PICNIC POINT WASTEWATER

TREATMENT PLANT OUTFALL

UPGRADE

Senior Design Project Final Report

June 6, 2016

CEE 16.7
Seattle University
College of Science and Engineering
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Seattle University
901 12th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98122
June 6, 2016
Alderwood Water and Waste Water District
Attn: Jeff Clark, Paul Richart, Josiah Hartom
3626 156th Street Southwest
Lynnwood, WA 98087
RE: Picnic Point Wastewater Treatment Facility Outfall Upgrade
Dear Mr. Clarke, Mr. Richart, and Mr. Hartom,
Seattle University Senior Design Team CEE 16.7 is pleased to submit this final report for the
Picnic Point Wastewater Treatment Facility Outfall Upgrade. This report includes the following
information:

External condition assessment and dive inspection results of exposed submerged pipe and
diffuser
Hydraulic capacity analyses for the current system
Research of applicable codes, permits, and regulations
Outfall construction and rehabilitation research
System design for three options
Basis of construction cost estimates

It has been a pleasure to work with Alderwood Water and Wastewater District on this project. If
you have any questions, please dont hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Seattle University Senior Design Project Team CEE 16.7

Kristin Ramey

Isabella Schwartz

Abbie Lorensen

CC: Seattle University Project Center, Dr. Michael Marsolek

Larissa Grundell

PICNIC POINT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

OUTFALL UPGRADE

Project Sponsors
Alderwood Water and Wastewater District

Project Liaisons
Paul Richart P.E.
Josiah Hartom

Engineering Design Team CEE 16.7

Seattle University Project Engineers

Larissa Grundell
Abbie Lorensen
Isabella Schwartz
Kristin Ramey

Project Faculty Advisor

Dr. Michael Marsolek

Civil Engineering Senior Design Coordinator

Dr. Nirmala Gnanapragasam, P.E.

Science and Engineering Project Center Director

Dr. Jean Jacoby
June 6, 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Senior Design Team 16.7 evaluated the hydraulic capacity and structural integrity of
approximately 4,500 feet of Alderwood Water and Wastewater Districts marine outfall in
Snohomish County, Washington. An external, underwater inspection was completed and
modeling software was used to determine the hydraulic capacity of the outfall and effluent
dilution and mixing in the receiving water body. Conclusions from these analyses were used to
generate three design options that will satisfy future growth requirements in the water district.

Accomplished Work
Applicable Permit/Code/Regulation Research
The team researched applicable permits, codes, and regulations that may be required during
rehabilitation or construction of an outfall. This research helped to identify areas of importance
for construction in or near a marine environment as well as terrestrial environments.
Material and Construction Research
The team investigated materials and construction methods used in partial or full outfall
replacement projects. Advantages and disadvantages for the options were identified, aiding in the
design process and project cost estimations.
Hydraulic Modeling
PC Storm Water Management Model (PCSWMM) and hand calculations were used to estimate
the hydraulic capacity of the pipeline. Both methods indicate a hydraulic capacity of 11 MGD.
However, this capacity is below the projected peak instantaneous flow of 15.8 MGD after the
expected service area expansion. Each method indicated there is a hydraulic control
approximately 280 feet downstream of the treatment plant. Therefore, more hydraulic capacity
must be supplied to the system upstream of the hydraulic control.
Effluent Dilution Modeling
A new diffuser design was included in all design options. Effluent dilution and mixing modeling
was performed using Visual Plumes modeling software created by USEPA, to ensure that a new
diffuser would comply with state and federal regulations for discharging effluent into a receiving
water body of the United States. This modeling incorporated average monthly flow data over
multiple years, ambient water temperatures, current data, and effluent concentrations and
velocities. All diffuser designs exceed mixing requirements and eliminate the possibility of
saltwater intrusion and sedimentation.
Design Options
The team completed three 45% design options for the outfall upgrade project consistent with
addressing hydraulic capacity issues and increasing lifespan. Options 1 and 2 address a partial
replacement of the submerged section with a new diffuser. These options were based on
modeling outcomes and hand calculations that determined a flow attenuation design. The team
designed a detention vault that would be placed at the inlet to the outfall. Option 3 is a complete
upsize of the pipe network from 18 inch to 24 inch pipe to accommodate future increased flows,
and a new diffuser. All models were confirmed with hand calculations and previous studies

provided to the team. These options include conceptual level drawings with basic details and cost
estimates for each option that include trenchless technology, materials, mobilization and
demobilization, state tax, and project reserves and contingencies.

Recommendation
Based on this work, the team recommends that Alderwood Water and Wastewater District
replace the entire Picnic Point Wastewater Treatment Plant outfall with 24 inch pipe, and replace
the open port diffuser with a deeper, duckbill diffuser, maintaining the wastefield boundary at
-70 below mean lower low water level (MLLW), which is the average of all the low tides. This
will ensure minimal environmental impacts and will extend service life of the outfall. While all
three options investigated by the team are feasible, and options two and three scored similarly via
the decision matrix, this option has the longest potential lifespan and therefore has a lower
lifecycle cost and minimized environmental and community impacts over the life of the outfall.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Seattle University Civil Engineering Team CEE 16.7 would like to acknowledge and thank the
following individuals for their technical advice and support during the development of our
Senior Project.
Jeff Clarke, Paul Richart, Josiah Hartom, and the rest of Alderwood Water and Wastewater
District team for commissioning and supporting the project. The staff of the Seattle University
Projects Center for their assistance and guidance while providing this valuable opportunity to
students.
Dr. Michael Marsolek, for acting as CEE 16.7 faculty advisor, Dr. Wes Lauer, Dr. Nirmala
Gnanapragasam, Dr. Mark Siegenthaler, Joy Crevier and the staff of Seattle University
Engineering Department for their valuable teaching and support during this process.

Eleanor Jackson of Seattle Public Utilities for providing hydraulic modeling assistance

Doug DeVries of Seattle Public Utilities for providing design examples

Bill Fox of Rosedale Marine Engineering for providing cost estimates and design
guidance

Kelsey Erholm of GP Granite Precast for cost estimates

Eric Noah of Gray & Osbourn for guidance and permitting assistance

Jeff Lundt of King County Wastewater Division for providing guidance on the process of
outfall design

Gil Bridges for supplying outfall information from Mukilteo Water and Wastewater
District

Bruce Nairn of King County for providing assistance with the mixing zone analysis

Computational Hydraulics International for providing licensure to PCSWMM for the

hydraulic analysis

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... I
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... II
GLOSSARY OF TERMS ........................................................................................................... III
1

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 4
1.1 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 4
1.1.1 Facility History ........................................................................................................... 4
1.1.2 Outfall Characteristics ................................................................................................ 4
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT/PROJECT CONSTRAINTS ................................................................... 5
1.2.1 Problem Statement ...................................................................................................... 5
1.2.2 Project Constraints ...................................................................................................... 6
1.3 BASIS OF DESIGN ................................................................................................................. 6
1.4 REPORT OUTLINE ................................................................................................................. 8

CONDITION ASSESSMENT.............................................................................................. 9

EXISTING SYSTEM HYDRAULIC MODELING .......................................................... 9

3.1 OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................... 9
3.2 PCSWMM MODEL FOR CURRENT OUTFALL CAPACITY ...................................................... 9
3.3 OUTFALL CAPACITY HAND CALCULATIONS ...................................................................... 11
3.4 CONCLUSIONS ON OUTFALL CAPACITY ............................................................................. 11

APPLICABLE PERMITS, CODES AND REGULATIONS.......................................... 11

4.1 OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................................... 11
4.2 APPLICABLE PERMITS ........................................................................................................ 12
4.3 APPLICABLE CODES AND REGULATIONS ............................................................................ 12
4.4 STANDARD OUTFALL DESIGN PRACTICES .......................................................................... 12

OUTFALL CONSTRUCTION AND REHABILITATION ........................................... 13

5.1 REPLACEMENT OPTIONS .................................................................................................... 13
5.1.1 Replacement Material Options ................................................................................. 13
5.1.2 Replacement Joints ................................................................................................... 14
5.1.3 Installation Options ................................................................................................... 15
5.2 REHABILITATION OPTIONS ................................................................................................. 16
5.2.1 Repair Material Options ............................................................................................ 17
5.3 DIFFUSER OPTIONS ............................................................................................................ 18
5.4 OUTFALL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................... 20
5.5 CONCLUSIONS OF CONSTRUCTION AND REPLACEMENT/REHABILITATION ......................... 22

SYSTEM DESIGN .............................................................................................................. 22

6.1 OPTION 1 PARTIAL REPLACEMENT OF SUBMERGED SECTION ......................................... 23
6.1.1 Detention Vault Design............................................................................................. 23
6.1.2 Concrete Section Replacement ................................................................................. 27
6.1.3 Diffuser Replacement ............................................................................................... 28
6.1.4 Hydraulic Analysis.................................................................................................... 30
6.2 OPTION 2 PARTIAL REPLACEMENT AND LENGTHENING OF SUBMERGED SECTION ............ 32
6.3 OPTION 3 FULL OUTFALL REPLACEMENT ....................................................................... 34

BASIS OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS............................................................................. 34

7.1 COST ESTIMATES BY OPTION ............................................................................................. 35

PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................ 36

8.1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT DESIGN CONDITIONS .................................................................... 36
8.2 SUMMARY OF PROJECT OPTIONS ....................................................................................... 36
8.3 PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... 37

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 40

10

APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 10-1

10.1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL ......................................................................................... 10.1-1
10.2 DIVE INSPECTION REPORT ....................................................................................... 10.2-1
10.3 HYDRAULIC HAND CALCULATIONS ......................................................................... 10.3-1
10.3.1 Current System Capacity Sample Calculations .............................................. 10.3-1
10.4 APPLICABLE PERMITS, CODES, AND REGULATIONS ................................................. 10.4-1
10.5 ANCHOR CALCULATIONS ......................................................................................... 10.5-1
10.6 DIFFUSER MIXING ZONE ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 10.6-1
10.6.1 Mixing Zones .................................................................................................. 10.6-2
10.6.2 Dilution Factors .............................................................................................. 10.6-3
10.6.3 Visual Plumes Model for Current Diffuser ..................................................... 10.6-5
10.6.4 Diffuser Analysis for Proposed Design Options ........................................... 10.6-12
10.6.5 Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA0020826 (2013) ..................................... 10.6-13
10.7 SYSTEM DESIGN DRAWINGS .................................................................................... 10.7-1
10.8 COST ESTIMATE ....................................................................................................... 10.8-1
10.9 MICRO TURBINE TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................... 10.9-1
10.10 TEAM RESUMES ..................................................................................................... 10.10-1

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: AWWD PICNIC POINT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT VICINITY MAP ........... 5
FIGURE 2: CURRENT AND FUTURE SERVICE AREA MAP FOR THE PICNIC POINT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ........................................................................................... 6
FIGURE 3: USER INTERFACE FOR PCSWMM MODEL SOFTWARE SHOWING OUTFALL PATH
............................................................................................................................................................ 10
FIGURE 4: EXAMPLE OF A DROP MANHOLE FOR CONNECTING REPLACEMENT SECTION
OF OUTFALL TO EXISTING DUCTILE IRON SECTION (HEATH, 2014) ................................ 15
FIGURE 5: MICRO-TUNNELING BORING MACHINE (NADA PACIFIC CORPORATION, 2016) . 16
FIGURE 6: INTERNAL PIPE VIEW BEFORE AND AFTER CIPP INSTALLATION (HOGAN
PLUMBING COMPANY, 2013) ....................................................................................................... 17
FIGURE 7: INSTALLATION TECHNIQUES FOR CIPP (LANZO LINING SERVICES, INC., 2010) 18
FIGURE 8: GENERAL OPEN PORT DIFFUSER WITH EXAMPLE OF A WASTEFIELD
(NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, 1993) .................................................................................. 19
FIGURE 9: A) PROFILE VIEW OF DIFFUSER WITH DUCKBILL CHECK VALVES- NOT TO
SCALE, B) PROFILE SECTION DETAIL OF DUCKBILL CHECK VALVE NOT TO SCALE
............................................................................................................................................................ 20
FIGURE 10: LISTED PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES IN THE VICINITY OF THE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
WILDLIFE, 2016).............................................................................................................................. 21
FIGURE 11: EXAMPLE OF LITTORAL DRIFT (EARTH SCIENCE, 2016)......................................... 22
FIGURE 12: OPTION SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 23
FIGURE 13: PLOT OF INFLOW AND OUTFLOW RATE VERSUS TIME .......................................... 25
FIGURE 14: NORTH ORIENTATION OF PLAN VIEW OF THE PLANT SHOWING VAULT
LOCATION IN THE PARKING LOT .............................................................................................. 26
FIGURE 15: DETENTION VAULT PLAN VIEW ................................................................................... 27
FIGURE 16: DETENTION VAULT PROFILE SECTION ....................................................................... 27
FIGURE 17: CONCRETE ANCHOR DETAIL FOR PRESCRIBED HDPE PIPE .................................. 28
FIGURE 18: PLUME ELEVATION VS. PORT SPACING DETERMINED FROM VISUAL PLUMES
............................................................................................................................................................ 29
FIGURE 19: PLUME ELEVATION FOR FUTURE ANTICIPATED FLOWS USING CHRONIC ZONE
AQUATIC CRITERIA ...................................................................................................................... 30
FIGURE 20: PLUME ELEVATION VERSUS PORT SPACING FOR OPTIONS 2 AND 3 .................. 33
FIGURE 21: LAYOUT OF VARIABLES FOR DIFFUSER HEAD LOSS CALCULATIONS ........ 10.3-3
FIGURE 22: PLAN VIEW DEPICTING THE ACUTE AND CHRONIC MIXING ZONES AROUND
THE DIFFUSER .......................................................................................................................... 10.6-2
FIGURE 23: GENERIC EFFLUENT PLUME FROM A DIFFUSER (OWENS, EFFLER, MATTHEWS,
& PRESTIGIACOMO, 2013) ...................................................................................................... 10.6-4
FIGURE 24: WINTER AND SUMMER DENSITY STRATIFICATION PROFILES....................... 10.6-7
FIGURE 25: PLUME DILUTION FOR ACUTE ZONE, AQUATIC LIFE CRITERIA .................... 10.6-9
FIGURE 26: DILUTION FOR CHRONIC ZONE, HUMAN NON-CARCINOGENIC CRITERIA . 10.6-9
FIGURE 27: DILUTION FOR CHRONIC ZONE, HUMAN HEALTH CARCINOGENIC CRITERIA
.................................................................................................................................................... 10.6-10
FIGURE 28: EXAMPLE OF TURBINE DIAGRAM BASED ON HYDROELECTRIC GENERATOR
(VEOLIA, 2016) .......................................................................................................................... 10.9-2

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: PCSWMM MODEL ATTRIBUTES ........................................................................................ 10
TABLE 2: SAMPLE ACCUMULATION CALCULATION TABLE ...................................................... 24
TABLE 3: ADJUSTED DESIGN FLOWS FOR FUTURE PLANT ......................................................... 29
TABLE 4: DILUTION FACTORS AT THE ACUTE AND CHRONIC MIXING ZONES FOR FUTURE
ANTICIPATED FLOWS ................................................................................................................... 30
TABLE 5: LOW AND HIGH FLOW CONDITIONS FOR EACH PORT ............................................... 31
TABLE 6: REQUIRED DEPTH TO ENSURE -70 FT. WASTEFIELD FOR 2, 4, 6, AND 8 PORTS .... 32
TABLE 7: CALCULATED DILUTION FACTORS FOR THE ACUTE AND CHRONIC ZONES FOR
OPTION 2 DIFFUSER ...................................................................................................................... 33
TABLE 8: OPTION COSTS INCLUDING SOFT COST, CONTINGENCY, AND MANAGEMENT
RESERVE .......................................................................................................................................... 35
TABLE 9: DECISION MATRIX OF THE THREE OPTIONS ................................................................. 37
TABLE 10: HORIZONTAL BENDS FOR MINOR LOSSES ............................................................ 10.3-2
TABLE 11: TABLE OF PERMITS REQUIRED FOR PROJECT. DEPENDING ON ACTUAL
PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS, ADDITIONAL PERMITS MAY APPLY ................................ 10.4-2
TABLE 12: SUMMARY OF REGULATIONS THAT APPLY TO PROJECT. DEPENDING ON FINAL
SCOPE OF WORK, ADDITIONAL CODES AND REGULATIONS MAY APPLY ............... 10.4-5
TABLE 13: DESIGN FLOW AND CURRENT SPEED FOR EACH MIXING ZONE AND CRITERIA
...................................................................................................................................................... 10.6-3
TABLE 14: DILUTION FACTOR CALCULATIONS FOR EACH CONDITION ........................... 10.6-5
TABLE 15: DIFFUSER INPUTS FOR VISUAL PLUMES................................................................ 10.6-6
TABLE 16: AMBIENT PROPERTIES FOR VISUAL PLUMES ....................................................... 10.6-6
TABLE 17: PLUME ELEVATIONS AND DILUTION FACTORS USING SUMMER AND WINTER
DENSITY STRATIFICATION PROFILES ................................................................................ 10.6-7
TABLE 18: ADDITIONAL AMBIENT PARAMETERS THAT CHANGE WITH DEPTH (URS, 2007)
...................................................................................................................................................... 10.6-8
TABLE 19: VISUAL PLUMES SPECIAL SETTINGS INPUT TAB ................................................ 10.6-8
TABLE 20: COMPARISON OF CALCULATED AND MODELED DILUTION FACTORS........ 10.6-10
TABLE 21: DILUTED CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS COMPARED TO REGULATORY
DILUTIONS FOR THE CURRENT DIFFUSER...................................................................... 10.6-12
TABLE 22: DILUTED CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS COMPARED TO REGULATORY
DILUTIONS FOR OPTION 1 ................................................................................................... 10.6-12
TABLE 23. DILUTED CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS COMPARED TO REGULATORY
STANDARDS FOR OPTION 2 AND 3 .................................................................................... 10.6-12
TABLE 24: ANNUAL COST ESTIMATE FOR TIDEFLEX DUCKBILL DIFFUSER DUE TO THE
VALVES PROTRUDING FROM THE SEAFLOOR ................................................................. 10.8-1
TABLE 25: OPTION 1 COST ESTIMATE ......................................................................................... 10.8-2
TABLE 26: OPTION 2 COST ESTIMATE ......................................................................................... 10.8-3
TABLE 27: OPTION 3 COST ESTIMATE ......................................................................................... 10.8-4

II

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
BOD:

Biochemical Oxygen Demand: The dissolved oxygen required for

microorganisms to decompose the organic matter in water, used as a
measure of the degree of pollution.

Effluent:

Water that has been treated by a wastewater treatment plant to specified

constituent regulations.

Diffuser:

The final section of outfall pipe that distributes effluent into the receiving
water. Used to meet receiving water constituent concentration
regulations.

Dilution factor:

A measure of the amount of mixing of effluent and receiving water that

occurs at the boundary of the mixing zone. Is determined by the diffuser
type and operation.

Discharge:

To allow a liquid, gas, or other substance to flow out of confinement.

Constituent:

A measured species in the effluent.

Mixing Zone:

An area of the receiving water, as specified by the Department of

Ecology, which surrounds the diffuser at the point where effluent is
discharged. This is a function of diffuser and receiving water
characteristics.

MLLW:

Mean lower low water. The average of the lower low water height of
each tidal day observed over the National Tidal Datum Epoch.

NPDES:

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Permits are issued

under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. This is the federal wastewater
permitting system that allows for discharging effluent into a body of
water.

Outfall:

The pipeline that conveys effluent from a wastewater treatment plant to a

receiving water body.

Plume/Wastefield:

The path of the effluent as it rises through and mixes with the receiving
water after it is discharged.

TSS:

Total Suspended Solids, particulates in water as retained by a glass fiber

filter with pore size 1.5 m.

III

1 INTRODUCTION
Seattle University Senior Design Team CEE 16.7 has collaborated with Alderwood Water and
Wastewater District (AWWD) to assess the aging marine outfall of the Picnic Point wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP). Constructed in 1972, this outfall conveys treated effluent from the
newly constructed membrane bioreactor (MBR) WWTP to a diffuser that dilutes and mixes the
effluent in the Puget Sound. Within the next 10 to 15 years, AWWD will expand their service
area, increasing the peak instantaneous flows through the outfall from 9 to 15.8 million gallons
per day (MGD). AWWD is unsure if the outfall has sufficient capacity for the increased
flowrates. Additionally, due to its age, there is concern regarding the structural integrity of the
outfall conveyance system. AWWD requested that the team evaluate the condition and hydraulic
capacity of the outfall and provide design options to retrofit or improve functionality for future
increased flow rates.

1.1 Background
The Alderwood Wastewater Treatment Plant is located in southern Snohomish County, at 6315
Picnic Point Road, Edmonds, WA, as shown in Figure 1. Currently, the Districts service area is
approximately 40 square miles, serving 24,000 people. The outfall originates at the WWTP and
conveys treated effluent to the Puget Sound. The pipe runs beneath Picnic Point Road, crossing
under the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad to the beach and extending approximately
1,000 feet into the Puget Sound.

1.1.1 Facility History

Constructed in 1973, the facility originally operated as a conventional activated sludge (CAS)
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), and was intended to process a maximum of 1 MGD. In
1981, an additional treatment unit was installed, increasing overall capacity from 1 to 3 MGD. In
2013 AWWD completed a facility upgrade to utilize membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology,
drastically improving the effluent water quality and increasing the facility capacity for projected
growth.

1.1.2 Outfall Characteristics

The outfall for the WWTP was constructed in 1972. The pipeline is divided into two sections: a
3,030 foot (ft.), 18 inch (in.) diameter ductile iron portion that begins at the treatment plant and
connects to a 1,260 ft., 18 in. diameter concrete portion that terminates 64 ft. below water level at
mean lower low water (MLLW). The final 80 ft. of the outfall diffuses the effluent into the Puget
Sound by way of eight 4 in. diameter portholes drilled 8 ft. on center, staggered along either side
of the pipe at a 45 degree angle from horizontal. Before 2007, a flap gate valve at the end of the
diffuser aided in the mixing process. However, following an inspection in 2007, it was found that
the flap gate had completely corroded. The flap gate was replaced with a high density
polyethylene (HDPE) end cap with two portholes. In an effort to maximize and accommodate
increased flow rates through the conveyance pipeline, AWWD added seven air valves in 2010.
This outfall has been regularly inspected since 2001 to ensure it complies with state regulations;
however there is limited inspection data prior to this time.

Alderwood
WWTP

Figure 1: AWWD Picnic Point Wastewater Treatment Plant vicinity map

1.2 Problem Statement/Project Constraints

Several factors prompted AWWD to explore retrofit or replacement options for the outfall. The
current outfall was built in 1972 and may be reaching its end of service life. The corroded flap
gate increased concerns that other sections of pipe may need repair. The current condition of the
outfall and hydraulic capacity of the pipe will determine system design options.

1.2.1 Problem Statement

Within the next 10 to 15 years, Alderwood Water and Wastewater District will be expanding
their service area, as shown in Figure 2, therefore increasing the amount of wastewater treated by
the Picnic Point Wastewater Treatment Plant. This treated effluent requires a structurally and
hydraulically sound conveyance pipeline so that it may be discharged within regulations in the
Puget Sound. The outfall may be reaching the end of its service life and requires condition
assessments and capacity modeling to determine if the system can handle the projected increases
in flow. These tasks will require visual inspection, hydraulic modeling, permit and code research,
material research, diffuser research, and effluent-mixing modeling to determine a sufficient
system design.

Figure 2: Current and future service area map for the Picnic Point Wastewater Treatment Plant

1.2.2 Project Constraints

The Picnic Point Wastewater Treatment Plant needs to accommodate the expected maximum
instantaneous flow of 15.8 MGD. The WWTP has an allowable head of 169 feet (the elevation of
the treatment plant above sea level). While construction of any option will take time, each design
option must account for AWWDs need to remain operable during construction. The WWTP can
only retain effluent within the treatment system for approximately 90 minutes. Therefore, each
design option must be feasible to construct without shutting down the plant for more than 90
minutes, or constructible under low flows.

1.3 Basis of Design

All design options are determined to meet the projected 15.8 MGD peak instantaneous flowrate
via hydraulic modeling and calculations, provide a service life of at least 50 years, and meet all
diffuser dilution requirements as specified by the Washington State Department of Ecology.
Project Team CEE 16.7 evaluated the hydraulic capacity and remaining service life of the outfall
via visual inspection, investigated and reviewed applicable permits and codes, replacement and
rehabilitation options, hydraulic modeling, effluent-mixing modeling, and diffuser selection to
6

determine if it can accommodate the future increase in peak instantaneous flow to 15.8 MGD.
The team also incorporated condition assessments of the structural integrity of the outfall in
order to estimate the remaining life span of the pipe. This was accomplished by analyzing
exterior and interior inspection reports provided by a third party.
The team used hydraulic and effluent-mixing software to model current conditions of the
conveyance system. Using this data, results from the dive report, and inspection reports, the team
developed recommendations for three design options that comply with local and state regulations
as administered through the NPDES, Department of Energy (DOE), and Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The final deliverables developed are presented in this report, and
include condition assessment, modeling outcomes, diffuser design, material selection,
rehabilitation/replacement techniques, engineering drawings of design options, and preliminary
cost estimates for design options.

1.4 Report outline

The report is organized as follows:

SECTION

DESCRIPTION

2 Condition Assessment

This section describes the current condition of the

outfall and diffuser

3 Existing System Hydraulic

Modeling

This section includes hydraulic capacity modeling and

calculations.

4 Applicable Permits, Codes, and

Regulations

This includes a description of the permits and

regulations the project design must comply with.

5 - Outfall Construction and

Rehabilitation

Includes overview of replacement, rehabilitation, and

diffuser options research performed to facilitate system
design.

6 System Design

Based on inspection results, research, and modeling,

this section outlines three recommended design options
for the outfall upgrade.

7 - Basis of Construction Costs

Includes a bulk cost estimation for each design option

including material and construction costs.

8 - Project Recommendations

Discusses the Teams recommendations based on

modeling and research that AWWD may consider for
further consideration and development.

10 Appendices

Appendices will conclude the report and include any

hand calculations, full inspection reports, system design
drawings, and any additional information used to
determine design considerations for the project.

2 CONDITION ASSESSMENT
To facilitate proposing reasonable retrofit designs, the current condition of the outfall was first
assessed through an external dive inspection. The purpose of the external dive inspection was to
determine the condition of the submerged concrete pipe and diffuser. The dive was completed on
February 8th, 2016 by Global Diving & Salvage, Inc. The internal inspection of the outfall was
not completed due to time conflicts with plant operations. However, AWWD will be conducting
these internal inspections in the future.
The inspection noted poor condition and heavy corrosion on the flanged end of the diffuser
where the HDPE end cap is attached. The remainder of the diffuser, anchor blocks, and exposed
concrete pipe was reported to be in good condition. A copy of the dive report can be found in
Appendix 10.2
Based on this report, and through discussions with AWWD and various professional resources,
the recommendation is that any retrofit option include a new diffuser and replacement of at least
the concrete section of pipe. Although the condition of the concrete pipe and the diffuser are
currently good, the corrosion on the diffuser and typical lifespan of concrete outfalls indicates
that this section is rapidly approaching the end of its service life.

3 EXISTING SYSTEM HYDRAULIC MODELING

3.1 Overview
The hydraulic capacity of the existing outfall was first estimated so the team could design retrofit
alternatives. To accomplish this task, the team used a PCSWMM hydraulic model to validate
flow capacities, and corroborated these results with hand calculations. The results were then used
to determine appropriate flow attenuation retrofit options. This chapter describes the hydraulic
modeling process and its outcomes.

3.2 PCSWMM Model for Current Outfall Capacity

PCSWMM is a storm water management software model developed by the EPA. This program
uses dynamic hydraulic calculations to model complex systems. The team elected to use this
program because it can account for dynamic changes in flow regimes and available water storage
within the outfall. To construct the model, the team utilized the as-built information for the
outfall provided by AWWD. Using this information, the team determined the invert elevation
and X-and-Y-coordinate for each significant vertical bend, as well as the length of each
associated pipe segment. The vertical bends were modeled as junctions, the pipes as circular
conduits and the diffuser as an outfall node. Project specific attributes for these components are
listed in Table 1.

Table 1: PCSWMM model attributes

Junctions Depth = 1.5ft
Diameter = 1.5ft
Conduits *Ductile Iron Mannings Roughness = 0.014
*Concrete Mannings Roughness = 0.015
Outfall Port Hole Diameter= 0.33ft
* (Chow, 1959)
The resulting PCSWMM model for the existing system is shown in Figure 3. In this figure, the
junctions are represented as blue circles, the conduits as yellow lines, and the diffuser outlet node
as a red triangle. Arrows indicate direction of flow. The first junction in the model represents the
point where the outfall diameter decreases from 24in ductile iron to 18in ductile iron as it leaves
the treatment works. At this junction, the team added an inflow time series corresponding to wet
weather outflow from the facility. For this simulation, the team used effluent flow data from the
wastewater treatment plant from December 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015, taken at 30 second
intervals. Using flow data provided and to account for the projected increased flowrates due to
growing service area, the team calculated and applied a peaking factor of 2.1, bringing the peak
instantaneous flow rate of the simulation to 15.8 MGD. Finally, to model the effects of tidal
variation on the water elevation at the outlet, the team applied a tidal head curve to the diffuser.
The tidal data was obtained from a NOAA station in Edmonds, Washington (Edmonds, WA
StationId: 9447427, 2015).

Figure 3: User interface for PCSWMM model software showing outfall path

10

After running the model, PCSWMM determined the maximum hydraulic capacity to be
approximately 11.1 MGD, which was below the design goal of 15.8 MGD. This indicated that
the hydraulic capacity of the pipe cannot meet the projected requirements, and flow attenuation
steps must be included in designs using 18 in pipe. However, before drawing final conclusions
and selecting a design flow rate, hand calculations were used to corroborate these results.

3.3 Outfall Capacity Hand Calculations

In order to estimate the head losses throughout the system and validate the results of the
hydraulic modeling using PCSWMM, the team used the energy equation as shown in Equation 1.
The team then estimated a friction factor using the Swaimee-Jain Equation shown in Equation 2
and determined the frictional losses using the friction factor in the Darcy-Weisbach Equation,
shown in Equation 3. Bend losses were calculated using as-built drawings provided by AWWD
and Equation 4 using standard minor loss coefficients. All equations and tables listed can be
found in Appendix 10.3.
Since the primary concern was the maximum capacity of the pipe, diffuser losses were estimated
at peak flow assuming that the flow was split evenly between the ports, a reality at high flow
conditions. Using a mass balance on the water throughout the diffuser the team determined the
flow rate between each of the ports and the associated friction losses, as shown in Equations 5-7.
The losses from the final two ports, located at the endcap, were calculated using the orifice
equation. All equations can be found in Appendix 10.3.
After factoring in frictional losses throughout the pipe, minor losses from major bends along the
line, and both frictional and minor losses in the diffuser, the team determined a maximum steady
state flow of 11 MGD. This is consistent with the PCSWMM model.

3.4 Conclusions on Outfall Capacity

Modeling the outfall in PCSWMM estimated a capacity of 11.1 MGD. To verify these results,
the team used hand calculations to determine the maximum flow rate. These calculations
assumed the system was at steady state, indicating that results would be conservative. This
produced a maximum flow rate of 11 MGD, which corroborated the PCSWMM results. After
presenting these findings to AWWD, a conservative design flow rate of 10 MGD was selected.
Since the design flow rate is less than the 15.8 MGD projected peak instantaneous flow, the team
concluded that flow attenuation options must be used in all retrofit designs using 18 in. pipe.

4 APPLICABLE PERMITS, CODES AND REGULATIONS

4.1 Overview
Hydraulic capacity modeling determined that flow attenuation is required for retrofit designs.
Condition assessment indicated replacing the concrete section and diffuser in all retrofit designs.
Based on these results the team investigated relevant permits, codes, and regulations that apply to
the project. The goal was to consolidate this information into easy to read tables to be used in the
design and construction process.

11

4.2 Applicable Permits

A summary of research of applicable permits can be found in Table 11 in Appendix 10.4. This
information was identified using data provided by the Washington State Governors Office for
Regulatory Innovation and Assistance Regulatory Handbook (Governor's Office for Regulatory
Innovation and Assistance, 2014). Information on right-of-way use and shoreline master program
policies in Snohomish County was also used (Snohomish County Planning and Development
Services , n.d.). In addition, information on construction permits required by Burlington
Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway was also included (BNSF Railway Company, 2016).

4.3 Applicable Codes and Regulations

A summary of codes and regulations that apply to this project can be found in Table 12 in
Appendix 10.4. This research was gathered using the Snohomish County Code (SCC), which has
authority over the Snohomish County Region (The Snohomish County Clerk of the Council's
Office, 2016). The Washington Administrative Code (WAC) was also used. This document
codifies and arranges regulations by subject or agency and is updated online twice every month.
Archived paper copies of the WAC are also available. (Washington State Legislature, 2016).
Also utilized was the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). These laws are enacted by the State
Legislature and signed by the Governor. The RCW is updated biannually after legislative
sessions. Paper copies of RCW are also archived. (Washington State Legislature, 2015). In
addition, the Code of Federal Regulations was used. The regulations referenced were current as
of March 2016 (National Archives and Records Administration's Office of the Federal Register,
U.S. Government Publishing Office., 2016). Finally, the United States Code was also referenced
(Office of the Law Revision Councel, 2015).

4.4 Standard Outfall Design Practices

All outfall designs must meet NPDES requirements, and mixing zone regulations as specified by
WAC 173-220-130 and WAC 173-201A-400 respectively. Additionally, WAC 220-52-01903
states that it is illegal to harvest geoduck clams in areas deeper than 70 ft. Therefore, AWWD
can safely discharge effluent with a wastefield boundary below -70 ft. MLLW without risk of
contaminating the harvest. Personal communication with Bruce Nairn of King County
Wastewater Division revealed that it common practice in the region to ensure that the wastefield
boundary of the plume is contained below -70 feet mean lower low water (MLLW). This ensures
that if there is an irregularity in the wastewater treatment process and the outfall discharges
waste at concentrations outside regulatory limits, the wastefield will not contaminate shellfish
beds. In the state of Washington, this is important because municipalities may be found liable for
losses from shellfish contamination and must compensate lost revenues. Meeting this
recommendation may mitigate significant risk for AWWD and therefore was also considered in
design.

12

5 OUTFALL CONSTRUCTION AND REHABILITATION

5.1 Replacement Options
External structural condition assessment, hydraulic modeling, and permit and code investigations
indicated that flow attenuation is required for the existing 18 inch diameter pipe. It was also
determined that the diffuser and the submerged concrete section need to be replaced. To identify
design alternatives, a brief literature review was conducted to identify design options.

5.1.1 Replacement Material Options

Ductile Iron
Ductile iron has been the industry standard for water and wastewater pipes since the 1960s.
Ductile iron has eight times the tensile strength of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (Ductile Iron Pipe
Research Association, 2015). This is advantageous because changes in temperature will not
affect the tensile strength of ductile iron as it would other materials. For a nominal pipe size,
there is a significant difference in the outer diameters of the pipes when comparing HDPE, PVC,
concrete cylinder pipe (CCP), steel and ductile iron. This is because HDPE, PVC, and CCP
require thicker walls for increased strength as inner diameter increases; potentially increasing
costs for these materials relative ductile iron.
Other advantages for using ductile iron, for buried pipe on-shore, include its high pressure
ratings, crushing loads, and impact strength, and simple installation techniques. Disadvantages of
ductile iron include susceptibility to corrosion when exposed to corrosive soils or fluids,
drastically reducing the strength and lifespan of the pipe. Ductile iron is therefore not used for
the submerged section of marine outfalls. Corrosive fluids are not an issue for the on-shore
section of outfall in this project because the pipe will be conveying clean effluent from the
treatment plant and the local soils have slight to medium acid corrosive properties (Debose &
Klungland, 1983). Despite the low risk of corrosion, if ductile iron were to be used, a
preventative coating should be employed. Coating options include a polyethylene encasement,
cathodic protection (sacrificial metal), or bonded dielectric coatings (National Material Advisory
Board; Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences; National Research Council, 2009). Other
disadvantages include cost, and stiffness when subjected to seismic conditions, however
technological advancements allow for joint movement with improved bell connections,
mitigating some seismic risk (Haddaway, 2015). The list price of 24 ductile iron pipe is $130.00
per linear foot (LF) (Washington State Department of Transportation, 2016).
Concrete
Concrete is a well-established conveyance pipe material and has been used for hundreds of years.
In fact one of the oldest recorded modern pipelines is a concrete sanitary sewer line constructed
in 1842 in New York State (Concrete Pipe Association of Australasia, 2016). As was common
practice at the time of installation (1972), the current submerged section of the outfall is made of
reinforced concrete. Advantages of reinforced concrete pipe are low maintenance costs, proven
long lifespan, use of flexible joints for seismic considerations, ability to withstand backfill loads,
and durability despite cracks in the inner and outer coating layers. Disadvantages include low
tensile strength, cost of transportation to site, rigidity, and build up on pipe walls if the effluent
13

contains high amounts of biological constituents. Costs per linear foot of Plain Joint (PJ)
concrete pipe class III-V, 24in diameter is $82.00/LF (Washington State Department of
Transportation, 2016).
HDPE
In 1955 high-density polyethylene (HDPE) was produced in pipe form (Gabriel, 2016). HDPE
has a higher proportion of crystalline polymers which result in greater density and strength
compared to other types of polyethylene materials (Gabriel, 2016). Advantages of HDPE in
conveyance pipelines include corrosion resistance, fatigue resistance, extended service life, leakfree joints, adaptability, installation techniques, eco-friendliness, flexibility for seismic
considerations, and low weight (Charter Plastics, 2016). These are all vast improvements when
compared to heavier, more rigid materials. Disadvantages of HDPE include limited pressure
ratings, limited ability to withstand backfill loads, thicker walls for larger pipes, and limited
methods in verifying field joint quality (Maffei, 2006). HDPE has been the material of choice for
recent outfall upgrades in the Puget Sound region, including projects for Brightwater, Gig
Harbor, and Mukilteo. Cost of 24in HDPE pipe is $50.00 /LF/in diameter (Fox, 2016).
PVC
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) was invented in the late 19th century and is used in many applications,
including pipelines. The first installations for water and wastewater conveyance were in
Germany in the 1930s, most of which are still in use without any major problems (Walker,
1990). The advantages for using PVC are its resistance to corrosion, light weight, ease of
handling, and simple installation techniques. Disadvantages include joint leakage, low strength,
and being brittle at low temperatures (Maffei, 2006), and cost for large sizes. Cost per linear foot
for 18-24 diameter PVC pipe is $60.26 to $99.68 (Harrison Machine & Plastic Corporation,
2016).

5.1.2 Replacement Joints

If a partial replacement of the system is required, assuming the ductile iron pipe (DIP) section is
acceptable but the concrete section needs replacement, the new extension would need a coupling
band or concrete collar to mate the new section to the existing ductile iron pipe.
Alternatively a manhole structure or drop manhole connection can be used to mate two sections
of pipe together. This technique would allow for a secure connection between two dissimilar
materials or pipe sizes, while also acting as an air relief structure for the submerged portion of
the outfall. The design concept behind using a drop manhole is to create an air-break between the
existing DIP section and the replacement section. This will negate any backflow, and possible
floatation due to air accumulation, if a more buoyant material is used for the submerged section.
However, due to the steep slope of the DIP section, a reducing valve internal to the manhole
connection would elevate any issues with energy dissipation losses that a drop manhole may
have. An example of a drop manhole is shown in Figure 4.

14

Figure 4: Example of a drop manhole for connecting replacement section of outfall to existing
ductile iron section (Heath, 2014)

5.1.3 Installation Options

Implementation options for installation of new pipe include trenchless technologies such as
micro tunneling, and directional drilling or traditional open trench methods. The methods of
implementation are discussed here as they may influence the pipe material selection, though
determination of the final implementation method will be determined by the contractor.
Trenchless technologies
Trenchless technologies include micro tunneling, pipe bursting, and directional drilling. There
have been significant advancements over the last 20 years for effectively installing marine
outfalls using micro tunneling. The pipe is installed in segments with hydraulic jacks through a
tunnel bored out by a micro machine similar to those pictured in Figure 5.

15

Figure 5: Micro-tunneling boring machine (NADA Pacific Corporation, 2016)

A pit is then dug in the sea floor to recover the machine from a barge. Trenchless technologies
have minimal impacts on the environment, minimal impact on existing infrastructure, and
increase the lifetime of the pipeline while increasing seismic safety (Hennig & Linde, 2011).
One method to replace old pipe, pipe bursting, utilizes a launching and receiving pit, which
replaces traditional open trench methods. Pipe bursting fractures the existing pipe from the inside
out, while pulling a new pipe into position. Pipe bursting can allow for up to a 25% increase in
pipe diameter, however very weak soils may not be suitable for pipe bursting and generally are
not an option if the pipe is adjacent to other utilities (Buildipedia, 2016). Due to the nature of this
method pipe bursting may not be a reasonable installation method for the submerged section of
the pipe.
Directional drilling is a single pass process that uses a steerable drilling machine to tunnel while
pushing the pipe into place at the same time. This technique has less of an impact on sensitive
environments and releases little to no harmful drilling fluids into the water (Laney Drilling,
2016).
Open Trench Methods
If trenchless techniques are not desirable or feasible, unconsolidated excavation techniques can
be used. The term unconsolidated refers to seabed material composed of sand, silt, clay, gravel,
and/or cobble (Roberts, et al., 2010), which is typically found in the Puget Sound. When
installing the outfall in a marine environment, temporary trestles are required to launch the new
pipe that has been assembled on land. These temporary structures may also be required if the
water is too shallow to use a pipe laying barge. They can serve as support structures for trenches
while also stopping sediment from filling the trench before the outfall is installed. The types of
machines used to excavate these ditches are dragline buckets, clamshell buckets, hydraulic
suction type dredges with jet nozzle cutter heads, mechanical cutter head suction dredges, and jet
sleds (Roberts, et al., 2010).

5.2 Rehabilitation Options

For sections of the outfall that are hydraulically sufficient but in need of repair a rehabilitation
design should be considered. Rehabilitation would consist of leaving the pipeline intact while
16

repairing the sections of concern. In addition, replacing the diffuser will likely necessitate
extending the submerged section to ensure effluent mixing and dilution requirements are met.

5.2.1 Repair Material Options

Ductile Iron Repair
If the ductile iron section is in need of minor repair and the hydraulic capacity is sufficient, a
cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) liner can be used. These liners are utilized to increase structural
defects such as minor cracks or root intrusion, and reduce friction due to buildup within the pipe.
This is a viable option for rehabilitation and repair as long as it does not significantly reduce the
diameter of the pipe and affect flow or pipe capacity. An example of a CIPP can be seen in
Figure 6.

Figure 6: Internal pipe view before and after CIPP installation (Hogan Plumbing
Company, 2013)
CIPP liners are installed by inversion or pull-in place techniques, both of which comply with
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards (ASTM, 1996-2016). The liner is
installed and cured using techniques such as inversion, steam, or hot water (Lanzo Lining
Services, Inc., 2010), as seen in Figure 7. Slip lining is also used to rehabilitate pipe, having been
in practice since the 1940s. This technique is similar to CIPP except that a grout is inserted into
the space between the existing host pipe and the carrier pipe (IPR, 2016).

17

Figure 7: Installation techniques for CIPP (Lanzo Lining Services, Inc., 2010)
Advantages for using lining technologies include increasing the service life of the pipe, shorter
construction time, and lower cost compared to individual section replacement. A major
disadvantage to lining techniques is reducing the diameter of the pipe and therefore possibly
requiring flow attenuation upstream or exceeding the flow capacity. The cost for cure-in-place
MaxLinerTM per linear foot ranges from $77.43 - $110.62, assuming a 50-foot lateral with
moderate root intrusion and varying product type (Malcome Pirnie, 2009).
Concrete Repair
Rehabilitation options for the concrete section include filling materials (epoxys/resins) and
external collars. If deficiencies are minor, underwater epoxys and resin such as Crete Repair
Underwater Epoxy (Superior Industries, INC, 2016) or Rockbond (Rockbond SCP Ltd, 2013)
can be used to fill cracks or holes. This type of epoxy repair has been successfully used for the
outfall by AWWD. Advantages for epoxy, resin or grout include underwater application and
increased service life of pipe. Disadvantages include cost and adhesion properties if improper
material is used, or even cathodic issues if pre-existing electrical charges exist (Oman, 2016). If
joint migration has occurred, pressure injection of an acceptable chemical grout may be used or
concrete collars may be installed to stabilize the joint. Costs for these types of epoxys start at
$593.66 per gallon (Superior Industries, INC, 2016).

5.3 Diffuser Options

A diffuser performs rapid initial mixing of the effluent with the ambient receiving waterbody.
The structure traditionally consists of discharge ports arranged 45 off-center at equidistant
intervals along the outfall pipe. Figure 8 depicts a general schematic of a diffuser resting on the
sea floor.

18

Figure 8: General open port diffuser with example of a wastefield (National

Research Council, 1993)
The main objectives of diffuser design are to: encourage rapid initial mixing of effluent with
ambient water, ensure that equal flow is discharged from each port, limit seawater intrusion,
prevent the entrance of sediments into the diffuser, and prevent accumulation of wastewater
sediment in the diffuser. One way to prevent the entrance of seawater and sediment into the
diffuser is to install check valves on each port. The duckbill type is made of a HDPE material
that is not affected by corrosion and requires less maintenance (Fisher, 1979). Traditional check
valves can also be used in diffuser pipes, but duckbill valves have been the check valve of choice
for outfall installations in the Puget Sound. Figure 9 shows a diffuser with duckbill valves (a)
and a duckbill valve detail (b), note that the duckbill valves extend into the page, perpendicular
to the diffuser pipe. The TideFlex duckbill diffusers tend to have higher operation and
maintenance requirements than that of a traditional open-port diffuser due to material type and
the protrusion of diffuser ports from the seafloor. Because the material used for the diffuser ports
is HDPE it is more susceptible to breaking from a boat anchor or other types of environmental
conditions. This may require anywhere from quarterly to annual inspections based on boat traffic
and depth of the diffuser.

19

a)

b)

Figure 9: a) Profile view of Diffuser with Duckbill Check Valves- Not to Scale, b) Profile Section
Detail of Duckbill Check Valve Not to Scale
Low flows through the diffuser can result in seawater intrusion, if duckbill valves are not used or
sufficient port exit velocity is not maintained. Low flows can also cause sedimentation of
effluent solids within the diffuser. One way to establish uniform flow through the manifold is to
use a tapered diffuser whose diameter gradually decreases. The degree of taper is selected to
maintain a sufficient scour velocity within the manifold for at least two-hours per day at low
flow conditions.

5.4 Outfall Considerations

The construction of AWWDs marine outfall is guided by the current pipe alignment and newer
industry standards utilizing HDPE pipe as opposed to reinforced concrete pipe. There is also
growing interest and demand in transforming energy lost from the effluent stream into usable,
recycled energy using micro turbines. Information on this technology can be found in Appendix
10.9. Finally environmental considerations are central to any new discharge entering the Puget
Sound.
Environmental Impacts
AWWD is an environmentally conscious organization and as such is concerned about the
environmental impacts of the project. Particularly, they are concerned about the Washington
State priority habitats and species in the area. These priority habitats and species are shown in
Figure 10.

20

Figure 10: Listed priority habitats and species in the vicinity of the wastewater treatment plant
(Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2016).
Figure 10 shows that the geoduck, hard-shell clam, and Dungeness crab reside within the mixing
zones of the outfall. Ensuring that the wastefield plume remain below -70 ft. MLLW, as
discussed in Section 4.4, will prevent any contamination of these shellfish habitats.
Littoral Drift
The Littoral Zone of coastal waters includes shallow well light zones with both rooted and
floating plant growth. Littoral drift is where a longshore or littoral current is developed parallel
to the coastline resulting from wave breaks (Patsch & Griggs, 2006). The combination of
currents and waves results in movement of sediment along the shoreline both above and below
water level as seen in Figure 11. The current Picnic Point Wastewater Treatment Plant outfall is
fully submerged and has not accumulated significant sedimentation to block or inhibit effluent
diffusion through the diffuser portholes in over forty years, indicating that deposition from
littoral drift should not be a problem in this project. In addition the types of risers used in
duckbill valves increase port elevation above the sea floor further minimizing the risk of
sediment blocking the diffuser ports.

21

Figure 11: Example of littoral drift (Earth Science, 2016)

Sediment transport from the beach at Picnic Point is also minimized due to armoring from the
Burlington Santa Fe Railroad tracks that parallel the shoreline. Therefore the team believes that
littoral drift will not be a significant consideration for AWWD outfall upgrade project.

5.5 Conclusions of Construction and Replacement/Rehabilitation

Based on material review, and after consulting with AWWD, HDPE was selected for all in-water
pipe sections due to the resistance to corrosion, durability, flexibility, and track record in recent
similar projects. The team recommends directional drilling techniques for pipe installation, and if
the on-shore section requires rehabilitation to use CIPP, and DIP for section or whole
replacement. Finally a duckbill diffuser without tapering was chosen for the diffuser replacement
because of the ability to prevent sediment and marine life deposition. Tapering is not necessary
because MBR effluent is filtered to remove particles greater than 0.1 m, so sedimentation of
effluent solids is not a concern provided there is no backflow, which is prevented with duckbill
valves.

6 SYSTEM DESIGN
Based on the existing system hydraulic modeling, permitting and regulations, and the design
options literature review, the team identified three design options presented in Figure 12. The
three design options were brought to 45% design. This 45% design stage includes conceptual
level drawings, bulk cost estimations, and written justification discussing each design option.
The three options are described below:

22

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Install detention
vault for flow
attenuation

Install detention
vault for flow
attenuation

Replace all 18
with 24 pipe for
flow attenuation

Replace 18
concrete with
24 HDPE

Replace 18
concrete with
24 HDPE

Extend the
outfall and
deepen the
diffuser

Use duckbill
diffuser at same
location

Extend the
outfall and
deepen the
diffuser

Figure 12: Option Summary

6.1 Option 1 Partial Replacement of Submerged Section

Option 1 includes installing a detention vault to attenuate the projected increased flowrates
without requiring the replacement of the on-shore section. This option also replaces the
corroding concrete section of pipe with HDPE. In addition, it uses a new duckbill diffuser at the
same location as the previous diffuser.

6.1.1 Detention Vault Design

Overview
Because the outfall is hydraulically limited on the upstream portion of the pipe, replacing the
bottom (concrete) section will not improve system hydraulics. Therefore, the team selected a
detention vault for flow attenuation. Flow detention vaults are common features in wastewater
treatment facilities. Generally, they are located near the beginning of the treatment process,
where they are called equalization basins, and are either in line with the system or in a parallel
overflow line. In this capacity, they typically serve two purposes: dampening peak flow events
and distributing the shock of excessive constituent loading that may upset treatment processes.
For the purposes of this project, the project team only focused on the flow dampening potential
of detention vaults. Further, the vault will be placed at the end of the treatment works, just before
the beginning of the outfall.
Vault Sizing Procedure
The detention vault was designed to accumulate water in the vault during high flow periods
where the effluent flow from the wastewater treatment plant exceeds the design flow capacity of
the outfall. To size the detention vault, the maximum volume that would accumulate in the vault
over a period of time was calculated. This was done using an inflow time series of thirty-second
23

data for the month of December 2015, and a selected constant outflow rate. The vault volume
was determined by subtracting the selected outflow rate from the given inflow rate and
multiplying the difference by the selected time step. If the accumulation volume was positive,
that meant the vault was filling up. Conversely, if the accumulation was negative, that meant the
vault was draining. The accumulation at each time step was added to the accumulation of the
previous step to determine the total accumulation in the vault at that point in time. If the total
accumulation was negative, the accumulation for that step was treated as zero. The maximum
total accumulation volume that occurred over the period of time determined the minimum vault
volume required. Table 2 shows an example calculation of the accumulation volume. For this
calculation, the required vault volume would be 31,520 gallons.
Table 2: Sample accumulation calculation table

The accumulation in the vault can also be determined graphically, as shown in Figure 13. For
this scenario, a sustained period of high flow for the week of December 6th to 11th, resulted in a
maximum accumulation of 31,520 gallons. The inflow is shown in grey and the constant design
outflow is shown in black. All inflow values that fall above the design outflow indicate instances
where the vault is filling up with water. For this scenario, a sustained period of high flows, as
opposed to a peak flow event, resulted in the largest accumulation in the vault.

24

Figure 13: Plot of inflow and outflow rate versus time

Design
The detention vault calculations utilized thirty-second effluent flow data from December 2015
(wet weather flow) as the inflow data set. This data was multiplied by a peaking factor of 2.1 to
simulate future flow conditions. The outflow rate for the detention vault was selected at 10 MGD
(6944 GPM) based on hydraulic capacity modeling of the existing system, as presented in
Chapter 3. Using these parameters in the calculation procedure outlined above, the minimum
vault volume was found to be roughly 31,000 gallons. Based on the space available at the end of
the treatment works as shown in the as-built drawings for the facility, a vault of this size was
determined to be reasonable. The plan view location is shown below in Figure 14.

25

Figure 14: North orientation of plan view of the plant showing vault location in the parking lot
The design of the vault was constrained by the availability of space and the existing facilities at
the wastewater treatment plant. The largest space available on the property to accommodate the
vault was the parking lot of the facility. Based off the as-built drawings, this limited the plan area
to 100 ft. long by 45 ft. wide, which roughly constitutes a 2:1 length to width ratio. The
maximum depth of the vault was constrained by the distance between the invert of the outfall and
the ground surface, which came to 25.9 ft. Factoring in the height required to achieve a minimum
2% slope for the outgoing pipe from the vault, the maximum allowable depth of the vault was
further reduced to 22.6 ft. Finally the diameter of incoming and outgoing pipes for the vault was
limited to 24 in, to match the surrounding pipe network of the facility. Here, it was important to
note that the pipe diameter does not decrease to 18 in until the beginning of the outfall.
Given these factors, the dimensions required to accommodate 31,000 gallons vault were 45 ft.
long by 15 ft. wide by 7 ft. deep. An additional 3 ft. was added to the depth to account for the
height of the pipe and freeboard, bringing the nominal dimensions to 45 ft. long by 15 ft. wide by
10 ft. deep. The vault was given a bottom slope of 2% to allow the water to drain. The outlet was
designed to be fitted with an adjustable orifice plate or comparable flow control structure. The
flow control structure can be left fully open during normal operation, allowing backup to occur
due to hydraulic control in the pipe. However the flow control structure can be closed to allow
for maintenance in the outfall, or used to maintain a more constant outfall flowrate if AWWD
chooses to implement any power generation devices in the outfall, providing a benefit to the
system. The vault itself was design to have 1 ft. thick concrete walls and be buried with 3 ft. of
soil cover. Lastly, the design included an access hatch and ladder for maintenance. See Figure 15
and Figure 16 for plan view and conceptual level drawing.

26

Figure 15: Detention vault Plan View

Figure 16: Detention vault Profile Section

6.1.2 Concrete Section Replacement

In addition, Option 1 includes replacement of the concrete section to the end of the diffuser, and
a diffuser at the same location with the same number of ports. The pipe diameter will be
increased to 24 in to provide compatibility with any future replacement of the upstream ductile
iron section. The pipes will be joined by a common coupler, internal to a manhole. The material
will be HDPE as specified in Section 5.1.1 in Chapter 5. Because HDPE floats, anchors are
required to keep the pipe submerged. The approximate weight of the anchors was calculated to
be 2120 pounds using Equation 9 which can be found in Appendix 10.5 (Reiff, 2002). The
spacing of these anchors will be 10 feet on center. An anchor detail for use with HDPE can be
seen in Figure 17.

27

Figure 17: Concrete anchor detail for prescribed HDPE pipe

6.1.3 Diffuser Replacement

The scope of this project includes a diffuser design. In order to discharge effluent into the Puget
Sound a mixing zone analysis is required by the Department of Ecology (DOE) to ensure that the
treated effluent is mixing with the ambient water appropriately. A mixing zone analysis involves
three steps. First, the acute and chronic mixing zone regions should be defined as prescribed by
the DOE Permit Writers Manual. Then dilution factors are determined through modeling with
the software Visual Plumes (USEPA). The diluted pollutant concentrations are calculated at the
mixing zone boundaries and then compared against regulations set by the DOE. The team
conducted these steps for the current diffuser in order to calibrate the model and ensure that the
results matched those of the mixing zone study conducted by Alderwood in 2007. The entire
process can be found in Appendix 10.6.
Option 1 includes replacing the current open port diffuser with a duckbill diffuser at the same
depth of -64 ft. MLLW. The diffuser will be replaced with HDPE pipe. First Equation 11 and
Equation 12 shown in Appendix 10.6 were used to calculate the minimum diffuser length, LD,
and minimum number of discharge ports, nports, to meet the minimum required dilution (Peter M.
Tate, 2016). The minimum required dilution is based off of zinc since it requires the most
dilution to meet regulations. As shown in Table 21 of Appendix 10.6 the effluent concentration
of zinc is 820 g/L and the chronic aquatic life criteria regulation is 81 g/L therefore a dilution
of 10 is required to meet regulations. Based on these equations the minimum diffuser length is 22
ft. and number of ports is 0.7 or approximately 1. The current diffuser design exceeds both of
these criteria.
The team decided to model the new diffuser using similar specifications as the current diffuser,
therefore this design will use eight 4 inch ports, but employ duckbill valves. Next, further
analysis was done to determine the optimum port spacing. The port spacing was reported to have
negligible impacts on the initial mixing zone in a range of experiments (Roberts, Snyder, &
Baumgartner, 1987). However, port spacing was explored in relation to its impact on rise of the
plume. These values were created via Visual Plumes modeling using the chronic zone aquatic
life criteria. Figure 18 shows that at a spacing of 12 ft. the plume rise begins asymptotically
28

approaching -40 ft., therefore 12 ft. spacing was selected. The length of the diffuser with 8 ports
spaced 12 ft. on center is 120 ft. This includes a 12 ft. length section in the center of the pipe to
accommodate a pipe joint if necessary. This can be seen in the plans attached in Appendix 10.7.

Figure 18: Plume elevation vs. port spacing determined from Visual Plumes
Using wet-weather flow data multiplied by the peaking factor to reach a peak instantaneous flow
of 15.8 MGD, the new design flowrates for diffuser modeling as prescribed by the DOEs Permit
Writers Handbook were determined. These flowrates are shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Adjusted design flows for future plant
Adjusted Flow (MGD)
Acute
Aquatic life
42.50
Aquatic life
17.04
Chronic Non-carcinogenic
17.04
Carcinogenic
7.20
Due to the change from an open port diffuser to a duckbill diffuser the vertical port angle was set
at 0, the horizontal port angle was set at 90, and the diffuser port coefficient set at 0.8 in Visual
Plumes. All other inputs for the diffuser and ambient properties were the same as the mixing
zone analysis for the current diffuser, as shown in Appendix 10.6. Note that a summer density
stratification profile was used for the model. Using a winter density stratification profile
produced slightly higher dilution factors in a sensitivity analysis. The model therefore uses the
summer profile to be more conservative. See Appendix 10.6 for results of this analysis.
Output dilution factors are shown in Table 4. The diffuser meets regulated concentrations for all
pollutants, this is shown in Table 21 of Appendix 10.6.
29

Table 4: Dilution factors at the acute and chronic mixing zones for future anticipated flows
Zone
Criteria
Dilution Factor
Acute
Aquatic life
37
Aquatic life
92
Chronic
Non-carcinogenic
92
Carcinogenic
95
Figure 19 shows the plume for future anticipated flows using chronic zone and aquatic life
criteria. This illustrates that the plume boundary (the dotted line) will reach a depth of -30 ft.
below MLLW. This is a drawback for Option 1, as it increases risk for shellfish bed
contamination since the plume is shallower than -70 ft. MLLW.

Plume centerline

Plume boundary

Figure 19: Plume elevation for future anticipated flows using chronic zone aquatic criteria

6.1.4 Hydraulic Analysis

Overview
Seattle University Team CEE 16.7 modeled the hydraulic capacity of the proposed design to
ensure the system meets AWWDs future needs and will comply with all regulations.
Option 1 mimics the current system but uses 24 instead of 18 pipe, HDPE instead of concrete,
and a duckbill diffuser. These changes in turn alter the outfall hydraulics, and therefore must be
modeled. In order to estimate the maximum flow through the proposed outfall, the team followed
a procedure similar to that used to find the maximum capacity of the existing outfall discussed in
30

Chapter 3. Because duckbill diffuser valves have different porthole diameters as a function of
flow, the head loss through the portholes is a function of this opening area. To estimate head
losses through a duckbill diffuser the method of J.H.W. Lee (1998) was followed (Joseph H. W.
Lee, 1998). Figure 21 (located in Appendix 10.3) shows the layout of the eight portholes and the
variables used to calculate the head losses due to the diffuser. Given changes prescribed above,
the team calculated the steady state maximum flow to be 11.1 MGD which is similar to the
current system. Furthermore this allowable flowrate is greater than the hydraulic control near the
beginning of the diffuser of 11 MGD, and so diffuser hydraulics will not control outfall flow.
Duckbill valves only open when sufficient flow is present. This prevents sedimentation, but also
focuses effluent out of fewer portholes under low flow conditions, forcing the majority of the
effluent out of only the first few ports, and therefore affecting the wastefield dilutions. The team
calculated the velocity out of each port at low flow (summer, one-hour average low flow) to
determine the number of open ports, and to ensure dilution requirements are still being met if
some ports are closed. Low flow data was taken from August of 2015 and was provided by
AWWD. The peaking factor was not applied, in order to mimic short-term and most conservative
conditions. Table 5 shows the flow out of each of the duckbill valves at high and low flow
conditions, where Q is flow and V is velocity. Each of the port flows was then used to calculate
each port velocity. Using the empirical relationship between velocity, head loss and duckbill
opening provided by J.H.W. Lee (1998), the team found that under low flow conditions an eight
port diffuser would act as a seven port diffuser, as the most downstream port lacks the velocity to
open the valve. This condition was then re-modeled with Visual Plumes, using a lower flowrate
(as indicated in Table 5) and seven valves, to ensure that dilution is acceptable. Results indicate
that under low flow conditions and with seven open valves, the plume extends to -57 ft. MLLW
and has a dilution factor of approximately 70. Thus at low flow conditions dilution requirements
are still satisfied.
Table 5: Low and high flow conditions for each port
Ports
8
7
6
5
4
3

Low Flow
High Flow

Qeffluent

Q8

Q7

Q6

Q5

Q4

Q3

Q2

Q1

(cfs)

(cfs)

(cfs)

(cfs)

(cfs)

(cfs)

(cfs)

(cfs)

(cfs)

0.30

0.06

0.05

0.05

0.04

0.04

0.05

0.02

0.00

17.30

2.16

2.16

2.16

2.17

2.17

2.18

2.18

2.20

Low Flow
Port Open/Closed

V8

V7

V6

V5

V4

V3

V2

V1

(ft/s)

(ft/s)

(ft/s)

(ft/s)

(ft/s)

(ft/s)

(ft/s)

(ft/s)

0.67
Open

0.62
Open

0.56
Open

0.50
Open

0.43
Open

0.35
Open

0.24
Open

0.00
Closed

Note that if AWWD prefers not to install duckbill check valves due to required annual
maintenance the team recommends the use of a tapered diffuser and smaller port sizes in order to
prevent seawater intrusion. Under low flow conditions there may be little to no flow out of the
last ports, in an open port diffuser this would allow sea water and particulate matter to enter the
31

pipe. If a tapered diffuser is used and port size is reduced this would allow water to discharge
from the ports even under low flow conditions and prevent seawater intrusion, and to scour any
deposited sediment. With duckbill valves these issues are not a concern.
This option will require closing the facility parking lot to construct the vault, and closing a
portion of Picnic Point Park to install the new connection from the existing DIP pipe to the new
HDPE pipe. The environmental impacts for the construction of a marine outfall are largely due to
soil disruption and sediment transportation from digging trenches and drilling techniques (Tate,
Scaturra, & Cathers, 2016). There are also considerations that may include impacts on local
marine life, emergency spill plans, and barge logistics. The terrestrial impacts will be reduced by
implementing EPA or DOE required Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC)
measures including straw ground cover, silt fences and other storm water management best
practices from transporting large amounts of disturbed soils to the Puget Sound. Through
discussions with AWWD, estimated duration of construction is 2-3 months and is discussed in
detail in section 8.3.

6.2 Option 2 Partial replacement and lengthening of submerged section

Due to potential impacts on shellfish harvesting it is recommended that the plume boundary not
extend beyond -70 ft. Therefore, Option 2 will utilize the same detention vault as Option 1, but
extend the diffuser in order to lower the wastefield boundary to -70 ft. This section therefore
describes only the new diffuser design.
The required depth of the diffuser to meet this condition was determined using Visual Plumes.
Then the corresponding increase in pipe length was determined from bathymetry data (NOAA,
2006). This process assumed the same port size and spacing as the current diffuser, 8 ft. and 4 in.
respectively, to begin the analysis.
First, an analysis was carried out to determine the optimum number of ports. The required depth
for a diffuser with 2, 4, 6, or 8 ports was determined by iterating until the plume boundary
reached -70 ft. below sea level. The required depths are shown in Table 6. All Visual Plumes
design variables remain the same as Option 1 besides the depth of the diffuser.
Next, the team determined the required length of pipe to achieve the corresponding depths. The
team downloaded bathymetry data for Puget Sound from NOAA and input the information into
ArcMap software. Following the current pipe alignment the horizontal distance from the diffuser
to achieve each depth was determined. Using basic geometry the additional length of pipe was
then calculated, this is also listed in Table 6.
Table 6: Required depth to ensure -70 ft. wastefield for 2, 4, 6, and 8 ports
Horizontal
Number of
Required Depth,
Required New
distance
Ports
z (ft)
Pipe Length (ft)
from diffuser (ft)
2
450
1215
1270
4
210
419
439
6
170
309
321
8
160
269
281
32

Because the cost of HDPE outweighs the cost of duckbill valves, shown in Appendix 10.8, the
team selected the option with eight ports to maximize plume dilution.
Next, the team performed an analysis using Visual Plumes software, to determine the optimum
port spacing by plotting plume elevation against port spacing as shown in Figure 20.

Figure 20: Plume elevation versus port spacing for Options 2 and 3
Similar to Option 1, the plume elevation begins to reach a plateau near a port spacing of 12 ft.
Therefore the diffuser will consist of 8 duckbill check valve ports spaced 12 ft. on center. Using
these criteria the required diffuser depth is 115 ft., and pipe length is 120 ft.
By comparison, again using Equation 11 and Equation 12, the minimum length of diffuser is 9.5
ft. with 2 ports respectively, for the new depth of 115 ft. The specified diffuser surpasses both of
these requirements. The diffuser meets regulated concentrations for all pollutants, this is shown
in Table 23 of Appendix 10.6.
Table 7: Calculated Dilution Factors for the acute and chronic zones for Option 2 diffuser
Zone
Criteria
Dilution Factor
Acute
Aquatic life
44
Aquatic life
108
Chronic
Non-carcinogenic
108
Carcinogenic
117
As with Option 1, the diffuser performance was modeled under low flow conditions with only
seven ports open. This analysis yields a dilution of approximately 110 with the plume elevation
reaching -105 ft. below MLLW, meeting all requirements.
33

This option presents the same construction issues as Option 1, as only the off-shore section is
lengthened. The construction timeframe is not expected to increase significantly relative to
Option 1, as only 120 ft. of additional HDPE are being installed. Drawings have been included in
Appendix 10.7.

6.3 Option 3 Full Outfall Replacement

Option 3 will attenuate increased flow by replacing the entire outfall with 24 in pipe, and will
utilize an 8 port duckbill diffuser with 120 ft. extension to aid in effluent mixing (identical to
Option 2). The DIP section will be replaced, in-kind, with new 24 in. DIP, and the off-shore
section will be replaced with HDPE as in Option 2. This option would have a life span of
approximately 75 years with proper operation and maintenance; longer than options 1 and 2. A
layout of the outfall is shown in Appendix 10.7.
Hydraulic analysis of this option, including friction, bend, and diffuser losses as in Option 1,
conservatively estimates a maximum hydraulic capacity of approximately 20 MGD, well above
the 15.8 MGD design flowrate. See Appendix 10.7 for calculation details. Because this option
does not use the detention vault, AWWD will lose the capacity to hold additional flow for outfall
maintenance. However if AWWD implements an equalization basin at the headworks of the
facility, which they are considering for reasons outside the scope of this project, that basin could
be used to hold water for servicing the outfall.
The diffuser design of Option 3 is identical to Option 2. The diffuser will consist of eight 4in.
duckbill ports, spaced 12 ft. on center, at a depth of -115 ft. MLLW.
This option increases the lifespan of the outfall system but requires more invasive construction,
and increased disruption to the neighborhood. The new outfall would be constructed in parallel
to the current pipe, along Picnic Point Road. Due to its steep slope the potential for landslides is
high. It was reported to the team by treatment plant personnel that there has been a slide in the
area in the past. Therefore implementation of this option will require landslide protection
techniques for the on-shore, buried section of the outfall. Construction will require traffic
control, disrupting road use by the local community. All construction considerations for Options
1 and 2 will also apply to Option 3, other than closing the AWWD facility parking lot. Through
discussions with AWWD, estimated construction duration is 8-9 months and is addressed in
further detail in section 8.3.

7 BASIS OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS

The development of the construction costs were compiled using a number of different resources
and outfall projects in the Puget Sound area. The bid tabs and projects used to compare prices
were conveyance systems similar in size to that of the Picnic Point Wastewater Treatment Plant
outfall. The team discussed materials and installation methods with local concrete pre-caster
companies, and project engineers.
All unit costs were based on the use of high density polyethylene (HDPE) for the submerged
section and ductile iron pipe for the on-shore section. The unit cost of the vault structure was
determined using Equation 13 (US Department of Transportation, 2016) and Equation 14 for
34

2016 dollar equivalent. A detail of unit costs can be found in Appendix 10.7 for each design
option.
The cost estimate for the TideFlex check valve duckbill diffusers was determined by referencing
the Regional Municipality of Durham outfall project by CH2M Hill (CH2M Hill, 2012). The
duckbill diffuser costs and operation and maintenance costs are compiled in Table 24 in
Appendix 10.7.
Additional project costs such as: temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan (TESC),
construction site procurement, land use/easement procurement, traffic control, permits, and any
other construction considerations are not included in the 45% cost estimate as they will not
influence the decision matrix because the costs are either small or identical between all options.

7.1 Cost Estimates by Option

Each of the design options will be discussed below; costs shown in Table 8 include construction
contract amount, soft costs, contingencies and management reserves.
Table 8: Option costs including soft cost, contingency, and management reserve
Construction Contract Amount

Option 1
$ 2,116,114

Soft Cost %

30%

Soft Cost

Base Total Cost

$ 2,750,948

Contingency Reserve %
Contingency Reserve

Option 2
$ 2,304,739

634,834

30%
$

Management Reserve %

825,285

$ 869,147

$ 2,996,161

$ 3,766,302

30%
$

30%

Management Reserve

Project Reserves
Projected Total Cost*
*costs rounded to nearest 100k

825,285

30%

691,422

30%
$

Option 3
$ 2,897,155

898,848
30%

30%
$ 1,129,891
30%

898,848

$ 1,129,891

$ 1,650,569

$ 1,797,696

$ 2,259,781

$ 4,400,000

$ 4,800,000

$ 6,000,000

Option 1
This option assumes the existing ductile iron section of pipe has significant time remaining in its
life span and therefore replaces only the concrete section. Also included in this option is a
detention vault to attenuate future increases in daily flow and to control the hydraulic
functionality of the pipeline. The material used to replace the submerged concrete section of the
pipe will be 24 inch diameter HDPE with concrete anchors spaced 10 feet on-center (OC), with
no additional lengthening of the outfall, and a new eight port duckbill diffuser. The existing
concrete section will be abandoned as a part of this option. Total estimated cost is $4,400,000,
item detail can be found in Table 25 in Appendix 10.8.

35

Option 2
This option is the same as Option 1 in that the submerged section is replaced by HDPE; however,
this option includes lengthening the outfall to allow for improved effluent dilution and mixing,
adding cost with the extension of the HDPE section of pipe. Total estimated cost is $4,800,000,
item detail can be found in Table 26 in Appendix 10.8.
Option 3
This option is a complete system replacement; increasing both the on-shore ductile iron from 18
to 24 inch diameter and the submerged section from 18 to 24 inch diameter HPDE to meet
hydraulic requirements, and replacement of the open port diffuser with a duckbill diffuser. Total
estimated cost is $6,000,000, item detail can be found in Table 27 in Appendix 10.8.

8 PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS
This section summarizes the recommendation of Team CEE 16.7 for design and general
construction for the Picnic Point Wastewater Treatment Plant project. It contains a summary of
the current conditions, the recommended replacement design, and associated basic costs
discussed in the previous section.

8.1 Summary of Project Design Conditions

The following is a general description of the project and known current conditions:

Current diffuser is corroding and poor condition

Current average monthly flow is 3 4 MGD
Exposed submerged concrete is in good condition
PCSWMM modeling and team hand calculations determined conservative pipe design
capacity to be 10 MGD
Hydraulic control is located 280 feet from the treatment plant due to shallow pipe slopes.
The two sections of pipe are approximately 4,500 feet; 1,220 ft. of concrete and 3,200 ft.
of ductile iron pipe, with an 80 ft. diffuser
Projected increase of peak instantaneous flow to 15.8 MGD

8.2 Summary of Project Options

The project options focus mainly on replacement methods for Alderwood Water and Wastewater
Districts wastewater treatment plant marine outfall. The core requirements for the outfall are to
convey the treated wastewater to the Puget Sound and allow it to mix safely in the water in order
to meet state and federal regulations and have a minimal environmental impact.
The three replacement options developed for the project were:
Option 1: Installation of a detention vault to attenuate increased flows, partial
replacement of the concrete section of pipe with HDPE, and a new duckbill type diffuser.

36

Option 2: Identical to Option 1 but extends the outfall to increase effluent dilution and
mixing while minimizing environmental impacts.
Option 3: Complete system replacement with an upsize to 24 inch pipe diameter, and
lengthened outfall as in Option 2.
The team used a decision matrix to generate an objective recommendation. The decision matrix
quantifies values for operations, technical (logistics), environmental, economic (cost), and
construction considerations. Categories, category weights, and scores in the decision matrix were
generated with AWWD personnel during a technical meeting. Table 9 presents these results.

Feasibility
Criteria

Table 9: Decision Matrix of the three options

Option 1
Option 2
Weight* Raw Weighted Raw Weighted
Score

Score

Score

Score

Option 3
Raw Weighted
Score
Score

Operation
Lifespan
Maintenance

3
2

1
1

3
2

2
1

6
2

3
3

9
6

Coordination
Design Complexity
Plant Flexibility
Future expansion required
Risk (certainty)
Environmental
Permitting
Compliance
Neighborhood Impact
Marine Impact
Terrestrial Impact
Economic
Capital Cost
Life cycle Cost
Construction
Scheduling
Constructability

1
1
1
2
2

2
1
3
1
1

2
1
3
2
2

2
1
3
2
2

2
1
3
4
4

1
3
1
3
2

1
3
1
6
4

1
3
2
2
1

1
2
2
2
2

1
6
4
4
2

1
3
2
3
2

1
9
4
6
2

1
3
1
3
1

1
9
2
6
1

2
3

3
2

6
6

3
2

6
6

2
3

4
9

Technical

2
2
4
2
4
1
2
2
3
6
2
4
1
2
Total Score
26
48
30
58
30
62
*Weighted Ranking will range from 1-3; 1 being lowest importance - 3 being highest importance

8.3 Project Recommendations

Based on the findings outlined in this report, the team recommends that Alderwood Water and
Wastewater District replace the entire Picnic Point Wastewater Treatment Plant outfall with 24
inch pipe, and replace the open port diffuser with a deeper, duckbill type diffuser. This option
will ensure minimal environmental impacts and will extend service life of the outfall, while
adhering to AWWD goals and criteria. While all three options investigated by the team are
37

feasible and scored similarly by the decision matrix, the team believes that replacing and
upsizing the entire system will provide the greatest capacity and lifespan for the entirety of the
project.
Project Scheduling
This section presents a basic project schedule outline for the Picnic Point Wastewater Treatment
Plant marine outfall upgrade, following the acceptance of a 45% project design. This schedule
must take into consideration timelines for temporary construction easements (TCE) and permit
acquisition, which typically have unknown time constraints due to departments and governments
external to Alderwood District.
A project schedule may include the following:
Preliminary Design
Final Design Decision
City Engineer Review
City Council Review
Final Design
Project Management
60% design
o Geotechnical Investigation
o Land Surveying
o Final Internal CCTV/Rover Inspections
o Land Acquisition (TCE)
o Construction Cost Estimates
o Prepare Permit Applications
o Submit 60% Design
o 60% Design Review
95% Design
o Incorporate 60% Design Review Changes/Comments
o Finalize Permitting
o Update Construction Cost Estimate
o Submit 95% Design
o 95% Design Review
Bid Document Preparation
o Incorporate 95% Design Review Changes/Comments
o Incorporate Permit/TCE Constraints
o Submit Bid Documents
o Issue Bid Documents
Bidding Period
Outfall Construction (general summary below)

38

Outfall Construction Schedule

This section describes information and basic timelines, as discussed with Alderwood Water and
Wastewater District (Richart, 2016), for the outfall upgrade project and operation considerations
during construction. Additional considerations for future design stages should include but are not
limited to: existing utilities, temporary construction easements, permit acquisition, traffic control,
and plant operation and maintenance requirements.
The team proposes that construction of the outfall be performed in parallel to the existing
conveyance system for continuous and uninterrupted facility operation. There will be three main
segments of construction to be conducted in series or congruently. Preparation for the installation
of the pipeline will be approximately 4-6 months. The land segment of ductile iron pipe
installation typically progresses at 30 feet per day, for a total projected timeline of 110 days. The
trenchless installation of the HDPE section will require the installation of a reinforced concrete
sleeve under the BNSF railroad for additional structural support. The timeline for this section is
3-6 weeks. Therefore the total construction timeline for the outfall upgrade should not exceed
eight months if the marine and land operations occur simultaneously. This fits within the
Washington state dry weather construction window. This construction window is a project
constraint and is required to offset negative environmental impacts that may arise during wet
weather operations. Once construction of the outfall system is completed and accepted, operation
of the plant will cease during low flow activity, to switch from the existing system to the new
conveyance system. The existing system may be abandoned-in-place, or removed based on
District decision.

39

9 REFERENCES
Alderwood Water and Wastewater District. (2013). Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA0020826.
Alderwood Water and Wastewater District.
ASTM. (1996-2016). American Society for Testing and Materials. West Conshohocken: ASTM.
BNSF Railway Company. (2016). Permits/Real Estate. Retrieved 3 10, 2016, from
http://www.bnsf.com/communities/faqs/permits-real-estate/
Buildipedia. (2016). Pipe Bursting: A Trenchless Technology. Retrieved from Buildipedia.com:
http://buildipedia.com/aec-pros/public-infrastructure/pipe-bursting-a-trenchlesstechnology
CH2M Hill. (2012). Duffin Creek WPCP Outfall EA - Variable Opening Technology - Technical
Review. CH2M Hill.
Charter Plastics. (2016). Advantages of Polyethylene Pipe. Retrieved from
http://www.charterplastics.com/advantages-of-polyethylene-pipe/
Chow, V. T. (1959). Open-Channel Hydraulics. Michigan: McGraw Hill.
Concrete Pipe Association of Australasia. (2016). Concrete Pipe Facts. Retrieved 2016, from
Concrete Pipe Association of Australasia: http://www.cpaa.asn.au/General/concrete-pipefacts.html#History
Debose, A., & Klungland, M. w. (1983). Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area, Washington.
Unknown: United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
DEME. (2014). Microtunneling. Retrieved from Creating Land for the Future: http://www.demegroup.com/sites/default/files/microtunneling_expertise_1.jpg
Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association. (2015). Ductile Iron Pipe vs. PVC. NA: Ductile Iron
Pipe Research Association.
Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association. (2015). Hydralic Analysis of Ductile Iron Pipe. NA:
Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association.
Earth Science. (2016). Retrieved from
http://earthsci.org/education/teacher/basicgeol/coastal/groins.jpg
Edmonds, WA StationId: 9447427. (2015, December 1). Retrieved from NOAA Tides &
Currents:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/noaatidepredictions/NOAATidesFacade.jsp?Stationid=
9447427
Elger, D. F., Williams, B. C., Crowe, C. T., & Roberson, J. A. (2012). Engineering Fluid
Mechanics. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Engineering Toolbox. (2016, May 12). Orifice, Nozzle and Venturi Flow Rate Meters. Retrieved
from Engineering Toolbox: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/orifice-nozzle-venturid_590.html
Environmental Protection Agency. (1985). Initial Mixing Characteristics of Municipal Ocean
Discharges (Vol. 1. Procedures and Applications). Newport.
EPA. (2015, November 16). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program
(NPDES). Retrieved October 15, 2015, from http://www2.epa.gov/national-pollutantdischarge-elimination-system-npdes/about-npdes
Fisher, H. (1979). Mixing in Inland and Coastal Waters. New York: Academic Press, Inc.
Fox, B. (2016, March). Progect Engineer. (L. Grundell, Interviewer)

40

Gabriel, L. H. (2016). History and Physical Chemistry of HDPE. Retrieved from History and
Physical Chemistry of HDPE: https://plasticpipe.org/pdf/chapter1_history_physical_chemistry_hdpe.pdf
Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance. (2014). Regulatory Handbook.
Retrieved February 1, 2016, from Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and
Assistance: http://apps.oria.wa.gov/permithandbook/handbook.asp
Granite Precast. (2013). 72" Type 3 Manhole . Retrieved from Granite Precast:
http://www.graniteprecast.com/~granitep/wpcontent/uploads/pdfs/Manholes/72inType3Manhole.pdf
Green Power Group, LLC. (2011). Variable Flow Hydro-Power Turbine Syste - FAQ. Retrieved
from VFH: http://vfhturbine.com/faq.htm
Haddaway, A. (2015). Earthquake-Resistant Ductile Iron Pipe Makes U.S. Debut in Los Angeles.
Retrieved from WaterWorld: http://www.waterworld.com/articles/print/volume-31/issue4/features/earthquake-resistant-ductile-iron-pipe-makes-u-s-debut-in-los-angeles.html
Harrison Machine & Plastic Corporation. (2016). Harrison Superduct PVC Duct Pipe Sizes 2" to
60". Retrieved from Harrison Superduct PVC Duct Pipe:
http://www.harrisonplastic.com/aboutpvc.html
Heath, A. (2014, February 10). Basic Guidance to Calculating Falls and Gradients for
Drainage. Retrieved from http://kaillum.co.uk/basic-guide-calculating-falls-gradientsdrainage/
Hennig, P., & Linde, L. z. (2011). Trenchless installation methods of Sea Outfalls. Mar De Plato:
International Symposium on Outfall Systems.
Hogan Plumbing Company. (2013). Retrieved from Hogan Plumbing Company:
http://hoganplumbingco.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/epoxy-pipe-lining.jpg
IPR. (2016). The Science of Underground Solutions. Retrieved from Inland Pipe Rehab:
http://inlandpiperehab.com/slip-lining.html
Joseph H. W. Lee, J. K. (1998). Hydraulics of "Duckbill" Elastomer Check Valves . Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering, 394-405.
Laney Drilling. (2016). Direct Pipe. Retrieved from Direct Pipe:
http://www.laneydrilling.com/images/uploads/1438608122_DirectPipe.pdf
Lanzo Lining Services, Inc. (2010). Engineering Design Guide for Rehabilitation with Cured-inPlace Pipe, Second Edition. Retrieved January 22, 2016, from http://lanzo.net/pdf/lanzolining-guide-2410.pdf
Maffei, R. A. (2006). New Trends in Piping Systems. Retrieved from Perma-Pipe, Inc:
http://www.districtenergy.org/06AnnConfProceedings/5B2Maffei.pdf
Malcome Pirnie. (2009, October 1). Rehabilitation Alternatives. Retrieved from MWEA
Collection System Seminar: http://www.miwea.org/docs/Trenchless%20Technologies%20Scholl.pdf
NADA Pacific Corporation. (2016). America's Microtunneling Specialist. Retrieved from
http://nadapacific.com/data4/images/image01.jpg
National Archives and Records Administration's Office of the Federal Register, U.S.
Government Publishing Office. (2016, March 11). Electronic Code of Federal
Regulations. Retrieved from U.S. Government Publishing Office:
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/ECFR?page=browse

41

National Material Advisory Board; Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences; National
Research Council. (2009). Review of the Bureau of Reclamation's Corrosion Prevention
Standards for Ductile Iron Pipe. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences.
National Research Council. (1993). C Transport and Fate of Pollutants in the Coastal
Environment. Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press.
NOAA. (2006). Puge Sound, WA (P290) Bathymetric Digital Elevation Model (30m resolution).
Office of the Law Revision Councel. (2015, December 28). United States Code. Retrieved from
Office of the Law Revision Councel: http://uscode.house.gov/browse.xhtml
Oman, P. (2016). Applying Epoxy Coatings Underwater. Retrieved from Duckworks:
http://duckworksmagazine.com/04/s/articles/underwater/
Owens, E., Effler, S., Matthews, D., & Prestigiacomo, A. (2013). Evaluation of Offshore
Wastewater Outfall and Diffuser for Onondaga Lake. Journal of Water Resource and
Protection.
Patsch, K., & Griggs, G. (2006). Beaches, Littoral Drift and Littoral Cells. Santa Cruz:
Universoty of California.
Peter M. Tate, S. S. (2016). Marine Outfalls. In Springer Handbook of Ocean Engineering.
Springer.
Reiff, F. M. (2002). Small Diameter (HDPE) Submarine Outfalls . Washington D.C.: Pan
American Health Organization.
Richart, P. (2016, May 18). Capital Improvement Projects Engineer. (C. 16.7, Interviewer)
Roberts, P. J., Salas, H. J., Reiff, F. M., Libhaber, M., Labbe, A., & Thomson, J. C. (2010).
Marine Wastewater Outfalls and Treatment Systems. London; New York: IWA
Publishing.
Roberts, P., Snyder, W., & Baumgartner, D. (1987). Ocean Outfalls. 1: Submerged Wastefield
Formation. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering.
Rockbond SCP Ltd. (2013, November 25). Rockbond SCP Ltd. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from
http://www.rockbond.co.uk/
Snohomish County Planning and Development Services . (n.d.). Permits, Applications, and
Forms. (CivivPlus) Retrieved March 1, 2016, from
http://snohomishcountywa.gov/1190/Permits-Forms
Superior Industries, INC. (2016). Underwater Concrete Repair Epoxy. Retrieved January 20,
2016, from https://www.superior-industries.com/products/concrete-products/concreterepair/crete-repair-uwp.html
Tate, P. M., Scaturra, S., & Cathers, B. (2016). Marine Outfalls. In P. M. Tate, S. Scaturra, & B.
Cathers, Springer Handbook of Ocean Engineering . Springer International Publishing.
The Snohomish County Clerk of the Council's Office. (2016, February 16). Snohomish County
Code. Retrieved from Snohomish County Code and Comprehensive Plan:
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/SnohomishCounty/
URS. (2007). Effluent Mixing Report: Picnic Point Wastewater Treatment Facility. Seattle:
URS.
US Department of Transportation. (2016, March 18). Environmental Review Toolkit. Retrieved
from US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration:
https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ecosystems/ultraurb/3fs6.asp
Veolia. (2016). Invest in micro hydro power plants. Retrieved from Take the Water2Energy
Challenge: http://www.veoliawater2energy.com/en/references/micro-hydro-power-plants/
Walker, R. (1990). The Early History of PVC Pipe. Uni-Bell PVC Pipe Association.
42

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2016, January 1). PHS on the Web. Retrieved
from http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/phsontheweb/
Washington State Department of Transportation. (2016). Unit Bid Analysis. Retrieved from
Washington State Department of Transportation:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/contaa/uba/bid.cfm
Washington State Legislature. (2015, December 30). Revised Code of Washington (RCW).
Retrieved from Washington State Legislature: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/
Washington State Legislature. (2016, February 16). Washington Administrative Code (WAC).
Retrieved from Washington State Legislature: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/
WSDOT. (2006, June 8). Connection Details for Dissimilar Culvert Pipe. Retrieved from
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/Standards/english/PDF/b60.20-00_e.pdf

43

10 APPENDICES
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.9
10.10

Request for Proposal

Dive Inspection Report
Hydraulic Hand Calculations
Applicable Permits, Codes, and Regulations
Anchor Calculations
Diffuser Mixing Zone Analysis
System Design Drawings
Cost Estimate
Micro Turbine Technology
Team Resumes

Appendix

10.1 Request for Proposal

10.1-1

10.1-2

10.1-3

10.2 Dive Inspection Report

10.2-1

10.2-2

10.3 Hydraulic Hand Calculations

10.3-1

10.3.1 Current System Capacity Sample Calculations

In order to determine the capacity of the existing system and validate the results from PCSWMM
the team performed hand calculations using the energy equation (Eqn. 1 below) and iterated with
the flow rate to determine the maximum possible flow given the available head. A sample
calculation is shown below.
D Diameter = 1.5
Z1 End elevation of diffuser = -82.182
Zplant=169
L Length of pipe = 4486.37
a ambient density
e effluent density
Q flow rate
V velocity
Re Reynolds number
2

= 2 + ( 1 ) + 1 + + +

Equation 1

0.25

Equation 2

5.74
(
+ 0.9 )
3.7

2
= ( )( )
2

Equation 3

2
=
2
= , +

Equation 4

, =

2
=
2

Equation 5
Equation 6
Equation 7

Vsection is the velocity between each of the port

V is the difference between the section velocity and the port velocity
K=1 for each of the expansions
Losses from the final two ports, located at the endcap, were calculated using the
orifice equation
o Orifice loss coefficient of 0.594 (Elger, Williams, Crowe, & Roberson,
2012)

In order to find the maximum flowrate, the team iterated with Q until the head loss calculated
was equal to the elevation of the wastewater treatment plant.
10.3-1

Q=9.86MGD

9.86 106 0.1336 3

= 15.25

86400

15.25
=
=
= 8.63
1.767 2
2
4
=

Equation 8

8.63 1.5
=
= 1232857

1.05 105

0.25
0.01 5.74 2
log (3.7 + )

Equation 8a 1

= 0.033
Equation 8a 2

2
+ ( 1 ) + 1 + + +
2

Equation 8a 3

2
=
2

Equation 8a 4

Table 10: Horizontal Bends for Minor Losses

Bend

Radius of
Curvature

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

48
37.3
7.26
7.16
3.87
16.26
14.67
14.67

0.35
0.35
0.25
0.25
0.16
0.35
0.32
0.32

1.48
1.48
1.48
1.48
1.48
1.48
1.48
1.48

Total

10.3-2

0.52
0.52
0.37
0.37
0.24
0.52
0.47
0.47
3.48 feet

Head Loss Due to Diffuser:

Diffuser head loss was estimated by using a mass balance throughout the diffuser, modeling each
port as an expansion, and calculating frictional losses between each port.

Equation 8a 5
=

n= number of ports

= 4 2.54

= 0.1016
100

0.0432
=
=
= 5.33 /
2)

(0.1016
4

0.432
=
=
= 2.63 /
2)

(0.4572
4

Equation 8a 6
Equation 8a 7

Equation 8a 8

Figure 21: Layout of Variables for Diffuser Head Loss Calculations

Below are calculated flowrates at each of the diffuser portholes under high flow conditions, used
to estimate head losses.
= 0.432
8 = 0.0432 cms
87 = 8 = 0.432 0.0432 = 0.388
76 = 87 7 = 0.388 0.0432 = 0.3456
65 = 76 7 = 0.3456 0.0432 = 0.3024
54 = 65 6 = 0.3024 0.0432 = 0.2592
43 = 54 5 = 0.2592 0.0432 = 0.216
32 = 43 4 = 0.216 0.0432 = 0.1728
21 = 32 3 = 0.1728 0.0432 = 0.1296
10 = 21 2 = 0.0864

10.3-3

Expansion Losses:
2
=
2

Equation 8a 9

Below are exit velocities from each porthole under high flow conditions, used to estimate head
losses.
87
87 =
= 2.36 /

76 = 2.11 /
65 = 1.84 /
54 = 1.58 /
43 = 1.32 /
32 = 1.05 /
21 = 0.79 /
10 = 0.53 /
Below are head losses due to the expansion of each porthole:
(87 )2
= 0.45
2
(76 )2
= 0.53
2
(65 )2
= 0.62
2
(54 )2
= 0.72
2
(43 )2
= 0.82
2
(32 )2
= 0.93
2
(21 )2
= 1.05
2
(10 )2
= 1.05
2
Total Expansion Losses= 6.19 m = 22.3 ft.

10.3-4

Final Two Ports (in Endcap):

2
( )

=
2

Equation 8a 10

0.1016 2
)
= 0.594 = 0.00149
2 9.81
= 0.00298 = 0.00978
(

Friction Losses within the Manifold:

2
= ( )( )
2
87 = 0.05
76 = 0.04
65 = 0.03
54 = 0.02
43 = 0.017
32 = 0.01
21 = 0.005
10 = 0.0025
Total Friction Losses= 0.1745 m = 0.57 ft.
2

Equation 8a 11

Therefore, using = 2 + ( 1 ) + 1 + + +

8.632
1024
=
+(
) (2.18 + 82.18) 82.18 + 112.1 + 3.48 + 22.3 + 0.57
2 32.2
1023
= 137.5
Since the final head necessary for a flowrate of 9.86 MGD is less than the elevation of the plant
the given flow rate is less than the capacity.

10.3-5

10.4 Applicable Permits, Codes, and Regulations

Permit Summary Table
Codes and Regulations Summary Table
Permits

10.4-1

Table 11: Table of permits required for project. Depending on actual project specifications, additional permits may apply
Permit

Section 404

Section 10

Issued by

US Army Corps of
Engineers

US Army Corps of
Engineers

Purpose

Regulate the discharge of

any dredged or fill material
into the waters of the United
States. The permit has legal
authority under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act.

Regulate all activities that

may obstruct or alter any
navigable waters of the
United States, such as Puget
Sound.

Why It is Required

The project will likely

involve disturbing the bed
of Puget Sound by
dredging and filling

Material Required for Submittal

All or part of the

construction will take
place in Puget Sound.

Private Aids to
Navigation
(PATON)

401 Water
Quality
Certification

10.4-2

US Coast Guard

Washington
Department of
Ecology

Regulate any permanent or

temporary aids to navigation
within federally recognized
navigable waters, other than
those operated by Federal
Governments or in State
waters.

Ensure that projects comply

with state water quality
standards and other aquatic
resource protection
requirements

The project intends to

place a buoy in the Sound
at the location of the
outfall.

Construction activity may

result in the discharge of
dredged or fill material or
excavation in water or
non-isolated wetland.

JAPRA Application
Photos of the project area
Vicinity map
Detailed drawings showing the project
location in relation to wetlands,
creeks, rivers, the Sound, or any other
waterbodies.
No fees will be charged to local
governments.
JARPA Application
Photos of the project area
Vicinity map
Detailed drawings showing the project
location in relation to wetlands,
creeks, rivers, the Sound, or any other
waterbodies.
No fees will be charged to local
governments.

Special Considerations

If activities covered by Nationwide or Regional Permit

no Standard Individual Permit required.
Information regarding cultural resources, project
alternatives, compensatory mitigation and other factors
may need to be provided, depending on the location,
scope, and nature of the project

The project must first be reviewed by the U.S. Army

Corp before the U.S. Coast guard will review the need
for a PATON and approved the permit.

If certified under Nationwide Permit by US army corps

of engineers and ecology has certified the permit, 401
certification is not required.
If the department of ecology has conditionally certified
the Nationwide Permit, an individual Letter of
Verification from Ecology is required.
If Ecology denied the nationwide permit, an individual
401 certification must be obtained.

JARPA Application

JARPA Application
Mitigation plans
Water quality monitoring plan
Operation and maintenance plans
Storm water site plans
Restoration plans.

If activities covered by Nationwide or Regional Permit,

no Standard Individual Permit required.
Information regarding cultural resources, project
alternatives, compensatory mitigation and other factors
may need to be provided, depending on the location,
scope, and nature of the project.
If it is determined that the dredged or fill material may
negatively impact Endanger Species Act (ESA) listed
species or critical habitat, then the project may also need
to submit a Biological Evaluation.

Permit

NPDES
Construction
Storm water
General Permit

Hydraulic
Project Approval

Purpose

Why It is Required

Washington
Department of
Ecology

To prevent construction
storm water from washing
soil, chemicals, and harmful
pollutants into surface
waters of the state. Surface
waters are broadly defined
by state law and include
storm drains, ditches,
wetlands, creeks, rivers,
lakes and marine waters.

Construction activities will

include clearing, grading
and excavating activities
and will discharge storm
water to surface waters of
the state or a conveyance
system that drains to
surface waters of the state.

Regulate any form of work

that uses, diverts obstructs,
or changes the natural flow
or bed of any fresh water or
saltwater of the state.

Anticipated construction
will be waterward, under
and over ordinary high
water line, and will
reconfigure the bed of
Puget Sound. In addition,
construction landward
may impact aquatic life or
habitat.

Washington
Department of Fish
and Wildlife

Aquatic Use
Authorization

Department of
Natural Resources

To protect and manage the

use of state-owned aquatic
lands, consistent with
Chapter 79.105 RCW.

Shoreline Permit

Snohomish County
Planning and
Development
Services

To regulate developments
and uses of water bodies
and associated upland areas
to protect human health and
the natural environment.

Right of Way
Utility
Application

10.4-3

Issued by

Snohomish County
Planning and
Development
Services

To regulate construction
activity within the
Snohomish County Public
Right-of-Way.

Material Required for Submittal

Notice of Intent (NOI) Application

Certification that the public notice and
SEPA requirements have been met
Storm water pollution prevention plan
(SWPPP)
$501-$1935 Application Fee (varies
depending on project size)

Special Considerations

If the water body is on the impaired Water Body list,

applicant will be required to provide ecology with
information in advance of permit coverage and will be
required to complete the Construction Storm water
General Permit: Proposed New Discharge to an
Impaired Waterbody form.

JARPA Application
General plans for the overall project
Complete plans and specifications for
protection of fish life
Notice of compliance with State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
A $150 application fee or a payment
exemption form

SEPA compliance must be completed prior to review.

The project includes

construction on submerged
land under management of
the DNR.

JARPA Application
JARPA Attachment E
Surveys or legal description of
property
Development and operations plan
Bonds
Insurance
A $25 application fee

None.

The project includes

construction activity
within 200 feet of the
ordinary high water mark.

Master Permit Application

SEPA Checklist
An application fee (varies)

Shoreline permit it sent to DOE after county review.

Shoreline permit requirements may be fulfilled with
JARPA application. Contact with Snohomish County
Planning and Development Services for more
information.

Utility Pre Design Conference

Checklist
Utility Application Submittal
Checklist
Right-of-Way Utility Application
$535.60 Permit Application Fee
(varies depending on project size)

Land use pre-application meeting may be required. Pre

application meeting submittal checklist would be
required.

The project includes

construction activity in the
Snohomish County Public
Right-of-Way.

Permit
Burlington
Northern Santa
Fe (BNSF)
Railroad
Construction
Permits

10.4-4

Issued by

BNSF

Purpose

To regulate construction on
BNSF property.

Why It is Required

Construction activities
may take place on
property owned by BNSF.

Material Required for Submittal

Application for Temporary Occupancy

Application for Pipeline or Wire Line

Crossing and/or Longitudinal

Insurance
One set of drawings
$775 Application Fee

Special Considerations
BNSF uses brokerage firm Jones Lang LaSalle
Brokerage, Inc. to handle permit process.
BNSF has their own specification manual for
installations on their property called the Utility
Accommodation Manual

Table 12: Summary of regulations that apply to project. Depending on final scope of work, additional codes and regulations may apply
Document

Title

Chapter

Title 13
Roads and Bridges

Chapter 05
Design Standards and Specifications
Chapter 10
Permits

Title 25
Storm and Surface Water Management

All

Title 25A
Water Quality Restoration
and Water Quality Management

All

Title 30
Unified Development Code

Chapter 43C
Flood Hazard Permits
Chapter 44
Shoreline Permits
Chapter 61
Environmental Review (SEPA)
Chapter 62
Wetlands and Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Conservation Areas
Chapter 63
Land Disturbing Activities
Chapter 65
Special Flood Hazard Areas
Chapter 67
Shoreline Management Program

Snohomish County
Code

Chapter 158
Flood plain Management
Chapter 201A
Water Quality Standards for Surface
Waters of the State of Washington

Washington
Administrative Code

Title 173
Ecology, Department of

Chapter 220
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit Program
Chapter 224
Water Discharge Permit Fees
Chapter 225
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Chapter 226
Waste Discharge General Permit Program

10.4-5

Section

Document

Washington
Administrative Code
(Contd)

Title

Chapter

Title 197
Ecology, Department of
(Environmental Policy, Council On)

Chapter 11
SEPA Rules

Title 220
Fish and Wildlife, Department of (Fisheries)

Chapter 110
Hydraulic Code Rules

Title 332
Natural Resources, Board and Department of

Chapter 30
Aquatic Land Management WAC

Title 36
Counties

Chapter 70A
Growth ManagementPlanning By
Selected Counties And Cities

Title 57
Water Sewer Districts

Title 70
Public Health and Safety

Revised Code of
Washington

Title 77
Fish And Wildlife Water Quality
Joint Development Act

Chapter 16
Comprehensive Plan Local Improvement Districts

10.4-6

Section 060
Natural Resource Lands and Critical Areas Development Regulations
Section 073
Sanitary sewer and potable water facilities Notice to certain property owners.
Section 080
Enlarged District

Chapter 150
Water Quality Joint Development Act
Chapter 55
Construction Projects in State Waters

Chapter 105
Aquatic Lands - General
Chapter 115
Aquatic Lands - Harbor Areas
Chapter 125
Aquatic Lands - Tidelands And Shorelands

Title 86
Flood Control

Section 128
Rent Review

Chapter 95B
Domestic Waste Treatment Plants
Operators

Chapter 020
Public Lands ManagementGeneral.

Title 79
Public Lands

Section

Chapter 16
Flood Plain Management

Section 030
Court Review of Actions

Document

Revised Code of
Washington (contd)

Code of Federal
Regulations

Title

Title 90
Water Rights Environment

Chapter
Chapter 48
Water Pollution Control
Chapter 58
Shoreline Management Act of 1971

Title 91
Waterways

Chapter 08
Public Waterways

Title 40
Protection of Environment

Chapter 01
Environmental Protection Agency

Title 44
Emergency Management and Assistance

Chapter 01
Federal Emergency Management Agency

Chapter 26
Water Pollution Prevention and Control
Title 33
Navigation and Navigable Waters

Section

Also known as
Federal Water Pollution Control Act or
Clean Water Act (CWA)

Subchapter D, Part 131

Water Quality Standards
Subchapter B, Part 59.1
General Provisions
Subchapter B, Part 60
Criteria for Land Management and Use
Subchapter IV, Section 1341
Section 401 CWA
Certification
Subchapter IV, Section 1342
Section 402 CWA
National Polutant Discharge Elimination System
Subchapter IV, Section 1344
Section 404 CWA
Permits for Dredged or Fill Material

Chapter 1A
National Historic Preservation

United States Code

Also known as

Subchapter II, Section 407f

Section 106 NHPA

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)

Title 16
Conservation

Chapter 35
Endangered Species
Also known as
The Endangered Species Act (ESA)

10.4-7

Section 1531
Section 7 ESA

Permits

10.4-8

10.4-9

10.4-10

10.4-11

10.4-12

10.4-13

10.4-14

10.4-15

10.4-16

10.4-17

10.4-18

10.4-19

10.4-20

10.4-21

10.4-22

10.4-23

10.4-24

10.4-25

10.4-26

10.4-27

10.4-28

10.4-29

10.4-30

10.4-31

10.4-32

10.4-33

10.4-34

10.4-35

10.4-36

10.4-37

10.4-38

10.4-39

10.4-40

10.4-41

10.4-42

10.4-43

10.4-44

10.4-45

10.4-46

10.4-47

10.4-48

10.4-49

10.4-50

10.4-51

10.4-52

10.4-53

10.4-54

10.4-55

10.4-56

10.4-57

10.4-58

10.4-59

10.5 Anchor Calculations

10.5-1

Anchor sizing equation:

=

0.8( )

WA = total weight of each anchor in air (lbs)

WC = density of concrete (lbs/ft3)
WM = density of sea water (lbs/ft3)
WP = unit weight of pipe (lbs)
S= anchor spacing (ft.)
V= external unit volume of pipe per unit length (ft3/ft)

10.5-2

Equation 9

10.6 Diffuser Mixing Zone Analysis

10.6-1

10.6.1 Mixing Zones

A mixing zone is an area surrounding the discharge ports where wastewater mixes with the
receiving water (Alderwood Water and Wastewater District, 2013). The chronic mixing zone is
defined in WAC 173-201A-400(7)(b) as the horizontal distance from the discharge ports equal to
200 ft. plus the depth of the discharge ports at MLLW. The acute mixing zone is defined in
WAC 173-201A-400(8)(b) as 10% of the distance of the chronic mixing zone. The depth of the
diffuser is -64 MLLW, therefore the chronic mixing zone is set at 264.4 ft. whereas the acute
mixing zone is set at 26.4 ft. Figure 22 depicts the acute and chronic zone extending in a radial
distance from the diffuser.

Figure 22: Plan view depicting the acute and chronic mixing zones around the diffuser
Within each mixing zone the pollutant concentrations must not exceed regulations to minimize
risk for aquatic life and human health. Within the acute zone, only aquatic life criteria is
considered. Within the chronic mixing zone, aquatic life and two forms of human health criteria
are considered: carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic. The aquatic life criteria is based on the time
that organisms are exposed to a certain pollutant concentration. Human health criteria is based
off of daily exposures, ingestion rate, and cancer risk for carcinogenic chemicals.

10.6-2

10.6.2 Dilution Factors

Dilution factors can be calculated via design equations from the manual: Environmental
Protection Agency, Initial Mixing Characteristics of Municipal Ocean Discharges and through
modeling with the program Visual Plumes (USEPA). Visual plumes dilution modeling is
required by the Department of Ecology (DOE), while the hand calculations are used to validate
the modeling results. To calibrate the diffuser model and hand calculations team CEE 16.7
modeled the current diffuser and compared against previously published results from the
AWWD mixing zone analysis report (2007) and Mukilteo NPDES Permit (2013).
The team compared the model results against the hand calculations of dilution factors. Variables
affecting dilution factor magnitude include the design flow, current speed, and density
stratification. Appropriate values for these variables are determined from conditions set by the
DOE Permit Writers Manual, Appendix C, Tables C-1 and C-2. Results for the current analysis
are shown in Table 13 below. The design flowrates were calculated using flow data between the
years of 2013-2015. These percentile current speed values were obtained from the AWWD
mixing zone analysis report from 2007 (URS, 2007).
Table 13: Design flow and current speed for each mixing zone and criteria
Flow (MGD)
Current speed (m/s)
Acute
Aquatic life
17.7
0.022
Aquatic life
7.1
0.108
Chronic Non-carcinogenic
7.1
0.108
Carcinogenic
3
0.108
After selecting the appropriate flowrates and current speed, the dilution factors (Sa) for each
criteria were calculated using the following equations (Environmental Protection Agency, 1985):
1

2
= 1.28 [ ]

Equation 10

Where:

= ( ) ambient density stratification term [2 ]

o =
o density

( )

modified acceleration term [ 2 ]

o =
o acceleration due to gravity

10.6-3

effluent flowrate per length [

current speed [ ]

These equations assume that the effluent discharged from the ports are merging in flowing
ambient water (Environmental Protection Agency, 1985). Sa represents the average dilution
through the wastefield. Refer to Figure 23.

S = Centerline dilution

Sa= Average dilution in

wastefield plume

Figure 23: Generic effluent plume from a diffuser (Owens, Effler, Matthews, &
Prestigiacomo, 2013)
Applying Equation 10 to the variable conditions identified in Table 13 allows for calculation of
average dilution factors for the current diffuser system at acute and chronic conditions. Table 14
shows the dilution factor calculated for each condition. As the table indicates, there is more
dilution in the chronic mixing zone, which is a farther distance from the diffuser, than the acute
zone.

10.6-4

Table 14: Dilution factor calculations for each condition

Zone

Criteria

Acute

Aquatic Life

Aquatic Life
Criteria
Human
Carcinogenic
Chronic
Criteria
Human NonCarcinogenic
Criteria

Flow
Density
Design
Current Density
per
Plume Dilution
Acceleration Flow
Speed Gradient,
length Rise
Factor
Term g'
Q
U (m/s)
G
q
(m)
Sa
(m/s2)
(m3/s)
(m2/s)
0.022

0.000624

0.266

0.78

0.032

38.8

22

0.108

0.000624

0.266

0.31

0.013

11.1

77

0.108

0.000624

0.266

0.13

0.005

7.20

118

0.108

0.000624

0.266

0.31

0.013

11.1

77

10.6.3 Visual Plumes Model for Current Diffuser

Inputs
The design flow, current speed, and density stratification profiles obtained above for the dilution
hand calculations were also used for Visual Plumes modeling. Additional inputs included port
diameter, elevation, angle, and number. The other inputs regarding diffuser and ambient
properties were taken from the AWWD factsheet from 2013. The factsheet provides information
on the effluent after conversion to an MBR facility. Table 15 summarizes all model inputs. Note
that the concentration of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS), and
fecal coliforms represent the maximum values between 2011 and 2013. The concentration of
fecal coliform satisfies permitted values even before dilution.

10.6-5

Table 15: Diffuser Inputs for Visual Plumes

Diffuser Inputs
Port Diameter (in)
4
Port Elevation (ft.)
1.5
Vertical Angle ()
45
Horizontal Angle ()
45
Number of Ports (#)
8
Port Spacing (ft.)
8
Acute Mix Zone (ft.)
26.4
Chronic Mix Zone (ft.)
264
Port Depth (MLLW)
64
Effluent Flow* (MGD)
17.7*
Effluent Salinity (psu)
0
Effluent Temperature (C) (max)
18.6
Effluent Concentration:
BOD5 (ppm)**
3
TSS (ppm)**
1
Fecal Coliforms (#/100 mL)***
1
*The effluent flow will change depending on which dilution criteria is being entered (this case is acute, aquatic criteria)
**Max weekly average (b/w 2011-2013)
***Weekly geometric mean (b/w 2011-2013)

In addition to diffuser inputs, there are also ambient water inputs utilized by the model.
Table 16 outlines the ambient parameters, all taken from the 2013 factsheet.
Table 16: Ambient Properties for Visual Plumes

Ambient Inputs
Measurement depth (ft.)
Current Speed* (m/s)
Current Direction (degrees)
Ambient pH
Background concentration (mg/L)
Pollutant Decay Rate (1/s)

64
0.022
170
12.3
0
0

*The current speed will change depending on which dilution criteria is being entered (this case is acute, aquatic criteria)

Dilution is largely affected by density stratification of the water. Density stratification

determines how far up in the water column a freshwater plume may rise. Stratification is largest
in the summer, when temperatures are warmer (Alderwood Water and Wastewater District,
2013). The 2007 mixing zone report analyzed the ambient water according to 36 different water
column profiles. These profiles included water depth, salinity, density and temperature. Figure
24 represents the two density profiles analyzed in relation to impact on dilution and plume
elevation. A winter and summer density profile that exhibited the largest stratifications were
chosen from the 36 stratifications provided in the mixing zone report.

10.6-6

Density (sigma-T)
15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

10

Depth (ft)

20

30

40

50

60

70
Winter (1/14/2002)

Summer (6/8/2004)

Figure 24: Winter and summer density stratification profiles

Modeling the chronic zone with aquatic life criteria for the current diffuser using the winter and
summer stratification profiles produced the plume elevations and dilution factors as shown in
Table 17.
Table 17: Plume elevations and dilution factors using summer and winter density
stratification profiles
Plume Elevation (- ft.)
Dilution Factor

Summer
34
91

Winter
34
93

The plume elevation is approximately the same for both conditions, but the winter density
stratification produces slightly higher dilutions. Therefore to be most conservative the analysis
will use the summer density profile. This summer profile was from a sample taken on July 6,
2001. The data used is shown in Table 18.
.

10.6-7

Table 18: Additional ambient parameters that change with depth (URS, 2007)
Water Column Profile (6/8/2004)
Temperature
Depth (ft.)
Salinity (psu)
Density (sigma-T)
(degrees C)
3.3
22.94
14.23
16.85
16.4
25.35
13.08
18.92
32.8
28.43
11.78
21.53
49.2
29.23
11.26
22.24
65.6
29.33
11.19
22.33
In the special settings input tab the parameters listed in Table 19 were used. Channel width was
set as twice the length of the submerged pipe. Diffuser port coefficient was set at 1 since
discharge is shaped so that the port diameter resembles the initial plume diameter. The other
coefficients were kept at default settings for the program.
Table 19: Visual Plumes special settings input tab
Special Settings
Channel width (m)
Diffuser port coefficient
Light absorption coefficient
Farfield increment (m)
UM3 aspiration coefficient

550
1
0.16
10
0.1

Output Graphics
Figure 25 depicts the dilution using the acute zone, aquatic life criteria listed above. The average
dilution at the acute boundary, 26.4 ft., is approximately 40 (indicated by the solid line in Figure
25).

10.6-8

Figure 25: Plume Dilution for Acute Zone, Aquatic Life Criteria
Figure 26 shows the dilution factor with the chronic zone and human health non-carcinogenic
criteria. The dilution at the chronic zone boundary, 264.4 ft. is approximately 43.

Figure 26: Dilution for Chronic Zone, Human Non-Carcinogenic Criteria

10.6-9

As shown in Figure 27 the dilution at the chronic zone boundary, 264.4 ft. is approximately 58
using the chronic zone and human health carcinogenic criteria.

Figure 27: Dilution for Chronic Zone, Human Health Carcinogenic Criteria
Table 20 shown below, compares the calculated dilution factors with the dilution factors from
Visual Plumes.
Table 20: Comparison of calculated and modeled dilution factors
Zone
Acute
Chronic

Criteria
Aquatic life
Aquatic life
Non-carcinogenic
Carcinogenic

Dilution Factor
Calculated Modeled
22
40
77
43
77
43
118
58

The difference between the calculated and modeled dilution factors are reasonable. The model
accounts for additional variables such as port spacing, number, and angle, as well as ambient and
effluent temperature. Since the program uses different means of calculating the dilution factors,
and hand calculations indicate general agreement with the modeling results, the team feels
confident using the Visual Plumes model with these inputs to design any new diffusers.
Once the dilution factors were determined for each condition, the constituent concentrations at
the acute and chronic boundaries were calculated using the dilution factors from Visual Plumes,

10.6-10

effluent concentrations provided by AWWD for the MBR facility, and compared to regulations
from the facilitys NPDES report (2013), as shown in Appendix section 10.6.5.
In order to determine the constituent concentrations at the different mixing zones the effluent
concentration was divided by the dilution factor for each criteria. For example for NH4+ /NH3 the
calculation for the acute aquatic dilution is

15

40

= 0.38

. This value was compared to the acute

aquatic life criteria value of 5244 . Since the concentration is less than the regulation it meets
standards. The diluted concentrations all exceed regulated criteria as shown in Table 21. Even if
the hand calculated dilution factors are used, all regulations are met. For design the team is using
the model dilution factors since it is common practice.

Equations:

1
2

=
2
3.14 2
=

Where:
S maximum dilution required = 10
fent entrainment coefficient = 0.125
U current speed = 0.108 m/s (chronic zone criteria)
Z depth = 64.4 ft.

10.6-11

Equation 11
Equation 12

Table 21: Diluted constituent concentrations compared to regulatory dilutions for the current diffuser
NH3/NH4+ Phosphate Antimony

Constituent
Effluent Concentration
(micrograms/L)
Constituent
Acute, Aquatic
Concentration Dilution Chronic, Aquatic and
(micrograms/ L)
Non-Carcinogenic
Aquatic Life Criteria Acute
(micrograms/ L)
Chronic
Water Quality Criteria
Human Health
(micrograms/L)
Pass/Fail

Arsenic

Cadmium

Chromium

Copper

Lead

Mercury

Nickel

Phenol Selenium

Thalium

Zinc

15

3000

0.35

0.622

1.02

0.45

7.81

1.08

0.0025

2.51

0.063

0.33

0.013

820

0.38

75.0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.01

0.20

0.03

0.000

0.06

0.002

0.01

0.000

20.5

0.35

69.8

0.01

0.014

0.024

0.010

0.182

0.025

0.000

0.058

0.001

0.008

0.000

19.1

69
36

42
9.3

1100
50

4.8
3.1

210
8.1

1.8
0.025

74
8.2

0.15

4600

5000000

4200

6.3

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

5244
788
10000*

1000*

4300

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

290
71

90
81

10.6.4 Diffuser Analysis for Proposed Design Options

Table 22: Diluted constituent concentrations compared to regulatory dilutions for option 1
NH3/NH4+

Constituent
Effluent Concentration
(micrograms/L)
Constituent
Acute, Aquatic
Concentration Dilution Chronic, Aquatic and
(micrograms/ L)
Non-Carcinogenic
Aquatic Life Criteria Acute
(micrograms/ L)
Chronic
Water Quality Criteria
Human Health
(micrograms/L)
Pass/Fail

Phosphate Antimony

Arsenic

Cadmium

Chromium

Copper

Lead

Mercury

Nickel

Phenol

Selenium

Thalium

Zinc

15

3000

0.35

0.622

1.02

0.45

7.81

1.08

0.0025

2.51

0.063

0.33

0.013

820

0.41

81.1

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.01

0.21

0.03

0.000

0.07

0.002

0.01

0.000

22.2

0.16

32.6

0.00

0.007

0.011

0.005

0.085

0.012

0.000

0.027

0.001

0.004

0.000

8.9

69
36

42
9.3

1100
50

4.8
3.1

210
8.1

1.8
0.025

74
8.2

0.15

4600

5000000

4200

6.3

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

5244
788
10000*

1000*

4300

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

290
71

90
81

Table 23. Diluted constituent concentrations compared to regulatory standards for option 2 and 3
Constituent
Effluent Concentration
(micrograms/L)
Acute, Aquatic
Chronic, Aquatic and
Non-Carcinogenic
Acute
Chronic

Diluted Constituent
Concentration
(micrograms/ L)
Aquatic Life Criteria
(micrograms/ L)
Water Quality Criteria
Human Health
(micrograms/L)

Pass/Fail

10.6-12

NH3/NH4+

Phosphate

Antimony

Arsenic

Cadmium

Chromium

Copper

Lead

Mercury

Nickel

Phenol

Selenium

Thalium

Zinc

15

3000

0.35

0.622

1.02

0.45

7.81

1.08

0.0025

2.51

0.063

0.33

0.013

820

0.34

68.2

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.01

0.18

0.02

0.000

0.06

0.001

0.01

0.000

18.6

0.14

27.8

0.00

0.006

0.009

0.004

0.072

0.010

0.000

0.023

0.001

0.003

0.000

7.6

69
36

42
9.3

1100
50

4.8
3.1

210
8.1

1.8
0.025

74
8.2

0.15

4600

5000000

4200

6.3

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

5244
788
10000*

1000*

4300

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

290
71

90
81

Pass

10.6.5 Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA0020826 (2013)

10.6-13

10.6-14

10.7 System Design Drawings

10.7-1

OPTION 1

10.7-2

10.7-3

10.7-4

10.7-5

10.7-6

10.7-7

10.7-8

OPTION 2

10.7-9

10.7-10

10.7-11

10.7-12

10.7-13

10.7-14

10.7-15

OPTION 3

10.7-16

10.7-17

10.7-18

10.7-19

10.7-20

10.7-21

10.8 Cost Estimate

10.8-1

Equations:
= 38.1(0.02832)

0.6816

Equation 13

= (1 + )

Equation 14

C = cost (in 1995 dollars)

V= volume of vault (cubic meters)
FV = future value
PV = present value
r = inflation rate (assumed 3% annual average)
n = number of periods (years)

Table 24: Annual Cost Estimate for TideFlex duckbill diffuser due to the valves protruding from
the seafloor
O&M Cost
No. of dives per year
Daily Boat rate
Daily Diver rate
Daily Driver rate
Total O&M Cost (2012)
2016 Cost

10.8-1

4
$
$
$
$
$

1,300
1,120
800
12,880
14,496

Table 25: Option 1 cost estimate

10.8-2

Table 26: Option 2 cost estimate

10.8-3

Table 27: Option 3 cost estimate

10.8-4

10.9 Micro Turbine Technology

10.9-1

Micro Turbines
Micro turbines can be used when installed in the effluent stream flow rates from 1.5 cubic feet
per second (CFS) to 16 CFS producing 0.5 to 20 kilowatt (kW) of electricity, requiring 8 to 20
feet of head (Green Power Group, LLC, 2011), the greater the head applied to the water turbine,
the better power generation. The AWWD outfall is an ideal situation to apply micro turbines in
that the available head is significant and the water is very clean from MBR treatment. These
turbines can be incorporated into a large diameter manhole or detention vault where the
converted energy can be re-routed to the facility or sold back to the main power grid as seen in
Figure 28. The disadvantage of these technologies is their installation typically requires the
facility or outfall to be permitted as a dam.

Figure 28: Example of turbine diagram based on Hydroelectric Generator (Veolia, 2016)
There are two different types of turbines, power generating and power saving. Power saving
turbines do not return electricity to the gird; they allow the plant to reduce its power consumption
during peak rate times. Advantages to both types of turbines are the increase in dissolved oxygen
added to the effluent stream and various types of monitoring options. Installations of micro
turbines in WWTP outfalls demonstrate 85-90% efficiency (Veolia, 2016).
While the addition of a micro turbine is outside the scope of work for this project, the team
believed recent trends in using micro turbines in WWTP outfalls should be mentioned in this
report. It is an opportunity for cost savings, and to be a regional leader in promoting this
renewable green energy technology.
10.9-2

10.10 Team Resumes

10.10-1

Kristin Ramey
927 23rd Avenue, Seattle, WA, 98122
kframey@gmail.com | (971) 645-1459
SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS
Graduating June 2016 in good academic standing with a BS in Civil Engineering.
Two years of experience working with Seattle Public Utilities on capital
improvement projects (CIP).
EDUCATION
September, 2012 Seattle University, Seattle, WA, 98122
Present
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, Environmental Engineering Specialization
GPA : Cumulative: 3.823
Major: 3.812
Honors: Seattle University Presidents List
Science and Engineering Deans List
Senior Design Project:
Working with three other students to design a marine outfall for the Alderwood
Water and Wastewater District wastewater treatment plant.
Personal responsibilities include performing hydraulic modeling using PC
SWMM, designing a flow equalization basin, preparing design drawings using
AutoCAD Civil 3D, and acting as design phase project manager.
Extra-Curricular Activities:
Concrete Canoe Team member
Volunteer Experience:
Worked with EarthCorps to remove invasive species on Beacon Hill, Seattle
WA.
WORK EXPERIENCE
Seattle Public Utilities, Project Delivery Branch, Seattle, WA, 98104
April, 2014 - April, 2016
Engineering Student Intern, Engineering and Technical Services Division, CIP Design Section
Worked under senior engineer to design a full line sewer replacement project through
60% design.
Worked under senior engineer to design a surface mounted stormwater conveyance
system to 30% design.
Provided engineering design support for two spot drainage operations and maintenance
projects.
Modeled a combined sewer basin using EPA SWMM for a combined sewer overflow
reduction project.
Assisted the Engineering and Technical Services Division in the design and execution of
ten sewer rehabilitation contracts.
Improved work efficiency by introducing Maximo work order management software to
the team.
Provided additional design assistance to other project engineers by performing research,
doing calculations, and drafting preliminary plans.
TECHNICAL SKILLS
Some experience with drafting in AutoCAD Civil 3D.
Some experience with ArcMap GIS.
Familiar with EPA SWMM, PC SWMM, HEC-HMS, HEC-RAS, and WWHM
hydraulic modeling software

10.10-2

Isabella Schwartz
927 23rd Ave Seattle, WA 98122
schwar23@seattleu.edu
(253) 576-5626
SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS

Gained design experience on local stormwater drainage projects through an engineering internship with Seattle
Public Utilities.
Proficient in AutoCAD Civil 3D and ArcGIS.
Possess strong written and oral communication skills and ability to work on a team.

EDUCATION
Seattle University, Seattle, WA
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, Environmental Specialty
(GPA: 3.73 out of 4)

Sept. 2012Present

Relevant Coursework: Water and Wastewater Engineering, Fluid Mechanics, Applied Hydraulics, Water
Resources, Applied Environmental Biology, Engineering Chemistry, Engineering Measurements
Year-long, Senior Capstone Project sponsored by Alderwood Water and Wastewater District
2016 PNCWA Student Design Competition Winner
Worked in a team of four to assess and provide three system design options for the aging outfall at the
Picnic Point Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Team produced a written proposal in fall quarter, a final report at the end of spring quarter, and three 30%
system designs including AutoCAD drawings and cost estimations.

WORK EXPERIENCE
Engineering and Technical Services Division, Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle, WA
June 2015present
Internship
Performed design work for spot stormwater drainage improvements, including a surface mounted HDPE
tightline and a directionally drilled storm drain in order to prevent water discharging along the hillside
Conducted field investigations, performed pipe sizing and runoff calculations, and produced preliminary design
plans in AutoCAD Civil 3D
Performed tests on a ruptured corroded water main and authored a condition assessment report of the pipe
Used basic surveying equipment to confirm topography and existing pipe slopes
Observed landslides in the field including rotational and translational slides
Observed construction onsite including utility excavation and shoring installation
Woodland Park Zoo, Seattle, WA
Zooper Day Camp Assistant
Gained leadership skills by leading children aged four to nine years through the zoo.
Helped plan daily activities, games, and lesson plans with one other counselor.

COMPUTER SKILLS

Proficient in ArcGIS, AutoCAD Civil 3D, and Microsoft Excel, Word, and PowerPoint
Exposure to PCSWMM, HEC-HMS, and HEC-RAS

10.10-3

June 2014Sept 2014

Abbie Lorensen
4130 SW Rose St, Seattle, WA 98136
lorensen@seattleu.edu | www.linkedin.com/in/abbielorensen
(206) 276-2518
EDUCATION
Seattle University, Seattle, WA
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering (Environmental Specialty)
Seattle Central Community College, Seattle, WA
Associates of Science

Sept. 2014-Present

March 2014

PROJECTS

Engineers for a Sustainable World

Worked to install a water treatment system on a coffee farm in Nicaragua
Built a tenor ukulele and pickup out of a wooden box, and a piezoelectric buzzer

January 2015
March 2014

WORK EXPERIENCE
Aqualyze, Inc, Seattle, WA
Project Engineer
Calibrate PCSWMM models
Prepare maps and exhibits
Snohomish County Public Works, Everett, WA
Engineer 1- Intern
Prepared plans and estimates
Prepared exhibits, maps and feasibility study for a public meeting
Preformed site inspections of construction work to ensure quality and ADA compliance
Reviewed design and drainage reports
Reviewed specifications
Assisted on bridge inspection and performed zero rise analysis
Resolved utility conflicts
Starbucks, Seattle, WA
Barista
Work to provide excellent quality, and a positive costumer experience
Train incoming partners up to company standards
Winner of Partner of the Month

April 2016-Present

June 2015-Sept. 2015

July 2012-April 2016

SKILLS
Basic Computer Skills (AutoCAD, AutoTurn, ArcGIS, EPANET, Traverse PC, HEC-HMS, HEC-RAS, Microsoft
Office, Excel, Word, PowerPoint, SharePoint)
Strong interpersonal skills
Responsible
Reliable

ACTIVITIES
Bassist for Seattle Rock Orchestra
Bassist in Garfield High School Jazz Band
Winner of Essentially Ellington competition at Jazz at Lincoln Center in New York

10.10-4

2010-Present
2007-2010

Larissa Grundell
428 154th Ave SE
Bellevue, WA 98007
(425) 652-6741 | grundell@seattleu.edu
SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS

During my time in the Marine Corps I developed leadership, organization, and

problem solving skills.
Civil Engineering student with an Environmental focus

EXPERIENCE
City of Sammamish Public Works Department (Summer Internship)

AECOM/Defense Support Services LLC (Electronics Technician)

Mar 2007 to Feb 2008

Perform AV8-B complete disassemble and reassemble for Depot level repair and modification.
Perform on-site troubleshooting to aircraft systems when necessary, inspect proper installation and
reassembly for Avionics equipment/systems.

Western Area Power Administration (Summer Laborer)

May 2009 to Sept 2009

Temporary laborer for fiber optic upgrade for WAPAs Communication shop, and fixed communication
site discrepancies.
Created and maintained a running log for each individual site using software programs.

United States Marine Corps

June 2010 to Dec 2011

Support testing, developing of software/hardware, for test and evaluation squadron VX-31 and project
upgrades at NAWS China Lake.
Perform scheduled and unscheduled maintenance by troubleshooting avionic systems that allowed flight
test to be successful at developing new weapons, radar, engine monitoring, mission system computer
software and targeting pod.

The Boeing Company (Aircraft Mechanic)

June 2015 to Sept 2015

Supported the storm water Program Manager

Responsible for creating and executing a door-to-door survey about storm water, LID and IDDE best
management practices.
Contributed to code review for NPDES permit requirements
Mapped storm water facilities in ArcGIS to aid infrastructure inspection

____

Mar 2002 to Mar 2007

Directly responsible for the Squadron Avionics Maintenance of over 15 AV-8B Harrier jet aircraft.
Responsible for managing and training up to 20 personnel.
Responsible for heading up the West coast Table Top Review of the AV-8B Harrier technical publications
to included adding and removing vital troubleshooting steps, procedures and part numbers.

EDUCATION
2014-Present
2012-2014
2008-2009
2003
2003
2001

Bachelor of Science in Civil/Environmental Engineering Seattle University

Mechanical Engineering Associate Transfer Degree Bellevue College
Electrical Lineworker Certificate Fort Peck Community College
Avionics Technician Common Core (AT)
AV-8B CNI/ECM Systems Organizational Maintenance
High School Diploma Interlake High School

COMPUTER SOFTWARE
Microsoft Office, Solidworks, Revit, ArcGIS, HEC-HMS

10.10-5