Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09-14-18 Agenda Packet
THE FULL PACKET IS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE www.mwmcpartners.org MWMC MEETING AGENDA Friday, September 14, 2018 @ 7:30 a.m. City of Springfield City Hall, Library Meeting Room 225 Fifth St., Springfield, OR 97477 Turn off cell phones before the meeting begins. 7:30 – 7:35 I. ROLL CALL 7:35 – 7:40 II. CONSENT CALENDAR a. MWMC 7/13/18 Minutes Action Requested: By motion, approve the Consent Calendar 7:40 – 7:45 III. PUBLIC COMMENT Request to speak slips are available at the sign-in desk. Please present request slips to the MWMC Secretary before the meeting starts. 7:45 – 8:00 IV. FY 2018-19 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meg Allocco Action Requested: By motion, approve Resolution 18-12 8:00 – 8:25 V. MWMC RESILIENCY PLANNING PROJECT UPDATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Josh Newman Action Requested: Information only 8:25 – 8:50 VI. MWMC FY 2019-20 ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John Huberd Action Requested: Information only 8:50 – 9:15 VII. RECYCLED WATER DEMONSTRATION USE PROJECT UPDATE . . . . . . . . . . . . Todd Miller Action Requested: Information only 9:15 – 9:25 VIII. BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION, GENERAL MANAGER, & WASTEWATER DIRECTOR 9:25 IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing-impaired, an interpreter can be provided with 48-hours-notice prior to the meeting. To arrange for service, call 541-726-3694. All proceedings before the MWMC are recorded. MWMC MEETING MINUTES Friday, July 13, 2018 at 7:30 a.m. City of Springfield City Hall, Library Meeting Room 225 Fifth St., Springfield, OR 97477 President Ruffier opened the meeting at 7:30 a.m. Roll call was taken by Kevin Kraaz. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Bill Inge, Walt Meyer, Joe Pishioneri, Peter Ruffier, and Jennifer Yeh Absent: Pat Farr, Doug Keeler Staff Present: Meg Allocco, Todd Anderson, Katherine Bishop, Dave Breitenstein, Randy Gray, John Huberd, Laura Keir, Tonja Kling, Kevin Kraaz, Shawn Krueger, Troy McAllister, Brian Millington (attorney), Michelle Miranda, Josh Newman, Loralyn Spiro, Matt Stouder, Greg Watkins, and Dawn Williams. Guest: Luke Werner, Kennedy/Jenks CONSENT CALENDAR a. MWMC 6/8/18 Minutes MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER INGE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5/0. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. RNG CONSULTANT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT Josh Newman, Managing Civil Engineer, requested adoption of Resolution 18-11, authorizing the MWMC Executive Officer to execute a contract amendment with Kennedy/Jenks Consultants for the addition of design services and services during construction in support of the MWMC’s Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) Upgrades Project P80095. Snapshot Update: The project goals are to maximize biogas utilization, maximize revenue potential, and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The project objectives are quality project management, low operations and maintenance (O&M) requirements, and high level of safety. Currently, Kennedy/Jenks is completing the conceptual design. A draft submittal for the conceptual design documents is expected later this month. A comment review meeting is set-up for August 2, 2018. Critical discussion currently is MWMC Meeting Minutes July 13, 2018 Page 2 of 11 on the following items: 1) receipt point location (the point of injection into NW Natural’s pipeline); 2) contract framework/agreements; 3) pre-purchase of equipment; and 4) permitting. The MWMC will have two agreements, the interconnection agreement with NW Natural and with Trillium, the off-taker. The project cost estimation, $7.5 million, based on best information available at the time, was adopted in MWMC’s FY 2018-19 budget. Since then, Kennedy/Jenks has gone out and done technology assessments and site tours, and has revised the vendor quotes. The revised project cost is $8.8 million and was the amount that was used when staff came to the Commission in May with the scenario evaluation; it just needs to be adjusted in the budget through Supplemental Budget #1 in the fall. The Consultant Agreement was based on a two-phased process. In the first phase, predesign, the focus was on generating information for Commission consideration and for cost estimation. Then staff came to the Commission for a go/no go decision with the idea, if we were to proceed we would come back and amend the contract with the consultant. Phase 2 detailed design includes the following tasks: project management, contract negotiations assistance, equipment procurement bid support, construction bid document preparation, bid support services, construction support services, and startup and testing services. The amendment is for $1,076,000 making the total consultant contract agreement $1,516,000. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Inge stated that there are very specific criteria in the Scope of Work such as the number of meetings. He thinks being that specific could be problematic. Mr. Newman replied that if we are vague on our assumptions, the consultant will be compelled to try to draft it out in hours to base their amounts on. So staff did try to base it on what they think will happen. Commissioner Inge asked if being specific will be a problem. Mr. Newman replied no, but he can’t guarantee there won’t be some additional work and that is why there is a 15% for amended contract authority. Commissioner Pishioneri suggested that a contract addition to alleviate concern would be to preface it with something like, “unless agreed upon by all parties, it shall not be less than”. Mr. Newman stated this is how we do design agreements. The reason we get into that amount of specificity is because of things like percent of completion; what is a 60% design package. It is to make sure we get the product that we want. Commissioner Meyer asked if the amendment’s budget includes the amount that would allow authorization of the optional services. Mr. Newman replied that it does. Mr. Stouder pointed out that staff was very deliberate in the way they set up the amendments in that the Commission authorized Phase 1 to scope the project and determine whether to move forward or not. Then in May, the Commission made the decision to move forward. The duration of the work will be much larger and that is why the amendment is so much and why the resolution has the language of 15% of the amended contract. President Ruffier asked if Mr. Newman was still confident that Kennedy/ Jenks could affectively fulfill the responsibilities for contract negotiations, given their staffing changes. Mr. Newman replied yes. The expertise that Blue Source has is really for the market, the contracting, and doing the EPA and Energy contracts. We are past the part of the economic assessment. Also, Mr. Zelenka has worked into his MWMC Meeting Minutes July 13, 2018 Page 3 of 11 contract with the state that he would be able to work on projects that he was in the process of completing. President Ruffier asked, in the worst case where the market collapses and we can no longer wheel our gas to someone else, will the infrastructure that is in place allow us to use it for our own fleet needs. Mr. Newman answered we would need to build additional fueling facilities. The connection with the pipeline means that we would still be able to wheel it. The risk that you might be referring to would be one where we were no longer allowed to put gas into the pipe line. In this case, we are dependent upon NW Natural. President Ruffier said if that happened it would require some additional capital investment to be able to use the gas on our own fleet. Mr. Newman said the other option would be to use it in our engine and boiler. It would be a higher BTU gas than what we have. He thinks we would get benefit in terms of operation and maintenance on equipment. We would have to find a fleet that could use the gas that had the capacity to use all the gas that the MWMC produces. Commissioner Inge asked in regards to the optional services, in an event that this happens is this separate from the $1.5 million or is it included. Mr. Newman answered it is included. RESOLUTION 18-11: IN THE MATTER OF CONTRACT AWARD OF ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES MWMC PROJECT P80095 – RENEWABLE NATURAL GAS (RNG) UPGRADES MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER MEYER WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PISHIONERI TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 18-11. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5/0. MWMC FINANCIAL PLAN ASSET MANAGEMENT #4 Meg Allocco, MWMC Accountant, stated this is the fourth discussion on updating the 2005 MWMC Financial Plan to update language in order to more accurately reflect the current practices and incorporate guidance from the Commission. In December 2017, the current reserve policies were discussed; in February 2018, the discussion was on the different reserves and the funding; and in June 2018, policy revisions were presented to the Commission on the reserves. Ms. Allocco reviewed the policy revisions on the Working Capital Reserve, Operating Reserve, Capital Reserve, Equipment Replacement Reserve, and Insurance Liability Reserve. Ms. Allocco showed a graph of how the re-allocating of reserve balances will look based on those changes discussed at last month’s meeting. The insurance reserve increased a little and the operating reserve decreased a little. The total balance did not change but it will increase when FY 2017-18 is closed out and the unspent dollars are rolled forward to the FY 2018-19 budget. That money can be put where ever the Commission wants to place it; it can go into the Capital Reserve rather than Operating Reserve. Ms. Allocco stated that the changes to reserve policies (discussed at last month’s meeting) were mostly in wording and to adjust the amounts to current practice and “best practices”. The Operating Reserve was adjusted down to be two months of operating budget. The SRF Reserves were adjusted by $2,338 to true up to final SRF loan agreements when all were finalized. The Insurance Reserve was increased to the $1.5 million per the Commission’s direction. This was almost entirely done by adjusting the Operating Reserve and with $89,661 from the Capital Reserve. The unspent dollars from FY 2017-18 Operating Expenses will roll forward to FY 2018-19 Operating Reserve, but can be transferred to the Capital Reserve after the $100,000 is deducted for Small Home SDC’s per the Commission’s approval. MWMC Meeting Minutes July 13, 2018 Page 4 of 11 Asset Management Policy Revisions: Ms. Allocco went over the proposed revisions for the Asset Management policies. (Underlined words are proposed changes.) Policy A2: Current: The Commission shall maintain a fully funded Equipment Replacement Reserve so equipment may be replaced or rehabilitated when needed without creating volatility in the operating budget. Proposed: The Commission shall maintain a fully funded Equipment Replacement Reserve so equipment may be replaced or rehabilitated when needed without creating rate volatility. Proposed removing the phrase “operating budget” and adding “rate” as the volatility that we are avoiding. Policy A3: Current: Equipment provided for by the Equipment Replacement Reserve shall include all rolling stock, all computer equipment and all other equipment with a historical cost between $10,000 and $200,000, a projected replacement cost between $10,000 and $200,000, and with a useful life expectancy of between one and up to 20 years. Proposed: Equipment provided for by the Equipment Replacement Reserve shall include all fleet equipment, and other equipment, with an original cost over $10,000, and with a useful life expectancy greater than 1 year. Proposed removing the phrase “rolling stock” and replace with all fleet equipment, remove computer equipment, remove the reference limiting cost to $200,000, and remove the reference limiting the useful life expectancy to 20 years. The reason is that we don’t want to leave out assets that may have a cost greater than $200,000 or a life expectancy greater than 25 years. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Meyer asked if, for example, you had a tank to recoat and it cost $100,000, could you fund that from the Equipment Replacement Reserve. Ms. Allocco replied no, the Equipment Replacement Reserve is for replacing equipment with a new one. She would classify that as major rehab. Mr. Breitenstein added that historically Major Rehabilitation has been for the purpose of extending the life of infrastructure not mechanical equipment. Commissioner Inge stated you could do mechanical equipment because according to the Major Rehab language it has to extend the useful life beyond the original estimate. He asked if the language should be changed to a specific number of years. Ms. Allocco said the way she looks at Major Rehab is we can put things in there that can be classified as big dollar repairs but we just don’t depreciate it unless it extends the useful life in a material way. Mr. Stouder stated he thinks the language should stay “beyond the original estimate” because if it is changed to a hard date, such as beyond 5 years, then we may be making a decision to replace something based simply on policy language when we could put a little bit of money toward it to extend its life two to three more years. A financial decision is made to decide if it makes sense to extend the life. Commissioner Inge replied he doesn’t want to lock staff into a tight rigid structure but based on the way it is written, it is pretty open ended. President Ruffier said the challenge is to be definitive about how much you will extend the useful life. It is pretty much a guess. MWMC Meeting Minutes July 13, 2018 Page 5 of 11 Ms. Allocco stated whether it extends the useful life only applies to whether we are going to depreciate it or not. We can use the Major Rehab to repair something; it is just a big dollar repair that is planned for out of the Capital budget instead of the Operating budget. If it also extends the life for a significant amount of time, we will depreciate it if it goes beyond a year. Commissioner Inge pointed out the language states “shall be capitalized”, not may be but shall be. Commissioner Yeh said that maybe some of these questions would depend upon the item you are working on. One year may be great for one item but terrible for another. She, personally, would rather let staff make those decisions than picking an arbitrary number that is hard to pick. She thinks the language is good as it is. Commissioner Inge said what about the “shall” versus “may” issue. When it says you shall do something, it means it is not optional. If it says you may do it, it means you have the ability to decide whether or not to do it. He asked Brian Millington, MWMC Legal Counsel, whether or not the Commission should be considering those types of verbiage issues in policy. Mr. Millington replied that the assessment of what the words mean is correct. It is a policy decision for the Commission to make whether you want to mandate or make it flexible in that respect. President Ruffier said to Commissioner Inge, maybe getting to your point would be some further clarification about Major Rehabilitation, because according to Mr. Breitenstein’s definition, Major Rehabilitation is related to infrastructure. That seems appropriate for Capital. If we want to build in flexibility to be able to use equipment replacement funds for Major Rehab, then he thinks Commissioner Inge is correct, we need to change the “shall” to “may”. Commissioner Pishioneri said you would have to define Major Rehab if you are going with “shall” and “may” and where the dollar break off point is. Are we going to get so finite that we are going to have staff each day trying to figure out if they are following policy for that item as opposed to giving them some leeway? (For example) This item we bought is $100,000 and it is going to cost us $5,000 to extend its life by 5 years as opposed to a $15M item that we can extend by a year for $5M. He thinks the Commission has to give staff the ability to make some common sense decisions. It is like Commissioner Yeh is saying, give the staff the ability to work within general parameters and we just have to define what those parameters are. Commissioner Pishioneri stated he doesn’t want to get so finite that it starts to become onerous just to follow policy. Commissioner Inge said he agreed with Commissioner Pishioneri. He doesn’t think the issue is us but rather some external entity at some point in time who doesn’t agree with what we are doing and goes to the interpretation of the policy. Then we get into the issue of “shall” versus “may”. So while we are reviewing the policies, it is a great time to do it. Commissioner Pishioneri said in that sense he agrees because “may” is less restrictive than “shall”. Mr. Stouder said staff could bring back a more definitive description of Major Rehabilitation and have a discussion of what it means. Commissioner Pishioneri said the MWMC’s policies need to be as defensible as possible. If Mr. Millington feels “may” is more defensible than “shall” or vice versa, then that is the input we need. MWMC Meeting Minutes July 13, 2018 Page 6 of 11 Mr. Millington said part of it is if “may” gives you the discretion to put it into a particular category or not but so does the term Major Rehabilitation. That is the issue. He thinks that where staff can have some discretion is to say this is maintenance or major rehabilitation. They can still work within that framework that says “shall” by looking at those close calls or gray areas and put it in the correct logical category. There is a little bit of discretion in that to get the right result. Commissioner Meyer said that in the 20 years of doing this, staff has been doing a great job of being appropriate. He is comfortable with it the way it is. Ms. Allocco said that when the budget is brought to the Commission, there is always a detailed list of what is in Equipment Replacement and what is in Major Rehab. That is an opportunity to move an item if the Commission thinks it doesn’t really belong there. She stated her understanding was to put the big dollar amounts in Capital as oppose to being buried in repairs in the Operating budget. It also keeps it from swinging the Operating budget from year to year because of one time rehabilitation projects. They are not really CIP so a separate category was made for them. Ms. Allocco stated Major Capital Outlay is funded out of Capital Reserve for either the initial purchase of major equipment that will then be placed on the equipment replacement list, or one time large capital purchases. These are things not in the CIP, not saved for previously in Equipment Replacement because we have not had it in the past, and does not fall into the Major Rehab category. For smaller items there is Capital Outlay in the Operating budget. For example when a new vehicle is purchased, it is paid for out of Capital Outlay and then placed on the Equipment Replacement schedule. Major Capital Outlay is for big ticket items such as the Cogen. President Ruffier requested when this topic is brought back he would like to go over the appropriate level for reserves; he still feels we are over reserved. He would like to have a discussion about the appropriate use of those funds and whether to consolidate some of the reserves. Mr. Stouder replied staff can incorporate that into the upcoming conversation. Commissioner Inge said he would rather be over reserved through the good times to take us through the bad times. He thinks there is certainly a prudent place to be. Commissioner Inge stated the policies were written a long time ago and it is a good time to look at them to see if they say what we want them to say in a way that is defensible. It is not about what happens with us because we are generally in agreement with the things we are doing. It will be the person on the outside that is challenging us at some point. That is where it will make a difference. Commissioner Pishioneri added when it comes to a policy audit, we go through our policies and identify specifically which ones are mandated policies to use the language of “shall” and “will”. If we find one that is supposed to be using “shall” and “will” and is not, then it should be brought to the Commission to decide what changes need to be made. If a third party challenges the MWMC because we are not following a “shall” or “will” policy then it makes it much more difficult for MWMC to be defended. He agrees with Commissioner Inge that a policy audit of some sort is needed, looking for our own self-compliance and making those adjustments. That practice will allow the MWMC to be defensible in a broader scope. MWMC Meeting Minutes July 13, 2018 Page 7 of 11 BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Randy Gray, Wastewater Residuals Supervisor, stated biosolids are primarily organic solids produced by the wastewater treatment process and can be beneficially reused. The MWMC’s biosolids product’s trademark name is Biocycle. History of the Biosolids Management Program: Back in the late 1970’s when the Commission started, they made a decision to recycle all the biosolids that were produced at the treatment plant. In the beginning, it was basically a liquid program running out of the treatment plant. The Commission purchased property about five and half miles northwest of the treatment plant to build the Biosolids Management Facility (BMF). The original property included 25 acres, with four facultative lagoons and 24 acres of drying beds. The process was to pump liquid solids from the lagoons into the drying beds, trying to dry them through the few dry summer months and to get enough biosolids out to the co-op farm fields that had signed up, and to keep up with plant production. The issues, at the time, were travel distance to the farm fields and timing of application. The distance to the fields was too far so staff went to work and found grass seed farmers to try our product. The farmers liked what they saw and it helped us because it worked with the timing of how they run their operations. So now the BMF has over 2800 acres of co-op farmland within ten miles of the BMF. President Ruffier asked what the rotation is for each site. Mr. Gray replied there are four different farmers that are rotated as needed. Staff makes a judgement of how much Biocycle will be produced each year and picks a couple of fields, 200-300 acres, and works with the farmers telling them what we can do. It is mostly timing and flexibility. President Ruffier asked if the farmers are okay with receiving the biosolids only occasionally. Mr. Gray replied the farmers would like more but are pretty good about it; they know what we are doing as he keeps them informed. The BMF went on-line in 1989. In March1993, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 503 regulations (Title 40 CFR, Part 503) for land applied biosolids came into effect. The Oregon Department for Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) rule (OAR 340-050) is the State’s rule for land application of domestic wastewater treatment facility biosolids and is more restrictive than the 503. It is MWMC’s goal to meet or exceed those regulations. The BMF, which was already built in1989, already met the 503 regulations. Mr. Gray showed a chart with the dry tons of biosolids per year from 1993 through 1999. During this time, the Biocycle was strictly going to the co-op farmers. In 1996 there was a flood and it caused a lot of issues on the BMF site including having to hold the biosolids over the winter which was a big problem. The flood sped up the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) process which determined that a dewatering building was needed. It was during this time that the BMF was not keeping up with production. The CAC decided that something needed to be done to increase BMF production and to make the biosolids program a little bit more diverse. The dewatering facility was built to speed up the drying process and the Biocycle Farm was started to give MWMC a dedicated land application site. The farm helped with the problem of timing with the farmers. At times we had really wet biosolids to haul to farmers late in the year when they were ready to be done. Having our own site and controlling the crop was very valuable. The dewatering building has three two-meter belts that help dry the solids. The biosolids come out of the lagoon at about 3% solids and drying it to about 14% solids prior to going to the drying beds. That makes a huge difference in how fast the process can go. The dewatered biosolids go from the dewatering building to the hoppers to the dump truck and the dump truck takes it to the drying beds MWMC Meeting Minutes July 13, 2018 Page 8 of 11 where it is further processed. It is turned and windrowed periodically for 6-10 weeks. The biosolids are applied when they are 60% to 85% solids. Commissioner Inge asked what rain does to the biosolids on the drying beds. Mr. Gray replied that it kind of rolls off and staff makes channels that lead to the drain that leads back to the lagoon. Staff keeps mixing the product until it dries. As the biosolids dry, they shrink up and then more wet solids are mixed in. This process is continued up to early August when the grass seed fields are ready for the product. The Biocycle is hauled to an application site and loaded into spreaders and applied. All application sites are approved by DEQ. Once the dewatering facility went on-line, the production started catching up. There is about 30% solids reduction in the facultative lagoons. If the plant is sending the BMF 5000 gallons and it is doing 2500 to 3000 gallons, it is keeping up with plant production. Staff is shooting for about a 70% production to keep up with the plant. Mr. Breitenstein added that the biosolids from the WPCF go into the lagoons and the lagoons store it from three to five years. So in a given season, we can process as much as we choose. President Ruffier stated the biosolids facility has not been expanded since it was originally built. He asked what the projections are for biosolids production and is the facility sufficient to meet projected needs for 20 years. Mr. Gray responded that the BMF is currently at about 75% capacity. His thought is that more solids could be dried because the dewatering building is currently running 8-10 hours a day and those hours could be extended. The facultative lagoons will probably be the first place to look at. They can hold more than design loading and have at times. Mr. Stouder added that it is something that staff has identified to look at, capacity wise, for the next 25 years. In the next facilities plan update, staff will take a look at that and see what the gross projections are, what the capacity is, and when another lagoon will be needed. Commissioner Meyer asked what the loading rate Mr. Gray used for capacity was. Mr. Gray replied 25 pounds of biosolids per 1000 square feet. Commissioner Inge asked if the Biocycle is given away or sold. Mr. Gray answered that it is given away. Commissioner Inge asked if there is a market for the Biocycle. Mr. Gray replied there probably is, he would say that maybe two of the farmers that we currently work with would purchase it. His reluctance to charging is that we may lose some of the property we currently use for application. Our product has all the nitrogen the farmers need but it doesn’t have as much potassium as they would normally get and it has more phosphorus than they would normally use. Mr. Stouder added that staff has looked at some preliminary numbers; it would not be a big money maker but you could say you are selling it which is a bonus. As we continue to evaluate the farm and look at whether or not to go Class A, it is something we would want to look at. President Ruffier asked if staff is tracking Biocycle’s performance. For example, a comparison study comparing fields that have had the biosolids application to those that have not. Mr. Gray answered the farmers like it; their fields do perform well and it does have more organic value than some of the chemical fertilizers they use. It is a good product. President Ruffier stated that is largely antidotal evidence, we are not monitoring it. Mr. Gray said that is correct. MWMC Meeting Minutes July 13, 2018 Page 9 of 11 Commissioner Meyer asked if anyone has done a back of the envelope calculation to see if Ostara would be viable for nutrient recovery on our return flows. Mr. Breitenstein replied that we have and it would not. The Biocycle farm property was purchased in 2000 and in 2004 the first trees were planted. Recycled water is used besides the biosolids on the trees governed by OAR 340-055 rules. We have 10 hose reels and can irrigate four tree rows at a time; it is a labor intensive system. We also have the ability to irrigate liquid biosolids. The liquid biosolids application uses the same irrigation system that the recycled water uses and the transition between the two is a lot of work so lately staff has applied just dry biosolids to the trees. The Beneficiary Reuse Site (BRS) was formerly the Seasonal Industrial Waste site for cannery waste. The BRS is approved for biosolids application and still has a 14-acre lagoon. It is available for any future uses that may come up for recycled water for the TMDL regulations. The MWMC also has water rights on that site and staff irrigates a little bit of well water during the summer to maintain those water rights. It is mostly an application site and the farming is contracted out. Mr. Gray gave kudos to the hard working staff that does a really good job at the BMF. He stated the Maintenance and Facilities staff helps out a lot as well as the lab; it is a total team effort to get the job done. Mr. Breitenstein added that the Commission adopted a policy many years ago to strive for exceptional quality biosolids. Our target is that our biosolids pollutant concentrations will be no more than half of what is allowed by EPA to meet the exceptional quality criteria. Since we meet the exceptional quality criteria there are no site life restrictions on the application sites. If the exceptional quality criteria were not met, then there would be a definite end life where we would not be able to apply biosolids to those lands. Commissioner Inge asked Mr. Gray to explain Class A versus Class B. Mr. Gray said that there are two different classes of biosolids that can be land applied through the 503 regulations. Class A biosolids is lower in pathogens than Class B. The MWMC meets Class B coming straight out of the digesters at the treatment plant. Every time we tested it, when the solids are at the 70 to 80% solids, it meets Class A. The problem is it takes three months to get the results back and so it doesn’t work into the timing of the application of product. Currently, there is no place to store the product over the winter. The City of Bend runs basically the same process that we do and because they can store it while they wait for the test result, they can apply it as Class A. Commissioner Inge asked what would be the advantage for us to have Class A rather than Class B since we give it away anyway. Mr. Gray replied that the advantage is that you probably could charge for that product (Class A) or give it away as long as you give away information on how to apply it, you can give it away to pretty much anyone. You are still responsible for the product and there is a cost involved too, building storage and having it tested. President Ruffier asked if it would be a benefit to the municipalities to use the Biocycle as a fertilizer in the parks – he realizes it would have to be Class A. Mr. Breitenstein replied, from a public relations perspective you would be able to inform a lot more people about what you are doing but it also invites people who may have a different opinion, to state whether it is appropriate or not. He thinks at those MWMC Meeting Minutes July 13, 2018 Page 10 of 11 facilities across the country where it really pays to have Class A are where they have a very urbanized environment. The MWMC is fortunate to have a lot of agricultural land close by. He believes most of the facilities across the country that have agricultural land have a Class B program. It doesn’t mean there is any more risk to the public because the farmers sign a management practice agreement which takes care of that, such as grazing restrictions, setbacks on the property line to make sure there is absolutely no runoff from the site, and public access restrictions. President Ruffier said he was thinking if we set aside a certain amount of Biocycle and prove it is Class A and then it could be used by the municipalities. Mr. Gray said it is possible, adding that it is a labor intensive process to compost it to Class A. President Ruffier asked if we are most cost effective right now in our program matrix. Mr. Stouder and Mr. Breitenstein both replied yes. President Ruffier said if we sold it (Class A) we might make a little bit of money or offset our monitoring costs but nothing major. Mr. Breitenstein said the ability to process it and apply it in bulk quantities would be the most cost effective for Class A. It is a labor intensive operation; the cost goes way up per ton of application. Mr. Gray added that staff is keeping an eye on it and it might be something in the future to do it. It wouldn’t take a lot to get there, might have to add a drying process. President Ruffier asked what the percentage of distribution between the Biocycle Farm and land applications is. Mr. Gray replied 28%. President Ruffier said that one of the original interests was diversifying sources in case we ran into a problem with reception of farmers to the product and we started to lose land application sites. How much more can be put on the Biocycle Farm? Mr. Gray replied that we can put more on it; but because it is a dedicated land application site, he thinks we should stay pretty conservative for the longevity of the Biocycle Farm. You may get more production from your trees if you put more biosolids out there and a little more water. It is a balancing act. BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION, GENERAL MANAGER, AND WASTEWATER DIRECTOR Commission President Ruffier asked for a copy of the response to Mr. Brown’s comments (that were made at the City of Eugene’s Council meeting regarding rates) sent the Commission. General Manager: Property Insurance – Third Year Rate Lock: The MWMC’s Insurance Agent of Record, Brown & Brown NW, was successful in negotiating a third year rate lock for property insurance with Starr Tech/ACE America, effective through fiscal year 2020-21 Clean Water University Update: It will be moving to the treatment plant and will be a two day event, September 26 & 27. Eight schools, four from Springfield and four from Eugene, will be participating. Approximately 720 students are expected to attend and there will be 11-12 activity booths. Staff will be soliciting volunteers over the summer from both cities’ Public Works departments, and any Commissioners that are interested. A communication packet memo will be provided in August. No MWMC meeting in August State Representative Nancy Nathanson will be at the BMF this morning at 9:00 a.m. She will be visiting the NW Youth Corp that is doing the Poplar planting. MWMC Meeting Minutes July 13, 2018 Page 11 of 11 Wastewater Director: Last weekend at 2 am the plant lost primary power from EWEB for seven hours but Operation & Maintenance staff were able to successfully store all the wastewater and did not exceed any permit limits. Staff is still doing following up, trying to identify the cause. o Commissioner Meyer asked if we don’t have power feed from two substations. Mr. Breitenstein stated that the plant has primary power from only the Santa Clara substation. We will have primary power from both substations (Santa Clara and Willakenzie) after the Medium Voltage project is completed. When we lose primary power, the secondary power kicks in but it only conveys wastewater through the processes. We lose power in the secondary treatment and the digester area. o Commissioner Meyer asked if the generator can run from secondary power. Mr. Watkins replied no. Environmental Management System (EMS) Audit: The EMS at the plant was recently audited by an external third party. There were no findings that required corrective action. Auditor did a record number of interviews and said staff’s knowledge of policy was excellent as well as the practices in place. He was amazed at the solar array and the design work and support of the RNG pipe line project, the continued pursuit for customers for recycled water, and the energy savings that we are continuing to accomplish. It was a really good audit. o President Ruffier asked if the underlining standard changed. Mr. Breitenstein replied there was a change this last audit. It was to give greater consideration to context of how our operations affect external parties and how external parties impact us. It is a broader view, not to focus just inside the plants fence line. EPA Laboratory Testing: The EPA recently sent MWMC’s laboratory several samples of water containing numerous “unknown” pollutant constituents for a QA/QC check. Our Lab staff scored 100% on the tests, they were able to find all pollutants contained in the samples. President Ruffier asked for a quick status on the capital projects, if they are all on track. Mr. Stouder said yes they are on track. He added the status is in the monthly report but he could send out a memo in the Communication Packet. Mr. Stouder stated that things are progressing well, the digester project is pretty much done, the buildings are coming along, and the other work is moving forward as well. ADJOURNMENT President Ruffier adjourned the meeting at 9:05 a.m. Submitted by: Kevin Kraaz ________________________________________________________________________ M E M O R A N D U M DATE: September 6, 2018 TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) FROM: Meg Allocco, MWMC Accountant SUBJECT: FY 2018-19 Supplemental Budget #1 ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Resolution 18-12 _________________________________________________________________________________ ISSUE The purpose of this memo is to request approval of Resolution 18-12 authorizing proposed supplemental budget requests for fiscal year (FY) 2018-19. This is the first of three supplemental budgets processed each year to adjust for corrections and new information. DISCUSSION FY 2018-19 wastewater rates and budget amounts were based upon estimates derived from FY 2017-18 estimated expenditures, inflationary factors, projected debt and other considerations identified during the FY 2018-19 budget development process. Actual amounts often differ from estimates used during the budget process, principally because the budget development process takes place mid-year. Consequently, estimates for the future year are based on approximately six months’ actual experience. As a result, certain adjustments are necessary at the beginning of a new fiscal year in order to reconcile actual prior year-ending balances with budgeted beginning balances for the subsequent year. Staff now has final capital project costs and ending cash amounts for FY 2017-18. Below are recommendations regarding the unspent amounts to be carried forward to the current fiscal year budget, as well as adjustments to beginning cash balances. Operating Fund: The Commission is requested to approve an increase to the Operating Reserve in the amount of $1,782,056 to adjust Beginning Cash. This transfer will align the FY 2018-19 Beginning Cash balance with the actual cash balance on June 30, 2018. Memo: FY 2018-19 Supplemental Budget #1 September 6, 2018 Page 2 of 3 The Commission is requested to approve the carryover of $46,700 in Eugene Wastewater Operations. This request includes expenses for disinfection and polymer process chemicals that were procured, but not yet received at the end of the fiscal year. The Commission is requested to approve the carryforward of $37,750 in computer software for the Constructware software. This contract covers mostly FY19, so the cost and budget should reside in this fiscal year. As requested by the Commission, staff is moving $35,000 of unspent insurance premium budget along with an additional $950,000 of operating reserves to increase the insurance reserve to $1.5 million. As a result of reducing the SRF debt, the SRF loan reserve required by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) also decreases. To reflect this, staff is requesting moving $235,305 of SRF loan reserves back to operating reserves. As directed by the Commission in resolution 18-09 on May 11, 2018, staff is putting forward a budget request of $100,000 to support payment of SDC fees for small homes imposed by MWMC, in a proportionate manner as the respective cities. Capital Funds: The Commission is requested to approve the transfer of $3,904,321 to the Capital and Equipment Replacement Reserves from Beginning Cash. This transfer will align the FY 2018-19 Beginning Cash balance with the actual cash balance on June 30, 2018. The Commission is requested to approve a carryover of $3,171,589 from FY 2017-18 Capital Projects funding, which will increase the FY 2018-19 capital budget. These carryover items include: The budget for Capital Outlay is being adjusted to carryforward $15,000 unspent in FY 2017-18 for the Engine Generator Replacement. Project Amount Increase Digestion Capacity 1,468,092$ Operations & Maintenance Building Improvements 1,024,165 Electrical Distribution System 304,482 Renewable Natural Gas Upgrades 211,666 Resiliency Planning 114,036 Thermal Load Pre-Implementation 77,542 Facilities Plan Engineering 46,582 Decommission WPCF Onsite Lagoon Program 11,312 Riparian Shade Credit (20,919) Poplar Harvesting (65,369) Net increase to capital projects 3,171,589$ Memo: FY 2018-19 Supplemental Budget #1 September 6, 2018 Page 3 of 3 The Commission is requested to approve the carryforward of $235,000 of equipment replacement budget not purchased by year-end. These items include a clarifier rake arm, a 1 ton utility truck for facilities maintenance, an influent pump and an autoclave. The Commission is requested to approve the carryforward of $288,300 for major rehabilitation projects not completed prior to year-end. These items include resurfacing air drying bed #13, fog sealing 12 air drying beds, O&M building signal cabling and BMF controls evaluation. The Commission is requested to approve the reduction of $5,000 of budgeted interest income, and the increase of a transfer of $35,067 from the bond capital fund to the capital fund. This spends no additional money, but transfers the budgeted activity from the bond capital fund to the capital fund in order to close the bond fund now that all bond proceeds have been spent. The Commission is requested to approve a transfer from Capital Reserves in the amount of $5,019,885 to debt principal in order to retire the two highest interest SRF loans as discussed in prior meetings. This is in addition to the annual principal payments currently budgeted for FY 2018-19. The early retirement of this debt will save the Commission approximately $1.2 million in interest expense over a 12-14 year term. Taken together, the individual actions requested above accomplish the following objectives: Modification of beginning FY 2018-19 balances to reflect actual FY 2017-18 operating results in compliance with State Budget Law. Carryover of funds into the current fiscal year associated with specific capital projects that were budgeted in FY 2017-18, but will actually be expended in FY 2018-19. Early retirement of two State Revolving Fund Loans, resulting in interest savings of approximately $1.2 million dollars over what would have been 12 and 14 years of remaining life on the loans. Establishment of reserves as appropriate to balance increases and decreases in the FY 2018-19 operating and capital budgets. ACTION REQUESTED Approve, by motion, Resolution 18-12 authorizing the budget actions requested in this memorandum. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 18-12 2. Attachment A – Summary of Changes ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution 18-12 Page 1 of 2 METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION 18-12 ) IN THE MATTER OF APPROVAL OF FISCAL ) YEAR 2018-19 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET #1 WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) approved the FY 2018-19 Budget on April 13, 2018 pursuant to Resolution 18-05; WHEREAS, sewer rates and budget amounts for the FY 2018-19 Budget were based upon certain estimates; WHEREAS, additional information from actual experience regarding the FY 2017-18 Budget is now available and actual prior fiscal year ending balances can be reconciled with the beginning budgeted balances for the FY 2018-19 Budget; WHEREAS, the transfer of $1,782,056 from Beginning Cash to the Operating Reserve will align the FY 2018-19 Budget for Beginning Cash with the actual cash balance as of June 30, 2018; WHEREAS, the carryover of $46,700 in Eugene Wastewater Operations from unexpended FY 2017-18 operations funding is appropriate because expenses for disinfection and polymer process chemicals that were procured, but will not be incurred until FY 2018-19; WHEREAS, the carryover of $37,750 in Springfield Operations from unexpended FY 2017- 18 operations funding is appropriate because expenses for Constructware computer software pertain to FY 2018-19; WHEREAS, a transfer of $100,000 to Springfield Operations from Operating Reserve is appropriate to fund small home SDC costs as directed by the Commission; WHEREAS, a transfer from the operating reserve of $985,000 to the insurance reserve is appropriate to adequately fund the insurance reserve as directed by the Commission; WHEREAS, a transfer from the SRF Loan Reserve of $235,305 back to the operating reserve is appropriate to adjust the SRF Loan Reserve to the new required balance after early retirement of 2 of the loans; WHEREAS, the transfer of $3,904,321 from Beginning Cash to the Capital and Equipment replacement reserves will align the FY 2018-19 Budget for Beginning Cash with the actual cash balance as of June 30, 2018; WHEREAS, the carryover of $3,171,589 from FY 2017-18 Capital Project funding is appropriate because capital projects are fully budgeted in the year the contracts are awarded even though capital projects often span more than the fiscal year in which the contract is awarded and certain projects are ongoing; WHEREAS, the carryover of capital outlay ($15,000), major rehabilitation ($288,300), and equipment replacement ($235,000) funding is appropriate because items that were budgeted will not be incurred until FY 2018-19; ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution 18-12 Page 2 of 2 WHEREAS, an increase of $35,067 for a transfer to the capital fund and a decrease of $5,000 in interest income budgeted in the bond capital fund will close the separate bond capital fund now that the bond proceeds have been fully expended; WHEREAS, a transfer of $5,019,885 from capital reserves to SRF loan principal is deemed appropriate in the FY 2018-19 budget in order to retire two outstanding loans with the higher interest rate saving the Commission future interest expense; WHEREAS, MWMC has appointed a duly authorized Executive Officer for efficient execution of the day-to-day administration of MWMC business. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION THAT: The FY 2018-19 Supplemental Budget #1 as presented to the MWMC on September 14, 2018, is hereby approved. ADOPTED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION OF THE SPRINGFIELD/EUGENE METROPOLITAN AREA ON THE 14th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018. __________________________________________________ PRESIDENT: Peter Ruffier ATTEST: _______________________________________ Secretary: Kevin Kraaz Approved as to form: ________________________________ MWMC Legal Counsel: K.C. Huffman/ Brian Millington FY 2018-19 MWMC - Supplemental Budget #1 Summary Beginning Cash adjustment:5,686,377 Capital 3,904,321 Operating 1,782,056 Capital Carry forwards from FY18 (3,709,889) Operating carryforwards from FY18 (84,450) New Money Requests:(5,119,885) Tiny home SDC subsidy 100,000 SRF Loan R64842 2,040,015 SRF Loan R64843 2,979,870 Remove interest income budget in 412 (5,000) Net increase to FY18 Reserves:($3,232,847) Capital reserve decrease (4,830,453) Operating reserve increase 947,911 Insurance reserve increase 985,000 SRF Loan Reserve decrease (235,305) (3,132,847) ATTACHMENT 2 ______________________________________________________________________________ M E M O R A N D U M DATE: September 6, 2018 TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) FROM: Josh Newman, Managing Civil Engineer SUBJECT: MWMC Resiliency Plan Project Update ACTION REQUESTED: Information only, no action requested ISSUE The MWMC is implementing a Resiliency Plan project to develop a Disaster Recovery and Mitigation Plan (DRMP) for the MWMC’s critical infrastructure. At the September 2018 Commission meeting, staff and consultant Carollo Engineers will provide a project status update and description of the next steps moving forward. BACKGROUND In Oregon, the recurrence of a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake event has become an area of heightened concern in recent years. Other significant natural hazards, such as flooding, are also areas of concern for local communities and utility providers. To better understand the risks to the MWMC’s critical infrastructure by these potential disasters, the Commission directed staff to implement a Resiliency Planning project by retaining a qualified engineering consultant for needed technical assistance. Accordingly, on January 26, 2018 staff issued an RFP for Resiliency Planning Consultant Services and subsequently selected Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Carollo) based on results of a proposal review process. On March 9, 2018, the Commission authorized staff to execute a consultant services agreement with Carollo. Carollo, along with their sub-consultants, brings a wealth of knowledge and work experience on resiliency planning projects for municipal infrastructure to the MWMC’s project. Additionally, local and regional planning efforts will be used to inform the MWMC’s plan. These include: The Oregon Resilience Plan (2013) The Eugene/Springfield Natural Disaster Mitigation Plan (2014) The Eugene Water & Electric Board Resiliency Plan (2015) Memo: MWMC Resiliency Plan Project Update September 6, 2018 Page 2 of 3 DISCUSSION The MWMC’s resiliency planning project commenced in June of 2018 and is anticipated to take a little over one year to complete. Major tasks and workshops associated with the project are listed in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 – Summary of MWMC’s resiliency plan project major tasks Task Description Start Date End Date Facilities Seismic Vulnerability Assessment 2-Aug-18 8-Apr-19 Critical Interdependencies Assessment 2-Aug-18 1-Feb-19 Flooding Scenario Assessment 2-Aug-18 4-Jan-19 Climate Change Sensitivity Assessment 2-Aug-18 7-Sep-18 MWMC Disaster Mitigation Plan Development 2-Aug-18 29-Aug-19 Table 2 – Summary of MWMC’s resiliency plan workshops and technical meetings Meeting No. Workshop/meeting title Date 1 Project Kick Off 19-Jul-18 2 Disaster Scenarios/Performance Objectives 16-Aug-18 3 Preliminary Seismic Vulnerabilities and Critical Dependencies 9-Oct-18 4 Seismic Vulnerability Review 28-Feb-19 5 Critical Interdependencies and Flooding Assessment Review 9-Apr-19 6 Implementation Strategy 6-Jun-19 7 Disaster Mitigation and Response Plan Review 18-Jul-19 The first two workshops (Meetings 1 and 2 shown in Table 2) have been completed. Attendees at these workshops included managers and lead Regional Wastewater Program staff from Eugene and Springfield. In addition, each city’s Emergency Manager attended both workshops, provided feedback, and will be invited to all remaining workshops. At workshop No. 2, attendees provided input into the selection of Level of Service (LOS) goals following a disaster. The LOS goals define how much time should be allowed for various levels of critical service to be restored to a functional condition. Examples of LOS goals are as follows: LOS goal 1 – Raw sewage contained and routed away from the public : o 20 - 30% within 24-hours following the event o 50 – 60% within one week following the event o 80 – 90% within one month following event LOS goal 3 – Water Pollution Control Facility operational to meet regulatory requirements: o 20 - 30% within one to two weeks following the event o 50 – 60% within three to six months following the event o 80 – 90% within six months to one year following event After discussion during meeting No. 2, the group decided that aligning preliminary LOS goals for the MWMC with those that were developed for the wastewater sector in the Willamette Valley under the Oregon Resilience Plan was the proper course of action. The LOS goals function to establish the performance objectives and the evaluation criteria for the MWMC’s pipelines, pump stations, and facilities. Following the infrastructure evaluations, a gap analysis Memo: MWMC Resiliency Plan Project Update September 6, 2018 Page 3 of 3 will prioritize, in order of criticality, the MWMC’s infrastructure components and facilities. Ultimately the outcome of the gap analysis will be to clarify what must be achieved over the planning period to shorten the recovery time for MWMC facilities and meet the LOS goals. This gap between what exists today and what needs to be in place to increase resiliency consistent with established LOS goals is illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1 – Illustration of the relationship between level of resiliency and recovery time to reach normal conditions following a disaster. The red recovery triangle represents current conditions, with minimal measures in place to increase resiliency. The green recovery triangle represents where we want to be after our resiliency plan is fully implemented, in order to meet the recovery times defined by LOS goals. Climate change impacts will also be explored and incorporated into the analysis. Upon completion of the project, the final consultant deliverable will be a comprehensive Disaster Recovery and Mitigation Plan (DRMP) that will describe the recommended projects and mitigation strategies identified in the series of technical memoranda produced under each task. The DRMP will include capital improvement projects and will provide cost estimates for each project and strategy. These will be prioritized based on cost-benefit considerations for strategic execution over a 50-year planning horizon. At the September Commission meeting, the consultant and staff will provide an overview of the project, including the current project status, LOS goals and approach, and next steps. ACTION REQUESTED No action is requested. Staff welcomes Commission input and discussion. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ M E M O R A N D U M DATE: September 6, 2018 TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) FROM: John Huberd, Finance & Administration Manager, City of Eugene Wastewater SUBJECT: MWMC FY 2019-20 Asset Management Plan ACTION REQUESTED: Informational Only ___________________________________________________________________________ ISSUE At the April 2018 MWMC meeting, an overview of the asset management program and a preview of the FY 2019-20 Asset Management Plan was presented. The initial FY 2019-20 Asset Management Plan has now been completed and an update will be presented at the September 14, 2018 MWMC meeting. BACKGROUND MWMC services are supported by a network of assets with a historic purchase value over $260 million and an estimated current replacement value of over $450 million. Management of MWMC assets is vital for achieving effective fiscal management, maximizing the reliability and useful life of assets and infrastructure, and ensuring long-term sustainability. In 2016, a Strategic Asset Management Gap (SAM Gap) analysis was conducted by staff on the MWMC asset management program. Staff identified the current state of asset management practices, gaps in those practices, and selected initial objectives for improvements in asset management. These objectives included developing improved methodologies for determining total lifecycle costs, asset replacement costs and useful life estimates. Other initial objectives identified included developing greater staff coordination and competencies in sustainable asset management and improved reporting on asset condition. Staff researched the best ways for how to make improvements to asset management. The 2015 International Infrastructure Management Manual (IIMM) developed by the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia (IPWEA) encourages the use of an annual Asset Management Plan and staff has followed this guidance. The MWMC FY 2019-20 Asset Management Plan is the first annual Memo: MWMC FY 2019-20 Asset Management Plan September 6, 2018 Page 2 of 2 advanced asset management plan to be developed. Future annual asset management plans will be updated each summer and the resulting financial information will be used to inform the annual budget process. DISCUSSION Typical of initial advanced asset management plans, the current asset register data is deemed not yet sufficiently reliable to warrant relying mainly on that data for budget and planning purposes. Due to the uncertainty of asset data, staff will continue to use a network approach to manage assets and inform the FY 2019-20 budget process. The network approach utilizes the knowledge and experience of staff in determining replacement schedules, cost estimates, and other factors in asset management. As the asset management model matures and data confidence is improved, more emphasis will be given to data-driven asset management. To date, MWMC asset management practices have been sustainable, and have followed a clear practice to avoid deferred maintenance and not carry a backlog of maintenance issues. Below is a list of asset management work items that have been completed or are underway since the last presentation was given to the Commission in April 2018. Initial AM Plan has been developed Maximo asset management software training was taken in July by 35 staff Asset data standard has been developed Asset condition reporting tools and software are being selected and implemented Asset registry data improvement is underway Maximo asset cost roll-up features are being deployed Tools to import asset data into Maximo have been tested and moved into production. Moving to an advanced asset management model is being done in a phased approach and the work to improve the current asset data will continue over the next several years. An improvement plan for the upcoming year is included as part of the asset management plan. Priority items in the improvement plan include increasing asset condition reporting, and developing more accurate estimates for asset life and asset replacement costs. More information on current work and future improvement items will be included in the September MWMC meeting presentation. ACTION REQUESTED Informational Only ATTACHMENT FY 2019-20 MWMC Asset Management Plan Asset Management Plan FY 2019-20 Scenario 2 Version 2 September 5, 2018 Document Control Asset Management Plan Document ID : NAMS Plus Concise Asset Management Plan Template Rev No Date Revision Details Author Reviewer Approver S1V10 8/20/2018 Edit sections and charts JH S2V1 8/23/2018 Updated the cover page and graphs to S2V1 JM S2V2 8/27/2018 Updated the cover page and graphs to S2V2 JM S2V2 8/30/2018 Management Review Core Team S2V2 9/5/2018 Final revisions JH, JM © Copyright 2017 – All rights reserved. The Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia. www.ipwea.org/namsplus TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 The Purpose of the Plan ................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Asset Description ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Levels of Service............................................................................................................................. 1 1.4 Future Demand .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.5 Lifecycle Management Plan .......................................................................................................... 1 1.6 Financial Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.7 Asset Management System ........................................................................................................... 2 1.8 Monitoring and Improvement Program ........................................................................................ 2 2. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Background ................................................................................................................................. 3 2.1.1 MWMC Asset Management Structure ........................................................................................ 5 2.1.2 MWMC Advanced Asset Management Program Development ................................................ 5 2.2 Goals and Objectives of Asset Ownership .................................................................................. 6 2.3 Advanced Asset Management .................................................................................................... 7 3. LEVELS OF SERVICE ..................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Strategic and Corporate Goals.................................................................................................... 7 3.2 Legislative Requirements ........................................................................................................... 7 3.3 Customer Levels of Service ......................................................................................................... 9 3.4 Organizational Levels of Service .............................................................................................. 10 4. FUTURE DEMAND ...................................................................................................................... 11 4.1 Demand Drivers ........................................................................................................................ 11 4.2 Demand Management Plan ...................................................................................................... 12 4.3 Asset Programs to meet Demand ............................................................................................ 13 5. LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT PLAN .............................................................................................. 13 5.1 Physical Parameters .................................................................................................................. 13 5.2 Operations and Maintenance Plan ........................................................................................... 15 5.3 Renewal Plan – Equipment Replacement (ER) and Major Rehab (MR) ................................... 16 5.4 Acquisition/Upgrade Plan – Capital Improvement Program (CIP) ........................................... 18 6. RISK MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................. 20 7. FINANCIAL SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 20 7.1 Financial Projections, Forecast Reliability and Confidence ...................................................... 20 7.2 Funding Strategy....................................................................................................................... 23 7.3 Key Assumptions Made in Financial Forecasts ......................................................................... 24 8. PLAN IMPROVEMENT AND MONITORING ............................................................................... 24 8.1 Status of Asset Management Practices .................................................................................... 24 8.2 Improvement Plan..................................................................................................................... 25 8.3 Monitoring and Review Procedures .......................................................................................... 25 9. REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 26 10. APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................... 26 Appendix A – Projected Upgrade/ New 10-year Capital Works Program ......................................... 27 Appendix B – Budgeted Expenditures Accommodated in LTFP ...................................................... 28 This page is intentionally left blank MWMC Asset Management Plan FY 2019-20 1 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 The Purpose of the Plan Asset management planning is a comprehensive process to ensure that the delivery of services from infrastructure is provided in a financially sustainable manner. The Asset Management Plan (AM plan) covers the infrastructure assets that provide wastewater treatment services for the MWMC and includes t he cities of Eugene and Springfield region and serves a population of over 255,000. 1.2 Asset Description The regional MWMC assets include: Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) Regional Wastewater Pump Stations (4) Biosolids Management Facility (BMF) Beneficial Reuse Site (BRS) Regional Conveyance Pipe System These assets have a current replacement value of $459 million. 1.3 Levels of Service Our present funding levels are sufficient to continue to provide existing services at current levels in the medium term. These include: Operation and maintenance work to meet service levels set in annual budgets. Equipment and infrastructure replacements and renewals within the 10-year planning period. Approved CIP projects. 1.4 Future Demand The main demands for new services are primarily driven by the following: Regulatory Changes Population Growth Service Area Changes Inflow & Infiltration Commercial/Industrial Development These will be managed through a combination of managing existing assets, upgrading of existing assets, and providing new assets to meet demand. Demand management practices include non-asset solutions, ensuring against risks and managing failures. Demand management includes the following: Active involvement with the Oregon Association of Clean Water Agencies (ORACWA) on proposed regulatory changes. Participation in growth/service studies and providing input on costs and the effects of expanding the service area. Continual development of an I&I model and working with our regional partners in Eugene and Springfield who operate their respective collection systems. 1.5 Lifecycle Management Plan The outcome of asset lifecycle management is to provide an agreed upon service level while achieving the lowest total lifetime asset costs. The focus of this FY 2019-20 MWMC asset management plan is to put in place an advanced asset management system and work toward that outcome. Asset Information This initial AM plan is based mainly on existing information derived from staff sources. Going forward, the AM plan will transition to a more data oriented basis utilizing advanced asset management best practices. The current asset management data in the asset registry is limited and the current practice of utilizing staff knowledge and experience is recommended in building the FY 2019-20 MWMC budget. Even with limited data, staff felt it was important to complete this initial AM plan as a starting point for future AM plans. The asset registry data will be improved as further work is done on asset condition reporting, asset life, current replacement cost estimates, and CIP planning. The confidence level of data in the asset registry is determined to be Level C – uncertain. See Section 7.1 on data confidence and Section 8 on the AM improvement plan. 1.6 Financial Summary MWMC’s present funding levels are adequate to meet current operations, debt service, capital equipment replacement and rehabilitation, and CIP projects on a pay-as-you-go basis. The current funding level also allows sufficient contributions to reserves including the capital reserve. Managing the Risks Our present funding levels are sufficient to continue to manage risks in the medium term. MWMC Asset Management Plan FY 2019-20 2 The main risk consequences considered in developing the AM plan are as follows: Failing to meet new regulatory requirements. Inability to develop firm timelines for capital improvements due to EPA and Oregon DEQ legal actions and service reductions. Inability to reduce inflow and infiltration (I&I). Not being able to deliver wastewater services after a major earthquake. Inability to deliver wastewater services after a significant flood event. We will continue to manage these risks within the available funding by doing the following: Continuing to participate on legislative issues and maintaining adequate capital reserves to update process equipment when necessary to meet new requirements. Working with Eugene and Springfield public works staff to reduce I&I. Identifying critical assets, working with the local water utility on service delivery coordination, and developing a resiliency plan. Continuing earthquake and flood insurance coverage and continue mitigation planning. Continue the development and training of skilled asset management staff. 1.7 Asset Management System Our systems to manage assets include: Maximo Asset Management System Equipment Replacement Schedule Major Rehabilitation Schedule Capital Improvement Program Financial Asset Register MWMC 2004 Facilities Plan MWMC 2005 Financial Plan MWMC 2014 Partial Facilities Plan Update 1.8 Monitoring and Improvement Program The next steps resulting from this AM Plan to improve MWMC asset management practices are for staff to do the following: Implement asset condition, utilization, and functionality reporting. Improve methodology to determine asset remaining life. Improve methodology to determine asset current replacement costs. Develop ranking methodology and criteria for renewal/replacement asset expenditures. Develop ranking methodology and criteria for upgrade/new asset expenditures. Develop an asset disposal plan including revenue estimates. Complete a risk register and risk management plans. Identify new capital projects for revised permit requirements. Unknown future permit requirements impede more detailed planning. Update asset register data with asset renewal information including frequency, life, and costs. Update capital project deliverables to include asset register information. Uniformly apply asset ‘data standard’ to improve data accuracy and confidence. Continue investigating assets not captured in the Asset Registry and Maximo. Continue to provide staff training on asset management. MWMC Asset Management Plan FY 2019-20 3 2. INTRODUCTION This FY 2019-20 MWMC Asset Management Plan is the first advanced asset management plan developed by MWMC staff. The benefits of advanced asset management generally increase as an entity’s advanced asset management program matures. Early in this work, MWMC made a decision to go to an advanced asset management model utilizing in-house staff and not using a consultant. Development of the AM system by MWMC staff has already resulted in developing greater staff competency and understanding in managing MWMC assets. One trade-off in doing this without an outside consultant is the pace of the project is planned to take longer. However, asset management is an on-going work program, and MWMC’s current state of asset management and capital reserves are in good order and do not need a ‘quick fix’. With this being the first MWMC asset management plan developed, there are some areas of the plan that need further work that will be done in subsequent annual plan updates. The focus of the last 18 months has been on developing an advanced asset management model based on recognized best practices, developing staff skills in advanced asset management, and creating an asset workflow that effectively incorporates new assets into the improved AM system. The second phase of implementing advanced AM has recently started and addresses making improvements to the accuracy of the large volume of data on existing assets. In regard to gaps revealed in the area of assets data, AM program staff have been working to evaluate, review, structurally augment, and further develop the MWMC asset registry (inventory) which had previously been compiled since 1984. The historical asset inventory had been sufficient but incomplete in several areas, the most important being a lack of detail on certain major structure and infrastructure assets that were built prior to 1984 when the Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) started operation, such as process buildings, paved areas, roads, fences, and electrical cabling that form the backbone and nervous system of the plant’s process areas. Regional AM program staff are working to more clearly identify and document asset details such as asset conditions, estimated replacement costs, equipment and structural lifespans, the ‘criticality’ of assets, and more. The results of the FY 2019-20 AM plan support that there is more work to do on improving the quality of the asset management data. The Improvement Plan for the upcoming year, detailed in Section 8 of this plan, will include developing more reliable estimates on asset life, replacement costs, and condition reporting for existing assets. Current asset data is deemed not sufficiently reliable to inform the current rate model projections or capital reserve level targets. Additionally, to date, there has been little discovery of unexpected future costs in managing assets. MWMC has followed a clear practice to avoid deferred maintenance and does not carry a known backlog of maintenance issues. 2.1 Background The content, charts, tables, and graphs used in this MWMC Asset Management Plan document are generated from ‘templates’ produced by the New Zealand Asset Management Support (NAMS) group, a non -profit industry organization established in 1995 to promote asset management best practices locally, regionally, and worldwide. The templates and tools provided by NAMS and provided through IPWEA for training purposes are referred to as NAMS Plus. This asset management plan communicates the actions required for the responsive management of assets (and services provided from assets), compliance with regulatory requirements, and funding needed to provide the required levels of service over a 20-year planning period. The asset management plan is to be read with the MWMC planning documents, including the following: 2004 MWMC Facility Plan 2005 MWMC Financial Plan 2014 MWMC Partial Facilities Plan Update Annual MWMC Budget and CIP Document The infrastructure assets covered by this asset management plan are shown in Table 2.1. These assets are used to provide regional wastewater treatment services. MWMC Asset Management Plan FY 2019-20 4 Table 2.1: Assets covered by this Plan Asset Category Dimension Replacement Value Regional Water Pollution Control Facility 94 acre regional treatment plant $427,244,800 Regional Wastewater Pump Stations (4) and regional conveyance system Willakenzie, Glenwood, Irvington, and Springfield pump stations. $26,052,100 Biosolids Management Facility 600+ acre biosolids facility $6,234,100 TOTAL $459,531,000 Program descriptions for each of the MWMC work sections augmenting the Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) are as follows: Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility The Wastewater Division operates the WPCF to treat domestic and industrial wastewater and achieve a quality that protects and sustains the beneficial uses of the Willamette River. The WPCF is designed to treat 49 million gallons per day (mgd) of dry weather flow, with a peak hour hydraulic capacity of 277 mgd for full secondary treatment. The Operations section optimizes integrated wastewater treatment processes to ensure effluent quality requirements are met in an effective manner. In addition, Operations provides 24-hour alarm monitoring of all plant processes; regional and local pump stations; and biosolids and beneficial reuse site facilities. The regional facility also includes mechanical, electrical, and facility maintenance work sections, administration and stores work sections. Regional Environmental Analytical Services Laboratory The Environmental Analytical Services (EAS) Laboratory provides analytical services in support of Wastewater Division program operations including wastewater treatment, residuals management, industrial source control, stormwater monitoring, ambient monitoring, and special projects. Laboratory services include sample collection, preparation and analysis of wastewater, sludge, biosolids, soil, industrial wastes, ambient water, stormwater, and groundwater. Industrial Source Control The Pretreatment Program is a regional activity implemented jointly by the cities of Eugene and Springfield. The Industrial Source Control (ISC) section of the Wastewater Division is charged with administering the Pretreatment Program for the regulation and oversight of wastewaters discharged to the sanitary collection system by fixed-site industries in Eugene and by mobile waste haulers. Biosolids Management (Residuals staff operate the Biosolids Management Facility (BMF) and the Beneficial Reuse Site (BRS). Biological solids (biosolids) produced from the treatment of wastewater are processed by the Residuals Management section of the Wastewater Division. This section operates the Biosolids Management Facility (BMF), located on Awbrey Lane in Eugene. Approximately 195,500 tons of wet biosolids are produced annually by the WPCF. These biosolids are treated using anaerobic digestion, stored in facultative lagoons, which provide additional treatment, dewatered and then air-dried to reduce the water content and facilitate transport. The dried material is ultimately recycled to agricultural land as a beneficial fertilizer and soil conditioner. Biocycle Farm Program The Biocycle Farm is a 595-acre farm designed and operated to grow hybrid poplar trees utilizing nutrients provided by recycled water to maximize tree growth. The trees are harvested and marketed on a 10-12 year cycle. Beneficial Reuse Site The Beneficial Reuse Site (BRS) was originally designed and operated to dispose of seasonal industrial wastewater from a cannery processor. The vegetable cannery permanently closed operations in 2001, and the BRS is no longer receiving seasonal influent flow. MWMC Asset Management Plan FY 2019-20 5 2.1.1 MWMC Asset Management Structure Regional Wastewater Program Capital Programs Overview3 The Regional Wastewater Program (RWP) includes two components: the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the Asset Management Capital Program (AMCP). The FY 2018-19 CIP Budget, the FY 2018-19 AMCP Budget, and the associated 5-Year Capital Plan are based on the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan (2004 FP) and the 2014 Partial Facilities Plan Update. The 2004 FP was approved by the MWMC, the governing bodies of the City of Eugene, the City of Springfield, Lane County, and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in 2004. The 2004 FP and its 20-year capital project list was the result of a comprehensive evaluation of the regional wastewater treatment facilities serving the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. The 2004 FP built on previous targeted studies, including the 1997 Master Plan, 1997 Biosolids Management Plan, 2001 Wet Weather Flow Management Plan (WWFMP), and the 2003 Management Plan for a dedicated biosolids land application site. The 2004 FP was intended to meet changing regulatory and wet weather flow requirements and to serve the community’s wastewater capacity and treatment needs through 2025. Accordingly, the 2004 FP established the CIP project list to provide necessary facility enhancements and expansions over the planning period. The CIP is administered by the City of Springfield for the MWMC. The AMCP implements the projects and activities necessary to maintain functionality, lifespan, and effectiveness of the MWMC facility assets on an ongoing basis. The AMCP is administered by the City of Eugene for the MWMC and consists of three sub-categories: Equipment Replacement Program Major Rehabilitation Program Major Capital Outlay The MWMC has established these capital programs to achieve the following RWP objectives: Compliance with applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations Protection of the health and safety of people and property from exposure to hazardous conditions such as untreated or inadequately treated wastewater Provision of adequate capacity to facilitate community growth in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area consistent with adopted land use plans Construction, operation, and management of the MWMC facilities in a manner that is as cost-effective, efficient, and affordable to the community as possible in the short and long term Mitigation of potential negative impacts of the MWMC facilities on adjacent uses and surrounding neighborhoods (ensuring that the MWMC facilities are “good neighbors” as judged by the community) 2.1.2 MWMC Advanced Asset Management Program Development In late 2016, a core group of MWMC staff at Wastewater Division conducted a ‘gap analysis’ exercise endorsed by the Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF) to determine what deficiencies or shortcomings that may exist in the regional asset management program (AM program). WERF’s Strategic Asset Management Gap Analysis Tool (SAM-GAP) was used as the framework and methodology to evaluate and analyze the existing regional AM program. The results of the analysis revealed that the AM program shows gaps in the areas of (1) advanced asset management knowledge and expertise, (2) asset data gathering, (3) best practices for asset management, and (4) asset management roles and responsibilities. Since that time, the AM program core group has been working to improve upon those gaps in an overall effort to further develop the regional AM program and commit to its continual improvement. To directly address the gap areas revealed from the SAM-GAP analysis, from 2017 to present members of the core group have instituted an AM program structure composed of Eugene and Springfield staff with defined roles for collaboration on the development and evolution of the regional AM program. See Chart 2.1.2. 3 A detailed explanation of the MWMC Regional Wastewater Program Budget and funding can be found in the FY 2018-19 Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Capital Improvements Program document, pages 37-39. See here: http://www.mwmcpartners.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/MWMC-Budget-FY-18-19-Final.pdf MWMC Asset Management Plan FY 2019-20 6 In addition, two of the AM program core staff have trained and earned professional certification in asset management planning offered by one of the paramount organizations in the field, the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia (IPWEA), which is endorsed by the American Public Works Association (APWA). The IPWEA training system for asset management leverages and targets all criteria in the International Infrastructure Maintenance Manual (2015 ed.) and the ISO 55000 standard for asset management. Other Asset Management Work Activities in 2018: Trainings on IBM Maximo asset management software. This training supports the tools and enhances the asset management skills needed by the various workgroups involved in asset management. 35 Wastewater staff have received Maximo training so far. Enabling advanced asset cost tracking features in Maximo to allow for lifetime cost tracking by asset and also year-to-date rollup by individual asset. Working on acquiring a Maximo-compatible application for condition reporting that will allow staff to use mobile devices (iPads) to conduct asset inspections using standardized criteria. This app will update Maximo with condition grade, photos, and narrative for individual assets. 2.2 Goals and Objectives of Asset Ownership The MWMC goal in managing infrastructure assets is to meet the defined level of service (as amended from time to time) in the most cost effective manner for present and future community members. The key elements of infrastructure asset management include: Providing a defined level of service and monitoring performance, Managing the impact of growth through demand management and infrastructure investment, Taking a lifecycle approach to developing cost-effective management strategies for the long-term that meet the defined level of service, Identifying, assessing and appropriately controlling risks, and Linking to a long-term financial plan which identifies required expenditures and how it will be allocated. Other references listing best practices, fundamental principles, and objectives of asset management include: • International Infrastructure Management Manual 2015 (IIMM, 2015 ed.)4 • ISO 55000 standard for asset management 5 4 Based on IPWEA 2015 IIMM, Sec 2.1.3, p 2| 13 5 ISO 55000 Overview, principles and terminology Chart 2.1.2: Staff Development and Training MWMC Asset Management Plan FY 2019-20 7 2.3 Advanced Asset Management This advanced asset management plan is prepared over a 20 year planning period in accordance with the International Infrastructure Management Manual6. ‘Advanced’ asset management uses a ‘bottom up’ approach for gathering detailed asset information for individual assets utilizing an asset register that contains specific information on each asset. Currently, the MWMC asset register contains over 1,500 assets with a current replacement cost of $459 million. 3. LEVELS OF SERVICE 3.1 Strategic and Corporate Goals This asset management plan is prepared under the direction of the MWMC vision, mission, goals and objectives. The mission and vision statements were adopted by the Commission i n August 2016. Our vision is: The MWMC will be recognized as a leader in protecting water quality through sustainable and fiscally responsible practices. Our mission is: To protect our community’s health and the environment by providing high -quality wastewater services to the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area in partnership with Eugene, Springfield and Lane County. Relevant goals and objectives and how these are addressed in this asset management plan are: Table 3.2: Goals and how these are addressed in this Plan Goal Objective How Goal and Objectives are addressed in AM Plan High environmental standards Compliance with all environmental permits. Determine and implement acceptable service levels in the AM plan that ensure permit compliance and adherence to our ISO 14001 Environmental Management Policy. Maximize reliability and useful life of regional assets Lowest total cost of ownership of regional assets. Development and implementation of an MWMC asset management plan. Protect public health and safety 100% of wastewater treated to water quality standards. Determine and implement acceptable service levels in the AM plan that ensure permit compliance, public health, and safety. The MWMC will exercise its duty of care to ensure public safety in accordance with the infrastructure risk management plan prepared in conjunction with this AM Plan. Management of infrastructure risks is covered in Section 6. 3.2 Legislative Requirements NPDES Permit There are many legislative and regulatory requirements relating to the management of wastewater system assets. A major regulatory issue facing MWMC is the renewal of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and the possible impacts that new regulatory requirement may have on asset planning. The MWMC has been anticipating renewal of its NPDES permit since 2007. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), which administers these permits, faces a backlog of permit renewals due to complex water quality, legal, and administrative issues. The MWMC operates under an NPDES permit that allows discharge to the Willamette River of effluent treated to water quality standards outlined in the permit. Permits also stipulate many operational, monitoring, reporting, and other requirements. NPDES permits are valid for 5-year cycles and permittees must reapply for renewal before expiration. The MWMC submitted a timely application for renewal of its 2002 NPDES 6 IPWEA, 2015, IIMM. MWMC Asset Management Plan FY 2019-20 8 permit in 2006, anticipating a 2007 permit renewal. Since that application date, the MWMC’s p ermit has been under administrative extension pending DEQ’s readiness to issue a new permit. Other significant legislative and regulatory requirements are listed in Table 3.3 Table 3.3: Legislative Requirements Legislation Requirement Eugene City Code 6.200-6.210 – Air Pollution Regulations 6.340-6.380 – Hazardous Substance Discharge and Removal 6.446 Sewerage Systems-Discharge of Foreign Matter Preventative Devices 6.600-6.615 Stormwater Service and Facility Maintenance 6.625-6.645 -- Erosion Prevention 6.700-6.725 – Ozone Protection 9.4700-9.4980 – Waterside Protection Overlay Zone, Water Quality Overlay Zone, Water Resources Conservation City of Springfield Springfield Municipal Code 4.372 – Illicit Discharge Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40 – Protection Of Environment Chapter I – Part 70 – State Operating Permit Programs (Air) Part 112 – Oil Pollution Prevention Part117– Determination of Reportable Quantities For Hazardous Substances Part 122 -- Permit Programs: National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Part 133 – Secondary Treatment Regulation Part 136 – Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants Part 170 – Worker Protection Standard (Pesticides) Part 171 – Certification of Pesticide Applicators Part 262 – Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste Part 273 – Standards for Universal Waste Management Part 279 – Standards for Management of Used Oil Part 280 – Technical Standard and Corrective Action Requirements for Owners and Operators of USTs Part 403 – General Pretreatment Regulations for New and Existing Sources of Pollution Part 503 – Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 340 Division 40 – Groundwater Quality Protection Division 41 – Water Quality Standards: Beneficial Uses, Policies, and Criteria For Oregon Division 45 – Regulations Pertaining To NPDES and WPCF Permits Division 49 – Regulations Pertaining to Certification of Wastewater System Operator Personnel Division 50 – Land Application Of Domestic Wastewater Treatment Facility Biosolids, Biosolids Derived Products, And Domestic Septage Division 52 – Review of Plans and Specifications Division 55 – Regulations Pertaining to the Use of Reclaimed Water (Treated Effluent) from Sewage Treatment Plants Division 71 – Holding Tanks Division 93 – Solid Waste: General Provisions Division 102 – Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste Division 109 – Management of Pesticide Wastes Division 111 – Used Oil Management Division 113 – Universal Waste Management Division 142 – Oil and Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Requirements Division 150 – Underground Storage Tank Rules Division 216 – Air Contaminant Discharge Permits Division 264 – Rules for Open Burning Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 437 OAR 437-002 Subdivision H: Hazardous Materials Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 603 Division 57 – Pesticide Control Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 690 Division 85-0010 – Governmental Entities to Submit Annual Water Use Reports Division 200 – Well Construction and Maintenance Division 215 – Maintenance Repair & Deepening of Water Supply Wells Division 217 – Requirement for Pump Testing of Nonexempt Wells Division 240 – Construction, Maintenance, Alteration & Conversion of Monitoring Wells, Geotechnical Holes & Other Holes in Oregon Oregon Revised Statute, Chapter 468B – Water Quality 468B.025 Prohibited activities 468B.070 Prohibited activities for certain municipalities 468B.080 Prohibitions relating to garbage or sewage dumping into waters of state 468B.140 Plans to Reduce Discharges of Persistent Pollutants MWMC Asset Management Plan FY 2019-20 9 3.3 Customer Levels of Service Service levels are defined in two terms, customer levels of service and organizational levels of service. These are supplemented by organizational measures. Customer Levels of Service measure how the customer receives the service and whether value to the customer is provided. Customer levels of service measures used in the asset management plan are: Quality How good is the service … what is the condition or quality of the service? Function Is it suitable for its intended purpose …. Is it the right service? Capacity/Use Is the service over or under used … do we need more or less of these assets? The current and expected customer service levels are detailed in Tables 3.4 and 3.5. Table 3.4 shows the expected levels of service based on resource levels in the current long -term financial plan. Table 3.4: Customer Level of Service Expectation Performance Measure Used Current Performance Expected Position in 10 Years based on the current budget. Service Objective: Affordable high quality wastewater treatment that protects public health and the environment. Quality Provide quality wastewater treatment services Number of odor complaints Less than 5 per year Less than 3 per year Organizational measure: Meeting NPDES permit requirements Percent of time meeting NPDES permit requirements 100% permit compliance 100% permit compliance Confidence levels High Medium Function Wastewater services available 100% of the time. Service available to everyone in the service area Services provided to 100% of eligible community members Services provided to 100% eligible community members Confidence levels High High Capacity and Use 100% of wastewater treated to NPDES permit water quality standards. Amount of wastewater treated to NPDES quality standards. 100% 100% Organizational measure: Ensure facility capacity and design will meet future growth and regulatory demands. 2004 Facility plan guides next 20 years. 2004 Facility plan had partial update in 2014. No other update scheduled yet. Facility plan updated every 5 years. 100% of wastewater is conveyed to the regional treatment plant with zero sanitary sewer overflows (SSO). Number of SSOs. 0 – 2 per year. Zero SSOs MWMC Asset Management Plan FY 2019-20 10 Confidence levels Medium Medium Financial Affordable user rates. Annual user rate increase of 3% or less for typical residential households. 2.5% annual user rate increase. Maintain a structurally balanced budget with resources equal or greater than expenditures to adequately fund reserves. Competitive user rates. Deliver agreed levels of service at a similar cost of other comparable Oregon wastewater service providers. User rates are in the middle third of the 10 Oregon cities/agencies surveyed. Maintain a user rate that is within or below the middle third of Oregon cites/agencies surveyed. 3.4 Organizational Levels of Service Supporting the customer service levels are operational or technical measures of performance, referred to as ‘organizational levels of service’. These organizational measures relate to the allocation of resources to service activities to best achieve the desired customer outcomes and demonstrate effective performance. Organizational service measures are linked to the activities and annual budgets covering: Operations – the regular activities to operate the regional treatment plant and provide services (e.g., regional conveyance (force mains), industrial source control (ISC), water quality testing (Lab), Biocycle Farm, etc.). Maintenance – the activities necessary to retain an asset as near as practicable to an appropriate service condition. Maintenance activities enable an asset to provide service for its planned life (e.g., building and structure repairs, pump station maintenance, Plant and Biosolids Facility maintenance, information systems tech support). Renewal – the activities that return the service capability of an asset up to original/intended condition (e.g., equipment replacement (ER), major rehabilitation (MR), etc.). Upgrade/New – the activities to provide a higher level of service (e.g., fourth digester, RNG system, capital improvement projects (CIPs)). Service and asset managers plan, implement and control technical service levels to influence the customer service levels.7 Table 3.5 shows the technical levels of service expected to be provided under this Asset Management Plan. The ‘Desired’ position in the table documents the position being recommended in this Asset Management Plan. Table 3.5: Technical Levels of Service Service Attribute Service Activity Objective Activity Measure Process Current Performance * Desired for Optimum Lifecycle Cost ** TECHNICAL LEVELS OF SERVICE Operations Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Zero SSO’s Number of overflows per year. 0 – 2 per year. No overflows Pretreatment Industrial Source Control (ISC) program protects treatment system. Number of annual inspections and site visits 147 150 7 IPWEA, 2015, IIMM, p 2|28. MWMC Asset Management Plan FY 2019-20 11 Service Attribute Service Activity Objective Activity Measure Process Current Performance * Desired for Optimum Lifecycle Cost ** Administration Achieve and maintain sustainable funding levels. Annual Budget and Rate Setting 2% - 4% annual rate increase Maintain adequate capital reserve levels. Maintenance Mechanical, electrical and facility maintenance Maximize reliability and useful life of assets and infrastructure. Preventative maintenance to corrective maintenance ratio (benchmark range 4:1 – 6:1) 5:1 5:1 Maximize reliability Emergency maintenance required (best practices benchmark is <2%) 1% <2% Renewal (Equipment Replacement, Major Rehabilitation) Asset management (AM) processes and practices review and development. Develop and utilize AM plan for all classes of MWMC assets. Annual asset plan update and improvement. Initial Asset Management Plan developed and reviewed. AM plan updated each year and implemented. Upgrade/New (mostly Capital Improvement Projects) Asset management (AM) processes and practices review and development. Work to inform CIP planning. Annual plan update and improvement. Initial Asset Management Plan developed and reviewed. AM plan updated each year and implemented improvement plan for MWMC asset management reviewed annually. Note: * Current activities and costs (already funded). ** Desired activities and costs to sustain current service levels and achieve minimum life cycle costs (not currently funded). Current, desired and agreed services levels are still being refined. This will be included in the Improvement Plan listed in Section 8. It is important to monitor the service levels provided regularly as these will change. The current performance is influenced by work efficiencies and technology, and community priorities and regulatory requirements will change over time. Review and establishment of the agreed position which achieves the best balance between service, risk and cost is essential. 4. FUTURE DEMAND 4.1 Demand Drivers Drivers affecting demand include things such as population change, regulations, changes in demographics, technological changes, economic factors, changes in climate, environmental awareness, etc. The impact of demand drivers that may affect future service delivery and assets are shown in Table 4.1. MWMC Asset Management Plan FY 2019-20 12 Table 4.1: Demand Drivers, Projections and Impact on Services Demand drivers Present position Projection Impact on services Regulatory Changes Administratively extended NPDES permit. Current permit expired in 2006. NPDES permit renewal expected in the near future. May include more stringent restrictions on thermal load, expanded list of regulated toxics. Service Population 255,000 1% annual population growth. Nominal impact as population growth is offset by increased water conservation efforts. Service Area Change Currently serving Eugene/Springfield metro area. MWMC may expand service areas to neighboring areas. Increase in residential and industrial flows. Inflow and Infiltration (I & I) Dry weather flows average < 30 mgd. Wet weather flows can exceed 190 mgd due to stormwater entering the wastewater system. Aging and expanding collection system will continue to cause high I & I flows. Treatment plant hydraulic capacity requirements are based on recorded high flows and may need to be increased. Also higher flows increase risks of SSO. 4.2 Demand Management Plan Demand for new services will be managed through a combination of managing existing assets, upgrading of existing assets and providing new assets to meet demand and demand management. Demand management practices can include non-asset solutions, ensuring against risks and managing failures. Opportunities identified to date for demand management are shown in Table 4.2. Further opportunities will be developed in future revisions of this asset management plan. Table 4.2: Demand Management Plan Summary Demand Driver Impact on Services Demand Management Plan Regulatory Changes Increase in user rates to fund upgrades to processing facilities. Work with the Oregon Clean Water Association (ORACWA) to cooperatively address the many water quality issues facing MWMC and effectively advocate with federal and state regulatory agencies to meet environmental standards more effectively. Review capability of wastewater systems to meet all requirements. Implement any necessary upgrades. Population Growth Nominal impact is expected as increased water conservation efforts are offsetting increased service demand. Continue to monitor population growth and water conservation efforts. This can be done with a 5-year review of the financial plan to be undertaken at beginning of each financial year to determine upgrade projects to meet asset utilisation. Service Area Changes Increase in residential and industrial flows. MWMC to participate in growth/service studies and provide input on effects of expanding service area. Infiltration of ground water and stormwater Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) drives plant capacity increases to meet larger flows. Continue development of I&I model. Work with Eugene and Springfield who own the local collection systems to coordinate I&I reductions. MWMC Asset Management Plan FY 2019-20 13 4.3 Asset Programs to meet Demand The cumulative value of additional (compounding) assets is shown in Figure 1. CIP growth for new or upgraded assets is assumed to be $9.6 million per year through 2039. The addition of new assets is discussed in Section 5.4. New or upgraded assets are generally funded by capital reserves and/or system development charges on a pay-as-you-go basis. Figure 1: Upgrade and New Assets to meet Demand – (Cumulative, Growth of Assets Over Time) Figure 1 Values are in current (real) dollars. Acquiring new assets will commit ongoing operations, maintenance and renewal costs for the period that the service provided from the assets is required. These future costs are identified and considered in developing forecasts of future operations, maintenance and renewal costs for inclusion in the long term financial plan in Section 5. 5. LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT PLAN 5.1 Physical Parameters The assets covered by this asset management plan are shown in Figure 2. The MWMC cleans about 30 million gallons of wastewater a day for more than 255,000 community members in the Eugene-Springfield/MWMC service area. The wastewater is collected by Eugene and Springfield local collection systems and flows into MWMC regional sewer lines. Gravity lines, force mains and pump stations move the flow to the regional treatment plant on River Avenue in Eugene. MWMC Asset Management Plan FY 2019-20 14 Regional Wastewater Treatment Service Area The MWMC is responsible for maintaining the regional wastewater facilities which includes the regional wastewater treatment plant (also known as the Water Pollution Control Facility), the Biosolids Management Facility, the poplar plantation Biocycle Farm, the Beneficial Reuse Site and four regional pump stations. The age profile of the assets include d in this Asset Management Plan are shown in Figure 2. Figure 2: Asset Age Profile by Year Acquired The age profile of existing assets includes the initial construction of the regional plant in the early 1980s and the significant plant hydraulic capacity expansion completed from 2008 to 2013. Current Replacement Costs (CRC) are in current (real) dollars. Current replacement costs were determined by inflating the historic purchase prices into 2018 dollars. Further refinement of estimating CRC is included in the Improvement Plan outlined in Section 8. Current Replacement Costs ($,000) MWMC Asset Management Plan FY 2019-20 15 5.1.2 Asset capacity and performance Assets are generally provided to meet design standards where these a re available. Current assets are sufficient to meet the current service level. This may change upon issuance of a new NPDES permit. MWMC Assets analyzed in this FY 2019-20 Asset Management Plan are measured in current (real) dollars. 5.1.3 Asset condition Currently, MWMC asset condition reporting is not done in a systematic manner. Condition reporting is important to determine data-supported replacement and maintenance schedules. Establishing condition reporting processes is a high priority and is included in the Improvement Plan in Section 8. The Condition Grading Model provided in the IIMM (2015 ed.) is measured using a zero to five (0-5) grading scale8 as detailed in Table 5.1.3. This is a typical model and, where applicable, standardized criteria will be used to assess condition of specific assets. Reporting tools and software are being reviewed to allow in -field condition assessments to be easily reported to the Maximo asset management system. Table 5.1.3: Condition Grading Model Condition Grading Description of Condition 0 Not Rated: no asset data are available other than the name and installation date 1 Very Good: only planned maintenance required 2 Good: minor maintenance required plus planned maintenance 3 Fair: significant maintenance required 4 Poor: significant renewal/rehabilitation required 5 Very Poor: physically unsound and/or beyond rehabilitation 5.2 Operations and Maintenance Plan Operations include regular activities to provide services for public health and safety in the areas of treatment plant operations, biosolids management, pretreatment, administration and planning, procurement of parts and supplies, contracted services, and more. Maintenance is the regular on-going work that is necessary to keep assets operating (preventative maintenance, PMs), including instances where portions of the asset fail and need immediate repair to make the asset operational again (corrective maintenance, CMs). Maintenance includes all actions necessary for retaining an asset as near as practicable to an appropriate service condition including regular ongoing day-to-day work necessary to keep assets operating. Maintenance expenditure is shown in Table 5.2. Table 5.2: Maintenance Expenditure Trends Year Maintenance Budget FY 2017-18 $4,123,000 FY 2018-19 $4,337,000 FY 2019-20 $4,359,000 Current maintenance expenditure levels are considered to be adequate to meet projected service levels. 8 IPWEA, 2015, IIMM, Sec 2.5.4, p 2|80. MWMC Asset Management Plan FY 2019-20 16 5.2.1 Summary of future operations and maintenance expenditures Future operations and maintenance expenditure is forecast to trend in line with the value of the asset stock as shown in Figure 3. Note that all costs are shown in current dollar values (i.e., current real dollars). Figure 3: Projected Operations and Maintenance Expenditure Deferred maintenance, or works that are identified for maintenance and unable to be funded, are to be included in the risk assessment and analysis in the infrastructure risk management plan. Currently, there are no known instances of deferred maintenance; however, there may be MWMC assets not included in the model outlined in the FY 2019-20 Asset Management Plan. Identifying and documenting currently ‘unknown’ MWMC assets is an ongoing work item and is included in the Improvement Plan outline in Section 8. Maintenance is funded from the operating budget. This is further discussed in Section 7. 5.3 Renewal Plan – Equipment Replacement (ER) and Major Rehab (MR) Renewal and replacement expenditure is major work which does not increase the asset’s design capacity but restores, rehabilitates, replaces or renews an existing asset to its original service potential. Work over and above restoring an asset to original service potential is considered to be an upgrade/expansion or new work expenditure resulting in additional future operations and maintenance costs. Assets requiring renewal/replacement are identified from the Asset Register referred to throughout the FY 2019-20 Asset Management Plan document. 5.3.1 Renewal ranking criteria Asset renewal and replacement is typically undertaken to accomplish the following: Ensure the reliability of the existing infrastructure to deliver the service it was constructed to facilitate Ensure the infrastructure is of sufficient quality to meet the service requirements9 It is possible to get some indication of capital renewal and replacement priorities by identifying assets or asset groups that: Have a high consequence of failure, Have high use and subsequent impact on community members would be greatest, Have a total value representing the greatest net value, Have the highest average age relative to their expected lives, Have high operational or maintenance costs, and Have replacement with a modern equivalent asset that would provide the equivalent service at a savings.10 An annual review of the MWMC Asset Register is used to determine priority of identified renewal and replacement proposals. The ranking is currently done utilizing staff knowledge and experience to determine replacement and rehabilitation schedules. Developing data-driven criteria for asset renewal and replacement ba sed on IIMM best 9 IPWEA, 2015, IIMM, Sec 3.4.4, p 3|91. 10 Based on IPWEA, 2015, IIMM, Sec 3.4.5, p 3|97. Projected O&M Budget MWMC Asset Management Plan FY 2019-20 17 practices is a current work item and will be used in future MWMC asset management plans. See Section 8 Improvement Plan for details. 5.3.2 Future Renewal Expenditure Summary, Equipment Replacement (ER) and Major Rehab (MR) Projected future renewal and replacement expenditures are forecast to increase over time when the asset stock increases. The expenditure required is shown in Figure 4. Note that all amounts are shown in current (real) dollars. Figure 4: Projected Capital Renewal and Replacement Expenditure Significant Renewal/Replacement Expenditures: Examples of significant ER/MR assets are listed below. The spike in 2024 is mainly due to the items listed in the table below for 2024; the spike in 2028 is due to the items listed for that year, and so on. Year Planned Equipment Replacements and Facilities Renewals 2020 WPCF, Process Piping Pretreatment, Pre-Aeration Blowers (2) Pretreatment and Secondary, Field Control Units (7+) Digester Area, Digested Sludge Pumps (2) BMF, Belt Filter Presses (3) 2024 WPCF, Electrical Distribution System and Switch Gear Willakenzie PS, Centrifugal Pumps (5) Pretreatment, Screw Pump #4 Secondary, Fixed Header Aeration System (4) Final, 72” Square Butterfly Valves (4) 2025 Glenwood PS, River Crossing and Structure (2) Pretreatment, Screw Pump #3 Pretreatment, Grit Chamber Aeration Equipment Secondary, Switch Gear Secondary, Fixed Header Aeration System (4) 2028 Primary, Clarifier Upgrades (2) Secondary, Clarifier Upgrades (4) Digester Area, Sludge Mixers (6) BMF, Sump Pumps (2) BMF, Air Valve Control Panel (2) and Electrical Hand Holes (2) 2029 BMF, Operations Building Upgrade/Rebuild BMF, Dried Sludge Storage Building Upgrade/Rebuild BMF, Valve Vault and Sludge Loading Station Upgrade/Rebuild Willakenzie PS, Power Switch Station Pretreatment, Septage Station Upgrade/Rebuild Currently there is no identified deferred maintenance backlog. MWMC Asset Management Plan FY 2019-20 18 5.4 Acquisition/Upgrade Plan – Capital Improvement Program (CIP) New works are those that create a new asset that did not previously exist, or works which will upgrade or improve an existing asset beyond its existing capacity. Generally, these fall within the category of CIP projects . 5.4.1 Selection criteria New assets and upgrade/expansion of existing assets are ranked by priority and available funds and scheduled in future works programs. The priority ranking criteria is detailed below. Table 5.4.1: New Assets Priority Ranking Criteria Criteria Weighting Aligns with Key MWMC Outcomes and goals of the Regional Wastewater Program purpose. 30% Driven by outcomes of the 2014 Partial Facilities Plan Update and balanced by current information. 25% Plans for Future DEQ permit regulations, associated Facilities Plan, and regulatory strategy. 25% Commission driven input on discretionary projects. 10% Expansion of regional facilities driven by growth, increased demand, and/or a regulatory buffer zone. 10% Total 100% 5.4.2 Summary of future upgrade/new assets expenditure Projected upgrade/new asset expenditures are summarized in Figure 5. The projected upgrade/new capital improvement program (CIP) is shown in Appendix A. All amounts are shown in current dollar values. Figure 5: Projected Capital Upgrade/New Asset Expenditure Significant Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project expenditures: The spike in 2023 is mainly due to the items listed for that specific year, and so on. To view the entire CIP document, navigate online to https://www.mwmcpartners.org/about-the-mwmc/documents/ MWMC Asset Management Plan FY 2019-20 19 Year Planned Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Projects 2020 WPCF, Electrical System Replacement and Upgrades WPCF, Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) System Biocycle Farm, Harvest Management Services Glenwood Pump Station Upgrade 2021 MWMC Facilities Plan Update No.1 WPCF, Lagoon Decommissioning WPCF, Electrical System Replacement and Upgrades Thermal Load Mitigation, Implementation 1 2022 WPCF, Operations Building Improvements Secondary Area, Aeration Basin Improvements, Phase 2 Final Area, Tertiary Filtration Phase 2 Thermal Load Mitigation, Implementation 1 2023 WPCF, Operations Building Improvements Secondary Area, Aeration Basin Improvements, Phase 2 Final Area, Tertiary Filtration Phase 2 Thermal Load Mitigation, Implementation 1 2024 WPCF, Operations Building Improvements Secondary Area, Aeration Basin Improvements, Phase 2 Final Area, Tertiary Filtration Phase 2 Thermal Load Mitigation, Implementation 1 Expenditure on new assets and services in the capital improvement program (CIP projects) will be accommodated but only to the extent of the available funds. Acquiring these new assets will commit the funding of ongoing operations, maintenance, and renewal costs for the period that the service has provided starting from when the asset is acquired. 5.4.3 Summary of asset expenditure requirements The financial projections from this asset plan are shown in Fig 7 for projected operating (operations and maintenance) and capital expenditure (renewal and upgrade/expansion/new assets). Note that all costs are shown in current (real) values. The expenditure and budget estimates are based on the Asset Registry, life, and replacement values. See Section 7.1 for discussion on data confidence. The bars in the graphs represent the anticipated budget needs required to achieve lowest lifecycle costs. The budget line is based on what is currently available in the budget. The gap between these indicates projected budget needs compared to future plans. This forms the discussion on achieving the balance between services, costs and risk to achieve the best value outcome. In Figure 6, the first five years of the budget line are planned (2020-2024), from 2025 to 2029 the budget line is an average of the prior five years. From 2030 to 2039, the budget line is an average of the prior ten years. Figure 6: Projected Operating and Capital Expenditure MWMC Asset Management Plan FY 2019-20 20 6. RISK MANAGEMENT The purpose of infrastructure risk management is to document the results and recommendations resulting from the periodic identification, assessment and treatment of risks associated with providing services from infrastructure. An assessment of risks associated with service delivery from infrastructure assets identifies critical risks that will result in loss or reduction in service from infrastructure assets or a ‘financial shock’. The risk assessment process identifies credible risks, the likelihood of the risk event occurring, the consequences should the event occur, develops a risk rating, evaluates the risk and develops a risk treatment plan for non-acceptable risks. The MWMC has a strong interest in improving resiliency of its infrastructure. With this goal in mind, a Resiliency Planning project is underway. The purpose of the Resiliency Planning project is to provide an understanding of the resiliency and vulnerability of the MWMC infrastructure for two natural disasters: 1) the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) earthquake, and 2) a catastrophic flood event. The project will also evaluate impacts of climate change on disaster scenarios. Based on the outcomes of these efforts, the project will outline a plan for improving infrastructure resiliency. Work performed for the project will establish level of service goals to identify planned recovery periods, assess critical facilities for vulnerability, and identify risks associated with interagency and supply chain dependencies. Upgrades and strategies to improve infrastructure resiliency will be identified and costs estimated for implementing recommended upgrades and strategies. A Disaster Mitigation and Recovery Plan (DMRP) will be prepared that outlines the recommended upgrades and/or strategies to improve infrastructure resiliency and a capital improvement plan for implementing work. The target finish date for the Resiliency project is August 2019. The results from this project will help to inform what risk mitigation plans will be included in future asset management plans. 7. FINANCIAL SUMMARY MWMC’s present funding levels are adequate to meet current operations, debt service, capital equipment replacement and rehabilitation, and CIP projects on a pay-as-you-go basis. The current funding level also allows sufficient contributions to reserves including the capital reserve. The current asset management financial information in the asset registry is limited and the current practice of utilizing staff knowledge and experience, in addition to asset data, is recommended in building the FY 2019-20 MWMC budget. The asset registry information will be improved as further work is done on asset condition reporting, asset life, current replacement cost estimates, and CIP planning. However, staff felt it was important to complete this initial AM plan as a starting point for future plans and improvements to asset management. 7.1 Financial Projections, Forecast Reliability and Confidence The expenditure and valuations projections in the FY 2019-20 MWMC Asset Management Plan are based on best available data. Currency and accuracy of data is critical to conducting effective asset and financial management. Data confidence is classified on a 5-level scale12 in accordance with Table 7.1. The confidence level and reliability of data used in this AM Plan is considered to be level C, uncertain. Improved data on asset condition will improve estimates on asset life. Past experience has shown that with limited condition information, the asset financial model tends to under estimate asset life. This results in over estimating equipment replacement and major rehabilitation costs. Due to the uncertainty of asset data, staff will continue to use a network approach to manage assets and inform the FY 2019-20 budget process. The network approach utilizes the knowledge and experience of staff in determining replacement schedules, cost estimates, and other factors in asset management. As the asset management model matures and data confidence is improved, greater emphasis will be given to data-driven asset management. At present, the MWMC Asset Management Core Team has identified areas of low data confidence in the asset registry in the following areas: Current asset data does not clearly distinguish between renewal/replacement and upgrade/new costs. Some projects blend replacement and upgrade work. For this plan, an assumption is made that assets with a current 12 IPWEA, 2015, IIMM, Table 2.4.6, p 2|71. MWMC Asset Management Plan FY 2019-20 21 replacement cost of less than $200,000 are categorized as renewal/replacement (ER/MR) and assets greater than or equal to $200,000 are categorized as upgrade/new (CIP or major capital) assets. The $200,000 figure was selected as past experience has been that nearly all ER/MR replacement assets have cost less than $200,000. Assets greater than $200,000 usually are new assets, not replacements, or a replacement that has a significan t improvement in functionality and performs at a higher service level. Condition information needs to be gathered on critical assets, and ultimately on most MWMC assets. Condition assessment needs to be formalized, implemented, and quantitatively increased. Determining life of an asset. Lack of condition information leads to a conservative estimate (too short) on the expected service life of the asset. Determining current replacement cost of an asset. Old assets are often 20 to 35 years old. Replacements may be different technology with different features and incur costs that are difficult to estimate. All of these asset data confidence issues are addressed in the Improvement Plan outlined in Section 8. Allocating more resources toward condition reporting is a priority in the development of next year’s asset management plan. This will include reviewing and prioritizing the asset registry list and start condition reporting with the group of assets that will provide the highest level of improvement to data confidence as well as overall benefit to operational asset management. Table 7.1: Data Confidence Grading System Rating Description A. Highly Reliable Based on sound records Based on established procedures Referenced by investigations and analysis Is documented properly Is recognized as the best method of assessment Dataset is complete Dataset is estimated to be accurate ±5% B. Reliable Based on sound records Based on established procedures Referenced by investigations and analysis Is documented properly but has shortcomings (e.g., old data, missing data, unconfirmed, or extrapolated data) Dataset is complete Dataset is estimated to be accurate ±15% C. Uncertain Based on sound records Based on established procedures Referenced by investigations and analysis that is incomplete/unsupported Referenced by investigations and analysis that is extrapolated from a limited sample of A or B grade data Dataset is substantially complete but up to 50% extrapolated Dataset is estimated to be accurate ±25% D. Very Uncertain Data is based on unconfirmed verbal reports Data may be based on cursory inspections and analysis Dataset may not be fully complete and is mostly extrapolated Dataset is estimated to be accurate ±40% E. Unknown None or very little data is captured in registry MWMC Asset Management Plan FY 2019-20 22 7.1.1 Capital Program Funding and Financial Planning Methods and Policies 13 The MWMC CIP financial planning and funding methods are in accordance with the financial management policies put forth in the MWMC 2005 financial management plan. Each of the two Regional Wastewater Program (RWP) capital programs rely on funding mechanisms to achieve RWP objectives described above. The CIP is funded primarily through proceeds from revenue bond sales, system development charges (SDCs), and transfers from the Operating Fund to Capital Reserves. The AMCP (ER and MR assets) is funded through wastewater user fees. The RWP’s operating fund is maintained to pay for operations, administration, debt service, equipment replacement contributions and capital contributions associated with the RWP. The operating fund derives the majority of its revenue from regional wastewater user fees that are collected by the City of Eugene and City of Springfield from their respective community members. In accordance with the MWMC 2005 Financial Plan, funds remaining in excess of budgeted operational expenditures can be transferred from the Operating Fund to the Capital Reserves fund. The Capital Reserve accumulates revenue to help fund capital projects, including major rehabilitation, to reduce the amount of borrowing necessary to finance capital projects. The AMCP consists of two programs managed by the City of Eugene and funded through regional wastewater user fees: The Equipment Replacement Program (ER), which funds replacement of equipment valued at or over $10,000; the Major Rehabilitation Program (MR), which funds rehabilitation of the MWMC infrastructure such as roof replacement, structure coatings, etc. The MWMC assets are tracked through their lifecycle using asset management tracking software. Based on this information, the AMCP program annual budget is established and projected for the 5-Year Capital Plan. 7.1.2 Asset valuations The best available estimate of the value of assets included in this Asset Management Plan are shown below. MWMC assets are valued as follows: Current Replacement Cost (or CRC) $459,531,000 Depreciable Amount $225,191,000 Depreciated Replacement Cost $234,340,000 Current replacement costs are estimated by inflating the historical purchase cost utilizing Consumer Price Index – Urban (CPI-U) inflation data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Note that this method does not account for specific differences in inflation costs for the wide variety of MWMC equipment and infrastructure. Construction inflation indexes have generally had higher annual inflation increases in the past 20 years. Another factor that is not known is the impact on future costs for changes in technology. Often, a replacement asset may be substantially different than the original asset that is several decades old. Depreciable amount is calculated by a straight line method using life estimates and current replacement cost values in the asset register. Depreciated replacement cost is the estimated remaining value of MWMC assets at current replacement costs. 13 A detailed explanation of the MWMC Capital Program funding can be found in the Fiscal Year 2018 -2019 Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Capital Improvements Program document, pages 37-39. See here: http://www.mwmcpartners.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/06/MWMC-Budget-FY-18-19-Final.pdf MWMC Asset Management Plan FY 2019-20 23 7.1.3 Projected expenditures Table 7.1.3 shows the projected expenditures for the next 10 years. Expenditure projections are in 2018 real values. Table 7.1.3: Projected Expenditures ($000) Year Operations ($000) Maintenance ($000) Projected Capital Renewal ($000) Capital Upgrade/ New ($000) 2020 $13,528 $4,359 $12,978 $7,125 2021 $13,738 $4,427 $1,815 $13,082 2022 $14,123 $4,551 $2,357 $10,210 2023 $14,423 $4,648 $3,311 $20,124 2024 $15,016 $4,838 $11,412 $7,453 2025 $15,235 $4,909 $13,046 $7,453 2026 $15,455 $4,980 $3,472 $7,453 2027 $15,674 $5,051 $6,263 $7,453 2028 $15,893 $5,121 $13,016 $7,453 2029 $16,113 $5,192 $10,557 $7,453 2030 $16,332 $5,263 $6,247 $9,526 2031 $16,613 $5,353 $1,501 $9,526 2032 $16,893 $5,443 $2,765 $9,526 2033 $17,174 $5,534 $4,720 $9,526 2034 $17,454 $5,624 $4,557 $9,526 2035 $17,734 $5,714 $2,249 $9,526 2036 $18,015 $5,805 $1,752 $9,526 2037 $18,295 $5,895 $1,605 $9,526 2038 $18,576 $5,985 $10,402 $9,526 2039 $18,856 $6,076 $13,834 $9,526 7.2 Funding Strategy MWMC’s Key Outcome #2 is to “Achieve and maintain fiscal management that is effective and efficient.” The indicators in the FY 2018-19 MWMC budget document for this outcome are: Annual budget and rates align with the MWMC Financial Plan Clean annual audited financial statements Reserves funded at target levels Have an uninsured bond rating of A or higher Have updated Financial Plan policies Have updated system development charges. To support this outcome, the current funding strategy is to continue the practice of small consistent increases in user rates to reflect inflationary increases, demand changes, and adjustments to service levels. MWMC Asset Management Plan FY 2019-20 24 7.3 Key Assumptions Made in Financial Forecasts This section details the key assumptions made in presenting the information contained in this asset management plan. It is presented to enable readers to gain an understanding of the levels of confidence in the data behind the financial forecasts. Table 7.3: Key Assumptions made in Asset Management Plan and Risks of Change. Table 7.3: Key Assumptions 1 Operating, maintenance, and capital expenditures are not indexed for inflation. All values are in current US dollars. 2 Capital renewal and upgrade/new budget amounts are revised annually and extend out over a 10 year period. 3 Limited data is available on asset condition, life, and current replacement costs and the confidence level in the data is rated as uncertain. 4 New/Upgrade values: CIP costs beyond 2023 are es timated using an average of the prior 6 years of actuals and adjusted to today’s dollars. 5 Renewal values: Equipment replacement and major rehabilitation costs for the next 10 years are derived from the asset register and are in today’s dollars. 6 Assets are defined as having a purchase price equal to or greater than $10,000 and with a life greater than one year. 7 In this plan, assets not included in CIP projects are considered replacement /renewal assets. 8 Current replacement costs are determined by inflating the historic purchase prices into 2018 dollars and reviewed by staff on specific assets scheduled for replacement in 2020 through 2024. 8. PLAN IMPROVEMENT AND MONITORING 8.1 Status of Asset Management Practices16 8.1.1 Accounting and financial data sources MWMC FY 2018-19 budget and CIP document City of Eugene PeopleSoft Financials system 8.1.2 Asset management data sources City of Eugene Maximo Asset Management System City of Springfield ConstructWare 16 ISO 55000 Refers to this as the Asset Management System MWMC Asset Management Plan FY 2019-20 25 8.2 Improvement Plan The asset management Improvement Plan generated from the FY 2019-20 MWMC Asset Management Plan is shown in Table 8.1. Table 8.1: Improvement Plan Task No Task Responsibility Resources Required Timeline 1 Implement asset condition reporting. Maintenance Maximo 1-3 years 2 Improve methodology to determine asset remaining life. Management/Maintenance 1-3 years 3 Improve methodology to determine asset current replacement costs. Management/Maintenance 1-2 years 4 Complete risk register and risk management plans. Develop list of critical assets to evaluate risks and consider risk treatment plans. Eug/Spfld MWMC Mgmt. Include information developed in the current Resiliency Project. 1-2 years 5 Improve methodology and criteria for selection of renewal/replacement assets. Management/Maintenance See section 5.3.1 of this report for suggested criteria. 1 year 6 Improve data to clearly distinguish between renewal/replacement and upgrade/new costs. Asset Coordinator Asset Registry 1-2 years 7 Identify new capital projects for revised permit requirements. Unknown future permit requirements impede planning. Management/Spfld 2-3 years 8 Update capital project deliverables to include asset register information. Management/Project Manager Maximo compatible csv (Excel) files. See IIMM page 2/69 case study 2.33 1-2 years 9 Continue to provide staff training on asset management. Asset Coordinator Ongoing 10 Develop asset disposal plan including revenue estimates. Business Analyst 1-2 years 11 Uniformly apply asset “data standard” to improve data accuracy and confidence. Asset Coordinator Asset Registry, Maximo 1 year 12 Continue investigating assets not captured in Asset Registry and Maximo such as roadways, fences, pipes, drying beds, lagoons, structures, etc. Plant Mgr. and Facilities Supervisor Maximo 1-2 years 8.3 Monitoring and Review Procedures This asset management plan will be reviewed during annual budget planning processes and amended to show any material changes in service levels and/or resources available to provide those services as a result of budget decisions. The Asset Management Plan will be updated annually to ensure it represents the current service level, asset values, projected operations, maintenance, capital renewal and replacement, capital upgrade/new and asset disposal expenditures and projected expenditure values incorporated into the long term financial plan. MWMC Asset Management Plan FY 2019-20 26 9. REFERENCES MWMC FY 2018-19 Budget and CIP Document: https://www.mwmcpartners.org/about-the- mwmc/documents/ IPWEA, 2006, ‘International Infrastructure Management Manual’, Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia, Sydney, www.ipwea.org/IIMM. IPWEA, 2008, ‘NAMS.PLUS Asset Management’, Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia, Sydney, www.ipwea.org/namsplus. IPWEA, 2015, 2nd ed., ‘Australian Infrastructure Financial Management Manual’, Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia, Sydney, www.ipwea.org/AIFMM. IPWEA, 2015, 3rd ed., ‘International Infrastructure Management Manual’, Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia, Sydney, www.ipwea.org/IIMM. IPWEA, 2012 LTFP Practice Note 6 PN Long Term Financial Plan, Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia, Sydney. 10. APPENDICES Appendix A Projected 10 year Capital Upgrade/New Works Program. Appendix B LTFP Budgeted Expenditures Accommodated in Asset Management Plan. MWMC Asset Management Plan FY 2019-20 27 Appendix A – Projected Upgrade/ New 10-year Capital Works Program NAMS.Plus3 - Projected Capital Upgrade/New Plan 2020 MWMC Regional Facilities Year Item No. Capital Upgrade and New Projects Estimate ($000) Running Total ($000) 2020 1 Capital upgrades and new assets * $7,125 $7,125 2021 2 Capital upgrades and new assets * $13,082 $20,207 2022 3 Capital upgrades and new assets * $10,210 $30,417 2023 4 Capital upgrades and new assets * $20,124 $50,541 2024 5 Capital upgrades and new assets * $7,453 $57,994 2025 6 Capital upgrades and new assets * $7,453 $65,447 2026 7 Capital upgrades and new assets * $7,453 $72,900 2027 8 Capital upgrades and new assets * $7,453 $80,353 2028 9 Capital upgrades and new assets * $7,453 $87,806 2029 10 Capital upgrades and new assets * $7,453 $95,259 Average/yr $9,526 Total 10-year program $95,259 * See FY 2018-19 MWMC Budget Document, Exhibit 13 - 28 - MWMC Asset Management Plan FY 2019-20 28 Appendix B – Budgeted Expenditures Accommodated in LTFP 2020 Regional Facilities Asset values at start of planning period Calc CRC from Asset Register $459,531 (000)$57,216 (000)% of asset value $225,191 (000)This is a check for you.2.94% $234,340 (000)0.95% $10,644 (000)4.73% Planned renewal budget (information only) Planned Expenditures from LTFP You may use these values calculated from your data 2020 values or overwrite the links. Financial year ending 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 Expenditure Outlays included in Long Term Financial Plan (in current $ values) Operations budget $9,538 $9,538 $9,538 $9,538 $9,538 $9,538 $9,538 $9,538 $9,538 $9,538 Management budget $3,990 $3,990 $3,990 $3,990 $3,990 $3,990 $3,990 $3,990 $3,990 $3,990 AM systems budget $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total operations $13,528 $13,528 $13,528 $13,528 $13,528 $13,528 $13,528 $13,528 $13,528 $13,528 Reactive maintenance budget $201 $201 $201 $201 $201 $201 $201 $201 $201 $201 Planned maintenance budget $4,158 $4,158 $4,158 $4,158 $4,158 $4,158 $4,158 $4,158 $4,158 $4,158 Specific maintenance items budget $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total maintenance $4,359 $4,359 $4,359 $4,359 $4,359 $4,359 $4,359 $4,359 $4,359 $4,359 Planned renewal budget $2,017 $2,073 $3,308 $2,445 $2,461 $2,473 $2,486 $2,498 $2,511 $2,523 Planned upgrade/new budget $7,125 $13,082 $10,210 $20,124 $7,453 $7,453 $7,453 $7,453 $7,453 $7,453 Non-growth contributed asset value $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Asset Disposals Est Cost to dispose of assets $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Carrying value (DRC) of disposed assets $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Additional Expenditure Outlays Requirements (e.g from Infrastructure Risk Management Plan) Additional Expenditure Outlays required 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 and not included above $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 Operations $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Maintenance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Capital Renewal to be incorporated into Forms 2 & 2.1 (where Method 1 is used) OR Form 2B Defect Repairs (where Method 2 or 3 is used) Capital Upgrade $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 User Comments #2 Forecasts for Capital Renewal using Methods 2 & 3 (Form 2A & 2B) & Capital Upgrade (Form 2C) 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Forecast Capital Renewal $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 from Forms 2A & 2B $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Forecast Capital Upgrade from Form 2C $7,125 $13,082 $10,210 $20,124 $7,453 $7,453 $7,453 $7,453 $7,453 $7,453 Annual depreciation expense Operations Maintenance Capital 20 Year Expenditure Projections Note: Enter all values in current Depreciable amount Depreciated replacement cost Current replacement cost Regional Facilities_S2_V2 Asset Management Plan Additional operations costs Additional maintenance Additional depreciation First year of expenditure projections (financial yr ending) for New Assets Operations and Maintenance Costs ______________________________________________________________________________ M E M O R A N D U M DATE: September 6, 2018 TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) FROM: Todd Miller, Environmental Management Analyst SUBJECT: Recycled Water Demonstration Project Update ACTION REQUESTED: Information only ISSUE The MWMC’s Class A recycled water demonstration use project is currently under development as part of the ongoing recycled water program implementation planning work. This project will usher in the first use of Class A recycled water by the MWMC as well as the first uses of recycled water offsite of the MWMC’s properties. The conceptual design will be completed this fall and the project will enter into design-bid-construction over the current fiscal year. BACKGROUND Under the Thermal Load Mitigation, Pre-Implementation project (P80062), the MWMC entered into a three-phase recycled water program implementation study in 2011. The third phase of work began in 2015 with a strong initial focus on temperature mitigation planning under uncertain regulatory and permitting approaches and the development of the MWMC’s relationship in the Pure Water Partners program with EWEB. This effort has positioned the MWMC to be able to produce water quality trading credits (for riparian shade restoration) as a thermal load mitigation strategy. In August 2014, following a presentation on the results and recommendations of the Phase 2 study, the Commission approved staff to move forward with Phase 3 evaluation of the MWMC’s potential thermal load mitigation strategies. Phase 3 elements included “development of demonstration-scale recycled water project(s) to provide user benefits and exhibit safe, effective use of recycled water.” In March 2016, staff presented a Phase 3 Recycled Water Planning Study update, which outlined the evolving regulatory context and dynamic nature of DEQ’s approach to temperature in wastewater discharge permits. Staff also summarized the Phase 3 objectives, which included “demonstration of recycled water use through pilot projects with community partners.” Memo: Recycled Water Demonstration Project Update September 6, 2018 Page 2 of 3 At the December 2016 MWMC meeting, staff presented a Phase 3 Thermal Load Mitigation and Recycled Water Study Update, under which several assessments and plans will comprise a “thermal load mitigation strategic plan.” These assessments include “development of recycled water use pilot projects in collaboration with local water resource agency interests.” In August 2017, staff amended the Kennedy/Jenks Consultants (K/J) consultant agreement to include “demonstration recycled water use plan development” for immediate/near-term implementation. The proposed demonstration site opportunities for development identified in the amendment were: (1) Eugene street tree watering program; (2) Eugene fire training facility water use; (3) Sand & gravel company non-contact/no run-off site uses; (4) WPCF demonstration garden; and (5) Other opportunities identified during Phase 3 study as appropriate for development. Accordingly, in April 2018 the MWMC approved the Regional Wastewater Program (RWP) Budget and Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for fiscal year 2018-19 (FY 18-19) with the following recycled water planning/design projects: Class A Disinfection Facilities (MWMC project P80098), and Recycled Water Demonstration Project (MWMC project P80099) DISCUSSION Over the past 18 months, staff has defined the scope of the Class A Recycled Water Demonstration Use project. Attachment 1 presents a project memorandum outlining the defined project. K/J is currently developing the conceptual design and cost estimate for the project, which includes Class A recycled water disinfection, monitoring, storage, and distribution elements as well as any user-side retrofit and water handling requirements. The main elements of the project are: Class A Disinfection Facilities: The total Class A recycled water use is projected to be 0.5 to 1.0 million gallons per day during peak summer demand period. New facilities are needed for the disinfection and testing of tertiary filtered water, storage of produced water for distribution, and distribution piping, pumps, and meters to points of use. Industrial Aggregate Facility Use: Delta Sand & Gravel and Knife River are poised to accept recycled water piped to their site for use in their wheel wash, equipment wash, and dust control/tanker fill operations. Delta will be responsible for all required infrastructure on their property. The MWMC project will deliver Class A recycled water to the Delta Sand & Gravel property line. Street Tree Watering: City of Eugene Parks & Open Space division is on board to water street trees via a tank truck that will fill with Class A recycled water at the WPCF. The number of new street trees that need irrigation continues to increase. All trees are now fitted with water bags for slow percolation of water. WPCF Landscape Irrigation: The Class A Disinfection project will allow the MWMC to provide Memo: Recycled Water Demonstration Project Update September 6, 2018 Page 3 of 3 100% of landscape irrigation with recycled water. Currently the landscaping outside the WPCF fence line is irrigated with EWEB-supplied potable water. The next steps of project implementation will occur over the next 12 months and include: Final conceptual design and cost estimates. Contract amendments with K/J to fulfill full design and implementation assistance under projects P80098 and P80099. This scope of work and anticipated project budget are pre-authorized under the existing professional services procurement with K/J. Development of project permitting needs with DEQ. Collaboration with end users on infrastructure and water management needs. Final design packages for the bid/construction phase of work, followed by subsequent construction contracting. Project implementation/recycled water delivery in summer 2019, pending necessary testing and evaluation phases. ACTION REQUESTED No action requested. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Project Memorandum: Class A Recycled Water Demonstration Use: Project Definition PM No. 3-06 – DRAFT V.1 Page 1 PROJECT MEMORANDUM No. 3-06 (DRAFT V.1) MWMC RECYCLED WATER PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING, PHASE 3 Class A Recycled Water Demonstration Use: Project Definition PREPARED FOR: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission STUDY ELEMENT: Task 3-3A PREPARED BY: Todd Miller, Environmental Management Analyst DRAFT REVIEW BY: REVISION DATE: August 6, 2018 Purpose This project memo defines the currently identified project scope for the MWMC’s first scale-production and use of Class A recycled water. The intended project will be brought to conceptual design level detail in advance of a separately managed design/construction phase of work. The project involves Class A disinfection facilities, storage and pump station, tanker truck fill station, piping/pumping to Delta Sand & Gravel property, and full irrigation of the WPCF property landscaping. Background The Phase 2 recycled water/thermal load study identified the need to implement demonstration-scale projects for recycled water use. The demo projects would (1) prove the MWMC’s capability, capacity, and consistency in producing safe, reliable recycled water for community use, (2) exhibit safe, beneficial use of recycled water for stakeholder acceptance for further uses of recycled water, and (3) fosters future recycled water use opportunities that support community economic and water resource goals. The Phase 2 study identified several project concepts for demo use development. These concepts were explored further in initial Phase 3 study work and have been further refined to the current project definition as described in this memo. Table 1 presents the evolution of these demonstration projects. The Phase 2 feasibility study for industrial aggregate recycled water use identified that Class A recycled water would better fit the site application, permitting, and public communications goals. As the opportunity for street tree irrigation was identified, similar considerations for Class A recycled water emerged. The conceptual siting and functions of the Class A Disinfection Facilities project as outlined in this memo were developed from the notes captured during the May 22, 2018 site tour with Kennedy/Jenks Consultants (Project Memo 3-03). ATTACHMENT 1 PM No. 3-06 – DRAFT V.1 Page 2 Table 1: Evolution of Recycled Water Demonstration Project Identification Phase 2 Recommendation Phase 3 Outlined Objective Phase 3 Refined Definition Industrial Aggregate Facility Use Sand & gravel operations non- contact, non-runoff uses Delta Sand & Gravel/Knife River equipment wash racks and tanker fill station use via connection to West Bank Trail pipeline Eugene Fire Training Facility Use Eugene fire training facility use (no update) Deferred to further evaluate site for potential near-term tanker truck supply and long-term pipeline supply Future Greenspace Irrigation Needs (unidentified) Eugene street tree watering program Eugene street/parks tree planting irrigation via WPCF tanker fill station WPCF demonstration garden WPCF full landscape irrigation (replace all Class D and potable irrigation with Class A irrigation) Project Definition The Class A Recycled Water Demonstration Use project encompasses both Class A production/distribution and demonstration site application/management elements. The production side comprises the Class A Disinfection Facilities project (as defined and budgeted for the design/construction phase), which is all of the disinfection, storage, pumping and distribution componentry on the WPCF property. The application side comprises Recycled Water Demonstration Projects (as defined and budgeted for the design/construction phase) retrofit and management issues after point of delivery to the three identified users: Delta Sand & Gravel site, Eugene street tree program irrigation truck, and WPCF landscaping irrigation. The considerations for the application elements will be developed in tandem with the production/distribution elements. However, the primary focus of the conceptual design is on the Class A Disinfection Facilities (production/distribution). The project elements break down as follows: Class A Disinfection Facilities (production/distribution) o Post-tertiary filtration disinfection/testing to Class A standards o Class A recycled water storage o Class A recycled water pump station(s) o Tanker truck fill station o West Bank Trail pipeline interconnection o WPCF irrigation interconnection Recycled Water Demonstration Projects (retrofit/management) o Eugene street tree irrigation truck retrofit o Eugene street tree irrigation handling/management and permitting o Delta Sand & Gravel interconnect management and recycled water plumbing guidance o Delta Sand & Gravel use handling/management and permitting o WPCF irrigation retrofit and permitting ATTACHMENT 1 PM No. 3-06 – DRAFT V.1 Page 3 Project Needs The basic project outcome shall meet the supply needs for identified uses. More detailed description/analysis of these water demands will be supplied under separate memos. The general water production/delivery requirement is for approximately 0.5 to 1.0 mgd, as summarized in Table 2. Table 2: Class A recycled water supply/demand requirements Demonstration Use Peak Daily Demand Delta Sand & Gravel/Knife River 0.5 mgd Eugene street tree irrigation 0.0025 mgd (2,500 gal/day) WPCF landscape irrigation 0.6 mgd Total (all demonstration uses) 1.1 mgd Diurnal/nocturnal use balance between WPCF irrigation and industrial use should be considered Additional critical project design needs include: Ability to curtail/divert Class A recycled water during upset/off-spec events Ability to meet 24-hour daily needs of all uses without interruption to supply (includes peak use periods such as end-of-day equipment wash and episodic tanker truck fills) Metering of discrete user draws (sand & gravel facility, multiple tanker truck users, WPCF irrigation) Ability to drain/flush Class A reservoir and piping back to appropriate points in the treatment system for maintenance or corrective action WPCF irrigation flexibility; may not require storage capacity – can irrigate at night and draw from system then and/or use Class C effluent in case of Class A production interruption Figure 1: Conceptual Layout for Class A Disinfection Facilities Project The Figure 1 schematic (not to scale) represents the basic project layout concept for Class A Disinfection Facilities. Class A recycled water produced at the tertiary filtration unit is piped to a storage tank in the vicinity of the high rate chlorine contact basin (HRCCB) from which it is distributed to various points of use. Distribution points include outside the fenceline to the West Bank Trail pipeline system (connecting to Delta Sand & Gravel), an on-site tanker truck fill station, and on-site interconnect to the WPCF irrigation system. ATTACHMENT 1 PM No. 3-06 – DRAFT V.1 Page 4 Additional Information Needs The following information will be provided by MWMC to support the conceptual design of the Class A Recycled Water Demonstration Project: Options screening analysis memo Technical understanding memo Industrial aggregate pilot recycled water use proposal Eugene street tree irrigation pilot recycled water use proposal WPCF landscaping irrigation recycled water use proposal Tertiary filtration as-built drawing set Geophysical/soils profile site detail (tertiary filters/HRCCB vicinity) WPCF conditional use plan (CUP) & land use compatibility statement (LUCS) Industrial aggregate site recycled water piping technical guidance Street tree irrigation truck retrofit considerations guidance Demonstration project public outreach plan Demonstration project permitting considerations ATTACHMENT 1