HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-11-20 MWMC Agenda Packet
THE FULL PACKET IS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE
www.mwmcpartners.org
MWMC MEETING AGENDA
Friday, December 11th, 2020 7:30 AM – 9:30 AM (PDT)
Due to the Coronavirus Pandemic and Oregon Executive Order 20-16, the MWMC Meeting will be held
remotely via computer or phone.
To join the meeting by phone dial: 1-571-317-3122; Access Code: 698-446-845
7:30 – 7:35 I. ROLL CALL
7:35 – 7:40 II. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. MWMC 11/13/20 Minutes
Action Requested: By motion, approve the Consent Calendar
7:40 – 7:45 III. PUBLIC COMMENT: Public comment can be submitted by email to
jbrennan@springfield-or.gov or by phone 541-726-3694 by 5 PM December 10, 2020 or
made at the meeting. All public comments need to include your full name, address, if
you are representing yourself or an organization (name of organization), and topic.
7:45 – 8:00 IV. LIABILITY INSURANCE RENEWAL……………………………………Katherine Bishop
Action Requested: Approve, by motion
8:00 – 8:20 V. GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE REQUESTS……………………………Michelle Miranda
Action Requested: Informational and Discussion
8:20 – 8:35 VI. FEMA UPDATE – 2016 SEVERE WINTER STORM……………………Katherine Bishop
Action Requested: Informational and Discussion
8:35 – 8:50 VII. BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION, GENERAL MANAGER, & WASTEWATER DIRECTOR
8:50 VIII. ADJOURNMENT
IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONERMOTION:PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
RUFFIER TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR
Comment: Peter Ruffier indicated there was a minor typo. The word info structure needs to be
infrastructure. Mr. Stouder said he would note that correction.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 6/0, WITH PRESIDENT FARR EXCUSED.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
COMMODITY RNG SALE NORTH AMERICA ENERGY STANDARDS BOARD
Mr. Van Eeckhout gave an update on the renewable natural gas project and asked for approval for the
authority to move forward with a sole source contract with NW Natural. This is for the sale of the brown
gas portion of the renewable natural gas product.
MWMC MEETING MINUTES
Friday, November 13th, 2020 at 7:30 a.m.
Due to the Coronavirus Pandemic and Oregon Executive Order 20-16, the MWMC Meeting was held
remotely via computer or phone. Meeting was video recorded.
Commissioner Yeh opened up the meeting at 7:30 a.m. Roll call was taken by Josi Brennan.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present Remotely: Bill Inge, Doug Keeler, Walter Meyer, Joe Pishioneri, Peter Ruffier,
Jennifer Yeh
Commissioner Absent: President Pat Farr
Staff Present Remotely: Lou Allocco, Dave Breitenstein, Josi Brennan, Brian Conlon, Kristin Denmark, Ben
Gibson, Rob Hallett, Clifton Hazen, Tonja Kling, Shawn Krueger, Emily Lane, Jennah Maier, Adam May,
Troy McAllister, James McClendon, April Miller, Todd Miller, Michelle Miranda, Sharon Olson, Jeff
Paschall, Destin Ranch, Bryan Robinson, Peter Ruffier, Melanie Ryan, Doug Singer, Loralyn Spiro, Matt
Stouder, Rachael Vaicunas, Mark Van Eeckhout
Greg Watkins
CONSENT CALENDAR
a.MWMC 10/09/20 Minutes
MWMC Meeting Minutes
11/13/2020
Page 2 of 12
Status and Update: The project is based on the desire to reduce or eliminate flaring of bio-gas produced
at the plant. Right now we utilize about 60% of our biogas in the CHP generator; the other 40% is flared.
The hope with this project is to eliminate that 40% of flaring, and to utilize it within the NW Natural gas
system. Furthermore, it is a project goal to produce some revenue for the MWMC. The project,
especially given COVID-19, is moving along quite well even though there have been a few challenges.
The roof is mostly on and is tarped right now to keep it out of the rain. The hydrogen sulfide tanks and
the receipt point facility (which NW Natural is building to connect into the pipeline) are all visible.
RNG Piping: The process gas pipeline is being installed across the road, and to the Receipt Point Facility.
That pipeline is going into the ground, and will hopefully get encased in concrete next week. There is
work happening right now under the Phase 2 of the Interconnection Agreement contract with NW
Natural. Michels Corporation was hired to install the four inch interconnecting pipe that goes from the
treatment plant over to River Road.
Contracts (Construction): There is a general contract with DSL Builder's that is completing the bulk of
the construction. They have been assigned the Greenlane renewables contract, which is a piece of
equipment for our process. We have received all the equipment except for the pressure swing
adsorption system, which is coming from India. Hopefully, it will be received it in early to mid-
December. What is unique about this project is we have got the interconnection agreement with NW
Natural. They are responsible to do the interconnection piping, which they have contracted with
Michael's for, and they are also responsible to build the receipt point facility. It is a relatively small facility,
but important because that is where gas will be transferred from the MWMC’s ownership into NW
Natural's ownership. Staff was hoping to go out for bid by mid-November; however it is looking more like
December.
RNG Revenue Sources and Brown Gas: The gas is monetized through three different pieces. There are
two pieces in the environmental attributes which are the Renewable Fuel Standard (the federal piece),
and the Low Carbon Fuels Program (the California and Oregon piece). Those portions of the revenue
have already been contracted with Blue Source and there has been a kickoff meeting earlier this week.
They will start with the certification process necessary to monetize those as we get closer to startup in
the spring. The piece that is being highlighted today is the Brown Gas, which is the Commodity Sale.
The MWMC hopes to sell that to NW Natural through the contract, which has been the intent all along
because it is a pilot program and we are connecting directly into NW Naturals transmission lines.
Contracts (Revenue): The MWMC is contracted with Blue Source right now; staff is asking for the ability
to contract through NW Natural for the brown gas commodity sale. The contract will have a term that
will match the environmental attributes portion.
Mr. Van Eeckhout opened up his presentation for any questions, and asked for the approval of
Resolution 20-14.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Ruffier was curious about the three end uses for the gas. Do we sell to the
highest bidder for each portion of it? Mr. Van Eeckhout said on the Environmental Attributes piece, we
have a contract with Blue Source to broker it. There is also an agreement with them, which was
approved last year, for a sharing of that revenue. Staff is going to try and maximize the rate return on
MWMC Meeting Minutes
11/13/2020
Page 3 of 12
that through working with Blue Source. On the Brown Gas piece, the way the contract reads is an index
price. It is the average of the last year's sale price for NW Natural. The goal is to maximize that, which
will happen from working through the contracts with Blue Source and NW Natural.
Commissioner Ruffier asked if we had 100 cubic feet of gas, does Blue Source wheel that to the highest
price. For instance we would get 90 cubic feet to1 RIN and then the remaining 10 feet gets distributed
to the other. Mr. Van Eeckhout stated they have to batch it based on what their market is looking for.
They will have a large ask for a certain amount of gas, or a certain amount of credits. They will then look
to piece together, through their portfolio, the right mixture while maximizing their revenue.
Commissioner Inge asked if we knew the three different mechanisms for revenue resources. Do the
current or proposed prices fit within the return on investment (ROI) model that was originally put
together for this project? Mr. Van Eeckhout said the variables continue to change and he has not
returned to the original ROI model recently. Right now, he is estimating anywhere from $1 to $1.5
million of revenue based on those three pieces. However, there is a cost side to it, and he would like to
go back and look over the details and then come back to answer that question. Commissioner Inge said
he would be interested to see if there has been a decrease on the revenue side and how that impacts the
overall ROI for this project. Mr. Van Eeckhout said he will put that together.
Commissioner Keeler asked if it is correct to say the physical asset, that is the Brown Gas, the difference
being, that is what that is. Then the other gas through Blue Source, is actually an intangible, and reflects
the value of the credits. Is that a good way to think about that? Mr. Van Eeckhout confirmed that is
correct, and the Blue Source piece is really just on paper. It is the attributes that are associated with gas,
because the actual physical commodity is being sold to NW Natural. Kristin Denmark, legal counsel,
followed up and said the credits are peeled off from the gas before they get to the receipt point facilities.
That is where the peel off happens, and Blue Source has the right to those credits before that. We are
then left with the Brown Gas, and that is where NW Natural takes ownership of the Brown Gas. Mr. Van
Eeckhout said the bulk of the revenue we have been anticipating is associated with the environmental
attributes, and not necessarily the commodity gas. The environmental attributes have been more
volatile, especially with the political lay of the land and changing of methane credits.
Commissioner Ruffier referred back to the equipment we are getting from India. In the interest of
further understanding our globalization impacts and relationships, he wanted an outline on where we
get all of our equipment from. In the future, as a small addendum to these types of contracts, an outline
would highlight the sources of material. Mr. Van Eeckhout said our compressor is coming from Italy
and it is definitely a global market. Mr. Stouder suggested staff could put together a table for the
Commission. Commissioner Ruffier was curious about this because of COVID; there is more interest in
sources of materials, and where we are vulnerable to supply chain disruptions.
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER PISHIONERI AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER RUFFIER
TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 20-14. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 6/0 WITH PRESIDENT
FARR ABSENT.
Commissioner Inge pointed out he noticed an incorrect date on page 9 of the October meeting minutes,
and wondered if the date should read December 2019 and not December 2020. Mr. Stouder stated he
MWMC Meeting Minutes
11/13/2020
Page 4 of 12
was correct. Jennifer Yeh stated that it is not a substance change; therefore we do not need to proceed
with another motion.
CAPACITY MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE (CMOM) UPDATE
Brian Conlon, DPW Division Director, stated that the cities of Eugene and Springfield come to the
Commission each year to provide information regarding each City’s capacity, management, operations
and maintenance plans. Those plans set a credible and standardized structure for maintaining the City’s
wastewater conveyance systems and associated assets. Mr. Conlon introduced Jenna Maier, Associate
Engineering Tech from the City of Eugene and Adam May, Associate Manager from the City of
Springfield. Mr. May was recently promoted and has been with the City for a little less than 15 years. Mr.
May has a DQ certification, which was really important to the City of Springfield.
Mr. May discussed the importance of communications out to the community. There are some talented
staff that helped develop the products for today, including Loralyn Spiro and April Miller from the City of
Springfield. Also an intern from OSU, Elliot Pond, who helped Mr. May create the video that will be
shown later. Mr. Conlon stated he liked that Commissioner Inge challenged the team about five years
ago, to set objectives. In our CMOM program, one of our anchoring goals is to mitigate sanitary sewer
overflows (SSO).
Jennah Maier explained that CMOM is a large framework that incorporates many different parts. Ms.
Maier presented on Eugene's capital improvement process and Mr. May presented on Springfield’s
maintenance work. The wastewater collection system is a network of pipes and pumps stations that
allows water to flow from businesses and residences to the wastewater treatment plant. The Eugene
side of the collection system is about 700 miles of pipe; taking care of that much pipe is a significant
effort. One of the major concerns for taking care of the collection system is the problem of inflow and
infiltration (I/I). We design wastewater pipe size based on how much volume is anticipated to be in
those pipes. When and if clean water gets into the wastewater system, it is called inflow and infiltration.
Inflow is when storm water directly flows into the wastewater pipe network. For example, an illegal
storm water connection or water that gets in through a manhole lid. Infiltration is groundwater that
makes its way into pipes through cracks, loose joints or other defects. The combination of the two is
expected in small amounts, but becomes a problem when the volume of I/I gets too big.
Cleanout Construction - Clean outs are vertical pipes that allow equipment to access a wastewater
surface lateral from the ground surface. If a service lateral does not already have one, the City will
provide one during rehab projects. This is beneficial both for the home or business owner and for the
City for future maintenance and inspection.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Pishioneri asked if businesses, plumbers or private landowner’s are allowed
access to those clean outs. Jennah Maier said yes, they are more than welcome to use it and they are
intended to be used both privately and publicly. We put that right at the property line, so it is in the
right of way. In practice it is used as the breakpoint between the public and private side.
Mainline Pipe - This pipe moves along the right of way and is the pipe that collects from multiple sources
and moves water to the treatment plant. The difference between a service lateral and a mainline pipe is
MWMC Meeting Minutes
11/13/2020
Page 5 of 12
a service lateral break off to just one property, and mainline pipe collects from multiple properties and is
all publicly owned. The process for rehabbing mainline pipe is a cured in place pipe lining.
Service Lateral Lining – This pipe is smaller and goes to a particular property. The process for rehabbing
these is almost exactly the same as rehabbing the mainline pipe. It does get more complicated because
your access points on each end are the cleanout and mainline pipe, instead of two manholes. This takes
some specialized contractors, but the process essentially looks the same.
Manholes Ceiling - The manholes are the entry points into the wastewater system and are rehabbed by
sealing them. This is not a structural improvement, but it does make the manholes watertight again.
With those four types of rehab activities, Eugene is able to substantially reduce and/or eliminate I/I from
the public side of the system. Until recently, there was no way of knowing this for sure but now we are
able to prove that. From 2016 to 2019, we collected flow rate data immediately downstream of a rehab
project area. This data included information about the site before and after the rehab construction work.
As a brief overview, the all wastewater model is a digital hydraulic model of the wastewater system and
is in a specialized computer software called Mike Urban. We use that to collect all the flow rate data
before construction and calibrate that into a model. We then collect all the flow rate data after
construction, and put that data into another model. In the end we run the same synthetic brainstorm
through both models and compare how each model behaves. That information will show us how the
system is behaving before and after our rehab project. The first project we collected data for, showed us
we had a 55% reduction in the volume of I/I, because of our rehab work. We then assume the rest of the
I/I is coming in from the private side. Since this first project, the data collected has been very similar.
In 2016 and 2017 we flow monitored the areas that showed the worst I/I in the city. We focused on areas
that were small enough we could rehab that entire area with one year's worth of budget. In 2017 and
2018, we did more of the same and filled in gaps in the model and collected more precise data for I/I
evaluation. In 2018 and 2019, we started to have a more robust data set of where our bad I/I was coming
from. All this data is incorporated into our current model. We have continued to collect new data in
2019 and 2020, and have more monitors in the field right now for the 2020 and 2021 dataset.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Meyer asked what is used for the newer plastic pipe that is being installed
now. Jennah Maier said it is rated at a 100 year lifespan. However, it is new enough technology we can't
know that for sure. PVC in general does not have an end of life, the same way concrete pipes do. PVC
can last indefinitely in some cases and hundred years in other cases. We anticipate that our liner is not
quite as durable as that, but better than the original concrete pipe.
Commissioner Meyer asked if you are in a house service this is in bad shape and probably leaking, do
you talk to the property owner for the potential of going in a bit further, so that the entire house service
could be rehabbed. Jennah Maier said at the moment, no, we do not. We service what we can with the
pipe we own and leave the rest of it. That is a topic that our regional private lateral team has been
talking about and hopefully moving towards some policies about what should be done with private
laterals. At the moment, we are not addressing it. Commissioner Meyer stated once the contractor is
pushing that liner up to the private lateral, the cost for extending it on a unit cost basis would be much
less than if the private property owner had to do a separate project. Is that correct?
MWMC Meeting Minutes
11/13/2020
Page 6 of 12
Jennah Maier replied by saying yes and no, because of where we're putting the cleanout at the property
line, and because we are using that as our foreign access point. It is much easier for the contractor to
work just in the public right of way. Ms. Maier wasn’t sure what kind of accommodations they would
need to be able to work past that clean out, but was happy to look into it more.
Commissioner Inge was curious about the 55% reduction and asked if we are seeing that consistently in
all the different models, or are we seeing a more significant range overall? Jennah Maier said that 55% is
an average. Running several different design storms for this particular location, we were seeing pretty
consistent within that location. Depending on the size of the storm, it was all about 55%, and then the
variation within different project sites. We will have a lot more data to report next year, but it's looking
like 55% is at the low end. Commissioner Inge asked how 55% correlates to what we thought we would
get. Jennah Maier said she came into this role about the time that we started to get this information
and did not personally have any expectations ahead of time. Mr. Stouder said that when you look at the
data nationally, it's kind of really all over the map and depends on a lot of the antecedent conditions, soil
types, groundwater depth and rainfall. It is in line with what he was thinking, because nobody had a
solid answer to test the hypothesis. Mr. Stouder pointed out the data is really good data, but it is a
limited dataset and is not extensive across town. Eugene and Springfield are still collecting it.
Commissioner Keeler asked when you identify a collection area and prioritize it for rehab, do you then
prioritize within that sub collection area, and prioritize which pipes you are going to do and not do?
Jennah Maier said yes, we do. Our general practice is we look at video inspections of all of the pipes in
that neighborhood, and then our maintenance crew will mark where there are defects in the pipe when
they do video inspections. If a pipe has nothing wrong with it, we probably would not line it. Our
pattern of thinking is that we don't want to do spot repairs when we're working for I/I specifically,
because we do not want the water to move to the next defect. In general, we are rehabbing the entire
pipe if they need rehabbed, and also rehabbing one pipe on each end of a pipe that is bad. If we had 5
pipes in a road that need rehabbed, we would rehab 7 pipes, and put a buffer on each end to be safe.
Commissioner Ruffier asked if it's a reasonable or fair assumption that if you have reduced the amount
of I/I by 55% by rehabbing the main and the service lateral, is it fair to assume the remaining 45% is
coming from private laterals. Jennah Maier said yes, or at least most of it. We have to assume there will
be trace amounts of I/I getting in on our public side, because construction can be done really well, but it
cannot be done perfectly. If we are sealing up places where I/I was coming in and performing post
construction inspections, and seeing there is no longer I/I coming in on the public side, the private side
is the only place left, particularly the private side or illegal connections.
Commissioner Ruffier asked what the rate of increase in I/I would be given that we are only rehabbing
2% of the lines every year. Is it a linear increase as pipes age? Would you expect catastrophic failures to
result in significant increases in I/I, as we do not get to those pipes? Jennah Maier stated she has done a
decent amount of research on this topic, and it seems the industry agrees you cannot predict how much
I/I is going to be in any given pipe. There are too many situations where we don't have sufficient data to
predict that, like how much corrosion or flow is in any individual pipe, and where is it relative to the
groundwater table. We do know it goes up with age, but we don't know the nature of that relationship,
if it's linear or whatever else.
MWMC Meeting Minutes
11/13/2020
Page 7 of 12
Commissioner Meyer commented on the work done elsewhere shows the public sewer is the low part of
the system. When rehabbing it, you are no longer draining the area and what happens is the
groundwater level tends to rise a bit. In subsequent years the house services began to leak even more,
because there was more pressure on them. He thought it would be worthwhile to continue to monitor
the site that was fixed to see if there is degradation in the amount of water that is coming in. The 55% is
about right, because nationally we estimate about half the length of the sewer system is not private
property. Jennah Maier stated we have left in place the flow monitors for all of our post construction
sites. We now have a couple of years of data at our oldest construction site and are hoping to continue
to collect that data for a few more years, so we can get some bigger trends as to what's happening there.
Mr. May gave an update on CMOM activities with regards to COVID19. Below are the routine activities
performed to maintain a safe and effective wastewater system.
High velocity cleaning is a process of cleaning sewer lines with pressurized water. It is used for
clearing small blockages such as roots, grease and the typical grit and grime.
Root removal is a process using a root saw on the end of the high velocity cleaner. Chain cutters can
also be used. Problem roots are looked at every 3-6 months.
Flow monitoring, in Springfield there are currently 15 flow monitors used to gather flow data, wet
weather, and dry weather data. This data is compared to find potential sources of I/I. If there are
huge spikes during wet weather versus dry weather, it's a warning sign there is some serious I/I
happening. This also helps in the decision making criteria for rehabilitation and Capital projects, to
monitor before and after capital projects and verify reductions in I/I. The flow metering team is
handled in maintenance.
CCTV inspection is a closed circuit TV inspection. This is the most effective method for determining
defects because you can visually see what is going on inside and allow the operators to see the
inside of the pipe, and better understand potential issues. This is useful way for maintenance staff to
communicate with engineering departments, and we are able to take still frames and record video
that can be use in developing rehab projects. The City of Springfield TV operators also complete the
Pipeline Assessment Certification Program (PACP). PACP is the North American Standard to Pipeline
Defect identification and provides standardization and consistency to pipeline evaluation. This is not
required, but we do participate in it as part of our CMOM program.
Visual inspections involve the inspection of access points, which identifies external and internal
conditions of the asset. The base condition, asphalt on the ground, lid, frame, walls, bench, and all
the parts that make up that entry point are looked at. We also check the flow, debris and visual signs
that pose a problem. At the beginning of the COVID issue we had some fear of sewer work, and this
inspection program kept us going. This was a way for us to keep an eye on what was happening
until we could figure out whether or not we can truly jet lines.
Pipe repairs happen when there are problems which exist in the sewer system that cannot be solved
through the other daily maintenance activities such as severe blockages, heavy root intrusion,
pipeline breaks and separations or from other utilities. When the problems occur, we perform what
we call a dig up. We use our hydro excavating machine, pressurized water and a vacuum to expose
the pipe and the source of the problem.
MWMC Meeting Minutes
11/13/2020
Page 8 of 12
COVID 19 has left its mark on the world, and the way we run our
businesses. Because of this, employees have optional clothing to
wear while jetting or cleaning sewer lines. When we cannot social
distance the team is required to wear non-absorbent boots and
clothing, as well as, face masks/shields. Splash shields are used to
allow the sewer water to be vaporized and turn into droplets. Using
this shield is currently a requirement when it comes to high velocity
cleaning because of the amount of spray that it can produce. That is
yet another way we have evolved and adjusted during COVID 19.
These maintenance activities we perform are important pieces of both cities goals in eliminating sanitary
sewer overflows, reducing I/I and ensuring a proper wastewater conveyance through our cities.
Update on Springfield - Springfield manages about 245 miles of wastewater mains, 16 pump stations
and about 4,900 maintenance access points. This year, 14 of those maintenance access points were
replaced. Staff utilized output from updated flow model to identify a section of 27 inch trunk line that is
about a mile long, for rehabilitation. 14 flow meters were also deployed in a new micro basin, which is a
second wave of micro modeling in the Thurston area.
Update on Eugene - Rob Hallett explained how the COVID pandemic impacted operations. Early on, the
initial response was a reduction in staffing levels by 50%, with another team on-deck. We maintained
that for about 3 or 4 weeks, until other guidelines came and we had more information set up for safety
protocols. For our yard in regards to ingress, egress and flow we had many questions. How many
people can work together? How many people can be in a vehicle together? What's the required PPE?
With that being ironed out we brought back staffing levels to 100%, and have been at 100% for many
months now. At the beginning of the year we were approved to have a new repair crew starting FY21,
but in March or April that was pulled off the table. We have quickly realized in public works and
maintenance, even though we have staggered shift times and kept people separated, it's a fragile
situation.
Update on Eugene - Doug Singer, the Principal Civil Engineer with Public Works Engineering gave an
update from the city of Eugene and discussed the Wastewater Master Plan. This new Wastewater Master
Plan was adopted in August of 2020 and is publicly available on the website. The plan replaces the 1992
Urban Sewerage Plan and covers all programs, capital needs, pump station needs, I/I programs and
incorporates all of the City of Eugene new urban growth boundary. The city of Eugene went through the
process and expanded the urban growth boundary. We have identified how to provide sewer service to
everything, not only within the city limits, but everything within the urban growth boundary. There is a
pretty significant list of capital projects in there. Along with the Wastewater Master Plan Update, we
have not updated our systems development charges or SDC methodologies yet. We are about to start a
process to update our Systems development charge methodologies based on the projects in the master
plan, and based on development projections. We do collaborate across the river and across I5, and I
think it’s a benefit to all of us that we have these meetings.
Mr. Stouder showed the video, “Optimizing Our Wastewater System,” that was put together by the
Communications staff.
MWMC Meeting Minutes
11/13/2020
Page 9 of 12
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Ruffier asked if we have a quantitative objective for the amount of I/I we are
willing to accept at the regional treatment plant? Mr. Stouder said he was not aware of the quantitative
amount; there is a capacity limit of 277 MGD for wet weather that we can treat up to. Mr. Breitenstein
agreed with Mr. Stouder and said we do not have any specific volume amount that we are able to
accept. In the previous calendar year we were at 33 million gallons a day and the calendar year average
even dropped a little bit from that. In the past 5 or 6 years, our annual flows have not been tracking
upward every year so that is a good thing. We take into account the annual rate rainfall is not a steady
state, but we are not seeing an upward incline of annual flows every year. It has been clear that all the
efforts in I/I have been very effective to help reduce flows.
Commissioner Ruffier stated we might want to consider evaluating a peaking factor, or something that
we want to stay below. That way, we could have a more quantitative tie or linkage between our I/I
efforts and what we are actually seeing at the regional wastewater treatment plant. Mr. Stouder said
this is something that could be looked at it from a high level.
Commissioner Meyer commented that the amount of water that EWEB has been purveying has gone
down in the last 10 years by almost 20%. Obviously that reflects in the amount of water we treat, and is
a function of their Water Conservation Program. Also, the price of water has gone up. He was very
pleased to hear the embracement by both cities of the CMOM Program, because 5 or 10 years ago, that
was not the case. We have made a lot of progress, and we are on the right track. Commissioner Meyer
would like to see continuation and maybe have them report back to us on their progress with the
development of a private lateral program.
Commissioner Keeler added on to that by saying as a Commission, we express that value of looking into
a program for private laterals. He did not know if that is on our running task list or not, and more
importantly not sure where we are at with that effort. However, this is something we have been talking
about for many years now. We have looked at McMinnville, Albany, and other communities. At this
point, there is some low hanging fruit for us. Mr. Stouder said the best approach would be for him to
come back and provide a discussion with the Commission; where we are at with respect to how we
interact with the local agencies, what the Commission’s role is, etc.
Commissioner Ruffier referred back to Jenna Maier’s presentation where she made a reference to the
fact that the City of Eugene does about 2% per year rehab on the lines that are 50 years or older, and
referenced there is currently an evaluation to increase that amount. Even though that is a local decision,
he was not sure that the Commission has ever explicitly expressed to the city's an interest in having
them increase the amount of sewer system rehab. That may also be something that we might want to
consider, is to have a more explicit communication to the cities with regards to providing them some
feedback or direction from the commission, with regards to the CMOM program and sewer system
maintenance goals and objectives. Mr. Stouder said that would be part of the future conversation.
FATS, OILS, & GREASE (FOG) MOBILE APP
Destin Ranch, a City of Eugene employee who works on the Industrial Source control program as an
inspector presented on field mobility concerning the FOG Program. It has been quite a journey of
partnerships and working with many people to get to where we are at today. Eugene has roughly 800
food service establishments (FSE). That includes all brick and mortar restaurants, schools and long-term
care facilities. That number does not include mobile food units, food trucks, and food carts. However,
MWMC Meeting Minutes
11/13/2020
Page 10 of 12
once those establishments do get rolled into the program, that number to be well over one thousand.
Springfield is the same but fluctuate around 200 restaurants, which we call the Food Service Facilities.
Each one of those food service establishments or facilities has general requirements by the source
control programs. That program basically lays out the groundwork for the best management practices
each facility should be operating off of, to minimize the amount of FOG that is discharged down our
drains. Historically, our FOG program has been a very reactive program. Meaning that the only time
restaurant inspections were taking place was when there was a report of a major issue in one of our
lines, an SSO, or if we received citizen complaints. Only then, would we go out and perform these
inspections with restaurants. Neither Springfield nor Eugene actually mandates or sets cleaning
frequencies for their grease control devices. That is a business decision left up to the restaurant owners
to ensure they remain in compliance with our general requirements. One caveat to that is if there is a
major issue caused by a restaurant, as part of the enforcement actions, we would mandate a cleaning
frequency to ensure they remain in compliance. Up until a few years ago, we operated off of
recommending a cleaning frequency of three months for any grease control device, whether it’s a 20
gallon grease trap or a one thousand gallon grease interceptor. In the past if a restaurant was cleaning
their grease trap every three months that was good enough and for many years that was the nationwide
standard. We were going out for a major issue that needed corrected right away, rather than being
proactive and going out to restaurants before there is a problem. In the past it has always been a
reactive enforcement action scenario, where the restaurant owners need to get it fixed right away, or
else we would have to go down a different route.
One of the issues with that is, for the past 10 to 15 years, there was minimal follow-up with enforcement
actions after they were issued. Mr. Ranch has completed research on restaurants, and while reviewing
past enforcement actions, noticed that nothing was fixed from the past years. That is one gap that was
identified. Another issue is having very minimal communication with the subsurface crews, who are
really the eyes and the ears of our collection system. Not having a clear communication with that team,
really keeps everyone in the dark as far as where we need to be focused in our efforts as FOF inspectors.
Historically, the FOG program has been a low priority based on dealing with the significant industrial
users and categorical industrial users. One of the main reasons for being a low priority is from the mass
amounts of paperwork for every restaurant inspection.
For every single inspection, there are 10 steps to complete: print out the inspection report, complete the
actual inspection (which involves taking notes with a pen and paper), type those notes out into a word
document, transfer that information into our database, print two copies, draft a cover letter for the
inspection report, print two copies, scan the documents, mail the documents and file the documents.
When there are 800 plus inspections that need to be done, it is a very daunting task and you will be lucky
to complete 5 or 6 of these in a week. This does not bode well for visiting every restaurant.
The presentation was handed off to Emily Lane, a City of Springfield employee who works as an
environmental service Technician with the Industrial Pretreatment Program. Emily Lane presented on
going mobile and how it was a good option for the team. The team was given tablets to meet a goal,
but unfortunately the tablets were not set up for what they needed initially. Therefore, we had to
upgrade and figure out how to make this upgrade work for us.
MWMC Meeting Minutes
11/13/2020
Page 11 of 12
Mr. Ranch stated the biggest problem is working with Apple and a Microsoft document just does not
bode well. Utilizing a Word document versus something different was not working well for field
mobility. He had an encounter with a Lane County environmental health inspector in the field, and was
able to see him complete an inspection report in the field. This health inspector was completing it all on
his tablet, but in a much different manner than how we were attempting to do. They used a program
called Health Space. This program provides this helpful platform to virtually every county in the state of
Oregon, for health inspection programs. The health inspector was able to fill out the mobile form with
simple yes or no questions. This program would pull up the Lane County Health code that was in
violation, and he was able to type in a couple of notes as to specifics on it. Immediately, we began
conversations with the city of Springfield to discuss health space. Health Space was brought in and
performed a demo to see what type of answers and solutions that they could bring to help eliminate the
redundant paperwork. The team was then ready to get this program going and knew it will save a lot of
time while out in the field.
Emily Lane stated the storm water employees had been using tablets and had a couple apps that
worked for them. These apps were developed with the Springfield IT program. We took what we
looking for with the Restaurant Inspection form to Springfield, and asked what the IT program could do
to make it happen. They came up with the basic form to start with, and then Mr. Ranch took it to his IT
group and modified it, so the program would work exactly for what we needed.
Mr. Ranch discussed the ESRI-ARCHIS system, which has mapping through the collector app. This has all
the FSC maps and all the sanitary sewer maps. The actual inspection forms were designed through a
program called survey 1 2 3, and all of the data and storage is stored on a cloud system now, rather than
on our servers. With the ARCGIS collector app, every restaurant is easily located. Information from the
partnership with Lane County, allows the team to obtain quarterly updates of these restaurant maps.
Mapping of all the sewer lines is included in this update, and can be utilized to pull up CCTV footage.
The team now can figure out where these hotspots are and what restaurants are connected directly to
them very quickly. The inspection form is built off of the Excel spreadsheet. One of the best things about
the inspection form is we are able to integrate this grease production calculator into the inspection
form. This has been brought to the State of Oregon's plumbing official, who had approved it for use for
FOG inspectors. This is the best tool for to educating restaurant owners on why 3 months cleaning
frequency in general has not nearly enough for keeping grease out of our collection system. Another
great function is being able to import pictures right off the inspection form, in which they are
automatically added. This program is very intuitive to use based on how you answer questions, because
either new questions will appear or corrective actions will appear. When a corrective action pops up, it
lets them know to have a grease control device installed within nine days, and then let the inspector
know when it is done. An Endura 20 gallon grease trap is a very good unit, but can only hold so much.
The maximum capacity for those units in a perfect condition is 76 pounds, so if cleaned once every three
months while producing almost 300 pounds of grease per month, there is a lot of grease bypassing that
system and not getting captured. With this system the team has very minimal time spent taking notes,
compared to our own paper inspection form. At the end of the form, corrective actions pop up and the
restaurant representative is able to sign it in person after reviewing those corrective actions. The form
then will get submitted and is complete. The program automatically e-mails the owner or manager a
word document of the report, which allows the inspector to use this data and utilize everyone’s time
more effectively.
MWMC Meeting Minutes
11/13/2020
Page 12 of 12
Emily Lane discussed how the mobile app has given the team a lot of time to make a proactive program.
We understand cleaning frequencies. It gives us a stronger focus on education, spending less time on
enforcement. Overall, we have a more service oriented relationship with these establishments and
facilities and it has really made a huge improvement on our program.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Ruffier was very impressed and thought this system advanced the
inspection process. He asked, you can get through the inspections faster and file a report, but do you
have any insights or concerns with regards to following up to enforcement actions? With generating a
lot of data and information, you are going to need to go back to check in. Are there any concerns with
that? Mr. Ranch said with the rebuilding the FOG program, and a history of the program being
neglected for so long, just meeting on a regular basis has been helpful in providing that education. His
focus is on educating the restaurant owners on the FOG program requirements, because it has not been
at the forefront of their mind in over a decade. The focus right now is educating and working with the
restaurants, and trying to change habits. If there is a hotspot area of 10 or 15 restaurants, Mr. Ranch
inspects them all, and then goes back in 5 or 6 months to re-iterate that education aspect of the
program. As far as the enforcement approach, Mr. Ranch has not had to take that approach yet. The
team has been very successful in installing new grease traps, completing repairs and increasing cleaning
frequencies. Emily Lane said as far as timelines and enforcement; that data goes into a calendar that is
generated from the inspection form, so it is an automatic reminder on her calendar.
BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION, GENERAL MANAGER, & WASTEWATER DIRECTOR
Mr. Stouder stated around January, the City of Springfield will be purchasing using the Zoom platform
and will be able to use it for future MWMC meetings. Zoom will have better functionality for people on
tablets and for the general. Mr. Stouder expressed his appreciation for all the presenters today.
Mr. Breitenstein discussed the COVID sampling. Staff continues to sample the influent weekly, all of
those results are qualitative at this point. Of the data reviewed so far, all has shown up as a positive test.
Two weeks ago, OSU reached out and asked if Eugene would be interested in participating in their
community trades program. This involves OSU coming to town to perform random voluntary testing of
residents. OSU asked if the Eugene staff could help supplement that testing with the wastewater testing,
specific to the neighborhoods where they would be testing residents. Eugene asked if they could take a
regional approach to this and included Springfield; OSU said definitely. Eugene and Springfield's staff
met with OSU last week and completed the testing process. There were about 17 locations in Eugene
and Springfield where the staff assisted with sampling. Since then we received an e-mail which
indicated the results are very interesting. No additional detail has been provided yet. OSU needs to
complete their analysis first and share that information with the Lane County Health Department.
Mr. Breitenstein indicated we are out of our summer permit now; it was another successful summer
permit season. A contractor came in to inspect the sodium hypochlorite tanks for the disinfection
process. We periodically bring them in to ensure the integrity of our tanks. There have been some spot
repairs in the past, but this time they uncovered several concerns. Staff had Jacob's Engineering provide
an additional review; Mr. Breitenstein did find out there are no concerns about the integrity of the tanks
currently, so they are all still in service at this time.
Jennifer Yeh adjourned the meeting at 9:30
______________________________________________________________________________
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: December 3, 2020
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Katherine Bishop, Environmental Services Program Manager
SUBJECT: Liability Insurance Renewal for 2021
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Authorize the General Manager to enter into an agreement for
liability insurance coverage to be effective January 1, 2021
ISSUE
The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission’s (MWMC) existing general liability insurance
coverage with Special Districts Insurance Services (SDIS) covers the 2020 calendar year. The Commission
is requested to authorize the General Manager to enter into an agreement for liability (casualty)
insurance coverage with SDIS to be effective January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021.
BACKGROUND
The MWMC carries property insurance and general liability (casualty) insurance policies that provide risk
insurance coverage, working closely with the MWMC Insurance Agent of Record.
Insurance Agent of Record - In 2015, following a competitive process, the Commission authorized the
MWMC General Manager to enter into a multi-year contract with Brown & Brown Northwest (BBNW) for
Insurance Agent of Record services. The BBNW team members serving the MWMC include Ron Cutter,
Senior Vice President / NW Public Sector Practice Leader; Tim Clarke, Senior Vice President of Claims; and
Bianne Tyerman, Account Manager.
Liability (Casualty) Insurance - In mid-2015 staff presented information on liability risk insurance scenarios
including insurance providers and associated insurance services and premiums. Based on the
information presented, the Commission recommended moving from City County Insurance Services
(CIS) to Special Districts Insurance Services (SDIS) based on services, overall fit, and better premiums. The
SDIS is a program provided by the Special Districts Association of Oregon (SDAO). The Commission
authorized the MWMC General Manager to enter into an initial contract with SDIS for Liability Insurance
effective July 1, 2015. Later, the Commission authorized renewals of liability insurance coverage with
SDIS, on an annual basis. The cities of Eugene and Springfield, and Lane County also use BBNW.
Memo: Liability Insurance Renewal for 2021
December 3, 2020
Page 2 of 2
Property Insurance - In June 2020 the Commission authorized the MWMC General Manager to enter into
agreements to secure property insurance including earthquake and flood coverage for the MWMC’s
property assets currently valued at $332.9 million for the fiscal year (FY) period of July 1, 2020 through
June 30, 2021. Staff will return to the Commission in June 2021 to discuss property insurance and to seek
approval for FY 2021-22 property coverage.
DISCUSSION
Liability (casualty) insurance covers general liability, administrative liability, public officials’ liability, non-
owned and hired automobile liability, hired automobile physical damage, and umbrella/excess liability
coverage.
The 2021 liability insurance rate of $31,796 reflects an increase of $878 or 2.8% when compared to 2020.
Separately, staff participated in the SDIS Best Practices Credit program earning a credit of ($3,594)
applied to the 2021 rates which results in a net premium of $28,202.
Staff is recommending renewal of liability insurance coverage with Special Districts Insurance Services
(SDIS) for the 2021 calendar year with the insurance premium at $28,202, plus associated membership
dues at $1,232 paid to the SDAO. The combined 2021 premium and membership is $29,434 reflecting
an overall increase of $736 or 2.6% when compared to 2020.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Commission is requested by motion, to authorize and direct the General Manager to enter into an
agreement with Special Districts Insurance Services (SDIS) for liability (casualty) insurance coverage, plus
associated SDAO membership renewal for the period of January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021.
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: December 11, 2020
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Michelle Miranda, Wastewater Operations Manager (AIC)
SUBJECT: Groundwater Discharge Requests
ACTION
REQUESTED: Information and Discussion
_____________________________________________________________________
ISSUE
Both Eugene and Springfield pretreatment programs occasionally receive requests to
discharge groundwater into the regional wastewater system. Typically, these requests are
related to dewatering a contaminated construction site or to clean up contaminated soil
and/or water as part of site development or remediation. Staff plans to provide information
about groundwater discharge requests and how they are managed at the December 11, 2020
Commission meeting.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Most groundwater discharge requests are related to dewatering from construction sites.
Construction dewatering is needed when soil excavation performed below the groundwater
table generates water that must be disposed. Generally, the primary pollutant of concern is
sediment; these discharges are typically managed through construction site runoff programs
governed by NPDES Stormwater Permits issued to both cities.
Less frequent groundwater discharge requests are received for remediation sites that are
known or suspected to be contaminated with other pollutants of concern, such as gasoline,
solvents, or metals. These discharge requests are managed by the regional pretreatment
programs. Pretreatment regulations specifically prohibit the discharge of groundwater into
the sewer system without prior written approval.
Request Process
Because groundwater discharge requests vary according to the type of pollutants present,
pretreatment requirements, amount, and duration, an application is required to be
completed and submitted. In most cases, the applicant will be required to provide the
following information:
Memo: Groundwater Discharge Requests
December 11, 2020
Page 2 of 2
Analytical data with lab reports – for waste characterization to identify physical and/or
chemical pollutants and concentrations
Site history – what industrial/commercial activity was previously conducted on site that
caused, contributed to, or could potentially cause or contribute to contamination
Known or suspected pollutants of concern
Signs of contamination
If the site is a DEQ cleanup site and the associated documents and administrative orders
Estimate of proposed volume of daily discharge
Requested start date of the discharge
Estimated duration of the discharge
Proposed groundwater treatment method
A site visit is conducted to verify information submitted with the application. The discharge
request must comply with all local rules that regulate discharges to the wastewater system
and include volume measurement for billing purposes in order to be approved. Applicants of
approved discharge requests receive an authorization letter which specifies any required
treatment for removal of contaminants, pollutant concentrations limits, volume limits,
monitoring requirements, and other terms and conditions.
Types of Requests
Most of the requests received by pretreatment program staff pertain to sites of former or
redeveloped fuel stations that have been contaminated by leaking underground storage
tanks and dry cleaners with environmental contamination caused by past spills and waste
disposal practices. Less common requests include those for sites that have contaminated
groundwater remediation projects from past industrial activities. These requests are
generally incorporated into an industrial wastewater discharge permit. Discharge limits and
other conditions are developed on case-by-case basis and take into consideration multiple
factors including remediation options other than discharge to the wastewater system, site-
specific technical issues, worker health and safety, water quality, system capacity, and
treatability of the pollutants of concern.
ACTION REQUESTED
Information and Discussion
______________________________________________________________________________
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: December 3, 2020
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Katherine Bishop, Environmental Services Program Manager
SUBJECT: FEMA Update – 2016 Severe Winter Storm
ACTION
REQUESTED: Informational and Discussion
ISSUE
To provide an update on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reimbursements to the
Commission, related to the December 2016 Severe Winter “Ice” Storm.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
The December 14, 2016 Severe Winter Ice Storm resulted in more than an inch of ice accumulation on
tree branches in and around Lane County during the storm. This resulted in trees coming down on
power lines and utility poles in Eugene, Springfield, and surrounding Lane County communities.
Recognizing that the MWMC’s property insurance coverage includes a $250,000 deductible, staff’s focus
included FEMA reimbursement up to the $250,000 deductible.
Damages and loss directly related to the MWMC regional facilities included significant debris removal
and large tree trimming around the regional facilities, and emergency protective measures deploying
generators to pump stations, while maintaining plant operations. The greatest damage and loss
resulted at the Poplar Farm. This large project spanned multiple years for seasonal harvesting and
replanting.
Category A - Debris Removal (31-90 days, resulted in 85% reimbursement); Debris Removal (91+
days, resulted in 80% reimbursement); and, Category B - Emergency Protective Measures
performed by Eugene Staff and some contract services (resulted in 75% reimbursement).
Fiscal Impact - Total expenses resulted in $53,508, with an overall FEMA reimbursement at
$43,913 or 82% received in 2017 and 2018.
Memo: FEMA Update – 2016 Severe Winter Storm
December 3, 2020
Page 2 of 2
Category F - Utility – Poplar Farm damage removal and replanting was a multi-year large project
performed by Springfield and Eugene Staff, including contracts for services. This project included
eligibility for a Hazard Mitigation Grant in the amount of $15,000 for including a portion of OP367
tree starts in the replanting, as this variety is known for greater resiliency.
Fiscal Impact – Initial projection was $195,824 including the $15,000 grant, with current FEMA
reimbursements received at $146,868 or 75% in October 2020.
When combining debris removal, emergency protective measures and poplar, reimbursement received
to-date is $190,781 or 77%. Additionally, staff understands that the Office of Emergency Management
(OEM) is considering the possibility of a future final payment to the MWMC. As staff learns the outcome
from OEM, staff will update the Commission.
ACTION REQUESTED
Informational and Discussion