alignment to the existing CTP but avoids several utility- congested intersections at the upstream portion. Specifically, the Montgomery Avenue right-of- way includes some large diameter water lines, therefore the proposed pipeline follows 9th Street further west of Montgomery to Wycoff Avenue. The pipeline then travels south down Wycoff Avenue, instead of Montgomery Avenue; this road has more available space for the new pipeline. The CBFM will also connect to the new pipeline on Wycoff Avenue to avoid the congested utilities in Montgomery Avenue. A valve vault located near 1st Street and Montgomery Ave will provide a connection between the existing CTP and CBFM and it will also connect to a new pipeline that travels west until it connects to the proposed pipeline at 1st Street and Wycoff. Table 2-3 summarizes the approximate number of utility crossings: Table 2-3: Alternative 1A Utility Crossings Water Crossings1 Sewer Crossings1 Storm Crossings1 Gas/Electrical/Telecom Crossings (Each)2 Alternative 1A 18 7 30 14 Notes: (1) Water/Sewer/Storm Crossings quantified per City GIS (2) Gas/Electrical/Telecommunications Crossings estimated based on the number of road crossings 2.1.4 Construction Sequencing A proposed sequence of constructing this alternative, to achieve the goals of increasing capacity and providing opportunity to assess the condition of and rehabilitate the existing CTP could be as follows: 1. Construct a means of flow splitting at 9th Street and Montgomery Avenue. An existing cross with a 30-inch blind flange can be utilized for the beginning of the parallel pipeline. Additional valving on the existing CTP to provide flow isolation would be required. 2. Construct the parallel pipeline, and construct pump station connections to the parallel pipeline, as well as the CBFM connection. 3. Perform condition assessments and execute rehabilitation of the existing Crosstown Pipeline. The parallel pipeline is sized for peak wet weather flows, so construction and condition assessments can take place in the dry weather or wet weather months if necessary. The existing CTP can be taken offline in full for the assessments and rehabilitation. City of Bremerton, Crosstown Pipeline Alternatives Analysis Page 7 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/deliverables/ctp memo/ctp alt analysis memo_final.docx 2.1.5 Alternative 1A Challenges At the conceptual level, the following challenges have been identified for this alternative: • Considerable WSDOT coordination will be required to obtain approval to construct or rehabilitate infrastructure in the limited access-full control corridor along Charleston Boulevard. • Additional WSDOT coordination will be required for crossing under State Route 3 next to the WWTP. • The condition of the abandoned 20-inch cast iron pipe and trench is largely unknown. More investigation into the pipe’s condition is needed to assess feasibility of removing and replacing this pipeline. • All connection points to the CTP need to be investigated further to determine the constructability of select discharging into the existing CTP and the proposed parallel line. Such investigations include alignment routing, connection point condition assessment, nearby utility potholing, and permitting. 2.2 Alternative 1B – Smaller Parallel Pipeline 2.2.1 General Description Alternative 1B is nearly identical to Alternative 1A, with the parallel pipeline sized for dry weather flows instead of wet weather flows. The reduction in pipeline capacity introduces the possibility to utilize the abandoned 20-inch CI pipe, instead of Alternative 1A’s scope of removing the pipe and utilizing the trench for a larger pipe. The proposed flow splitting structures and the proposed pipeline connection improvements for each pump station will remain the same as Alternative 1A. Figure 2-2 below illustrates the alternative. City of Bremerton, Crosstown Pipeline Alternatives Analysis Page 7 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/deliverables/ctp memo/ctp alt analysis memo_final.docx Figure 2-2: Alternative 1B - Smaller Parallel Pipeline Concept City of Bremerton, Crosstown Pipeline Alternatives Analysis Page 8 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/deliverables/ctp memo/ctp alt analysis memo_final.docx 2.2.2 Pipeline Capacity Alternative 1B is sized for average dry weather flow. The proposed pipeline is 15-inches and 18- inches to meet minimum velocity standards in the 2024 flow regime and accommodate future increases in flow across the 20-year horizon. The pipeline capacity sizing across the 2024-2044 planning horizon is summarized in Table 2-4 below. Table 2-4: Pipeline Capacity Servicing Dry Weather Flows 2024 2044 CTP Pipe Segment Cumulative ADWF1 (gpm) Pipe Size (Inches) Pipe Velocity (ft/s) Cumulative ADWF1 (gpm) Pipe Size (Inches) Pipe Velocity (ft/s) Origin to CE-4 (CBFM/CTP Junction) 1,107 15 2.0 1,762 15 3.2 CE-4 to WB-6 1,111 15 2.0 1,790 15 3.2 WB-6 to WB-3 1,113 15 2.0 1,792 15 3.3 WB-3 to WB-12 1,693 18 2.1 2,396 18 3.0 WB-12 to WB-22 1,722 18 2.2 2,425 18 3.1 WB-22 to SBFM2,3 1,819 18 2.3 2,522 18 3.2 SBFM3 to WWTP 2,067 18 2.6 2,983 18 3.8 Notes: (1) 2024 Average Dry Weather Flows (ADWFs) based on 2023 pump station data provided by City in gallons per minute (gpm). (2) No current pump station data provided. 2024 flows based on 2013 pump station data per 2014 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update report. (3) Average dry weather flows (ADWFs) from SB-1, SB-3, and SB-4 conveyed via South Bremerton Force Main (SBFM) 2.2.3 Pipeline Alignment The proposed alignment for Alternative 1B follows that of Alternative 1A exactly. The first section of pipe will be brand new pipe, however the proposed alternative involves rehabilitating the abandoned 20-inch CI pipe within the WSDOT limit access-full control corridor. At WB-3, the abandoned 20-inch DI pipe will be rehabilitated and connected to new 18-inch pipe. A significant portion of the proposed pipeline runs within a WSDOT limited access-full control corridor along Charleston Boulevard and the proposed parallel pipeline must cross State Route 3 to reach the WWTP. Additionally, Alternative 1B will also install a valve vault that connects the existing CTP and CBFM at the same location as Alternative 1A. The approximate number of utility crossings from Table 2-3 above applies to both Alternatives 1A and 1B. 2.2.4 Construction Sequencing A proposed sequence of constructing this alternative, to achieve the goals of increasing capacity and providing opportunity to assess the condition of and rehabilitate the existing CTP could be as follows: City of Bremerton, Crosstown Pipeline Alternatives Analysis Page 9 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/deliverables/ctp memo/ctp alt analysis memo_final.docx 1. Construct a means of flow splitting at 9th Street and Montgomery Avenue. An existing cross with a 30-inch blind flange can be utilized for the beginning of the parallel pipeline. Additional valving on the existing CTP to provide flow isolation would be required. 2. Construct the parallel pipeline, and construct pump station connections to the parallel pipeline, as well as the CBFM connection. 3. During the summer months, perform condition assessments and execute rehabilitation of the existing Crosstown Pipeline. The parallel pipeline is sized for average dry weather flows, therefore condition assessments and rehabilitation efforts should be timed around rain events. During the wet weather season, condition assessments and rehabilitation should not be conducted. 2.2.5 Alternative 1B Challenges At the conceptual level, the following challenges have been identified for this alternative: • Considerable WSDOT coordination will be required to obtain approval to construct or rehabilitate infrastructure in the limited access-full control corridor along Charleston Boulevard. • Additional WSDOT coordination will be required for crossing State Route 3. • The condition of the abandoned 20-inch cast iron pipe is largely unknown. This Alternative assumes the 20-inch pipe can be lined and rehabilitated with a less invasive method than open trench construction. • All connection points to the CTP and the 20-inch abandoned cast-iron pipe need to be investigated further to determine the constructability of select discharging into the existing CTP and the proposed parallel line. • There is always a risk of unplanned wet weather events which could dramatically increase the flow within the new pipeline that is sized only for conveying dry weather flows. The development of a standard operating procedure (SOP) to account for wet weather events while the smaller pipeline is in use is recommended. 2.3 Alternative 2 – Alternate Alignment Alternative 2 proposes to install a pipeline beginning near the intersection of 9th Street and Montgomery Avenue that runs parallel to the existing CTP for approximately 3,500 linear feet before turning west along a new horizontal alignment, primarily along Preble Street, before crossing Route 3 and reaching the WWTP, totaling approximately 11,500 linear feet. At the pipeline start, a flow splitting structure will be constructed with valving to convey flow from the upstream pump stations (CE-1 and CW-1) to either the existing CTP or the proposed pipeline. To convey wastewater uphill and into the WWTP, a new pump station will be constructed, and the remaining pipeline will be pressurized force main. Figure 2-3 below summarizes the alternative. City of Bremerton, Crosstown Pipeline Alternatives Analysis Page 10 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/deliverables/ctp memo/ctp alt analysis memo_final.docx Figure 2-3: Alternative 2 – Alternative Alignment Concept City of Bremerton, Crosstown Pipeline Alternatives Analysis Page 11 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/deliverables/ctp memo/ctp alt analysis memo_final.docx 2.3.1 Pipeline Capacity The proposed alternative will be capable of conveying flow from CE-1 and CW-1 to the WWTP without using the CTP; downstream pump station connections will continue to discharge to the existing CTP. The proposed pipeline is sized to handle peak hour wet weather flows of these upstream pump stations, as its primary function would be to reduce flow through the existing CTP during peak wet weather events. The pipeline capacity of the proposed alternative pipeline at both ends of the 20-year planning horizon is described in Table 2-5. Table 2-5: Proposed Pipeline Capacity Servicing 2024-2044 Wet Weather Flows 2024 2044 Pipe Segment Cumulative PHF1 (gpm) Pipe Size (Inches) Pipe Velocity (ft/s) Cumulative PHF2 (gpm) Pipe Size (Inches) Pipe Velocity (ft/s) Origin to New PS 11,685 30 5.3 16,590 30 7.5 New PS to WWTP 11,685 28 6.1 16,590 28 8.6 Notes: (1) Flows based on 2023 pump station data provided by City (2) Flow based on population growth data per Kitsap County Planning Policies (2021). With reduced flow necessary through the existing CTP during wet weather events, the existing Crosstown Pipeline will have sufficient capacity for 2024 and 2044 peak wet weather flows even with rehabilitation of the pipeline resulting in a reduction in capacity. A summary of the existing CTP capacity under this alternative is shown in Table 2-6. Table 2-6: Existing CTP Servicing 2024-2044 Flows (excluding CE-1 and CW-4) 2024 2044 CTP Pipe Segment Cumulative PHF1 (gpm) Pipe Size (Inches) Pipe Velocity (ft/s) Cumulative PHF2 (gpm) Pipe Size (Inches)3 Pipe Velocity (ft/s) Origin to CE-44 - - - - - - CE-4 to WB-6 549 30 0.3 2,404 26 1.5 WB-6 to WB-3 6,184 30 3.7 9,993 26 6.0 WB-3 to WB-15 13,113 36 5.2 15,956 32 6.4 WB-15 to WB-25 13,343 36 5.3 16,456 32 6.6 WB-25 to SBFM5,6 14,123 36 5.6 17,456 32 7.0 SBFM6 to WWTP 16,103 36 6.4 19,656 32 7.8 Notes: (1) Flows based on 2023 pump station data provided by City (2) Flow based on population growth data per Kitsap County Planning Policies (2021). (3) Assuming rehabilitation results in reduction of pipeline diameter (4) CE-4 contributes to the CTP via the CBFM (5) No current pump station data provided. Flows based on 2013 pump station data per 2014 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update report. (6) Flows from SB-1, SB-3, and SB-4 conveyed via South Bremerton Force Main (SBFM) City of Bremerton, Crosstown Pipeline Alternatives Analysis Page 12 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/deliverables/ctp memo/ctp alt analysis memo_final.docx 2.3.2 Pipeline Alignment The proposed alignment follows the existing CTP along Montgomery Avenue, then deviates west before reaching a proposed new pump station. The pump station will convey flow to the WWTP by way of Lafayette Avenue, Preble Street, and Bremerton Boulevard. Lafayette Avenue and Preble Street are residential in this area, with less congested underground utilities along the route. The City has existing infrastructure along Bremerton Boulevard, adjacent to State Route 3. The proposed alignment avoids the WSDOT limited access-full control corridor along Charleston Boulevard, reducing the permitting-related risks to construct the pipeline. A portion of the proposed new pipeline along Preble Street does enter Kitsap County right-of-way within the Navy Yard City neighborhood. The connection points included in this alternative allow for the CE-1, CW-4, and CW-1 pump stations to convey into the existing CTP or the proposed parallel pipeline. The proposed alignment must cross State Route 3 to reach the Westside WWTP. This section of the State highway is also a WSDOT limited access-full control corridor. Per conversations with WSDOT personnel in September 2024, perpendicular crossings of these types of corridors are historically viable. The proposed alignment crosses State Route 3 near an existing City sewer crossing. The proposed pipeline is expected to make several utility crossings along the proposed alignment. The Montgomery Avenue right-of-way includes some large diameter waterlines, but the sections along Lafayette Avenue, Preble Street, and Bremerton Boulevard are areas with less congested utility corridors and intersections. Table 2-7 below summarizes the approximate quantity of utility crossings related to the alternative. Table 2-7: Alternative 2 Utility Crossings Water Crossings1 Sewer Crossings1 Storm Crossings1 Gas/Electrical/Telecom Crossings (Each)2 Alternative 2 30 8 36 24 Notes: (1) The Water/Sewer/Storm Crossings were quantified utilizing the City’s GIS (2) The Gas/Electrical/Telecommunications Crossings were quantified by summating the number of road crossings in the City’s GIS 2.3.3 Alternative 2 Challenges At the conceptual level, the following risks and challenges have been identified for this alternative: • Land acquisition will be required for locating the newly proposed pump station. • WSDOT coordination will be required for crossing State Route 3. • Coordination with Kitsap County will be required for crossing through Navy Yard City. City of Bremerton, Crosstown Pipeline Alternatives Analysis Page 13 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/deliverables/ctp memo/ctp alt analysis memo_final.docx 2.4 Alternative Costs Project capital construction costs were developed for each alternative to gain an understanding of the potential costs for equipment and high-level construction requirements. Several markups were also applied to these estimates to provide a preliminary cost for ancillary project needs such as costs for electrical, instrumentation and controls and permitting. A summary of the ranges of costs is presented below in Table 2-8. The detailed estimates with assumed markups and taxes are included in Appendix A. Table 2-8: Alternative Capital Costs Alternative Capital Cost Cost Estimate Range1 1A - Parallel Pipeline (Larger Pipe) $27.6M $19.3M - $41.4M 1B - Parallel Pipeline (Smaller Pipe) $20.9M $14.6M - $31.4M 2 - Alternative Alignment $29.2M $20.4M - $43.8M Notes: (1) AACE Class 5 cost estimate range -30%/+50% City of Bremerton, Crosstown Pipeline Alternatives Analysis Page 14 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/deliverables/ctp memo/ctp alt analysis memo_final.docx Section 3: Alternatives Evaluation Each alternative was evaluated based on established weighted criteria relevant to the City’s needs and priorities. The evaluation yielded a weighted score for each alternative. 3.1 Criteria Descriptions A defined set of criteria was developed with the City to evaluate the alternatives, as follows:. Constructability Capital Cost Redundancy Rehabilitation of CTP Operation & Maintenance Ease of Permitting 3.1.1 Constructability Each alternative has a unique layout and set of spatial constraints. With different layouts, there are a mix of utility crossings required for each alternative. The estimated quantity of required utility crossings was leveraged as a predictor of the level of effort required to install a new pipeline. Additionally, larger pipelines were scored lower than smaller pipelines, as they are more difficult to determine a viable location where all minimum utility offsets are met. 3.1.2 Capital Costs For each project there are costs associated with rehabilitating the existing CTP and completing bypass pumping during the rehabilitation. The duration of bypass pumping required varies for each project depending on the proposed locations to tie-in the existing flow. One of the largest project costs is the amount of new piping required for the new pipeline. The newly proposed lines vary between 18-inch and 36-inch HDPE pipes. Each alternative also has costs associated with the amount of utility crossings, Route 3 crossing costs, land acquisition and traffic control costs. All alternatives also include at least one new flow split structure as well as reconnection costs to one or more existing pump stations. Each alternative was scored based on the estimated probable construction cost. The most expensive alternatives were scored the lowest and the least expensive were scored the highest. 3.1.3 Redundancy Per conversations with the City describing each concept, redundancy was identified as one the City’s top priorities. Redundancy in this application is defined as the amount of flow that can be received by each alternative, and whether the alternative can wet weather flows in addition to dry season flows. 3.1.4 Rehabilitation of the Existing CTP The existing section of the CTP that the City is most concerned about and would like to rehabilitate is approximately 11,000 LF of PCCP. The current condition is largely unknown and there is no way to currently bypass or divert flow in order to perform a condition assessment. City of Bremerton, Crosstown Pipeline Alternatives Analysis Page 15 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/deliverables/ctp memo/ctp alt analysis memo_final.docx Similar large pipes in the system have experienced pipe breaks and have identified major structural issues, therefore the City has prioritized rehabilitating the existing CTP since currently there is no redundancy for this section. Each alternative was scored by the ease of bypass pumping during rehabilitation and ability to receive flow during rehabilitation. Alternatives where excessive bypass piping was required scored lowest and alternatives where easy connections can be made during bypass pumping scored higher. 3.1.5 Operations & Maintenance Adding a new pipeline to the current system introduces new operational opportunities and challenges. Alternatives that have more flexibility during operations can be useful but could also introduce complications if they are not managed correctly. More operationally complex alternatives were scored lower than simpler designs that do not require operational interference. Installing new pipelines and pump stations increases the amount of infrastructure the City is required to maintain. Alternatives with the most amount of additional piping or new construction elements (e.g., flow splitters, pump stations) scored lower than simpler designs. 3.1.6 Permitting Securing the required permits and coordination are required before moving forward with any alternative, and the relative difficulty in obtaining approval from authorities having jurisdiction has been factored into evaluating each alternative. Part of the existing CTP is located parallel to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and a downstream section is within a WSDOT limited access- full control corridor, parallel to Charleston Boulevard and a railroad. All alternatives require crossing State Highway 3 is mandatory to reach the WWTP. Furthermore, some alternatives may require land acquisition for any permanent fixtures outside of an already established right- of-way. Alternatives with less permitting complications were scored the highest. 3.2 Alternatives Criteria Matrix Every alternative was scored utilizing the Criteria Evaluation Matrix in Table 3-1. The justification for each score is detailed for each criterion, and the criterion weight is also denoted. The criterion weights were collaboratively determined with City Operations and Project Management staff during workshops preceding the finalization of this memorandum. City of Bremerton, Crosstown Pipeline Alternatives Analysis Page 16 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/deliverables/ctp memo/ctp alt analysis memo_final.docx Table 3-1: Criteria Evaluation Matrix Scoring Criteria 3 2 1 1 Cost (20%) Total cost <$25,000,000. Costs can be covered by reallocating authorized funding in operational or CIP budgets. Total cost between $25,000,000-$30,000,000. Costs require additional funding through council approval Total Cost $30,000,000-$50,000,000. Requires extensive funding. >$50,000,000. Project costs are incredibly high and unreasonable to move forward with the project. Constructability (15%) The proposed pipeline is small (<30”) and crosses through primarily neighborhood intersections. The proposed pipeline is small (<30”) and crosses through many congested intersections. The proposed pipeline is large (>30”) and crosses through many congested intersections. The alternative is not feasible to construct Redundancy (15%) New line can handle all maximum PHF during wet weather conditions and can withstand all flow that goes to the existing CTP. New line provides full redundancy for dry weather flows and can withstand additional wet weather flows. New line can only withstand ADWF or overflows from storm events not greater than ADWFs. New line cannot handle the ADWF and can only withstand smaller overflows or low flow Summer ADWF. Rehab of CTP (25%) Existing CTP can be taken offline while new pipe can withstand all upstream, downstream and connecting flows in the system. Existing CTP can be taken offline, one section at a time, while new pipe withstands the partial flows. Existing CTP can be taken offline, one section at a time, but alternative sewers or excessive bypassing is required to handle existing flows. New pipe will not be able to be utilized at all to divert any flow during rehabilitation of existing CTP O&M (15%) "Hands-off approach" New pipeline's typical operation does not interfere with other pipe operations. O&M staff do not need to complete any programming or day-to-day operations of new pipe. New pipeline's typical operation can be programmed to require the least amount of operator interference/responsibility Operator is expected to understand the system capabilities and adjust accordingly as well as keep an eye on the daily operations Pipeline operation will differentiate on a daily basis and will require constant operator attention. Permitting (10%) Minimal challenges acquiring land and staying within City ROW. Limited challenges acquiring permits and crossing State Routes. Some challenges with other entities and private property owners. Requires multiple permitting efforts and new easements. Multiple challenges that require extensive conversation and permitting with other entities and negotiations with private property owners Due to known permitting and land acquisition conditions, construction of the alternative is not feasible. City of Bremerton, Crosstown Pipeline Alternatives Analysis Page 17 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/deliverables/ctp memo/ctp alt analysis memo_final.docx 3.3 Alternative Criteria Matrix Scoring Each alternative received a score for each set of criteria. The unweighted and weighted scores assigned are in Table 3-2 below. Criteria weighting was developed collaboratively with City Operations and Engineering personnel. The weighted score was calculated by multiplying the unweighted score by the collaboratively-defined weight percentage. Table 3-2: Alternative Evaluation Scoring Alternative 1A – Larger Pipe Alternative 1B – Smaller Pipe Alternative 2 – Alternate Alignment Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Cost (20%) 2 0.4 3 0.6 2 0.4 Constructability (15%) 1 0.15 2 0.3 3 0.45 Redundancy (15%) 3 0.45 2 0.3 1 0.15 Rehab of CTP (25%) 3 0.75 2 0.5 1 0.25 O&M (15%) 2 0.3 2 0.3 1 0.15 Permitting (10%) 1 0.1 2 0.2 3 0.3 Total 12 2.15 13 2.2 10 1.7 The scores for each alternative were then tallied to get a cumulative total score. Alternative 1B scored the highest when comparing the raw and weighted scores, scoring just slightly higher than 1A. 3.3.1 Alternative 1A Scoring Alternative 1A scored the second highest, due to its extensive functionality and ability to receive all of the flow the existing CTP receives. The alternative scored a one (1) for constructability due to the difficulty of constructing a large diameter pipe along a busy City corridor. Alternative 1A scored a three (3) for Redundancy and Rehab of CTP. Since this alternative proposes a new pipeline that is the same size as the existing CTP, this allows for full redundancy and the new alignment is very similar to the CTP which makes the bypass pumping the least difficult to divert flows from the CTP. Alternative 1A scored a two (2) for Cost and O&M. This alternative was the second most expensive, mostly due to the large sized pipe required. The O&M scored well for the functionality, but the multifunctionality of the new pipe can make the typical operation difficult; various portions of flow can be sent to the new line, including any number of pump stations that supply the CTP. Alternative 1A scored a one (1) was for the Permitting. The alignment has most of the same challenges as the CTP, including crossing State Highway 3, being parallel to the railroad and Charleston Blvd. and being in close proximity to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. City of Bremerton, Crosstown Pipeline Alternatives Analysis Page 18 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/deliverables/ctp memo/ctp alt analysis memo_final.docx 3.3.2 Alternative 1B Scoring Alternative 1B scored the highest. This alternative is very similar to Alternative 1A (Larger Pipe), but the newly proposed pipe is smaller and cannot handle as much flow as the Larger Pipe alternative. The alternative scored a two (2) for constructability due to the reduced difficulty of constructing a smaller diameter pipe along a busy City corridor as compared to Alternative 1A. The O&M score was the same as the Larger Pipe alternative, because the alignment is the same and there are the same challenges. This alternative scored higher on constructability than its larger pipe counterpart as it is expected that construction of the pipeline through WSDOT’s limited access-full control corridor along Charleston will involve utilizing the abandoned 20-inch cast iron pipe as a host pipe, leading to less invasive construction methods within the corridor. This less invasive construction is expected to increase the City’s likelihood of obtaining WSDOT approval for construction the alternative. The rehabilitation of CTP score was lower than that of Alternative 1A, however the rehabilitation work can still be completed in the summertime without any capacity issues. Since the proposed pipe is smaller, the cost was the less expensive. 3.3.3 Alternative 2 Scoring Alternative 2 introduces a brand-new alignment, and also avoids larger permitting obstacles. The new pipeline may not always receive flow and the increase in elevation along the alignment requires a new pump station to get the flow to the WWTP. The costs associated with constructing a new pump station to convey flows along Preble Street are the largest factor that makes this alternative the most expensive. This alternative scores poorly for Redundancy and Rehab of CTP. The new pipeline will only alleviate upstream flows from the CTP and all downstream flows will still get sent to the existing CTP with no option to divert flows. In addition, the alignment is not near the exiting CTP and therefore cannot be relied upon for bypass pumping. The new alignment does score highly for Permitting; the alignment was chosen, because it avoids major conflicts by avoiding the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and the US Navy railroad while also reducing the amount of coordination with WSDOT. Considering operation and maintenance, Alternative 2 is considered less complex due to less operational flow splitting capabilities than Alternatives 1A and 1B. However, it introduces a new pump station that needs to be located and eventually maintained. This alternative ultimately scored the lowest based on the established criteria. 3.3.4 Preferred Alternative Selection After discussions with City staff and given that the scores for Alternative 1A and 1B were almost the same, either alternative would suffice. Alternative 1A would be more practical and a better long-term solution since it provides complete redundancy. However, the constructability challenges of 1A due to the larger diameter, as well as the higher cost compared to 1B, reduce the appeal of this alternative. Before proceeding further with either of these alternatives, the decision-making process would benefit from field investigation to understand the former 20-inch pipe trench in the WSDOT limited access corridor and to validate the proposed alignment by confirming the crossing utilities conflicts. City of Bremerton, Crosstown Pipeline Alternatives Analysis Page 19 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/deliverables/ctp memo/ctp alt analysis memo_final.docx References HDR Engineering, Incorporated. 2014. City of Bremerton Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update. Kennedy Jenks Consultants, Incorporated. 2024. City of Bremerton Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update. City of Bremerton, Crosstown Pipeline Alternatives Analysis A-1 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/deliverables/ctp memo/ctp alt analysis memo_final.docx Appendix A: Engineer Opinion of Probable Construction Costs OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS, INC. Project:Bremerton WCP - Crosstown Pipeline Improvements Prepared By:RH/RL/JH Date Prepared:29-Jan-25 Building, Area:Alternative 1A - Parallel Pipeline, Larger Pipe KJ Proj. No. 2397011 Current at ENR Estimate Type:Conceptual Construction Escalated to ENR Preliminary (w/o plans) Change Order Months to Midpoint of Construct 48 Design Development @ _________% Complete Spec.Item Materials Sub-contractor No.No.Description Qty Units $/Unit Total $/Unit Total $/Unit Total Total DIVISION ___ - ______________ 30" PCCP Pipe Rehab 7,830 LF 4.00 31,320 28.00 219,240 467 3,656,610 3,907,170 36" PCCP Pipe Rehab 6,100 LF 7.00 42,700 46.00 280,600 637 3,885,700 4,209,000 Bypass Pumping 12 Weeks 40,000 480,000 480,000 30" HDPE Pipe 5,600 LF 135.00 756,000 125.00 700,000 92 515,200 1,971,200 36" HDPE Pipe 6,100 LF 150.00 915,000 145.00 884,500 104 634,400 2,433,900 20" CI Pipe Removal 6,100 LF 5.00 30,500 80.00 488,000 75 457,500 976,000 Pump Station Connections 5 EA 42,200.00 211,000 22,200.00 111,000 35,400 177,000 499,000 Utility Crossings 65 EA 2,500.00 162,500 162,500 Flow Split Structure 2 EA 106,700.00 213,400 48,200.00 96,400 79,600 159,200 469,000 Traffic Control 1 LS 772,889 772,889 772,889 Route 3 Crossing 1 LS 350,000 350,000 350,000 Subtotals 2199920.00 2942240.00 11088498.50 16,230,658.50 Division 1 Costs @ 10% 219992.00 294224.00 1108849.85 1,623,065.85 Subtotals 2419912.00 3236464.00 12197348.35 17,853,724.35 Taxes - Materials Costs @ 9.20% 222631.90 222,631.90 Subtotals 2642543.90 3236464.00 12197348.35 18,076,356.25 Taxes - Labor Costs @ Subtotals 2642543.90 3236464.00 12197348.35 18,076,356.25 Contractor Markup for Sub @ 12% 1463681.80 1,463,681.80 Subtotals 2642543.90 3236464.00 13661030.15 19,540,038.06 Contractor OH&P @ 15% 396381.59 485469.60 881,851.19 Subtotals 3038925.49 3721933.60 13661030.15 20,421,889.24 Estimate Contingency @ 25% 5,105,472.31 Subtotals 25,527,361.55 Escalate to Midpoint of Construct @ 2% 2,042,188.92 Estimated Bid Cost 27,569,550.48 Total Estimate 27,600,000 +50%-30% +50%Total Est.-30% $41,400,000 $27,600,000 $19,320,000 Installation Estimate Accuracy Estimated Range of Probable Cost x Engineer's Estimate of Probable Cost Bremerton CTP Alt 1A Short Form Page 1 of 1 Date Printed 1/29/2025 OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS, INC. Project:Bremerton WCP - Crosstown Pipeline Improvements Prepared By:RH/RL Date Prepared:29-Jan-25 Building, Area:Alternative 1B - Parallel Pipeline, Smaller Pipe KJ Proj. No. 2397011 Current at ENR Estimate Type:Conceptual Construction Escalated to ENR Preliminary (w/o plans)Change Order Months to Midpoint of Construct Design Development @ _________% Complete Spec.Item Materials Sub-contractor No.No.Description Qty Units $/Unit Total $/Unit Total $/Unit Total Total DIVISION ___ - ______________ 30" PCCP Pipe Rehab 7,830 LF 4.00 31,320 28.00 219,240 467 3,656,610 3,907,170 36" PCCP Pipe Rehab 6,100 LF 7.00 42,700 46.00 280,600 637 3,885,700 4,209,000 Bypass Pumping 12 Week 40,000 480,000 480,000 18" HDPE Pipe 5,600 LF 80.00 448,000 75.00 420,000 77 431,200 1,299,200 20" CI Pipe Rehabilitation 6,100 LF 9.00 54,900 42.00 256,200 176 1,073,600 1,384,700 Pump Station Connections 5 EA 42,200.00 211,000 22,200.00 111,000 35,400 177,000 499,000 Utility Crossings 65 EA 2,500.00 162,500 162,500 Flow Split Structure 2 EA 106,700.00 213,400 48,200.00 96,400 79,600 159,200 469,000 Traffic Control 1 LS 638,029 638,029 638,029 Route 3 Crossing 1 LS 350,000 350,000 350,000 Subtotals 1001320.00 1545940.00 10851338.50 13,398,598.50 Division 1 Costs @ 10% 100132.00 154594.00 1085133.85 1,339,859.85 Subtotals 1101452.00 1700534.00 11936472.35 14,738,458.35 Taxes - Materials Costs @ 9.20% 101333.58 101,333.58 Subtotals 1202785.58 1700534.00 11936472.35 14,839,791.93 Taxes - Labor Costs @ Subtotals 1202785.58 1700534.00 11936472.35 14,839,791.93 Contractor Markup for Sub @ 12% 1432376.68 1,432,376.68 Subtotals 1202785.58 1700534.00 13368849.03 16,272,168.62 Contractor OH&P @ 15% 180417.84 255080.10 435,497.94 Subtotals 1383203.42 1955614.10 13368849.03 16,707,666.55 Estimate Contingency @ 25% 4,176,916.64 Subtotals 20,884,583.19 Escalate to Midpoint of Construct @ 2% Estimated Bid Cost 20,884,583.19 Total Estimate 20,900,000.00 +50%-30% +50%Total Est.-30% $31,350,000 $20,900,000 $14,630,000 Installation Estimate Accuracy Estimated Range of Probable Cost x Engineer's Estimate of Probable Cost Bremerton CTP Alt 1B Short Form Page 1 of 1 Date Printed 1/29/2025 OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS, INC. Project:Bremerton WCP - Crosstown Pipeline Improvements - Alternative 2 Prepared By:RH/RL Date Prepared:29-Jan-25 Building, Area:Alternative 2 - Alternate Alignment KJ Proj. No. 2397011 Current at ENR Estimate Type:Conceptual Construction Escalated to ENR Preliminary (w/o plans) Change Order Months to Midpoint of Construct Design Development @ _________% Complete Spec.Item Materials Sub-contractor No.No.Description Qty Units $/Unit Total $/Unit Total $/Unit Total Total DIVISION ___ - ______________ 30" PCCP Pipe Rehab 7,830 LF 4.00 31,320 28.00 219,240 476 3,727,080 3,977,640 36" PCCP Pipe Rehab 6,100 LF 7.00 42,700 46.00 280,600 637 3,885,700 4,209,000 Bypass Pumping 20 Week 40,000 800,000 800,000 28" HDPE Pipe 11,520 LF 120.00 1,382,400 77.00 887,040 82 944,640 3,214,080 Pump Station Connections 1 EA 42,200.00 42,200 22,200.00 22,200 35,400 35,400 99,800 Utility Crossings 98 EA 2,500.00 245,000 245,000 Pump Station 1 EA 4,500,000 4,500,000 4,500,000 Flow Split Structure 1 EA 106,700.00 106,700 48,200.00 48,200 79,600 79,600 234,500 Route 3 Crossing 1 LS 350,000 350,000 350,000 Land Acquisition 1 LS 150,000 150,000 150,000 Traffic Control 1 LS 881,501 881,501 881,501 Subtotals 1605320.00 1702280.00 15353921.00 18,661,521 Division 1 Costs @ 10% 160532.00 170228.00 1535392.10 1,866,152 Subtotals 1765852.00 1872508.00 16889313.10 20,527,673 Taxes - Materials Costs @ 9.20% 162458.38 162,458 Subtotals 1928310.38 1872508.00 16889313.10 20,690,131 Taxes - Labor Costs @ Subtotals 1928310.38 1872508.00 16889313.10 20,690,131 Contractor Markup for Sub @ 12% 2026717.57 2,026,718 Subtotals 1928310.38 1872508.00 18916030.67 22,716,849 Contractor OH&P @ 15% 289246.56 280876.20 570,123 Subtotals 2217556.94 2153384.20 18916030.67 23,286,972 Estimate Contingency @ 25% 5,821,743 Subtotals 29,108,715 Escalate to Midpoint of Construct @ 2% Estimated Bid Cost 29,108,715 Total Estimate 29,200,000 +50%-30% +50%Total Est.-30% $43,800,000 $29,200,000 $20,440,000 Installation Estimate Accuracy Estimated Range of Probable Cost x Engineer's Estimate of Probable Cost Bremerton CTP Alt 2 Short Form Page 1 of 1 Date Printed 1/29/2025 City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update H-1 Appendix H: PSIC Memorandum 32001 32nd Avenue South, Suite 300 Federal Way, WA 98001 (253) 835-6400 Bremerton Puget Sound Industrial Center (PSIC) Feasibility Study 15 February 2025 Prepared for City of Bremerton 345 6th Street Bremerton, WA 98337 KJ Project No. 2397011*00 Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton i https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20251031.docx Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. ii List of Appendices ...................................................................................................................... iii Frequently Used Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................. Section 1: Executive Summary ..................................................................... 1 1.1 Executive Summary ............................................................................. 1 Section 2: Project Background ..................................................................... 5 2.1 Project Purpose and Understanding ..................................................... 5 2.2 Project Location ................................................................................... 5 2.3 Existing Information Review ................................................................. 7 2.4 Regulatory Requirements ..................................................................... 8 Section 3: Alternatives Analysis ................................................................. 10 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 10 3.2 Membrane Bioreactor Treatment System ........................................... 10 3.2.1 Description, Sizing, and Location ............................................ 10 3.2.2 Operations and Maintenance .................................................. 11 3.2.3 Benefits and Drawbacks .......................................................... 12 3.3 New Pumping Station ......................................................................... 12 3.3.1 Description, Sizing, and Location ............................................ 12 3.3.2 Operations and Maintenance .................................................. 13 3.3.3 Benefits and Drawbacks .......................................................... 13 3.4 Alternative Scenarios ......................................................................... 13 3.4.1 Alternative 1 – Centralized MBR with Mason County Agreement .............................................................................. 13 3.4.2 Alternative 2 – Centralized MBR without Mason County Agreement .............................................................................. 15 3.4.3 Alternative 3 – Conveyance to Existing Service Area .............. 16 3.4.3.1 Alternative 3 Flow Analysis .................................... 17 3.4.4 MBR Effluent Discharge Options ............................................. 18 3.5 Alternative Project Costs .................................................................... 20 3.5.1 Cost Comparison .................................................................... 20 Section 4: Alternatives Evaluation ............................................................. 22 4.1 Criteria Descriptions ........................................................................... 22 4.1.1 Costs ....................................................................................... 22 4.1.2 Operations & Maintenance ...................................................... 22 Table of Contents (cont’d) Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton ii https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20251031.docx 4.1.3 Beneficial Reuse ..................................................................... 22 4.1.4 Agency Coordination & Permitting ........................................... 22 4.1.5 Implementation/Phasing .......................................................... 23 4.2 Alternative Criteria Matrix ................................................................... 23 4.3 Evaluation Criteria and Weighting ...................................................... 25 4.3.1 Alternatives Comparison ......................................................... 25 4.3.2 Alternative 3 Conclusion .......................................................... 26 4.3.3 Risks and Opportunities .......................................................... 26 4.3.4 Recommendation & Phasing Strategy ..................................... 27 List of Tables Table 1-1 Alternatives Scoring Matrix ......................................................................................... 2 Table 1-2 Alternative Project Construction Costs ....................................................................... 2 Table 2-1 Inputs for Flow and Load Projections .......................................................................... 7 Table 2-2 Peaking Factors ......................................................................................................... 8 Table 2-3 Design Criteria ........................................................................................................... 8 Table 2-4 WAC 246-272B-06250 - Treatment Level C ............................................................... 8 Table 2-5 Class A Reclaimed Water Performance Standards .................................................... 9 Table 3-1 Benefits and Drawbacks – MBR Treatment System ................................................. 12 Table 3-2 Benefits and Drawbacks – Pump Stations ................................................................ 13 Table 3-3 Alternative Project Construction Costs ..................................................................... 20 Table 4-1 Scoring Criteria Matrix .............................................................................................. 24 Table 4-2 Alternatives Scoring Matrix ....................................................................................... 25 Table 1-1 Alternatives Scoring Matrix ......................................................................................... 2 Table 1-2 Alternative Project Construction Costs ....................................................................... 2 Table 2-1 Inputs for Flow and Load Projections .......................................................................... 7 Table 2-2 Peaking Factors ......................................................................................................... 8 Table 2-3 Design Criteria ........................................................................................................... 8 Table 2-4 WAC 246-272B-06250 - Treatment Level C ............................................................... 8 Table 2-5 Class A Reclaimed Water Performance Standards .................................................... 9 Table 3-1 Benefits and Drawbacks – MBR Treatment System ................................................. 12 Table 3-2 Benefits and Drawbacks – Pump Stations ................................................................ 13 Table 3-3 Alternative Project Construction Costs ..................................................................... 20 Table 4-1 Scoring Criteria Matrix .............................................................................................. 24 Table 4-2 Alternatives Scoring Matrix ....................................................................................... 25 List of Figures Figure 1-1 PSIC Phasing Strategy .............................................................................................. 4 Table of Contents (cont’d) Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton iii https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20251031.docx Figure 2-1 City of Bremerton Basin Map..................................................................................... 5 Figure 2-2 PSIC Basin Plan ........................................................................................................ 6 Figure 3-1 Alternative 1 Plan .................................................................................................... 14 Figure 3-2 Alternative 2 Plan .................................................................................................... 16 Figure 3-3 Alternative 3 Plan .................................................................................................... 17 Figure 3-4 Flow Rate Comparison ............................................................................................ 18 Figure 3-5 Effluent Conveyance Plan ....................................................................................... 19 Figure 4-1 PSIC Phasing Strategy ............................................................................................ 29 Figure 1-1 PSIC Phasing Strategy .............................................................................................. 4 Figure 2-1 City of Bremerton Basin Map..................................................................................... 5 Figure 2-2 PSIC Basin Plan ........................................................................................................ 6 Figure 3-1 Alternative 1 Plan .................................................................................................... 14 Figure 3-2 Alternative 2 Plan .................................................................................................... 16 Figure 3-3 Alternative 3 Plan .................................................................................................... 17 Figure 3-4 Flow Rate Comparison ............................................................................................ 18 Figure 3-5 Effluent Conveyance Plan ....................................................................................... 19 Figure 4-1 PSIC Phasing Strategy ............................................................................................ 29 List of Appendices A Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimates (Class 5) Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20251031.docx Frequently Used Acronyms and Abbreviations AWWA American Water Works Association AACE Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering AAF AAL Average Annual Flow Average Annual Loading ADWF AWWF Average Dry Weather Flow Average Wet Weather Flow BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand DOE Department of Ecology I/I Inflow and Infiltration MBR Membrane Bioreactor MGD Million Gallons Per Day MIC Manufacturing Industrial Center MM WWF Maximum Month Wet Weather Flow MML Maximum Month Loading O&M Operations & Maintenance OPCC Opinion of Probably Construction Cost Estimate PD WWF Peak Daily Wet Weather Flow PDL Peak Daily Loading PHF Peak Hourly Flow PPD Pounds Per Day PSIC Puget Sound Industrial Center ROW Right-Of-Way TSS Total Suspended Solids UV Ultraviolet WAC Washington Administrative Code WSDOT Washington Department of Transportation Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton Page 1 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20251031.docx Section 1: Executive Summary 1.1 Executive Summary The Puget Sound Industrial Center (PSIC) located in Bremerton, WA contains approximately 3,700 acres of property planned for future industrial development and usage. The City of Bremerton (City) recognizes this area as a major hub for employment once fully built out and the Kitsap County TAZ analysis has documented the proposed increase in the 2024 City Services Comprehensive Plan. An existing lagoon wastewater treatment plant that currently serves the Port of Bremerton’s (Port) Bremerton National Airport, the only existing development in the PSIC area, is operated onsite and discharges to a nearby drain field. Because of the large- scale plan for expansion in this area, the existing treatment facility onsite needed to be evaluated to determine if the plant’s capacities can meet the expansion goals. The City also maintains a desire to treat the new effluent to Class A reclaimed water standards for discharge into the drain field and investigate the potential for beneficially reusing the Class A reclaimed water. A previous evaluation was conducted by Richwine Environmental that recommended implementing a two-phase approach to increase the plant’s capacity. The first phase included increasing the hydraulic loading rate on the existing drain field soils and the second phase included constructing a new treatment facility featuring a membrane bioreactor (MBR) as the primary treatment component. Several options for increasing the existing plant’s capacity were identified for this study. This included a new MBR treatment system and new pumping stations. Benefits and drawbacks as well as risks and opportunities for these options were identified in this report. Several iterations were developed that included both an MBR treatment system and a series of pumping stations. The alternatives that were developed are as follows: • Alternative 1 – South PSIC flows to Mason County, North PSIC Flows to new MBR system. Phased approach to send flows to Mason County until flow limit is reached, then send all flows to MBR system. Discharge as reclaimed water to Gold Mountain Golf Club. • Alternative 2 – South PSIC flows to new pump station, then to new MBR system. New MBR system sized for both North and South PSIC flows. Discharge as reclaimed water to Gold Mountain Golf Club. • Alternative 3 – South PSIC flows to new pump station, then into another pump station sized for North and South PSIC flows. All flows conveyed to community of Gorst infrastructure where flows are discharged as untreated effluent to Bremerton Wastewater Treatment Plant. Several discharge considerations were discussed in this report and included discharging to Gold Mountain Golf Club as reclaimed water and utilizing the existing drain fields, provided there is capacity to do so. Once the alternatives were developed, high level evaluations were conducted for each option relative to several criteria. The criteria included cost, operation & maintenance (O&M), beneficial Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton Page 2 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20251031.docx reuse, agency coordination, and permitting. In summary, the alternatives that contained a new MBR system had a relatively higher cost and more agency coordination efforts than alternatives without this type of treatment system. Alternatives with a new MBR system also contain a higher level of complexity with O&M activities and higher onsite presence than alternatives that only contain new pumping stations. Permitting efforts are relatively similar across all alternatives due to the nature of the work involved. The results of the evaluation scoring are presented in Table 1-1 Table 1-1 Alternatives Scoring Matrix Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Unweighte d Weighted Unweighte d Weighted Unweighte d Weighted Cost 2 0.4 2 0.4 2 0.4 O&M 1 0.25 1 0.25 3 0.75 Beneficial Reuse 2 0.5 2 0.5 0 0 Agency Coordinatio n 1 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.2 Permitting 3 0.6 1 0.2 2 0.4 Totals 9 1.85 7 1.45 9 1.75 The projected costs for each alternative are presented below in Table 1-2: Table 1-2 Alternative Project Construction Costs Estimated Total Project Capital Cost & Range Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 $78M $85M $51M $55M to $118M $59M to $127M $35M to $76M Alternative 1 Phasing Phase 1 Phase 2/3 $52M $26M $36M to $78M $18M to $40M Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton Page 3 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20251031.docx The results of the alternatives evaluation have shown that Alternative 1 scored the highest. This alternative is recommended to be carried forward into a potential phasing implementation plan. This plan is summarized below and includes a graphic detailing this approach which assumes linear population growth over time: • Phase 1 o City enters interagency agreement with Mason County to send up to 160,000 gpd of flow from South PSIC to their infrastructure. o City begins developing plans for constructing a new pump station in South PSIC that will pump flows beyond 160,000 gpd to North PSIC. o City begins developing studies for phasing in a new MBR treatment system in North PSIC that accepts flows from South PSIC and discharges reclaimed water to Gold Mountain Golf Club and solids as Class A biosolids for beneficial reuse. • Phase 2 o City begins sending flows from the new South PSIC pump station to new MBR treatment system until a capacity threshold is reached. This will trigger the City to begin implementing plans for final phasing of the MBR system to the full projected build-out flows. • Phase 3 o City begins construction of the MBR system expansion to account for full capacity flows. The City would enter an interagency agreement with the Port to receive all flows on Port property to the new treatment system. An illustration of this phased approach is also presented below in Figure 1-1. This strategy is a viable option for increased population growth in this area over time. Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton Page 4 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20251031.docx Figure 1-1 PSIC Phasing Strategy Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton Page 5 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20251031.docx Section 2: Project Background 2.1 Project Purpose and Understanding The Puget Sound Industrial Center (PSIC) located in Bremerton, WA contains approximately 3,700 acres of property planned for future industrial development and usage. The City of Bremerton (City) recognizes this area as a major hub for employment once fully built out and the Kitsap County TAZ analysis has documented the proposed increase in the 2024 City Services Comprehensive Plan. An existing lagoon wastewater treatment plant that currently serves the Port of Bremerton’s Bremerton National Airport, the only existing development in the PSIC area, is operated onsite and discharges to a nearby drain field. Because of the large-scale plan for expansion in this area, the existing treatment facility onsite needed to be evaluated to determine if the plant’s capacities can meet the expansion goals. The City also maintains a desire to treat the new effluent to Class A reclaimed water standards for discharge into the drain field, and investigate the potential for beneficially reusing the Class A reclaimed water. A previous evaluation was conducted by Richwine Environmental that recommended implementing a two- phase approach to increase the plant’s capacity. The first phase included increasing the hydraulic loading rate on the existing drain field soils and the second phase included constructing a new treatment facility featuring a MBR as the primary treatment component. The purpose of this report is to build off previous evaluations and provide several options and alternatives for increasing the plant’s capacity with respect to the goals of the City. This feasibility study includes the following major components: • Development of flows and loads for the 20-year planning period. • Development of preliminary site plans for the evaluated options, including conveyance to deliver reclaimed water to the Gold Mountain Golf Club. • Development of an Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) Class 5 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (OPCC) for all evaluated alternatives discussed within this report. • Alternatives analysis and preliminary phasing and implementation plan for the recommended alternative. 2.2 Project Location The PSIC area is defined in the inset in the bottom right corner of Figure 2-1. This area was developed by the Puget Sound Regional Council and was deemed an important area for future employment. The unincorporated community of Gorst is located to the northeast of the PSIC area while Mason County borders the PSIC area to the southwest of the boundary. indicates the approximate location of the existing lagoon treatment facility and drain field location. Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton Page 5 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20251031.docx Figure 2-1 City of Bremerton Basin Map Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton Page 6 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20251031.docx Figure 2-2 PSIC Basin Plan Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton Page 7 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20251031.docx 2.3 Existing Information Review The existing treatment system serving the airport is currently comprised of aeration ponds, polishing ponds, and currently discharges to two drain fields. This system was originally installed as two systems that could be operated either in parallel or in series. The first system installed in 1973 consists of an aeration pond, an influent pump station, polishing pond, dosing station, and a drain field. The second system was installed in 1987 and is composed of an aeration pond, polishing pond, effluent pump station, and a drain field. Projected influent flows and loads were calculated based on population projections for the PSIC area per county-provided TAZ data. The assumed sewer generation factor for this projected population was provided by the City of Bremerton and summarized in the 2014 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update Report (HDR, 2014). The PSIC area is currently zoned as a manufacturing industrial center (MIC) and was previously defined for future employment, thus the population increases in this area are all categorized as employment only. The annual population growth rate was calculated based on existing sewer flows for PSIC taken from the 2014 report to determine existing population, and from County-provided growth estimates (2044 TAZ data for Bremerton). Once the projected population values for the PSIC area were calculated, the projected flows and loads could then be estimated by multiplying the future PSIC population by a standard sewer generation per person per the Department of Ecology (DOE) Orange Book designation. A summary of these inputs for calculating the projected flows and loads are presented below in Table 2-1. Table 2-1 Inputs for Flow and Load Projections Parameter Units Value PSIC Population (Employment, 2044) people 10,476 Annual Population Growth for PSIC % 11.12 Sewer Generation (Employment, per 8-hour shift) gpdc 35 Sewer Generation (Employment) (TSS+BOD) ppdc 0.04 Applying the Orange Book sewer generation flowrate to the 2044 PSIC population yielded the design average dry weather flow (ADWF) criterion. A peaking factor based on 2018-2023 Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant influent data was applied to yield average annual flow (AAF). For newly constructed sewer infrastructure, the Orange Book recommends implementing an empirical data-based ratio of peak hourly flow (PHF) to design average annual flow to determine peak hourly flow. For the projected PSIC population served in 2044, a peaking factor of 3.0 was applied to the average annual flow to obtain the peak hourly flow. According to the Orange Book, this peaking factor does account for infiltration and inflow (I/I) associated with the new sewer infrastructure. To obtain other design criteria necessary for the analyses herein, peaking factors based on 2018-2023 Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant data were applied to the average annual flow. A summary of the peaking factors and flow design criteria are presented in Tables 2-2 and 2-3, respectively. Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton Page 8 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20251031.docx Table 2-2 Peaking Factors ADWF (MGD) AAF (MGD) MM WWF (MGD) PHF (MGD) 0.77 1 2.1 3.0 Table 2-3 Design Criteria ADWF (MGD) AAF (MGD) MM WWF (MGD) PHF (MGD) 0.4 0.5 1.0 1.4 BOD (ppd) TSS (ppd) AAL MML PDL AAL MML 442 600 915 443 600 2.4 Regulatory Requirements The existing treatment system currently treats to Treatment Level C as prescribed by the discharge permit issued by the Washington Department of Health for the existing lagoon treatment system. These requirements are summarized in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 246-272B-06250 and in Table 2-4 below. Table 2-4 WAC 246-272B-06250 - Treatment Level C Effluent Parameters Treatment Level CBOD5 TSS O&G FC TN P C 25 mg/L 30 mg/L - - - - For this evaluation, treating the effluent to Class A reclaimed water standards will be investigated for the purpose of providing a source of beneficial reuse for the City. Performance standards for Class A reclaimed water are defined in WAC 173-219-330 and are summarized in Table 2-5 in this report. Additional analyses and feasibility studies will be required under separate, dedicated cover to evaluate the viability of Class A reclaimed water for each alternative prepared. Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton Page 9 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20251031.docx Table 2-5 Class A Reclaimed Water Performance Standards Parameter Class A Reclaimed Water Coagulation/Filtration Turbidity Monthly Average Sample Maximum 2 NTU 5 NTU Membrane Filtration Turbidity Monthly Average Sample Maximum 0.2 NTU 0.5 NTU Disinfection Total Coliform 7-day Median Sample Maximum 2.2 MPN/100 mL or CFU/100 mL 23 MPN/mL or CFU/mL Virus Removal Refer to WAC 173-219-340 requirements Denitrification Total Nitrogen Monthly Average Weekly Average 10 mg/L 15 mg/L Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton Page 10 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20251031.docx Section 3: Alternatives Analysis 3.1 Introduction This section focuses on presenting the two primary options in consideration as building blocks for the increase in overall treatment capacity for the PSIC area, as well as providing a comprehensive comparison between these options. Three alternatives of the options were developed with two alternatives including a new MBR treatment system and one alternative including a new pump station/conveyance option. The MBR treatment system intends to provide for increased flows from the North PSIC and South PSIC areas and treating to Class A reclaimed water for beneficial reuse, while the new pump station option intends to focus the increased flows to existing or new conveyance away from the site. Several configurations of these alternatives are discussed in Section 3.4. Preliminary layouts are presented, and a high- level cost comparison will also be discussed. The calculated influent flows and loads generated for this evaluation per Table 3-12 were leveraged for preliminary sizing of the alternatives. 3.2 Membrane Bioreactor Treatment System The MBR treatment system option is leveraged in two of the three alternatives and is anticipated to be installed within the boundary of the secondary drain field for the existing treatment system. This system is expected to include fine screening, primary treatment, and effluent disinfection, as well as all required appurtenances, as part of the package. The MBR supplier will be responsible for providing this service and to ensure that the new system will meet the effluent requirements dictated by the discharge permit. The MBR supplier will also provide support for biological verification for treatment down to the specified effluent requirements. The MBR system will be capable of meeting Class A reclaimed water standards for beneficial reuse purposes. 3.2.1 Description, Sizing, and Location A MBR is a component of a treatment process that combines a conventional activated sludge process, which separates sludge between solids and liquids through clarification, with a microfiltration process using microporous membranes. MBR systems allow for a high biomass concentration to be maintained, therefore operating at a higher volumetric loading rate compared to a more conventional process. This allows for lower hydraulic retention times and smaller bioreactors and less overall space requirements. The effluent from MBR systems typically contain low concentrations of bacteria, TSS, BOD, and phosphorus, which facilitates high-level disinfection. MBR systems do, however, require a constant, minimum water level for normal operation which is generally done by internal or external equalization basins. A typical MBR process includes the use of screening for influent flow, equalization basins, anoxic basins, pre-aeration and aerobic basins, membrane basins, and then discharging out of the system. Effluent disinfection in the form of ultraviolet (UV) type is common depending on desired effluent concentrations. The need for solids handling is another component of a typical MBR treatment process to further refine process solids for final disposal. This could be in the form of a dewatering and aerobic digestion system that can dispense solids as Class B biosolids for land Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton Page 11 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20251031.docx application purposes. This solid handling configuration can also provide for future expansion in the PSIC area. The MBR system will be sized according to the flows and loads described in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 as well as from the effluent quality objectives. This information will be submitted to a selected MBR manufacturer to determine preliminary sizing, treatment system components, and cost. Once the project progresses through to design and a manufacturer is selected for further assistance, the overall MBR system design can be refined for more precise layout configurations and actual treatment system performance. For this study, only preliminary design information from an MBR manufacturer was considered. The MBR system is anticipated to be installed where the existing lagoon treatment system is located. Figure 3-2 depicts the approximate location of this system. The MBR system will likely need several process buildings to house mechanical and electrical equipment necessary for routine operation. These buildings can be built with the expansion into the PSIC area in mind. The existing drain fields are also anticipated to be reused, provided the MBR system treats the incoming wastewater to the necessary permitted levels. Reclaimed water can also be discharged to the nearby Gold Mountain Golf Club. This will require extensive conveyance to the golf course’s irrigation system for reuse. 3.2.2 Operations and Maintenance The O&M requirements for a typical MBR system configuration includes several activities in the form of routine inspections of all active equipment, taking samples to ensure adequate treatment activity, annual cleaning, and replacement of parts when needed. Consistent sampling and monitoring of the biological process basins are especially important due to providing confirmation that the treatment is working as intended. The membranes themselves will also need to be replaced on an infrequent basis and is highly dependent on the type of membrane selected and the overall quality of the incoming water that is treated. O&M activities for MBR systems will require one or two onsite personnel several days a week to ensure proper function and operation. Depending on the solids handling performance and needs of the system, the solids holding tanks will need to be emptied on an infrequent basis. Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton Page 12 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20251031.docx 3.2.3 Benefits and Drawbacks A list of benefits and drawbacks were developed for this option. Table 3-1 Benefits and Drawbacks – MBR Treatment System Package MBR System Benefits Drawbacks • High treatment capabilities to provide reclaimed water for beneficial reuse opportunities and for future contaminants of emerging concern. • Remote monitoring capabilities. • Reduces cost for disposal compared to sending to separate or offsite treatment system. • Does not require additional force main to existing collection system. • Reduced overall footprint. • Moderate complexity of operation; requires dedicated operators on a regular basis. • Requires higher level of operator certification for normal operation. • High capital and operating energy costs. 3.3 New Pumping Station The new pump station will consist of a wet well fitted with a number of submersible pumps. These pumps will be sized according to employment projections in the PSIC industrial area and will convey influent sewage to new or existing infrastructure depending on the defined alternative. Additional pump stations may be required in the future to accommodate more sewage connections as the PSIC area develops. This option can be used as a building block for Alternatives 1 through 3. 3.3.1 Description, Sizing, and Location A pump station is an engineered pumping system that is designed to collect and transport wastewater from a low to high elevation. The collection system of a pumping station generally receives incoming wastewater by gravity from nearby wastewater sources and collects the influent water in a large underground pit or wet well. The wet well is outfitted with several types of instrumentation that can detect the level of feed water within the wet well. And when the wastewater reaches a predetermined level in the wet well, pumps within the wet well become activated and lifts the wastewater through a pressurized conveyance system to its next destination. The pumps are generally sized for flow anticipated for a predetermined area. In this study, the flow is represented by the peak flow anticipated for the PSIC industrial area in 20 years. These flows are presented in Table 3-2. During normal operation, only one pump will operate at a time until a specified flow rate is reached. Then, additional pumps may be required to operate Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton Page 13 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20251031.docx increased flow. For this study, it is assumed that two pumps will be installed per pump station for redundancy. Several pump stations are anticipated to be installed along the specified route depending on the elevation differentials. As mentioned, pump stations are designed to transport the flow of wastewater from a low point to a high point where it then transitions to gravity before discharging into the next flow structure. The elevation profiles along the predetermined route will determine the number of pump stations required as well as how deep the conveyance lines will need to be. 3.3.2 Operations and Maintenance O&M requirements for pump stations typically include routine visual and performative inspections and general maintenance. The City currently owns and operates several pump stations of varying capacities so the O&M requirements will likely be very similar to what is currently being done. Visual inspections should be done on a regular basis to ensure there are no leaks or cracks in the piping or pumping systems and ensuring any instrumentation readings are accurate. Pump maintenance will be at the discretion of the manufacturer and should be performed as required. Electrical systems within the pump station should also be checked on a regular basis. 3.3.3 Benefits and Drawbacks A list of benefits and drawbacks were developed for this option. Table 3-2 Benefits and Drawbacks – Pump Stations Pump Station Benefits Drawbacks • Routine O&M does not require additional training or certifications. • Can provide for present and future capacity considerations. • Low energy consumption. • Remote monitoring capabilities. • Requires extensive excavation and construction dewatering requirements. • High costs for conveyance to offsite treatment system. • No treatment capabilities to provide reclaimed water. • Requires additional O&M for current operators for each pump station added. 3.4 Alternative Scenarios 3.4.1 Alternative 1 – Centralized MBR with Mason County Agreement Alternative 1 involves the installation of two new pump stations in the South PSIC area. One will convey flows directly to a predetermined tie-in point on the Mason County line and the other will convey flows to a new MBR treatment system to the north. The new MBR treatment system would be installed in the North PSIC area to process and treat future flows accumulated in the Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton Page 14 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20251031.docx North and South PSIC areas. This alternative is contingent upon an agreement with Mason County being able to accept the future flows anticipated to be produced by the South PSIC developments, which is currently underway. The South PSIC pump station routed to Mason County would be funded by others. Should Mason County accept a portion of the future flows, a phased approach for this alternative can be considered. Alternative phasing details can be found in Section 4.3.4. Highway 3 is considered a limited access right-of-way (ROW) and Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) does not allow utilities to be installed unless all other options are expended. Further conversations with WSDOT should be had if conveyance along Highway 3 is considered. Figure 3-1 below depicts a preliminary plan view of this alternative. Since there is a possibility the Port may not allow the installation of a new MBR system on their property, alternative locations on City property should be considered. Figure 3-1 Alternative 1 Plan Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton Page 15 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20251031.docx 3.4.2 Alternative 2 – Centralized MBR without Mason County Agreement Alternative 2 involves the installation of a new pump station in the South PSIC area which will convey future flows in this area to a newly installed MBR treatment system in the North PSIC area. This MBR system will be sized to accommodate all future flows in the entire PSIC basin and will convey discharge flows to either the Gold Mountain Golf Club for beneficial reuse or north to the community of Gorst’s existing wastewater infrastructure. The beneficial reuse option is contingent upon the MBR system treating flows to reclaimed water standards and the golf course being able to accommodate these flows for storage. Figure 3-2 below depicts a preliminary plan view of this alternative. Highway 3 is considered a limited access ROW and WSDOT does not allow utilities to be installed unless all other options are expended. Further conversations with WSDOT should be had if conveyance along Highway 3 is considered. And since there is a possibility that the Port may not allow the installation of a new MBR system on their property, alternative locations on City property should be considered. Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton Page 16 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20251031.docx Figure 3-2 Alternative 2 Plan 3.4.3 Alternative 3 – Conveyance to Existing Service Area Alternative 3 involves the installation of a new pump station in the South PSIC area which will convey future flows to an additional new pump station installed in the North PSIC area. This pump station would then convey the flows north to the community of Gorst’s existing wastewater infrastructure through existing Pump Station SB-3 operated by the City. An analysis was conducted to verify sufficient pump station and force main capacity in Section 3.4.3.1. Highway 3 is considered a limited access ROW and WSDOT does not allow utilities to be installed unless all other options are expended. Further conversations with WSDOT should be had if conveyance along Highway 3 is considered. Figure 3-3 below depicts a preliminary plan view of this alternative. Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton Page 17 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20251031.docx Figure 3-3 Alternative 3 Plan 3.4.3.1 Alternative 3 Flow Analysis Kennedy Jenks performed a brief hydraulic analysis to determine the existing City infrastructure’s capability to accept flows from PSIC across the planning horizon. Because the existing Pump Station SB-3 is only rated for 207.5 gpm, and projections for this service area are to exceed this flow rate, additional pumps will be needed to accommodate these new flows. SB- 3 currently receives flows in series from existing pump stations SB-1 and SB-4. This means that if Alternative 3 were to connect at SB-3, Pump Station SB-3 and its associated force mains would need to have sufficient capacity to accommodate the sum of all these flows. From SB-3, one 10-inch and two 8-inch force mains convey flows approximately two miles downstream to the Bremerton Wastewater Treatment Plant; these force mains are known collectively as the South Bremerton Force Main (SBFM). A summary of the peak flows from the existing pump stations compared to the projected PSIC flows are presented below. Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton Page 18 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20251031.docx Figure 3-4 Flow Rate Comparison Peak Flow Rates SB-1 900 gpm SB-3 500 gpm SB-4 580 gpm PSIC 972 gpm Total 2,952 gpm Notes: Pump Stations SB-1, SB-3, and SB-4 peak flow rates taken from the City of Bremerton 2014 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update. Because pump station SB-3 contains three parallel effluent force mains, the total flow can be assumed to be operated concurrently and be split into three for this analysis. The calculated pipe velocity through the 10-inch and two 8-inch force mains will be 4.0 feet per second and 6.3 feet per second, respectively. Given the total flow rate calculated for the build-out flow, the velocity ranges observed are within typical design standards. Additionally, velocities through the force mains would increase should one of the force mains require maintenance during periods after full buildout. Based on this preliminary analysis, there appears to be sufficient capacity in the existing SBFM. Upsizing of the SBFM may need to be considered for this option to prevent negative effects such as pressure losses and water hammer potential. The City should conduct an independent study on this matter to confirm existing flows and conditions of the existing infrastructure. This assessment was performed solely based on existing pump station’s rated capacities and not historical flows for this area. Additionally, no analysis was performed for effects on treatment plant performance, capacity, or nutrient loading. If this Alternative is developed in more detail, effects on the Westside WWTP will be evaluated in future, separate analyses. 3.4.4 MBR Effluent Discharge Options Beneficial reuse of the effluent from a possible new MBR treatment system as reclaimed water was explored for this study. Several discharge points were considered for each alternative and are as follows: • Discharge as reclaimed water to Gold Mountain Golf Club irrigation system for beneficial reuse. • Discharge to the rock quarry area southwest of East Fork Union River. • Discharge to the existing drain fields. Discharging to the nearby Gold Mountain Golf Club is a viable option for beneficial reuse but will require extensive conveyance from the treatment facility location to the golf course’s onsite storage for irrigation. This option for discharge also requires treatment to Class A reclaimed water standards as shown in Table 2-4. Thus, the alternatives that cannot meet this parameter should not be considered for this discharge option. The golf course is currently on City property so conversations with other entities will be minimized or nonexistent regarding the potential Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton Page 19 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20251031.docx usage of reclaimed water. A preliminary site plan depicting two potential conveyance alignment options from the treatment plant to the golf course are shown in Figure 3-5. Option 1 will likely require less restoration efforts due to the alignment situated along what appears to be a trail or logging road while Option 2 is aligned along existing roadways and will require coordination with WSDOT as well as extensive restoration efforts. Depending on the elevation profiles in this area, one or more pump stations may be needed to convey the effluent water to the designated discharge point. Figure 3-5 Effluent Conveyance Plan Discharging to the nearby rock quarry southwest of East Fork Union River is an option to consider if discharging to Gold Mountain Golf Club and the existing drain fields do not have sufficient capacity. This location is available for consideration and is on City property so there would be no need for conversations with the Port. The City would need to conduct an Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton Page 20 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20251031.docx independent study to confirm this area is suitable for discharge from the treatment system and modify the discharge area accordingly. A previous study evaluated the use of discharging to the existing drain fields. The study concluded the existing treatment system, as well as a newly constructed MBR treatment facility, should discharge into the existing drain field points. Since the flow currently received by the plant are well within the permitted limits, the drain fields could be reused up to the design capacity. This option would likely require an evaluation of the drain field’s capacity to ensure the increased flows from the treatment system are able to be met. The community of Gorst is located to the north of the PSIC area and is within the sanitary sewer service area of Bremerton. Following Alternative 3, the City can opt to tie into Gorst’s existing infrastructure through Pump Station SB-3, provided there is sufficient capacity to do so. The City will likely need to perform an evaluation on potentially upsizing this existing pump station to account for the increased flows. 3.5 Alternative Project Costs Class 5 OPCC estimates were developed for each alternative following AACE guidelines. The expected accuracy range for a Class 5 estimate ranges from -30% to +50%. These estimates will serve as a high-level cost comparison between each alternative and should be considered in further evaluations. 3.5.1 Cost Comparison Project costs were developed for each alternative to gain an understanding of the potential costs for equipment and high-level construction requirements. Several markups were also applied to these estimates to provide a preliminary cost for ancillary project needs such as electrical, instrumentation and controls, and permitting. A summary of the project costs and assumed markups for each alternative are presented in Table 3-3 below, while the full detailed estimates including select soft costs can be found in Appendix A. Table 3-3 Alternative Project Construction Costs Estimated Project Construction Cost & Range Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 $78M $85M $51M $55M to $118M $59M to $127M $35M to $76M Alternative 1 Phasing Phase 1 Phases 2+3 $52M $26M $36M to $78M $18M to $40M Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton Page 21 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20251031.docx Alternative 2 has the highest projected cost, followed by Alternative 1 and then Alternative 3. Alternatives 1 and 2 contain a new MBR treatment system sized for North PSIC and South PSIC flows and two new pump station configurations to Mason County and to the new MBR system. The bulk of the costs in these options come from the MBR system and its necessary components. Alternative 3 contains no MBR treatment system but a series of pump stations that convey flows northeast to existing Pump Station SB-3. The bulk of these costs mainly come from the installation of several pump stations and lengthy conveyance from the PSIC area to Gorst, which is much higher compared to the other alternatives. Upgrade efforts will likely be extensive for this alternative due to a portion of the conveyance installed along a major highway. Pump Station SB-3 will likely need minor upgrades for the expected increase in flows to the existing system. Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton Page 22 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20251031.docx Section 4: Alternatives Evaluation 4.1 Criteria Descriptions A set of criteria were developed to evaluate the alternatives based on factors relevant to the City and the overall study. 4.1.1 Costs Capital project costs for each alternative vary depending on the goals and components of the alternative. For each alternative, there are costs associated with influent and effluent conveyance as well as the major components for flow. The costs for pump stations were developed by assuming a cost per unit of flow, which was developed based on similar projects completed in the past. The new MBR system costs for the alternatives that included this represents a major cost component due to the primary equipment, installation, and ancillary items for construction. Several standard markups were also applied to each alternative cost estimate. Alternatives with a higher estimated project capital cost score lower than alternatives with a lower cost. 4.1.2 Operations & Maintenance O&M of the alternatives is a major factor to consider. Adding a new MBR treatment system introduces new operational demands the City may not have much experience implementing. An MBR system requires consistent maintenance, such as onsite sampling, to ensure it is operating properly and the biological treatment is working as intended. Adding additional pump stations will require the City to maintain additional infrastructure, which may be similar to what the City currently operates and maintains. Alternatives with similar or minimal operations and maintenance will score higher than alternatives with newer operational challenges or more frequent maintenance activities. 4.1.3 Beneficial Reuse Considerations for beneficial reuse of effluent water is an important factor for this study. A pump station on its own will not be able to produce Class A reclaimed water so options that contain a new MBR treatment system will score higher due to being able to produce this quality of water. Not being able to produce Class A reclaimed water will limit the alternatives’ ability to discharge to the Gold Mountain Golf Club so other methods of discharge must be considered for those options. Alternatives that can produce Class A reclaimed water for beneficial reuse score higher than alternatives that cannot. 4.1.4 Agency Coordination & Permitting Coordination with applicable agencies is an important factor to consider. Assumptions were made for alternatives that were contingent upon Mason County accepting a portion of flows from the South PSIC area. This will require communication on the intent as well as developing a plan for routing the flows to the county boundary line. The new MBR treatment system is also Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton Page 23 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20251031.docx anticipated to be installed on Port property so coordination with this entity is needed unless the City ultimately decides to consider alternative locations for the treatment system on City property. Alternatives with minimal or no external communication will score higher than alternatives that will require several coordination efforts. Permitting with applicable agencies is another important factor to consider before moving forward with any alternative. The alternatives that have been identified to contain installation of conveyance along Highway 3 will require coordination with WSDOT as Highway 3 is considered a limited access corridor in this area. All alternatives will require some level of installation along this highway so coordination with WSDOT is likely guaranteed unless unorthodox approaches for conveyance are implemented. Installation of a new MBR treatment system will require coordination with DOE as flows are anticipated to process above 100,000 gpd. Coordination with DOE will need to occur prior and into detailed design. Discharging to the golf course as reclaimed water will also require a reclaimed water management plan and associated permit with DOE. Alternatives with minimal or no permitting efforts will score higher than alternatives with several permitting efforts. 4.1.5 Implementation/Phasing Implementation and phasing is an important factor to consider such that all alternatives will have a specific timeline and approach before becoming fully operational. Other factors such as interagency agreements can also have an impact on the overall implementation of an alternative. A MBR system generally has an opportunity to implement a phased approach where the overall facility can be built while the membranes themselves can be installed according to the flow rates anticipated to be received in the interim. Once a threshold is reached, the remaining membranes can be procured and installed accordingly at a later date. Pump stations generally do not have the same flexibility as a MBR system in regards to phasing and implementation, but can likely be fully built much faster than a new MBR facility. Alternatives that contain a new MBR system will likely score lower, except for when an interagency agreement is established. Then, the alternative has an opportunity to score higher. Alternatives that contain a pump station or several pump stations will also score lower given that there is less opportunity to implement a phased approach. 4.2 Alternative Criteria Matrix Each alternative was provided a score based on a criteria matrix developed for this project and are presented in. The justification for each score is detailed for each individual criterion. A weighting was also applied to each criterion and was determined based on the assumed overall impact to the City’s goals for this study. Criteria and weighting were developed collaboratively with City staff during workshops held before finalization of the memorandum. Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton Page 24 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20251031.docx Table 4-1 Scoring Criteria Matrix Evaluation Scoring Criteria (Weighting) 3 2 1 0 Cost (20%) Total project capital cost <$50M Total project capital cost between $50M and $100M Total project capital cost >$100M - O&M (25%) Alternative requires minimal onsite presence and minor impacts to City’s current O&M operations Alternative requires some level of onsite presence and requires some new operator responsibilities Alternative requires frequent onsite presence and many new operator responsibilities at initial Alternative implementation Alternative requires full time staff onsite daily and new operator certifications required for routine O&M Beneficial Reuse of Reclaimed Water (25%) - Alternative can provide full discharge flow for beneficial reuse (reclaimed water) and/or requires minimal effluent conveyance challenges - Alternative can provide no level of RW for beneficial reuse and/or requires extensive effluent conveyance challenges Local Agency Coordination & Permitting (10%) Alternative requires no inter-agency coordination going into design and construction and no additional permitting beyond current operations Alternative requires one inter-agency coordination exercise and some new permitting efforts prior to design and construction Alternative requires two or more agency coordination efforts and several new permitting efforts prior to design and construction Alternative is not viable due to extensive agency coordination that is known to be infeasible and requires known extensive permitting efforts that highly impact future construction efforts Implementation/ Phasing (20%) Alternative can initiate in a phased approach, greatly reducing costs and schedule to initiate before full implementation Alternative can initiate in a phased approach, moderately reducing costs and schedule to initiate before full implementation Alternative can initiate in a phased approach, somewhat reducing costs and schedule to initiate before full implementation Alternative can provide no level of streamlined implementation with no reduction to overall project costs or schedule before full implementation Scores for each alternative ranged from zero (0) to three (3) with 3 being the most favorable and 0 being the least favorable in the specified criteria. Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton Page 25 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20250116.docx 4.3 Evaluation Criteria and Weighting Based on the criteria matrix in Table 4-1, each alternative was assigned a score for each. The unweighted and weighted scores are presented in Table 4-2 below. Table 4-2 Alternatives Scoring Matrix Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Cost 2 0.4 2 0.4 2 0.4 O&M 1 0.25 1 0.25 3 0.75 Beneficial Reuse 2 0.5 2 0.5 0 0 Agency Coordination & Permitting 1 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.2 Implementation/ Phasing 3 0.6 1 0.2 2 0.4 Totals 9 1.85 7 1.45 9 1.75 4.3.1 Alternatives Comparison Each alternative was developed with a different purpose for serving the future developments in the PSIC industrial area. Alternatives 1 and 2 represent the alternatives with lower overall conveyance but higher complexity due to needing a new MBR treatment system for the North and South PSIC developments. Alternative 1 was considered due to the City’s ongoing conversations with Mason County for a potential agreement on sending a portion of flows from the South PSIC area to Mason County infrastructure. The conveyance agreement with Mason County would potentially allow for several years of buffer time before operations staff would need be trained to operate an MBR system, therefore Alternative 1 scored higher than Alternatives 2 and 3 in the Implementation/Phasing category. There is a potential for high capital investments in the later phases for Alternative 1 due to sewage age and minimum flows required for the new MBR system. Alternative 2 should be considered provided Mason County does not allow the City to send any flows to their jurisdiction and a high level of treatment and capacity is desired with the MBR system. This alternative scored the lowest in the Implementation/Phasing category due to the overall construction requirements of a MBR system and the minimum flows required to initially operate. Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton Page 26 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20250116.docx Alternative 3 represents the option that is the least complex due to not needing a new MBR treatment system but does require a higher number of pump stations along the specified routing. The absence of a new MBR system defaults this alternative to not being able to provide any amount of effluent as reclaimed water. A higher amount of conveyance would also be needed due to the potential for connecting to Gorst’s wastewater infrastructure to the north of the PSIC industrial area. This alternative would also require higher upfront time to construct and become fully online due to the pump stations installed in series. Compared to Alternative 1 where an agreement is made and only one pump station is needed initially, this alternative scored lower than Alternative 3 in the Implementation/Phasing category. This alternative can be considered provided Mason County does not allow the City to send any flows to their jurisdiction and if the City prefers to work with a system that is familiar. 4.3.2 Alternative 3 Conclusion Based on prior discussions with the City and the flow analysis conducted in Section 3.4.3.1, it is recommended that the City only consider Alternative 3 if the SBFM from existing pump station SB-3 to the Westside WWTP has sufficient capacity to handle the expected increase in flow. City operations and project management staff have indicated that upsizing the SBFM to accommodate increased flows from Alternative 3 would incur significant additional costs and permitting restrictions, which would render the Alternative a non-starter. The amount of flow projected from the existing pump stations feeding into SB-3 as well as from the entirety of the PSIC area into SB-3, are preliminarily determined to meet the current capacity of the pump station and the force mains that convey the flows. Therefore, Alternative 3 should only be reconsidered if these conditions are confirmed via future analyses. 4.3.3 Risks and Opportunities Several risks and opportunities have been identified for the MBR system option. The risks that have been developed are as follows: • MBR system will need to consistently meet effluent discharge requirements dictated by Department of Ecology (DOE) permitting. • MBR system will require specific operator training and frequent onsite presence for routine operation and maintenance. • Conveyance alignment will require coordination with WSDOT along Highway 3 due to being a limited access corridor. • Coordination with other entities such as the Port. The opportunities that have been developed are as follows: • The MBR system will provide a pathway for future treatment capabilities for the PSIC industrial area. Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton Page 27 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20250116.docx • The MBR system will build upon existing treatment infrastructure to increase overall capacity and reduce loading. • The MBR system can produce Class A reclaimed water for several potential beneficial reuse opportunities in the immediate area. Several risks and opportunities have been identified for the construction of new pumping stations. The risks are as follows: • Pump stations can generate unwanted noise in the immediate and surrounding area. • Pump stations can pose as a risk for personnel performing maintenance due to being in the vicinity of pressurized systems. • Pump stations can be prone to a loss of power during outages so contingency measures should be considered. • Conveyance alignment will require coordination with WSDOT along Highway 3 due to being a limited access corridor. The opportunities are as follows: • Pump stations can provide for additional capacity for future development in the area. • Pump stations have the potential to provide an additional source of employment for the City. 4.3.4 Recommendation & Phasing Strategy Based on the final results from the alternative evaluation scoring and the comparison between the alternatives, it is recommended that the City proceeds with developing plans for Alternative 1. Although this alternative does require an initial agreement with Mason County to send a portion of flows to their infrastructure, this allows the City to concurrently begin making the necessary plans for future buildout. A phased approach described in this section should also be considered for this alternative as it provides a streamlined pathway for development of the full build-out system and will also provide for future expansion in this area. Preparing for considerable capacity increases with no existing infrastructure, a phased approach the City could consider would involve determining preliminary sizing for the South PSIC pump station up to the maximum amount of flow allowed by Mason County while concurrently developing a plan for another pump station sized for the remaining future flows in the South PSIC area. A new MBR treatment system initially sized for the current flows seen in the North PSIC area combined with the South PSIC area would also be developed. The MBR system capacity could be rounded up to half of the build-out flows to account for intermediate studies and plans that will need to be developed in the interim. The MBR system would be situated such that future expansion up to the 20-year projected employment population is considered. The South PSIC pump station that would convey flows to Mason County would be Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton Page 28 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20250116.docx influenced and funded by others and should not be considered in future plans for this study. The new MBR system would require new facilities to be developed such as a new headworks and mechanical building to house the necessary equipment for standard MBR system functionality while also containing enough space for expansion in the future. If the new MBR system is installed adjacent to the existing lagoon treatment system, the existing system could also send all flows to the new treatment system via a new gravity line. Once the new treatment system is operational, it would be monitored to ensure its maximum loading capacity is not reached. A specific threshold would be developed to determine when the City would need to begin developing a plan for expansion. An example phased plan is summarized below: • Phase 1 o City enters interagency agreement with Mason County to send up to 160,000 gpd of flow from South PSIC to their infrastructure. o City begins developing plans for constructing a new pump station in South PSIC that will pump flows beyond 160,000 gpd to North PSIC. o City begins developing studies for phasing in a new MBR treatment system in North PSIC that accepts flows from South PSIC and discharges reclaimed water to Gold Mountain Golf Club and solids as Class A biosolids for beneficial reuse. Select MBR infrastructure will be sized to accommodate future expansion of treatment capacity. • Phase 2 o City begins sending flows from the new South PSIC pump station to new MBR treatment system until a capacity threshold is reached. This will trigger the City to begin implementing plans for final phasing of the MBR system to the full projected build-out flows. • Phase 3 o City begins construction of the MBR system expansion to account for full capacity flows. The City would enter an interagency agreement with the Port to receive all flows on Port property to the new treatment system. An illustration of this phased approach is also presented below in Figure 4-1. This strategy assumes linear employment population growth, however it is a viable, milestone-based approach for non-linear increases in population in this area over time. Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton Page 29 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20250116.docx Figure 4-1 PSIC Phasing Strategy Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study, City of Bremerton A-1 https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/bremertonwcpupdate239701100/shared documents/general/00_workingfiles/10_psic feasibility study/tm/draft_bremerton psic tm_20251031.docx Appendix A: Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimates (Class 5) OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS, INC. Project:Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study Prepared By:CO/JH Date Prepared:12-Feb-25 Building, Area:PSIC Industrial Area (Future)KJ Proj. No. 2397011*00 ALTERNATIVE 3, PHASE 1: South PSIC Flows to Mason County Current at ENR Estimate Type:Conceptual Construction Escalated to ENR Escalation not included Preliminary (w/o plans)Change Order Months to Midpoint of Construct Design Development @ __________% Complete Spec.Item Total Costs Source Section No.Description Qty Units $/Unit Total Total Facilty Capital Costs 1 Pump Stations (S PSIC) Duplex lift station, manhole, odor control, piping, utilities, E&IC, emergency generator, site improvements 1 LS 1,914,250.00 1,914,250 1,914,250 Ref $/MGD assumption includes contractor markups Pumps & standard accessories 3 EA 48,262.50 144,788 434,363 Ref quote from WECI dated 10/16/24 Subtotal Pump Stations 2,348,613 2 Pipelines Force Main New Pump Station to Mason County Line FM Piping (PVC), trenching, restoration 6,900 LF 200.00 1,380,000 1,380,000 Assumes 6" Dia , includes contractor markups Gravity Pipeline Gravity Piping (PVC), trenching, restoration, manholes 3,100 LF 280.00 868,000 868,000 Assumes 8" Dia , includes contractor markups Tie-in Point 1 LS 10,000.00 10,000 10,000 Allowance Pipelines additional for in roadway 7,000 LF 240.00 1,680,000 1,680,000 Trenching, paving, removal and patch Subtotal Pipelines 3,938,000 Div 1 , Mobilization, bonds, permits 10%628,661 628,661 Contractor OH&P 15%942,992 942,992 1,571,653 1,571,653 TOTAL 7,858,266 Estimate Contingency 30%2,357,480 2,357,480 2,357,480 Project Construction Cost Total 10,215,745 WA State Sales Tax (Brementon) 9.2% 939,849 Project Construction Cost Total 11,155,594 Project Soft Costs Engineering and Design 5%557,780 Construction Management 8%892,448 Environmental/ Permitting 1%111,556 Startup/ Testing 0.5%55,778 Subtotal 1,617,561 1,617,561 Total Project Cost (Construction + Soft Costs)12,773,155$ Subtotal Facility Total Cost X Bremerton PSIC OPCC_Draft.xlsm Alt 3 - Phase 1 Page 1 of 1 Date Printed: 2/12/2025 OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS, INC. Project:Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study Prepared By:CO/JH Date Prepared:12-Feb-25 Building, Area:PSIC Industrial Area (Future)KJ Proj. No. 2397011*00 ALTERNATIVE 3, PHASE 2: North PSIC Flows to Gorst Current at ENR Estimate Type:Conceptual Construction Escalated to ENR Escalation not included Preliminary (w/o plans)Change Order Months to Midpoint of Construct Design Development @ __________% Complete Spec.Item Total Costs Source Section No.Description Qty Units $/Unit Total Total Facilty Capital Costs 1 Pump Stations PS SB-3 upgrades 1 LS 3,000,000.00 3,000,000 3,000,000 (N. PSIC) Duplex lift station, manhole, odor control, piping, utilities, E&IC, emergency generator, site improvements 1 LS 2,170,000.00 2,170,000 2,170,000 Ref $/MGD assumption Pumps & standard accessories 3 EA 48,262.50 144,788 434,363 Ref quote from WECI dated 10/16/24 Subtotal Pump Stations 5,604,363 2 Pipelines Force Main New Pump Station to Gorst FM Piping (PVC), trenching, restoration 5,900 LF 200.00 1,180,000 1,180,000 Assumes 6" Dia , includes contractor markups Gravity Pipeline Gravity Piping (PVC), trenching, restoration, manholes 22,100 LF 280.00 6,188,000 6,188,000 Assumes 8" Dia , includes contractor markups Tie-in Point 1 LS 10,000.00 10,000 10,000 Allowance Pipelines additional for in roadway 10,600 LF 240.00 2,544,000 2,544,000 Trenching, paving, removal and patch Subtotal Pipelines 9,922,000 Div 1 , Mobilization, bonds, permits 10%1,552,636 1,552,636 Contractor OH&P 15%2,328,954 2,328,954 3,881,591 3,881,591 TOTAL 19,407,953 Estimate Contingency 30%5,822,386 5,822,386 5,822,386 Project Construction Cost Total 25,230,339 WA State Sales Tax (Brementon) 9.2% 2,321,191 Project Construction Cost Total 27,551,530 Project Soft Costs Engineering and Design 5%1,377,577 Construction Management 8%2,204,122 Environmental/ Permitting 1%275,515 Startup/ Testing 0.5%137,758 Subtotal 3,994,972 3,994,972 Total Project Cost (Construction + Soft Costs)31,546,502$ Subtotal Facility Total Cost X Bremerton PSIC OPCC_Draft.xlsm Alt 3 - Phase 2 Page 1 of 1 Date Printed: 2/12/2025 OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS, INC. Project:Bremerton PSIC Feasibility Study Prepared By:CO/JH Date Prepared:12-Feb-25 Building, Area:PSIC Industrial Area (Future)KJ Proj. No. 2397011*00 ALTERNATIVE 3, PHASE 3: South PSIC Flows to Mason County, North PSIC Flows to Gorst Current at ENR Estimate Type:Conceptual Construction Escalated to ENR Escalation not included Preliminary (w/o plans)Change Order Months to Midpoint of Construct Design Development @ __________% Complete Spec.Item Total Costs Source Section No.Description Qty Units $/Unit Total Total Facilty Capital Costs 1 Pipelines Force Main South PSIC Pump Station to North PSIC Pump Station FM Piping (PVC), trenching, restoration 8,500 LF 200.00 1,700,000 1,700,000 Assumes 6" Dia , includes contractor markups Gravity Pipeline Gravity Piping (PVC), trenching, restoration, manholes 19,300 LF 280.00 5,404,000 5,404,000 Assumes 8" Dia , includes contractor markups Tie-in Point 1 LS 10,000.00 10,000 10,000 Allowance Pipelines additional for in roadway 24,800 LF 240.00 5,952,000 5,952,000 Trenching, paving, removal and patch Subtotal Pipelines 13,066,000 Div 1 , Mobilization, bonds, permits 10%1,306,600 1,306,600 Contractor OH&P 15%1,959,900 1,959,900 3,266,500 3,266,500 TOTAL 16,332,500 Estimate Contingency 30%4,899,750 4,899,750 4,899,750 Project Construction Cost Total 21,232,250 WA State Sales Tax (Brementon) 9.2% 1,953,367 Project Construction Cost Total 23,185,617 Project Soft Costs Engineering and Design 5%1,159,281 Construction Management 8%1,854,849 Environmental/ Permitting 1%231,856 Startup/ Testing 0.5%115,928 Subtotal 3,361,914 3,361,914 Total Project Cost (Construction + Soft Costs)26,547,531$ Subtotal Facility Total Cost X Bremerton PSIC OPCC_Draft.xlsm Alt 3 - Phase 3 Page 1 of 1 Date Printed: 2/12/2025 City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update I-1 Appendix I: Oyster Bay Sewerage Pre-Design Alternatives Oyster Bay Basin Pre-Design 1 Alternatives TM Technical Memorandum To: Bill Davis, Ned Lever From: Kenneth Packard; Eric Bergstrom, PE Date: October 10, 2016 Subject: Oyster Bay Sewerage Pre-Design Alternatives Introduction The primary sewage conveyance pipelines within the Oyster Bay sewer basin are pressure gravity sewer mains installed within the beaches of Oyster and Ostrich Bay (referred to throughout as beach mains). A series of pump stations in the sewer basin convey flow through the beach mains to pump station OB-1 which pumps sewage to the wastewater treatment plant. Another aspect of the Oyster Bay sewer basin is that many residential and commercial properties discharge sewage through sewer lateral connections into the beach mains. Sewage flows by gravity from these property connections. In the past during periods of high sewage flow where the pump stations are operating at or near their capacity, sewer overflows were reported at several properties. The suspected cause of the sewer overflows is the hydraulic grade in the beach mains rising to the elevation of the properties. In response to sewer overflow events, backwater valves were installed (BWV) to protect properties from sewer overflows. Since installing backwater valves and reconfiguring the discharge piping at OB-2, the City has not received any reports of sewer overflows since approximately the mid 2000s. This technical memorandum (TM) focuses on three study areas described below and shown in Figure 1. 1. Area 1 – Pump Station OB-5 to OB-2: Pump Station OB-5 discharges to a 10-inch beach main along the southwestern beach of Ostrich Bay which conveys flow to OB-2. There are 15 residential gravity sewer connections to the beach main. 2. Area 2 – Pump Station OB-2 to OB-1: Pump Station OB-2 contains two pumps. Each pump in OB-2 is hydraulically independent of the other. Pump 1 is dedicated to a 12-inch beach main along the western beach of Oyster Bay which conveys flow to OB-1. There are approximately 53 residential and commercial gravity sewer connections to the 12-inch beach main. Pump 2 is dedicated to a parallel force main through Oyster Bay conveying flow to OB-1. The majority of the force main is 10-inch pipe with a segment of 18-inch pipe on either side of Oyster Bay. There are no residential or commercial gravity sewer connections to the force main beneath Oyster Bay. 3. Area 3 – Pump Station OB-3 to OB-2: Pump Station OB-3 discharges to an 8-inch beach main along the southwestern beach of Madrona Point which conveys flow to OB-2. There are 17 residential gravity sewer connections to the 8-inch main. Purpose The purpose of this TM is (1) to evaluate alternatives to reduce the risk of sewer overflows to private properties, and (2) to evaluate alternatives to abandon or remove the beach mains within the study area. One driver to implement improvements in the basin is to reduce the risk of sewer overflows. Backwater valves have been installed on certain customer connections in the past. This TM evaluates additional alternatives and the cost and benefit of each that could reduce the risk of sewer overflows. Another driver is the anticipated regulatory requirement to remove the sewer pipelines from the beach, thus alternatives are evaluated that would enable the beach mains to either be abandoned in place or removed. The objective of this TM is to provide the City with information to plan for future sewer improvements to the Oyster Bay sewer basin in order to address the two regulatory drivers described above. The following sections provide a hydraulic evaluation of the beach mains, describe alternatives, provide planning level cost estimates, and summarize benefits for each alternative. !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2!!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú OB-1 OB-3 OB-4 OB-2 OB-5 18I NCH10I NCH14INCH8INCH10INCH 12INCH KITSAP WAY A U T O C E N T E R W A Y NOYSTERBAYAVEPRICE RD 5TH ST BRUENNAVEKELLYRD CASADAVELILAC LNCRESTVIEW DR B A E R B L V D ROOTCT MARINEDRPLEASANT DRARSENAL WAYWESLONPLNW HEATHER LN 6THST R U S S E L L RDCRAWFORDDRBEACHDR FLEENORDRNWWILMO N T S T MADRONAPOINTDRROCKY POINT RD NWSHOREWOODDRBRENTWOODDRLOWERM A R I N E DRSMARINEDRSHAMROCKRDNWG ALYAN D R 10 0 75 5 0 0 1 0 075 100 75 5010050 7525 502575 2550255 0 2 5 502 5 10050 7 5 2 5 5075 100751001007525 25505050252525 0 250 500125 Feet Figure 1Oyster Bay BasinSite MapCITY OF BREMERTONOYSTER BAY ALTERNATIVES Legend Study Areas Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Potential Sewer OverflowRisk by Structure No Yes [Ú Existing Pump Stations !!2 Existing Manhole Existing Upland Gravity Main Existing Gravity Beach Main Force Main/Pressure Gravity Water Body Highway Streets Contour (ft) 25 feet 5 feet Source of Data:1) Kitsap County GIS2) City of Bremerton GIS ¯ Area 1 Area 3 Area 2 Ostrich Bay Oyster Bay DisclaimerProperties identified at risk of sewer overflows are based on the estimated building floor elevations within 10 feet of the calculated HGL in the pipeline.Building floor elevations and the calculated HGL are subject to field verification in order to confirm risk.9/29/2016 : \\bel-srv03\GISDATA\Projects\Washington\City_of_Bremerton_007260\GritStudy_OsyterBayPD_239381\Map_Docs\Oyster Bay Pre-Design\Concepts TM\Figure 1 - Oyster Bay Contour Map.mxd Oyster Bay Basin Pre-Design 3 Alternatives TM Hydraulic Evaluation A hydraulic evaluation was conducted of the beach mains and force main facilities in each of the three study areas to identify properties with a potential risk of sewer overflows. The evaluation to identify the potential sewer overflow risk was conducted in the following steps. ● The hydraulic grade line (HGL) in the beach mains was estimated based on the operation of the pumping facilities and the physical characteristics of the pipelines. Hazen-Williams C factors of 70 for the cast iron beach mains and 100 for the ductile iron force main were assigned based on standard values for the material and age of the pipe. Pump discharge pressures were recorded at pump station OB-2 and OB-5 on Sep 9th and Oct 15th 2015. The pressure readings were used to verify the HGL calculations. ● Property elevations were estimated based on the GIS location of each building footprint and contour elevations. The actual property elevations are subject to field verification. ● Potential risk of sewer overflows was identified for properties with an estimated building floor elevation within 10 feet above the calculated HGL. Figure 1 depicts the location of properties identified with a potential risk of sewer overflows. The estimated number of potential risk properties is used as a basis for developing alternatives and planning level project cost estimates in the following sections. The actual risk of sewer overflow to private properties is subject to field verification to confirm the assumptions of building flooring elevation and the HGL in the pressure mains. Area 1 – Pump Station OB-5 to OB-2 Pump station OB-5 discharges to a 10-inch cast iron beach main, with an estimated 15 connections, conveying flow to OB-2. The pump station contains two pumps that operate as lead and lag during normal flows but during periods of high flow, operate simultaneously. Table 1 provides information on the study area facilities. Figure 2 depicts the hydraulic grade line (HGL) in the 10-inch cast iron beach main for single and dual pump operation. The approximate property elevations depicted in the figure are based on the GIS location of the building footprints and contour elevations. The actual home and basement floor elevations are subject to field verification. Table 1. Summary of Area 1 Facilities and Operation Operation Rated Capacity1 550 gpm at 47 feet TDH (2 pumps) Estimated Combined Pumping Rate2 850 gpm Pump Discharge Pressure3 12 psi, Elev. 19 feet Discharge Pipe4 3,160 LF of 10-inch Cast Iron Gravity Sewer Connections5 15 residential properties Connections with Potential Sewer Overflow Risk6 15 properties 1. Table 3-7 of 2014 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan. 2. Estimated from system curve developed for the force main and pump curves. 3. Pump discharge pressure recorded at Pump 1 4-inch outlet on 10/15/2015. Approximate gauge elevation is -9 feet NAVD88. A pressure reading with both pumps operating was not obtained in the field. 4. Based on as-built drawings 5. Approximate number based on GIS data for properties adjacent to the beach main. 6. Approximate number of properties located where the surcharge elevation in the pipe is within 10 feet of the building floor elevation. The actual home and basement floor elevations are subject to confirmation. Oyster Bay Basin Pre-Design 4 Alternatives TM Figure 2. Area 1 10-inch Beach Main Hydraulic Grade Line Area 2 – Pump Station OB-2 to OB-1 Pump station OB-2 contains two pumps. Each pump is currently dedicated to a single force main, but valving in the station allows the flexibility to switch force mains or have both pumps discharge into a single force main. Currently, Pump 1 discharges into a 12-inch cast iron beach main, with an estimated 53 lateral connections, installed along the beach of Oyster Bay. Pump 2 discharges into a 10-inch ductile iron force main installed across Oyster Bay. Both pipelines convey flow to OB-1. Table 2 provides information on the facilities in the study area. Figure 3 depicts the hydraulic grade line (HGL) in the 12- inch cast iron beach main. Figure 4 depicts the hydraulic grade line (HGL) in the 10-inch ductile iron force main. The approximate property elevations depicted in the figure are based on the GIS location of the building footprints and contour elevations. The actual home and basement floor elevations are subject to field verification. Table 2. Summary of Area 2 Facilities and Operation Operation Rated Capacity1 750 gpm at 65 feet TDH (2 pumps) Pump 1 Discharge Pressure2 16.5 psi, Elev. 29 feet (12-inch beach main) Pump 2 Discharge Pressure2 14 psi, Elev. 23 feet (10-inch force main) Pump 1 Discharge Pipe3 3,650 LF of 12-inch Cast Iron Pump 2 Discharge Pipe3 2,700 LF of 10-inch Ductile Iron and 500 LF of 18-inch Cast Iron Gravity Sewer Connections 4 53 residential and commercial properties Connections with Potential Risk of Sewer Overflow5 21 properties 1. Table 3-7 of 2014 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan. 2. Pump discharge pressure recorded at pump outlet on 9/9/2015. Approximate gauge elevation is -9 feet NAVD88. 3. Based on as-built drawings 4. Based on GIS data for properties adjacent to the beach main 5. Approximate number of properties located where the surcharge elevation in the pipe is within 10 feet of the building floor elevation. The actual home and basement floor elevations are subject to confirmation. -20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Elevation (ft) NAVD88 Length (ft) 10-inch Beach Main Estimated Property Elevations HGL (ft) Single Pump HGL (ft) Dual Pumps OB-2 OB-5 Oyster Bay Basin Pre-Design 5 Alternatives TM Figure 3. Area 2 12-inch Beach Main Hydraulic Grade Line Figure 4. Area 2 10-inch Force Main Hydraulic Grade Line -20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Elevation (ft) NAVD88 Length (ft) 12-inch Beach Main Estimated Property Elevations HGL (ft) Pump 1 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Elevation (ft) NAVD88 Length (ft) 10-inch Force Main HGL (ft) Pump 2 OB-2 OB-1 OB-2 OB-1 Oyster Bay Basin Pre-Design 6 Alternatives TM Area 3 – Pump Station OB-3 to OB-2 Pump station OB-3 discharges to an 8-inch cast iron beach main, with an estimated 17 lateral connections, conveying flow to OB-2. The pump station contains two pumps that operate as lead and lag. Table 3 provides information on the facilities in the study area. Figure 5 depicts the hydraulic grade line (HGL) in the 8-inch cast iron beach main. The approximate property elevations are also depicted in the figure based on the GIS location of the building footprints and contour elevations. The properties with the lowest elevations are provided in the as-built drawings for the gravity pressure main. Table 3. Summary of Area 3 Facilities and Operation Operation Rated Capacity1 400 gpm at 13 feet TDH (2 pumps) Pump Discharge Pressure2 Not collected in the field Discharge Pipe3 1,200 LF of 8-inch Cast Iron Gravity Sewer Connections4 17 residential properties Connections with Potential Risk of Sewer Overflow5 7 properties 1. Table 3-6 of 2014 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan. 2. No pressure readings obtained in the field. 3. Based on plan drawings 4. Based on GIS data for properties adjacent to the beach main. Basement flow elevations are provided in the plan drawings for 8 properties with the lowest elevations. 5. Approximate number of properties located where the surcharge elevation in the pipe is within 10 feet of the building floor elevation. The actual home and basement floor elevations are subject to confirmation. Figure 5. Area 3 8-inch Beach Main Hydraulic Grade Line -20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Elevation (ft) NAVD88 Length (ft) 8-inch Beach Main Estimated Property Elevations HGL (ft) Single Pump Property Elevations from As-Builts OB-3 OB-2 Oyster Bay Basin Pre-Design 7 Alternatives TM Alternative Improvements This section presents alternatives for each study area, a summary of benefits, and planning level cost estimates. Costs are based on engineering estimates and contractor bid tab estimates from similar engineering and construction work. Costs include a construction contingency factor of 40 percent, sales tax of 8.7 percent, and an allowance for engineering, permitting, and administrative fees (allied costs) of 20 percent. Estimated costs are in 2015 dollars and based on Engineering News-Record’s (ENR) material and building cost index for Seattle in January 2015 (10,388). Project cost estimates are at a Class 5 concept screening level as defined by the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE). The expected accuracy range is (-)25 percent to (+)50 percent. Those ranges are applied to the project cost estimates and reported in the following tables. The Appendix contains the details for each cost estimate Area 1 Alternatives There are fifteen residences with gravity sewer connections to the 10-inch beach main installed on the beach in Ostrich Bay conveying flow to pump station OB-2. Based on the hydraulic evaluation, all 15 properties have a potential risk of sewer overflows when the operation of OB-5 causes the beach main to surcharge. Four conceptual alternatives have been identified to improve the sewer system. Table 4 presents a summary of the Area 1 alternatives and planning level cost estimates. Alternatives to Address Driver #1: Sewer Overflow Risks ● Alternative 1A – Backwater Valve Program.1 The City continues its program of notifying property owners that they are required to install backwater valves (per BMC 15.03.120) at properties with a potential risk of sewer overflows through sewer lateral connections to the beach main. Ten letters are sent out per month (120 per year) to property owners and City operations staff will visit homeowners as requested to answer questions. ● Alternative 1B – Install Grinder Pumps for At-Risk Properties. Install grinder pumps at all 15 properties along the alignment that have a potential risk of sewer overflows. Grinder pump force mains would be sliplined through the existing service lateral and grouted into the existing gravity beach sewer. ● Alternative 1C – Connect to Existing Upland Gravity Sewer and Convert Beach Main to Force Main. Grinder pumps would be installed at all 15 properties along the alignment. New grinder pump force mains would be routed to the existing 8-inch gravity upland sewer on Shorewood Drive. The beach main would be converted to a dedicated force main by capping and sealing the existing lateral connections to the beach main. 1 The City began their backwater valve notification program three years ago. The cost to the City for alternatives 1A, 2A, and 3A is minimal and places the requirement for installing a backwater valve on the property owner. The programs consists of sending out 10 letters per month which notifies customers that they are required to install backwater valves per BMC 15.03.120. Additionally, City operations staff will visit home owners to provide site- specific recommendations upon request. The City does not install the backwater valve or conduct maintenance. 15.03.120 BACKWATER VALVES. When a premises discharges wastewater into a force main or pressure main or wherever a situation exists involving an unusual danger of backflow, a backwater valve shall be required and shall be installed in a manner accessible for maintenance. The installation and effective operation of the backwater valve shall be the sole responsibility of the owner connecting to the wastewater system. The installation shall meet the requirements of the Engineering Design and Construction Standards. (Ord. 5250 §1 (in part), 2014: Ord. 4309 §2 (in part), 1991) Oyster Bay Basin Pre-Design 8 Alternatives TM Alternatives to Address Driver #2: Potential Regulatory Requirement to Abandon/Remove Beach Mains • Alternative 1D – Connect to Existing Upland Gravity Sewer, Install Upland Force Main, and Abandon Beach Main. A parallel force main would be installed along Shorewood Drive from PS OB-5 to PS OB-2. Flows from OB-5 would be routed to the proposed upland force main. Grinder pumps would be installed at every property currently connected to the beach main and convey flow to the existing upland gravity sewer. The existing beach main would be abandoned in place. • Alternative 1E – Connect to Existing Upland Gravity Sewer, Install Upland Force Main, and Remove Beach Main. All provisions in Alternative 1D except the existing beach main would be removed from the beach. Oyster Bay Basin Pre-Design 9 Alternatives TM Table 4. Area 1 Alternative Summary and Estimated Costs Alternative Features Pros Cons Estimated Project Cost 1A Backwater Valve Program • Inexpensive protection from sewer overflows • Very low cost • Risk of BWV failure $3,000 1B Grinder pump stations, slipline and grout existing laterals connections • Pressure connections to beach main • Sliplining reduces cost • Connections to beach main • Property coordination • Pump maintenance • Access easement $530,000 1C Grinder pump stations, force mains to 8-inch upland gravity sewer, and cap and seal existing laterals • No beach main connections • Property coordination • Pump maintenance • Access easement $690,000 1D Force main along Shorewood Drive, grinder pump stations, abandon beach main • Beach main no longer in service • Maintenance access improved • Pump maintenance • Property coordination • Access easement • New force main $2,000,000 1E Alternative 1D and beach main is removed • Beach main no longer in service • Maintenance access improved • Pump maintenance • Property coordination • Access easement • New force main • Beach main removal $2,130,000 Oyster Bay Basin Pre-Design 10 Alternatives TM Area 2 Alternatives There are 53 estimated residential and commercial property gravity connections to the existing 12-inch beach main along Oyster Bay from OB-2 to OB-1. Based on the hydraulic evaluation, 21 properties have a potential risk of sewer overflows when the operation of OB-2 causes the beach main to surcharge. Five conceptual alternatives are presented below to reduce the risk of sewer overflows to these services. Table 5 presents a summary of the Area 2 alternatives and planning level cost estimates. Alternatives to Address Driver #1: Sewer Overflow Risks ● Alternative 2A – Backwater Valve Program. The City continues its program of notifying property owners that they are required to install backwater valves (per BMC 15.03.120) at properties with a potential risk of sewer overflows through sewer lateral connections to the beach main. Ten letters are sent out per month (120 per year) to property owners and City operations staff will visit homeowners as requested to answer questions. ● Alternative 2B – Install control valve in OB-2. Automation and a control valve would be installed in OB-2 to limit flows to the 12-inch main by diverting these flows to the 10-inch force main through Oyster Bay. Flow diversion would prevent the surcharge depth in the beach main from backing up into private side sewer connections. Currently one pump is dedicated to each force main. ● Alternative 2C – Install Grinder Pumps for At-Risk Properties. Install grinder pumps at 21 properties along the alignment with a potential risk of sewer overflows. Grinder pump force mains would be sliplined through the existing service lateral and grouted into the existing gravity beach sewer. ● Alternative 2D – Connect to Existing Upland Gravity Sewer and Convert Beach Main to Force Main. Grinder pumps would be installed at all 53 properties. Grinder pump force mains would connect to the existing 8-inch gravity upland sewer on Shorewood Drive and Kitsap Way. The main would become a dedicated force main for OB-2. Alternatives to Address Driver #2: Potential Regulatory Requirement to Abandon/Remove Beach Mains ● Alternative 2E – Connect to Existing Upland Gravity Sewer, Install Upland Force Main, and Abandon Beach Main. A new force main would be installed along Shorewood Drive and Kitsap Way to OB-1. Flows from OB-2 would be routed to the upland force main. Grinder pumps would be installed at every property currently connected to the beach main and convey flow to the existing upland gravity sewer. The existing 12-inch beach main and 10-inch force main would be abandoned in place. ● Alternative 2F – Connect to Existing Upland Gravity Sewer, Install Upland Force Main, and Remove Beach Main. All provisions in Alternative 2D and the existing 12-inch beach main would be removed from the beach. Oyster Bay Basin Pre-Design 11 Alternatives TM Table 5. Area 2 Alternative Summary and Estimated Costs Alternative Features Pros Cons Estimated Project Cost 2A Backwater Valve Program • Inexpensive protection from sewer overflows • Very low cost • Risk of BWV failure $3,000 2B Automation and control valve at OB-2 • Protects properties by limiting HGL in beach main • No property coordination • Connections to beach main • Dual pumping to force main decreases combined capacity $56,000 2C Limited grinder pump stations, slipline and grout existing laterals • Pressure connections to beach main • Sliplining reduces cost • Limited grinder pumps • Connections to beach main • Property coordination • Pump maintenance • Access easement $830,000 2D Grinder pump stations, force mains to 8-inch upland gravity sewer, and cap and seal existing laterals • No beach main connections • Property coordination • Pump maintenance • Access easement $2,510,000 2E Force main along Shorewood Drive and grinder pump stations • Beach main and force main no longer in service • Maintenance access improved • Pump maintenance • Property coordination • Access easement • New force main $4,560,000 2F Alternative 2E and the beach main is removed • Beach main and force main no longer in service • Maintenance access improved • Pump maintenance • Property coordination • Access easement • New force main • Beach/force main removal $4,690,000 Oyster Bay Basin Pre-Design 12 Alternatives TM Area 3 Alternatives There are 17 residential gravity sewer connections to the 8-inch beach main between pump stations OB-3 and OB-2. No sewer overflows were reported in this area and no back water valves have been installed. The City identified this area for an improvement to the gravity connections to the beach main but it is a lower priority area since there have been no recorded overflows to residences. Based on the hydraulic evaluation, 7 properties have a potential risk of sewer overflows when the operation of OB-3 causes the beach main to surcharge. Three conceptual alternatives have been identified for this area. Table 6 presents a summary of the Area 3 alternatives and planning level cost estimates. Alternatives to Address Driver #1: Sewer Overflow Risks ● Alternative 3A – Backwater Valve Program. The City its program of notifying property owners that they are required to install backwater valves (per BMC 15.03.120) at properties with a potential risk of sewer overflows through sewer lateral connections to the beach main. Ten letters are sent out per month (120 per year) to property owners and City operations staff will visit homeowners as requested to answer questions. ● Alternative 3B – Install Grinder Pumps for At-Risk Properties. Install grinder pumps at 7 properties with a potential risk of sewer overflows. Grinder pump force mains would be sliplined through the existing service lateral and grouted into the existing gravity beach sewer. Alternatives to Address Driver #2: Potential Regulatory Requirement to Abandon/Remove Beach Mains ● Alternative 3C – Connect to Existing Upland Gravity Sewer, Install Upland Force Main, and Abandon Beach Main. Grinder pumps would be installed at each property along the alignment. Grinder pump force mains would be routed to discharge to a new low pressure force main installed along Madrona Point. The new low pressure force main would be sized to convey flows from OB-3 to OB-2. The existing beach main would be abandoned in place. ● Alternative 3D – Connect to Existing Upland Gravity Sewer, Install Upland Force Main, and Remove Beach Main. All provisions in Alternative 3C and the existing 8-inch beach main would be removed from the beach. Oyster Bay Basin Pre-Design 13 Alternatives TM Table 6. Area 3 Alternative Summary and Estimated Costs Alternative Features Pros Cons Estimated Project Cost 3A Backwater Valve Program • Inexpensive protection from sewer overflows • Very low cost • Risk of BWV failure $3,000 3B Grinder pump stations and slipline and grout existing laterals • Pressure connections • Sliplining reduces cost • Limited grinder pumps • Connections to beach main • Property coordination • Pump maintenance • Access easement $280,000 3C Grinder pump stations, new force main, cap and seal existing laterals, abandon beach main • Beach main no longer in service • Maintenance access improved • Pump maintenance • Property coordination • Access easement • New force main $1,480,000 3D Alternative 3C and the beach is removed • Beach main no longer in service • Maintenance access improved • Pump maintenance • Property coordination • Access easement • New force main • Beach main removal $1,450,000 Oyster Bay Basin Pre-Design Alternatives TM Appendix Oyster Bay Basin Pre-Design Alternatives TM This page left intentionally blank. City of Bremerton Oyster Bay Alternatives TM Class 5 Cost Estimate September 2016 Alternative 1A Backwater Valve Program Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Comment Backwater Valves 1 LS 3,000$ 3,000$ Continue program of notifying property owners that they are required to install backwater valves (per BMC 15.03.120) 3,000$ 2,000$ 5,000$ Subtotal Low (-25%) High (+50%) City of Bremerton Oyster Bay Alternatives TM Class 5 Cost Estimate September 2016 Alternative 1B Install grinder pumps for at-risk properties Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Comment General Items 15 EA 2,500$ 37,500$ Minor Change SPCC Plan, Property Restoration, Mobilization, Obstruction Removal, Landscaping, Erosion Control per Ginder Pump from Gorst Collection System Improvements Bid Tab adjusted to 2015 dollars Grinder Pumps 15 EA 9,000$ 135,000$ From Gorst Bid Tab adjusted to 2015 dollars PE LPS Main 1.25 In. Diam. 1500 LF 25$ 37,500$ 100 LF per grinder pump Lateral Sliplining 15 EA 1,000$ 15,000$ Roto-Rooter Quote for lateral inspection and moderate root removal to install each lateral Beach Excavation and Restoration 15 EA 500$ 7,500$ 10 CY of Excavation including Haul and Gravel Backfill per grinder pump Wet tap beach main 15 EA 2,750$ 41,250$ Pipe Repair (Romac quote) and corp stop etc (Speer Taps) Shoring and Dewatering 15 EA 1,000$ 15,000$Per grinder pump 288,750$ 115,500$ 404,250$ 35,200$ 80,900$ 530,000$ 400,000$ 800,000$High (+50%) Low (-25%) Total Project Cost Subtotal Construction Contingency (40%) Subtotal Construction Costs Sales Tax (8.7%) Allied Costs (20%) City of Bremerton Oyster Bay Alternatives TM Class 5 Cost Estimate September 2016 Alternative 1C Connect to existing upland gravity sewer and convert beach main to force main Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Comment General Items 15 EA 2,500$ 37,500$ Minor Change SPCC Plan, Property Restoration, Mobilization, Obstruction Removal, Landscaping, Erosion Control per Ginder Pump from Gorst Collection System Improvements Bid Tab adjusted to 2015 dollars Grinder Pumps 15 EA 9,000$ 135,000$ From Gorst Bid Tab adjusted to 2015 dollars PE LPS Main 1.25 In. Diam. 3000 LF 20$ 60,000$ 200 LF per grinder pump, Unit Cost from bid tab Excavation and Restoration 15 EA 1,000$ 15,000$ 25 CY Excavation and Gravel Backfill per grinder pump Asphalt Replacement 75 SY 110$ 8,250$ 5 SY of pavement restoration per lateral, Tabula unit cost Traffic Control 120 HRS 110$ 13,200$ 8 hrs of traffic control per grinder pump, Tabula unit cost Upland Sewer Wet Tap 15 EA 2,750$ 41,250$ Pipe Repair (Romac quote) and corp stop etc (Speer Taps) Remove and Cap Lateral 15 EA 2,500$ 37,500$ Excavation and native backfill, remove and dispose of lateral, install cap on lateral Shoring and Dewatering 30 EA 1,000$ 30,000$ Per beach main lateral and ginder pump 377,700$ 151,080$ 528,780$ 46,100$ 105,800$ 690,000$ 520,000$ 1,040,000$ Subtotal Construction Contingency (40%) Subtotal Construction Costs Sales Tax (8.7%) Total Project Cost Low (-25%) High (+50%) Allied Costs (20%) City of Bremerton Oyster Bay Alternatives TM Class 5 Cost Estimate September 2016 Alternative 1D Connect to existing upland gravity sewer, install upland force main, and abandon beach main Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Comment General Items 15 EA 2,500$ 37,500$ Minor Change SPCC Plan, Property Restoration, Mobilization, Obstruction Removal, Landscaping, Erosion Control per Ginder Pump from Gorst Collection System Improvements Bid Tab adjusted to 2015 dollars Grinder Pumps 15 EA 9,000$ 135,000$ From Gorst Bid Tab adjusted to 2015 dollars PE LPS Main 1.25 In. Diam. 3000 LF 20$ 60,000$ 200 LF per grinder pump, Unit Cost from bid tab Excavation and Restoration 15 EA 1,000$ 15,000$ 25 CY Excavation and Gravel Backfill per grinder pump Asphalt Replacement 75 SY 110$ 8,250$ 5 SY of pavement restoration per lateral, Tabula unit cost Traffic Control 120 HRS 110$ 13,200$ 8 hrs of traffic control per grinder pump, Tabula unit cost Upland Sewer Wet Tap 15 EA 2,750$ 41,250$ Pipe Repair (Romac quote) and corp stop etc (Speer Taps) Shoring and Dewatering 30 EA 1,000$ 30,000$ Per beach main lateral and ginder pump 10-inch Force main 3500 LF 185$ 647,500$ Bid Tabs from Gorst Improvements adjusted to 2015 dollars, incl excation, backfill, and restoration Fill and Abandon Beach Main 3200 LF 10$ 32,000$ Estimate to fill and abandon from Seattle Seawall Improvements Remove and Cap Lateral 15 EA 2,500$ 37,500$ Excavation and native backfill, remove and dispose of lateral, install cap on lateral connection to Beach Main DNR Leasing 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ Estimate of DNR lease costs related to abandoned utilities in the beach. 1,107,200$ 442,880$ 1,550,080$ 134,900$ 310,100$ 2,000,000$ 1,500,000$ 3,000,000$ Subtotal Construction Contingency (40%) Subtotal Construction Costs Sales Tax (8.7%) Total Project Cost Low (-25%) High (+50%) Allied Costs (20%) City of Bremerton Oyster Bay Alternatives TM Class 5 Cost Estimate September 2016 Alternative 1E Connect to existing upland gravity sewer, install upland force main, and remove beach main Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Comment General Items 15 EA 2,500$ 37,500$ Minor Change SPCC Plan, Property Restoration, Mobilization, Obstruction Removal, Landscaping, Erosion Control per Ginder Pump from Gorst Collection System Improvements Bid Tab adjusted to 2015 dollars Grinder Pumps 15 EA 9,000$ 135,000$ From Gorst Bid Tab adjusted to 2015 dollars PE LPS Main 1.25 In. Diam. 3000 LF 20$ 60,000$ 200 LF per grinder pump, Unit Cost from bid tab Excavation and Restoration 15 EA 1,000$ 15,000$ 25 CY Excavation and Gravel Backfill per grinder pump Asphalt Replacement 75 SY 110$ 8,250$ 5 SY of pavement restoration per lateral, Tabula unit cost Traffic Control 120 HRS 110$ 13,200$ 8 hrs of traffic control per grinder pump, Tabula unit cost Upland Sewer Wet Tap 15 EA 2,750$ 41,250$ Pipe Repair (Romac quote) and corp stop etc (Speer Taps) Shoring and Dewatering 30 EA 1,000$ 30,000$ Per beach main lateral and ginder pump 10-inch Force main 3500 LF 185$ 647,500$ Bid Tabs from Gorst Improvements adjusted to 2015 dollars, incl excation, backfill, and restoration Remove laterals 15 EA 2,000$ 30,000$ Excavation and native backfill, remove and dispose of lateral Remove beach main 3200 LF 50$ 160,000$ Estimated from Washington Avenue Sewer Project 1,177,700$ 471,080$ 1,648,780$ 143,500$ 329,800$ 2,130,000$ 1,600,000$ 3,200,000$ Allied Costs (20%) Total Project Cost Low (-25%) High (+50%) Sales Tax (8.7%) Subtotal Construction Contingency (40%) Subtotal Construction Costs City of Bremerton Oyster Bay Alternatives TM Class 5 Cost Estimate September 2016 Alternative 2A Backwater valve program Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Comment Backwater Valves 1 LS 3,000$ 3,000$ Continue program of notifying property owners that they are required to install backwater valves (per BMC 15.03.120) 3,000$ 2,000$ 5,000$ Subtotal Low (-25%) High (+50%) City of Bremerton Oyster Bay Alternatives TM Class 5 Cost Estimate September 2016 Alternative 2B Install control valve in OB-2 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Comment Mobilization 1 LS 1,500$ 1,500$ 5% of construction cost Motor Actuators 2 EA 5,000$ 10,000$ Cost of motor actuator delivered to site Pressure Transducer 1 LS 2,500$ 2,500$ Cost of transducer Installation 1 LS 12,000$ 12,000$ One week labor for 4 person crew Electrical I&C Allowance 1 LS 5,000$5,000$ Extension of existing on-site power supply and controls to motor actuators 31,000$ 12,400$ 43,400$ 3,800$ 8,700$ 56,000$ 42,000$ 84,000$ Subtotal Construction Contingency (40%) Subtotal Construction Costs Sales Tax (8.7%) Total Project Cost Low (-25%) High (+50%) Allied Costs (20%) City of Bremerton Oyster Bay Alternatives TM Class 5 Cost Estimate September 2016 Alternative 2C Install grainder pumps for at-risk properties Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Comment General Items 21 EA 2,500$ 52,500$ Minor Change SPCC Plan, Property Restoration, Mobilization, Obstruction Removal, Landscaping, Erosion Control per Ginder Pump from Gorst Collection System Improvements Bid Tab adjusted to 2015 dollars Grinder Pumps 21 EA 9,000$ 189,000$ From Gorst Bid Tab adjusted to 2015 dollars PE LPS Main 1.25 In. Diam. 5250 LF 20$ 105,000$ 250 LF per grinder pump Lateral Sliplining 21 EA 1,000$ 21,000$ Roto-Rooter Quote for lateral inspection and moderate root removal to install each lateral Beach Excavation and Restoration 21 EA 500$ 10,500$ 10 CY of Excavation including Haul and Gravel Backfill per grinder pump Wet tap beach main 21 EA 2,750$ 57,750$ Pipe Repair (Romac quote) and corp stop etc (Speer Taps) Shoring and Dewatering 21 EA 1,000$ 21,000$Per grinder pump 456,750$ 182,700$ 639,450$ 55,700$ 127,900$ 830,000$ 630,000$ 1,250,000$ Subtotal Construction Contingency (40%) Subtotal Construction Costs Sales Tax (8.7%) Total Project Cost Low (-25%) High (+50%) Allied Costs (20%) City of Bremerton Oyster Bay Alternatives TM Class 5 Cost Estimate September 2016 Alternative 2D Connect to existing upland gravity sewer and convert beach main to force main Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Comment General Items 53 EA 2,500$ 132,500$ Minor Change SPCC Plan, Property Restoration, Mobilization, Obstruction Removal, Landscaping, Erosion Control per Ginder Pump from Gorst Collection System Improvements Bid Tab adjusted to 2015 dollars Grinder Pumps 53 EA 9,000$ 477,000$ From Gorst Bid Tab adjusted to 2015 dollars PE LPS Main 1.25 In. Diam. 13250 LF 20$ 265,000$ 250 LF per grinder pump, Unit Cost from bid tab Excavation and Restoration 53 EA 1,000$ 53,000$ 25 CY Excavation and Gravel Backfill per grinder pump Asphalt Replacement 265 SY 110$ 29,150$ 5 SY of pavement restoration per lateral, Tabula unit cost Traffic Control 424 HRS 110$ 46,640$ 8 hrs of traffic control per grinder pump, Tabula unit cost Upland Sewer Wet Tap 53 EA 2,750$ 145,750$ Pipe Repair (Romac quote) and corp stop etc (Speer Taps) Remove and Cap Lateral 53 EA 2,500$ 132,500$ Excavation and native backfill, remove and dispose of lateral, install cap on lateral connection to Beach Main Shoring and Dewatering 106 EA 1,000$ 106,000$ Per beach main lateral and ginder pump 1,387,540$ 555,016$ 1,942,556$ 169,100$ 388,600$ 2,510,000$ 1,890,000$ 3,770,000$ Subtotal Construction Contingency (40%) Subtotal Construction Costs Sales Tax (8.7%) Total Project Cost Low (-25%) High (+50%) Allied Costs (20%) City of Bremerton Oyster Bay Alternatives TM Class 5 Cost Estimate September 2016 Alternative 2E Connect to existing upland gravity sewer, install upland force main, and abandon beach main Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Comment General Items 53 EA 2,500$ 132,500$ Minor Change SPCC Plan, Property Restoration, Mobilization, Obstruction Removal, Landscaping, Erosion Control per Ginder Pump from Gorst Collection System Improvements Bid Tab adjusted to 2015 dollars Grinder Pumps 53 EA 9,000$ 477,000$ From Gorst Bid Tab adjusted to 2015 dollars PE LPS Main 1.25 In. Diam. 13250 LF 20$ 265,000$ 250 LF per grinder pump, Unit Cost from bid tab Excavation and Restoration 53 EA 1,000$ 53,000$ 25 CY Excavation and Gravel Backfill per grinder pump Asphalt Replacement 265 SY 110$ 29,150$ 5 SY of pavement restoration per lateral, Tabula unit cost Traffic Control 424 HRS 110$ 46,640$ 8 hrs of traffic control per grinder pump, Tabula unit cost Upland Sewer Wet Tap 53 EA 2,750$ 145,750$ Pipe Repair (Romac quote) and corp stop etc (Speer Taps) Shoring and Dewatering 98 EA 1,000$ 98,000$ Per beach main lateral and ginder pump 12-inch Force main 4800 LF 200$ 960,000$ Bid Tabs from Gorst Improvements adjusted to 2015 dollars Fill and Abandon Beach Main 3700 LF 10$ 37,000$ Estimate to fill and abandon from Seattle Seawall Improvements Remove and Cap Lateral 53 EA 2,500$ 132,500$ Excavation and native backfill, remove and dispose of lateral, install cap on lateral connection to Beach Main DNR Leasing 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ Estimate of DNR lease costs related to abandoned utilities in the beach. City to verify. Replace Pumps 1 LS 100,000$ 100,000$ $80,000 for two 72 HP pumps and appurtenances plus $20,000 installation 2,526,540$ 1,010,616$ 3,537,156$ 307,800$ 707,500$ 4,560,000$ 3,420,000$ 6,840,000$ Subtotal Construction Contingency (40%) Subtotal Construction Costs Sales Tax (8.7%) Total Project Cost Low (-25%) High (+50%) Allied Costs (20%) City of Bremerton Oyster Bay Alternatives TM Class 5 Cost Estimate September 2016 Alternative 2F Connect to existing upland gravity sewer, install upland force main, and remove beach main Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Comment General Items 53 EA 2,500$ 132,500$ Minor Change SPCC Plan, Property Restoration, Mobilization, Obstruction Removal, Landscaping, Erosion Control per Ginder Pump from Gorst Collection System Improvements Bid Tab adjusted to 2015 dollars Grinder Pumps 53 EA 9,000$ 477,000$ From Gorst Bid Tab adjusted to 2015 dollars PE LPS Main 1.25 In. Diam. 13250 LF 20$ 265,000$ 250 LF per grinder pump, Unit Cost from bid tab Excavation and Restoration 53 EA 1,000$ 53,000$ 25 CY Excavation and Gravel Backfill per grinder pump Asphalt Replacement 265 SY 110$ 29,150$ 5 SY of pavement restoration per lateral, Tabula unit cost Traffic Control 424 HRS 110$ 46,640$ 8 hrs of traffic control per grinder pump, Tabula unit cost Upland Sewer Wet Tap 53 EA 2,750$ 145,750$ Pipe Repair (Romac quote) and corp stop etc (Speer Taps) Shoring and Dewatering 98 EA 1,000$ 98,000$ Per beach main lateral and ginder pump 12-inch Force main 4800 LF 200$ 960,000$ Bid Tabs from Gorst Improvements adjusted to 2015 dollars Remove beach main 3700 LF 50$ 185,000$ Estimated from Washington Avenue Sewer Project Remove laterals 53 EA 2,000$ 106,000$ Excavation and native backfill, remove and dispose of lateral Replace Pumps 1 LS 100,000$ 100,000$ $80,000 for two 72 HP pumps and appurtenances plus $20,000 installation 2,598,040$ 1,039,216$ 3,637,256$ 316,500$ 727,500$ 4,690,000$ 3,520,000$ 7,040,000$ Allied Costs (20%) Total Project Cost Low (-25%) High (+50%) Sales Tax (8.7%) Subtotal Construction Contingency (40%) Subtotal Construction Costs City of Bremerton Oyster Bay Alternatives TM Class 5 Cost Estimate September 2016 Alternative 3A Backwater valve program Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Comment Backwater Valves 1 LS 3,000$ 3,000$ Continue program of notifying property owners that they are required to install backwater valves (per BMC 15.03.120) 3,000$ 2,000$ 5,000$ Subtotal Low (-25%) High (+50%) City of Bremerton Oyster Bay Alternatives TM Class 5 Cost Estimate September 2016 Alternative 3B Install grinder pumps for at-risk properties Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Comment General Items 7 EA 2,500$ 17,500$ Minor Change SPCC Plan, Property Restoration, Mobilization, Obstruction Removal, Landscaping, Erosion Control per Ginder Pump from Gorst Collection System Improvements Bid Tab adjusted to 2015 dollars Grinder Pumps 7 EA 9,000$ 63,000$ From Gorst Bid Tab adjusted to 2015 dollars PE LPS Main 1.25 In. Diam. 1750 LF 20$ 35,000$ 250 LF per grinder pump Lateral Sliplining 7 EA 1,000$ 7,000$ Roto-Rooter Quote for lateral inspection and moderate root removal to install each lateral Beach Excavation and Restoration 7 EA 500$ 3,500$ 10 CY of Excavation including Haul and Gravel Backfill per grinder pump Wet tap beach main 7 EA 2,750$ 19,250$ Pipe Repair (Romac quote) and corp stop etc (Speer Taps) Shoring and Dewatering 7 EA 1,000$ 7,000$Per grinder pump 152,250$ 60,900$ 213,150$ 18,600$ 42,700$ 280,000$ 210,000$ 420,000$ Subtotal Construction Contingency (40%) Subtotal Construction Costs Sales Tax (8.7%) Total Project Cost Low (-25%) High (+50%) Allied Costs (20%) City of Bremerton Oyster Bay Alternatives TM Class 5 Cost Estimate September 2016 Alternative 3C Connect to existing upland gravity sewer, install upland force main, and abandon beach main Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Comment General Items 17 EA 2,500$ 42,500$ Minor Change SPCC Plan, Property Restoration, Mobilization, Obstruction Removal, Landscaping, Erosion Control per Ginder Pump from Gorst Collection System Improvements Bid Tab adjusted to 2015 dollars Grinder Pumps 17 EA 9,000$ 153,000$ From Gorst Bid Tab adjusted to 2015 dollars PE LPS Main 1.25 In. Diam. 4250 LF 20$ 85,000$ 250 LF per grinder pump, Unit Cost from bid tab Excavation and Restoration 17 EA 1,000$ 17,000$ 25 CY Excavation and Gravel Backfill per grinder pump Asphalt Replacement 85 SY 110$ 9,350$ 5 SY of pavement restoration per lateral, Tabula unit cost Traffic Control 136 HRS 110$ 14,960$ 8 hrs of traffic control per grinder pump, Tabula unit cost Upland Sewer Wet Tap 17 EA 2,750$ 46,750$ Pipe Repair (Romac quote) and corp stop etc (Speer Taps) Shoring and Dewatering 34 EA 1,000$ 34,000$ Per beach main lateral and ginder pump 8-inch Force main 1500 LF 175$ 262,500$ Bid Tabs from Gorst Improvements adjusted to 2015 dollars Fill and Abandon Beach Main 1100 LF 10$ 11,000$ Estimate to fill and abandon from Seattle Seawall Improvements Remove and Cap Lateral 17 EA 2,500$ 42,500$ Excavation and native backfill, remove and dispose of lateral, install cap on lateral connection to Beach Main DNR Leasing 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ Estimate of DNR lease costs Replace Pumps 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ $35,000 for two 15 HP pumps and appurtenances plus $15,000 installation 818,560$ 327,424$ 1,145,984$ 99,800$ 229,200$ 1,480,000$ 1,110,000$ 2,220,000$ Subtotal Construction Contingency (40%) Subtotal Construction Costs Sales Tax (8.7%) Total Project Cost Low (-25%) High (+50%) Allied Costs (20%) City of Bremerton Oyster Bay Alternatives TM Class 5 Cost Estimate September 2016 Alternative 3D Connect to existing upland gravity sewer, install upland force main, and remove beach main Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Comment General Items 17 EA 2,500$ 42,500$ Minor Change SPCC Plan, Property Restoration, Mobilization, Obstruction Removal, Landscaping, Erosion Control per Ginder Pump from Gorst Collection System Improvements Bid Tab adjusted to 2015 dollars Grinder Pumps 17 EA 9,000$ 153,000$ From Gorst Bid Tab adjusted to 2015 dollars PE LPS Main 1.25 In. Diam. 4250 LF 20$ 85,000$ 250 LF per grinder pump, Unit Cost from bid tab Excavation and Restoration 17 EA 1,000$ 17,000$ 25 CY Excavation and Gravel Backfill per grinder pump Asphalt Replacement 85 SY 110$ 9,350$ 5 SY of pavement restoration per lateral, Tabula unit cost Traffic Control 136 HRS 110$ 14,960$ 8 hrs of traffic control per grinder pump, Tabula unit cost Upland Sewer Wet Tap 17 EA 2,750$ 46,750$ Pipe Repair (Romac quote) and corp stop etc (Speer Taps) Shoring and Dewatering 34 EA 1,000$ 34,000$ Per beach main lateral and ginder pump 8-inch Force main 1500 LF 175$ 262,500$ Bid Tabs from Gorst Improvements adjusted to 2015 dollars Remove beach main 1100 LF 50$ 55,000$ Estimated from Washington Avenue Sewer Project Remove laterals 17 EA 2,000$ 34,000$ Excavation and native backfill, remove and dispose of lateral Replace Pumps 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ $35,000 for two 15 HP pumps and appurtenances plus $15,000 installation 804,060$ 321,624$ 1,125,684$ 98,000$ 225,200$ 1,450,000$ 1,090,000$ 2,180,000$ Allied Costs (20%) Total Project Cost Low (-25%) High (+50%) Sales Tax (8.7%) Subtotal Construction Contingency (40%) Subtotal Construction Costs This page left intentionally blank. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update J-1 Appendix J: SEPA Determination Letter and Checklist This Appendix includes the following: • SEPA Determination Letter • SEPA Checklist • Public Comments and Response on Draft 2024 WWCP Update DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND SEPA DETERMINATION PROPOSAL: The 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update provides a 20-year plan for maintaining, improving, and increasing the capacity of the sewer collection and treatment systems within the City’s sewer service area. The geographical area covered includes the entire City limits, and also areas within the established Urban Growth Areas that are within the City’s sewer service area. LOCATION: Citywide, and UGAs APPLICANT: City of Bremerton Department of Public Works & Utilities DATE OF APPLICATION: 5/28/2025 NOTICE OF COMPLETENESS: 6/2/2025 NOTICE OF APPLICATION: 6/6/2025 FILE NUMBER: BP25 00220 EXISTING ENVIRO DOCUMENTS: Environmental Checklist, Draft 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS: June 20, 2025 by 5:00 P.M. The City of Bremerton has received application for the proposal described above. Consistent with the provisions of Bremerton Municipal Code, a fourteen (14) day comment period will be utilized to obtain comments on the Notice of Application. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Any person may submit written comments on the application by the time and date above. Any person may also request to receive a copy of the decision once made, and any appeal rights. Please direct any questions, comments or requests for additional information to the Department of Community Development, 345 Sixth Street, Suite 100, Bremerton, WA 98337- 1873; or Kelli Lambert, Senior Planner, Kelli.Lambert@ci.bremerton.wa.us or (360) 473-5245. Distribution: Suquamish Tribe Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe Kitsap Public Health District Kitsap County Assessor Kitsap County DCD US Navy Cascade Natural Gas City of Port Orchard Kitsap Transit Bremerton School District Central Kitsap School District Army Corps of Engineers Port of Bremerton Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Puget Sound Energy WA Department of Ecology WA Department of Fish & Wildlife WA Department of Historic Preservation WA Department of Natural Resources WA Department of Commerce SEPA Review Team Waste Management Washington State Department of Transportation Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) 2024 Bremerton WWCP Update January 2023 Submitted May 2025 Page 1 of 21 SEPA1 Environmental Checklist Purpose of checklist Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization, or compensatory mitigation measures will address the prob able significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. Instructions for applicants This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use “not applicable” or “does not apply” only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision-making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Instructions for lead agencies Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B, plus the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions (Part D). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non - projects) questions in “Part B: Environmental Elements” that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. 1 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/Checklist-guidance SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) 2024 Bremerton WWCP Update January 2023 Submitted May 2025 Page 2 of 21 A. Background Find help answering background questions2 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: City of Bremerton – 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update. This is a planning document and is a non-project proposal. The document will be referred to as the 2024 WWCP for the remainder of this checklist. 2. Name of applicant: City of Bremerton, Department of Public Works and Utilities 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: William Davis, P.E. City of Bremerton Engineering Division 345 6th Street, Suite 100 Bremerton, WA 98337 Ph. 360-473-2312 4. Date checklist prepared: May 15, 2025 5. Agency requesting checklist: C ity of Bremerton, Department of Community Development 6. Proposed timing of schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The 2024 WWCP is an update to the previous 2014 WWCP and uses a 20-year planning horizon from 2025 to 2044. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Yes. The 2024 WWCP is a working document that is edited and amended as needed. The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is included and may be adjusted on an annual basis in reaction to growth in specific geographic areas or unforeseen capital needs. The City has been updating the 2024 WWCP in entirety every 10 years, with the next update anticipated in 2034. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. 2 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-A-Background SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) 2024 Bremerton WWCP Update January 2023 Submitted May 2025 Page 3 of 21 No specific environmental information has been prepared for 2024 WWCP. SEPA reviews and environmental permitting will be done during the pre-design or design phase of individual projects. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP but will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. The 2024 WWCP is currently being reviewed and must be approved by the Department of Ecology in accordance with Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-240-050. The approved plan will be adopted by Bremerton City Council. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat th ose answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The 2024 WWCP, also referred to as a general sewer plan in WAC 173-240-020, provides a 20-year plan for maintaining, improving, and increasing the capacity of the sewer collection and treatment systems within the City’s sewer service area. The plan was prepared by the City’s consultant Kennedy Jenks. The plan has ten sections (chapters), which are described below. For individual projects listed in the 20-year CIP in Section 8, high-level cost estimates, implementation year, and project descriptions are provided. Section 1: Executive Summary – A brief summary of the entire document Section 2: Introduction – Provides a summary of relevant background information, regulatory requirements, NDPES permit compliance status, and identifies related documents and sources of planning information. Section 3: Service Area and System Description – Describes the characteristics of the surrounding vicinity, the sewer service area, and the existing wastewater infrastructure. Section 4: Business Risk and Vulnerability Assessment (BRVA) – Provides an evaluation of treatment unit processes and collection system infrastructure to identify vulnerabilities and failure modes. The data was gathered and conclusions were developed based on several workshops with the Kennedy Jenks, City O&M, and Engineering staff, as well as site visits to critical infrastructure. Section 5: Historical and Projected Flows and Loads – Discussion of current and projected future population, land use, sewer flows, loads, and their impacts on the utility within the sewer service area. SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) 2024 Bremerton WWCP Update January 2023 Submitted May 2025 Page 4 of 21 Section 6: Collection System Evaluation – Evaluates the collection system based on hydraulic modeling using AquaTwin Sewer modeling software. Model development, calibration, and results (current and future conditions) are discussed. The population, flows, and loading data presented in Section 5 are used in the model. The model will continue to be used by the City and updated and calibrated regularly. Section 7: Treatment Facilities Evaluation – Includes a description of the liquid and solid stream treatment processes at the Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and provides a hydraulic and biological evaluation of these processes. The City’s Eastside Treatment Plant (ETP) is not evaluated. Section 8: Capital Improvement Program – Describes the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the WWTP and the wastewater collection system, including recommended improvements, cost estimates, rate development and funding sources. Section 9: Operation and Maintenance – Describes the operation and maintenance aspects of the City's wastewater collection and treatment systems. Topics addressed include responsibility and authority, standard system operations, routine and preventive maintenance, current and future staffing requiremen ts, new construction, safety measures, and emergency response protocols. Section 10: Implementation – Discusses requirements that the plan must comply with Ecology requirements for a general sewer plan as described in the WAC, Kitsap County growth requirements, and go through a SEPA review process for the overall plan, noting that project-specific environmental review (i.e. NEPA/SEPA) is also expected to be conducted, with costs borne by the developer. The plan will be adopted by the Bremerton City Council prior to implementation. Appendix A: NPDES Permit Sheet and Fact Sheet – Includes the City’s NDPES Permit (WA0029289) and Fact Sheet Appendix B: Basin Plans – These basin plans were developed for the 2014 WWCP Update and have not been updated for the 2024 WWCP. Some of the projects listed are currently outside of City limits but within the City’s sewer service area and in Urban Growth Areas (UGAs). The City is required by the Growth Management Act to provide a plan for sewering designated UGAs. Appendix C: Pump Stations – A table showing all the City’s municipal pump stations and relevant information. This table does not include any grinder pump systems. Appendix D: Treatment System Modeling Results – WWTP modeling results Appendix E: Interagency Agreements – Agreements between Bremerton and the U.S. Navy and Kitsap County for the City to provide sewer service for these agencies SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) 2024 Bremerton WWCP Update January 2023 Submitted May 2025 Page 5 of 21 Appendix F: Outfall Evaluation Report – A 2018 report that evaluated the outfall at the City’s WWTP. Appendix G: Crosstown Pipeline Memorandum – A technical memorandum prepared by Kennedy Jenks as part of this update, which evaluates alternatives for providing redundancy for a critical section of the City’s Crosstown from 9th and Montgomery to the WWTP Appendix H: PSIC Memorandum – A technical memorandum prepared by Kennedy Jenks as part of this update, which evaluates alternatives for providing sewer service to Puget Sound Industrial Center (PSIC) Appendix I: Oyster Bay Sewerage Pre-design Alternatives – A 2016 technical memorandum prepared by HDR which describes and evaluates alternatives for decommissioning beach sewers and installing an upland sewer system for Oyster and Ostrich Bays. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans requi red by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The geographical area covered includes the entire city limits and also areas within the established Urban Growth Areas that have been assigned to the City and are located within the City's sewer service area. Refer to attached Sewer Service Area map at the end of this document, which is Figure 3-2 from the 2024 WWCP. B. Environmental Elements 1. Earth Find help answering earth questions3 a. General description of the site: Circle or highlight one: Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Approximately 100 percent at high bank waterfront bluffs. 3 https://ecology.wa.gov/regulations-permits/sepa/environmental-review/sepa-guidance/sepa-checklist- guidance/sepa-checklist-section-b-environmental-elements/environmental-elements-earth SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) 2024 Bremerton WWCP Update January 2023 Submitted May 2025 Page 6 of 21 c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them, and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. As the project includes the entire City limits and Sewer Service Area, many differing soil conditions are applicable. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Unstable soils are identified in the City Critical Areas mapping. Generally, installing sewer infrastructure in critical areas subject to unstable soils is avoided. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP but will evaluated on a project -specific basis at the time of the project design. f. Could erosion occur because of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Possibly. Potential erosion would only be associated with specific projects identified in the CIP. Those projects will require erosion control BMP's to be implemented as appropriate. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP but will evaluated on a project -specific basis at the time of the project design. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. An erosion and sediment control plan will be developed for specific projects identified in the CIP as appropriate. 2. Air Find help answering air questions4 a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. The City operates and maintains odor control facilities out in the system and within the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). These facilities require ongoing maintenance and CIP improvements which are covered in the 2024 WWCP. 4 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-Air SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) 2024 Bremerton WWCP Update January 2023 Submitted May 2025 Page 7 of 21 b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. There are no off-site sources of emissions that would affect this proposal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: The 2024 WWCP includes measures to ensure that odor control facilities are properly operated and maintained. These measures include adequate staffing for maintenance and upgrades to the existing system which are included in specific line items in the CIP. 3. Water Find help answering water questions5 a. Surface: Find help answering surface water questions6 1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The City has a number of riparian and marine areas within the Sewer Service Area. These are described in Section 3 of the 2024 WWCP. The City maintains CSO Outfalls that discharge to both Sinclair Inlet and the Port Washington Narrows (which connects Dyes Inlet to Port Orchard Bay), both of which are tributary to Puget Sound. 2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes, for example, outfall replacement. These projects will undergo environmental review on an individual project basis. 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP but will evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give a general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 5 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-3-Water 6 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-3-Water/Environmental- elements-Surface-water SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) 2024 Bremerton WWCP Update January 2023 Submitted May 2025 Page 8 of 21 Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP but will evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. There is City sewer infrastructure that does lie within the 100 year floodplain. Any proposed projects that are identified in the CIP and require work within the 100 year floodplain will be required to meet all local, state, and federal requirements. 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. None anticipated. The City of Bremerton sanitary sewer system includes combined sewage basins which include Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) outfalls. The City has fully implemented its CSO Reduction Plan and is currently in compliance with state and federal regulations related to CSO discharges to the Puget Sound. b. Ground: Find help answering groundwater questions7 1. Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give a general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Not applicable as groundwater withdrawal is not related to the City’s wastewater system. 2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals…; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Unknown at this time. c. Water Runoff (including stormwater): 1. Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. As stated previously, the City operates and maintains a number of CSO outfalls that can release combine sewer flow to the Puget Sound. This 2024 WWCP does not result in an increase in these flows but recognizes that system capacity is predicated on the system relieving during extreme storm events as permitted in accordance 7 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-3-Water/Environmental- elements-Groundwater SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) 2024 Bremerton WWCP Update January 2023 Submitted May 2025 Page 9 of 21 with NPDES requirements. Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans will be developed on a project-specific basis. 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP but will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. 3. Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP but will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP but control of stormwater and runoff will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. 4. Plants Find help answering plants questions a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: ☒ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ☒ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ☒ shrubs ☒ grass ☒ pasture ☐ crop or grain ☐ orchards, vineyards, or other permanent crops. ☒ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ☒ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ☐ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) 2024 Bremerton WWCP Update January 2023 Submitted May 2025 Page 10 of 21 Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. 5. Animals Find help answering animal questions8 a. List any birds and other animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: • Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: shorebirds • Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: • Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. Based on information provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the following ESA -listed species could occur within the action area (one-quarter mile): • Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) (Threatened) • Steelhead trout (O. mykiss) Puget Sound ESU (Threatened) • Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Coastal/Puget Sound Distinct • Population Segment (DPS) (Threatened) • Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) Southern DPS (Threatened) • Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS (Endangered) • Canary rockfish (S. pinniger) Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS (Threatened) • Yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrimus) Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS (Threatened) • Marbled murrelet (Brachyranphus marmoratus) (Threatened) • Killer whale (Orcinus orca) Southern Resident DPS (Endangered) • Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus)(Endangered) 8 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA- guidance/SEPA-checklist-guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental- elements/Environmental-elements-5-Animals SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) 2024 Bremerton WWCP Update January 2023 Submitted May 2025 Page 11 of 21 • Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) (Endangered) • Steller sea lion (Eumetopiasjubatus) (Threatened) Whales, Steller sea lions and bull trout, if present, only occur rarely in the action area. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. All areas within the Puget Sound lowlands are within the Pacific Migratory Flyway. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. 6. Energy and natural resources Find help answering energy and natural resource questions9 a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. b. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. 7. Environmental health Find help with answering environmental health questions10 a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur because of this proposal? If so, describe. 9 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-6-Energy-natural-resou 10 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-7-Environmental-health SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) 2024 Bremerton WWCP Update January 2023 Submitted May 2025 Page 12 of 21 Very unlikely, as there are limited environmental health hazards associated with the wastewater system. Sanitary sewer discharges are rare and the City plans and controls for connections that could expose raw sewage to the environment. However, this will need to be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. 1. Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. 2. Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. 3. Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. 4. Describe special emergency services that might be required. Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. 5. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. The primary function of the WWCP Update is to ensure that adequate planning is in place to ensure the continued operation of the wastewater collection and treatment systems, essentially managing the environmental health hazards related to the wastewater system. At the time of the specific project, potential environmental hazards will be evaluated. b. Noise What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. 1. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site)? Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) 2024 Bremerton WWCP Update January 2023 Submitted May 2025 Page 13 of 21 Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. 8. Land and shoreline use Find help answering land and shoreline use questions11 a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses because of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. 1. Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how? Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. c. Describe any structures on the site. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. d. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. e. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. f. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. g. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. 11 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-8-Land-shoreline-use SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) 2024 Bremerton WWCP Update January 2023 Submitted May 2025 Page 14 of 21 Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. h. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. i. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. j. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. k. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. All individual project plans will be reviewed by the City to ensure compliance with all applicable adopted plans. l. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. 9. Housing Find help answering housing questions12 a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable as no housing is being built. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable as no housing is being built. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable as no housing is being built. 12 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-9-Housing SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) 2024 Bremerton WWCP Update January 2023 Submitted May 2025 Page 15 of 21 10. Aesthetics Find help answering aesthetics questions13 a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any : Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. 11. Light and glare Find help answering light and glare questions14 a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. b. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. 13 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-10-Aesthetics 14 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-11-Light-glare SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) 2024 Bremerton WWCP Update January 2023 Submitted May 2025 Page 16 of 21 12. Recreation Find help answering recreation questions a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Water bodies that provide recreational access include Kitsap Lake, Sinclair Inlet and the Port Washington Narrows. Gold Mountain Golf Course is located within the City limits, and there are numerous City Parks within the proposal area. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. 13. Historic and cultural preservation Find help answering historic and cultural preservation questions15 a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers? If so, specifically describe. b. Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. For SRF loan-funded projects, the City must go through the State Environmental Review Process (SERP) which compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. c. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. d. Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. For SRF loan-funded projects, the City must go through the State Environmental Review Process (SERP) which compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. 15 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-13-Historic-cultural-p SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) 2024 Bremerton WWCP Update January 2023 Submitted May 2025 Page 17 of 21 The City consults with tribes and the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historical Preservation for cultural resources review of loan-funded projects. The review will be done on a project-specific basis. e. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. 14. Transportation Find help with answering transportation questions16 a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The City is primarily served by SR 3, SR 304, SR 303, and the Washington State Ferry system. This will also be evaluated for specific projects. b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The sewer service area is served by Kitsap Transit and the Washington State Ferry system. c. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle, or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). For wastewater projects, the City will restore the streets to existing conditions or improve them. The addition of sidewalks and pedestrian and bicycle lanes would be determined at the time of design for specific projects. d. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. e. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. 16 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-14-Transportation SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) 2024 Bremerton WWCP Update January 2023 Submitted May 2025 Page 18 of 21 f. Will the proposal interfere with, affect, or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Not applicable for the 2024 WWCP and will be evaluated on a project-specific basis at the time of the project design. 15. Public services Find help answering public service questions17 a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. If new sewers, municipal pump stations, or treatment facilities are added or enlarged, additional public service from the City’s wastewater fund will be required to maintain new infrastructure. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. This would be determined at the time of the project design. 16. Utilities Find help answering utilities questions18 Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other: All of the utilities listed are located within the City’s sewer service area. a. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. The proposal outlines the wastewater improvements for the City's sewer system over a 20 year planning horizon. Improvements include collection system expansion, trunk sewer conveyance improvements, and treatment facility upgrades. The proposed projects can be reviewed in the 2024 WWCP. 17 https://ecology.wa.gov/regulations-permits/sepa/environmental-review/sepa-guidance/sepa-checklist- guidance/sepa-checklist-section-b-environmental-elements/environmental-elements-15-public-services 18 https://ecology.wa.gov/regulations-permits/sepa/environmental-review/sepa-guidance/sepa-checklist- guidance/sepa-checklist-section-b-environmental-elements/environmental-elements-16-utilities SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) 2024 Bremerton WWCP Update January 2023 Submitted May 2025 Page 19 of 21 C. Signature Find help about who should sign19 The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. X Type name of signee: William Davis, P.E. Position and agency/organization: Managing Engineer, City of Bremerton Date submitted: X/XX/XXXX D. Supplemental sheet for nonproject actions Find help for the nonproject actions worksheet20 Do not use this section for project actions. Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The 2024 WWCP anticipates the expansion of the sewer system due to development and population growth. This expansion will result in increased wastewater in the collection system and conveyed to the WWTP, which in turn will result in increased treated effluent 19 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance/SEPA-Checklist-Section-C-Signature 20 https://ecology.wa.gov/regulations-permits/sepa/environmental-review/sepa-guidance/sepa-checklist- guidance/sepa-checklist-section-d-non-project-actions SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) 2024 Bremerton WWCP Update January 2023 Submitted May 2025 Page 20 of 21 discharged to receiving waters. The plan should not result in increased release of toxic substances or an increased production of noise. • Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: The 2024 WWCP identifies programmatic changes and capital improvements that are necessary to accommodate the expansion of the sewer system and ensures that the utility is in compliance with state and federal requirements. Individual projects that require noise-generating equipment, such as generators, will be considered on a case-by-case basis. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The City’s NPDES permit allows one annual CSO overflow event for each CSO outfall based on a 20-year rolling average (paragraph S.9.D.b of the permit). When overflows occur, there is a resultant short-term impact on the water quality of the receiving waters. This can also have a short-term negative impact on shellfish harvests in the local area. This plan has a positive benefit associated with the City's silviculture program. Bio-solids from the WWTP are land applied in the watershed to promote timber growth prior to harvest. • Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: There are ongoing capacity upgrades and inflow and infiltration (I&I) reduction projects which will either allow for additional flow to be conveyed to the WWTP for treatment or remove storm water inflow from the system which will assist in reducing CSO overflow events. Additionally, the City continues to eliminate active sewers in the marine environment by replacing them with upland sewer systems. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposal should not deplete energy or natural resources. Energy used is typically from electrical sources (Puget Sound Energy, PSE) or diesel fuel related to pumping equipment and treatment processes. • Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: The City has a long history of upgrading and replacing older and less efficient equipment and processes to save energy. Some examples include pump upgrades, blower replacement and air compressor replacement. The City has historically received a number of PSE grants associated with these upgrades and will continue to apply for these grants in the future. Continued equipment upgrades should result in a reduction of energy use over time. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection, such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands ? Treated effluent from the WWTP and Eastside Treatment Plant (ETP) will discharge to Sinclair Inlet and the Port Washington Narrows. Untreated CSO overflows will also be SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) 2024 Bremerton WWCP Update January 2023 Submitted May 2025 Page 21 of 21 discharged during extreme storm events to these same waters, which is permitted by the City’s NPDES permit. • Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Effluent from the WWTP and ETP will be treated prior to discharging to the surface waters in accordance with state and federal requirements and the most current NPDES discharge permit. CSO events should be reduced in the future as a result of system capacity upgrades and I&I reduction. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans ? The City’s NPDES permit allows one annual CSO overflow event for each CSO outfall based on a 20-year rolling average (paragraph S.9.D.b of the permit). When overflows occur, there is a resultant short-term impact on the water quality of the receiving waters. This can also have a short-term impact on shellfish harvests and swimming in the local area. Over the last 10 years the City has constructed several projects which have eliminated sewers in the marine environment by installing upland sewer systems and has projects programmed to remove additional beach sewers over the next 5 to 10 years • Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: The City continues to incrementally increase system capacity and reduce I&I to allow more combined sewage flows to be treated at the WWTP or ETP , as well as reduce the number of active sewers in the marine environment. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposal should not increase demands on transportation or other public services or utilities other that the wastewater utility itself. • Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: The 2024 WWCP includes added staffing requirements and additional equipment that will reduce the impacts of increased service demands. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposal will not conflict with local, state, or federal laws. The 2024 WWCP was prepared in accordance with WAC 173-240-020. The 2024 WWCP must be reviewed and approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology prior to its adoption. Specific projects will require their own regulatory and environmental reviews. DRAFT City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update J-1 Appendix J: Public Comments and Response on Draft 2024 WWCP Update The City of Bremerton included a public comment period for the 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update. The public comment period was from February 27, 2025 to March 29, 2025. Only one individual submitted comments, which was through an email to City staff. The following table lists the comments that were included in the email and provides a response to each comment. DRAFT City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update J-2 Comment # From and Date Comment Response 1 Kathie Lustig, Email dated March 30, 2025 The plan fails to include the Illahee and Enetai watersheds (WRIA 15). These include significant wetlands, and Illahee & Enetai creeks that share the same headwaters, both of which empty to Port Orchard Washington Narrows. These are important to the ecosystem in East Bremerton. They both are designated as fish bearing, in part by WDFW. Note: the Illahee Forest Preserve is in the process of acquiring the south branch of Illahee Creek, a series of beaver ponds and wetlands that lead south and merge with Enetai Creek just north of Sylvan way. In Section 3.2.5, there is a discussion of marine waterbodies in WRIA 15, including Sinclair Inlet, Dyes Inlet, and Port Washington Narrows, which receive treated effluent from the City’s two treatment plants. Enetai Creek and Illahee Creek are not discussed since they do not flow into these waterbodies. Sewer basin plans showing system improvements in each basin were developed for the 2014 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan (WWCP) Update. These plans were included in the 2024 Update (Appendix B) unchanged since many of the projects still apply and there is helpful information in the plans. The project descriptions and layouts included in the basin plans show conceptually how sewer could be provided in these areas. Pumping rates and force main sizes were estimated based on projected growth data. Elevations were based on topographic maps. Routing the force main was typically shown along a straight alignment. Environmental review and critical areas evaluation would be completed concurrently with any future development proposal. Any future sewer infrastructure approved for construction must comply with Bremerton design standards. Environmental review of critical areas and geotechnical evaluation would be done through Kitsap County and state agencies. DRAFT City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update J-3 2 Kathie Lustig, Email dated March 30, 2025 Comment on the Trenton Ave Basin Plan in Appendix B: NS-5C and NS-5B: New lines w/ new pump stations both appear to cross critical areas of Enetai Creek in what is the most pristine sections of the creek and important wildlife corridors. These areas are mapped as high geologically hazardous areas with steep slopes with continual land slides / sloughing. See response to Comment #1. 3 Kathie Lustig, Email dated March 30, 2025 Comment on the Trenton Ave Basin Plan in Appendix B: NS-5G is confusingly mapped in segments and unclear. A portion of that appears to be in yet another section of Enetai Creek with high geologically hazardous areas. See response to Comment #1. 4 Kathie Lustig, Email dated March 30, 2025 Comment on the Trenton Ave Basin Plan in Appendix B: NS-5E is described but not mapped. It appears by its descriptions to go from 30th straight down Enetai Creek adjacent to yet another most critical area of the creek to the mouth and known wildlife corridors. Why is it not shown on the map? It should be added. See response to Comment #1. 5 Kathie Lustig, Email dated March 30, 2025 Comment on the Trenton Ave Basin Plan in Appendix B: The wastewater plan fails to outline that WDFW has designated parts of Enetai as a wildlife patch and priority species area (see Illahee Community Plan) See response to Comment #1. DRAFT City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update J-4 6 Kathie Lustig, Email dated March 30, 2025 At the City Council meeting a couple weeks ago it was clarified that the capital fund sewer budget did not include providing sewer to Enetai. Further, within the plan, it is stated the only time sewer would be provided, was if a developer paid for it. In the 2024 WWCP Update, there is no capital money allocated in the 20-year CIP for sewering the UGA within the Trenton Avenue Basin. For this reason, it is anticipated that providing sewer would be privately funded. 7 Kathie Lustig, Email dated March 30, 2025 Enetai has been in the UGA for 27 years (since 1998 Comp plan). It was brought into UGA with GMA requirement to provide services within 20 years. We have exceeded that. Now, the City has no plans in the capitol budget to provide sewer to Enetai for next 20 years. For these reasons, why does Enatai continue to be in the UGA? The decision to keep this area in Bremerton’s UGA is made by Kitsap County. Also see response to Comment #6. 8 Kathie Lustig, Email dated March 30, 2025 The City has already acknowledged it is infeasible to provide sewer to Enetai due to steep slopes and significant critical areas and it is cost prohibitive. Enetai should not be in the UGA because of all its critical areas. See responses to Comment #6 and #7. 9 Kathie Lustig, Email dated March 30, 2025 The subbasin plan shows sewer lines running in significant critical areas and most importantly Enetai Creek which is infeasible and inappropriate unless you plan to destroy the creek. To issue a blanket Determination of Non- significance (SEPA) that claims to cover Enetai Creek, high geological hazard areas, earthquake zone and old growth forest (Tree canopy) is far from accurate. These things need to be addressed. The WWCP, which is required per WAC 173- 240-050, is a planning document for the City’s entire wastewater system and describes how we intend to provide reliable wastewater service over the next 20 years. No site-specific environmental information is included in the WWCP. The SEPA determination for the WWCP is for a non-project action proposal. The SEPA checklist will be reviewed by the City of Bremerton Department of Community Development (DCD), anticipated to be submitted to DCD in May 2025. DRAFT City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update J-5 Site-specific projects, depending on the location, type, and size of the project, could require SEPA review. When required, the review is typically done during the design stage and must be completed prior to construction. The projects that were referenced (NS-5B, NS- 5C, NS-5E, and NS-5G) have components that are both within and outside of City limits, though it appears that most of the work is outside of City limits, so we anticipate that Kitsap County would be the lead SEPA reviewer for those projects. This would be determined during design. City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update K-1 Appendix K: Spill Response Plan City of Bremerton, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update L-1 Appendix L: Sea Level Rise Policy