Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-05-19 Minutes1 O Q MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING A special meeting of the Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville was held at 3:30 p.m., on May 19,, 1983, in Room 107 of the Continuing Education Building,'Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT. Osborne, Mcwethy, Mayor Noland, Directors Bumpass, Johnson, Lancaster and Sharp; City Manager Grimes, Assistant City Manager and City Clerk Kelly; members of the press and audience. ABSENT: Director Orton CALL TO ORDER Mayor Noland called the meeting to order and asked for a moment of respectful silence. PRESENTATIONS/WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT Mayor Noland stated that the purpose of this meeting was to have presentations on the wastewater management alternatives and sewage treatment alternatives that the City of Fayetteville may consider. Mayor Noland asked Dr. Cliff Thompson, of CH2M Hill to address the Board regarding their proposals, to be followed by a period of questions. Dr. Cliff Thompson Addressed the Board Dr. Thompson stated that the purpose of this meeting was to discuss the objectives which his firm would like to see accomplished. He stated that CH2M Hill began working for the City of Fayetteville in April, 1983, to amend the 201 Facility Plan of the City of Fayetteville. In beginning this work, CH2M Hill con- sidered two alternatives There have been several delays, one of which was the sewer moratorium to be imposed on the City of Fayetteville unless cer- tain things were done. The City has to show cause why the mora- torium should not be placed into effect. Their total effort to react to the concerns which were raised as a result of that pro- posed moratorium were required. 43 43.1 43.2 43.3 43.4 43.5 43.6 43.7 43.8 44 44.1 The second delay was the addition of two possible additional alternatives that came to light in reacting to the show -cause hearing for the moratorium, and in reaction to the possibility of getting some additional funds not thought available originally. Statements Supporting Need for Progress 44.2 Dr. Thompson stated that if the Step ILI Grant Application is not in by June, 1984, the City will lose 1984 funding. In order to get a Step III grant application, the plans and specifi- cations have to be essentially complete, so only two more months remain to agree upon a plan, to redo the 201, in addition to the public hearing process It is, therefore, critical that a desi- sion be made. 44.3 A second, equally important, reason why a decision should be made is the underlying reasons behind the proposed sewer ban. One of those is that the City doesn't have a plan that everyone feels is supported and would be implemented. CH2M Hill feels that there is a reasonable chance that after this discussion, the City will get the support of most of the people that would be affected by the long-range plan. He felt that this was extremely important when the City and CH2M Hill goes to the May 27, 1983 meeting to talk about why the proposed sewer ban should be lifted. The City needs to have a united, single plan, indicating specifically what it plans to do and the schedule under which they plan to implement it, as well as the costs to be proposed. Then the City can turn to the Commission for their support in the city's efforts to alleviate the wastewater problem in Fayetteville. He reiterated the fact that this impetus would help them make decisions. He hoped that during the presentation the City will reach a point where they can decide what the wastewater treatment alternative would be, and what the sludge management alternative might be, in order to complete the 201 Facility Plan amendments. Plans That Have Been Reviewed 44.4 As part of the 201 Plan the firm looked at the use of the existing facilities, as they are, to optimize them so that they could meet environmental needs. They decided this would not work. The City does have to go to a much higher degree of treatment than the current plant will provide. So this option would be out. It was decided that the City could not meet the twenty year plan through the small systems. 44.5 He stated that the original aspect of Fayetteville and Springdale joined together would be discussed in some detail. 1 1 Under this plan, Springdale and Fayetteville would go together and treat their waste to secondary levels, 30 parts of BOD, 30 parts of solids. Then the combined waste would be discharged into the Arkansas River Basin. This was looked at and was kept in the group to be assessed, even though its cost was considerably higher. If there is some funding available, that funding would bring this alternative into the same economic range, in comparison with some of the lesser cost alternatives. Dr. Thompson stated that treatment and reuse for cooling 10 water, as well as slow rate land application were rejected because of cost. The only money that would be available for slow O rate land application would be EPA funds, and the cost was con- _) sidered excessive,: particularly compared to some of the other Q alternatives. White River Total Discharge This plan would treat all the wastewater to a discharge limit of 5 ppm BOD, 5ppm Solids, 2 ppm Ammonia, 1 ppm Phosphorus, and is the least costly of all the alternatives These costs include sludge costs,all the line work costs, rehabilitation costs, and it is essentially $22 million capital costs, and $35 million present worth costs. The firm recognizes in doing this that they cannot meet a dissolved oxygen of 6 in the White River. We would have to prove that this would have no detrimental effects to the downstream water. 45 45.1 45.2 45.3 This is the least costly alternative, yet it is questionable 45.4 in regard to environmental considerations. Two Plant Split Flow As said in other meetings, this plan is ruled out on the 45.5 basis of cost. Fayetteville Only Arkansas River This plan would be where Fayetteville would treat its 45.6 wastewater to a 30-30 effluent and pump this to the Arkansas River. It would be at a considerably higher cost, but it was left in as one of the four systems to be evaluated and to be costed out. They did this for two reasons: one, because there may be some funding that we are not currently aware of, and two, the firm wants the Board to know what the cost impacts would be, so that they can make their decision. White River Split Flow Under this alternative, all the wastewater would be treated 45.7 at one plant, and split the effluent -- part going to the 46 46.1 Illinois Basin, via Mud Creek, and part going to the White River. This plant would be designed to meet discharge limit of 5-5-2-1. 46.2 It will have a slightly higher cost --capital costs of $24 million and operating costs of $1 379 000 per year Overland Flow Alternative • 46.3 The revised wintertime permit requires that the system meet the BOD of 5, and phosphorus of 1 in the wintertime. Dr. Thompson stated that this is a new limit that has been placed that overland flow system cannot meet - it is one, however, that the AWT plant can meet, without a significant cost impact. 46.4 On the basis of wintertime permit limits, the Overland Flow option had to be ruled out. 46.5 Project Manager, Richard Hirsekorn, addressed the Board to discuss the four options being considered, which are Regional Arkansas River (Fayetteville and Springdale), White River Total Discharge, and White River Split Flow. Hirsekorn Presentation 46.6 Mr. Hirsekorn stated that the first part of any of the four alternatives would be getting the wastewater to the plant site. All four of the alternatives have streamed down to have common collection system improvements. Both in terms of inflow rehabi- litation to remove the extraneous stormwater from the system, and in the lift station interceptor collector improvements. He stated the four different alternatives are referring to two variations each of two separate alternatives. White River 46.7 There are two methods that would meet the discharge limits of 5 ppm BOD, 5 ppm Solids, 2 ppm Ammonia, and 1 ppm Phosphorus. 46.8 1. Total Discharge - This basically consists of a biologi- cal phosphorus removal plant, plus filtration, with total discharge to the White River. In this plan optimum use is made of the facilities at the existing treatment plant site. The existing headworks are upgraded and expanded: the existing pri- mary clarifiers are upgraded; the two new parts to be added are anerobic and inoxic basins because varying degrees of depletion of oxygen are essential to the treatment process. This would create the ability to remove the phosphorus, which makes it dif- ferent from the existing plant. The existing oxic or aerated basins would be upgraded and new ones added, as well as upgrading the existing final clarifiers or settling basins, and adding two or more to compliment those for future use. Effluent filtration would be added to bring the solids down to the required limits. With effluent storage provided, so that during any possible periods of plant non-compliance, for short, temporary periods of time, they will have the ability to store the treated effluent, and then recycle it back into the plant when it can be handled. The total discharge is to the White River. The problem with that is that the dissolved oxygen stan- dard is not met. White River Split Flow Discharge Mr. Hirsekorn stated that this process is identical as far 0 as the treatment process itself is concerned. The only dif- ference is that this would include an effluent pumping station Q and a force main which should pump a portion of the effluent to Mud Creek, which flows to Clear Creek, and into the Illinois Q River. The quality of the effluent is the same. The main dif- ference is that there is flow split --a portion to the White River and a portion to the Illinois River. CH2M Hill felt this is the most viable treatment option to meet the 5-5-2-1 permit limita- tions that have been mandated by the State. 1 The principal advantage of this plan, from a discharge standpoint, is that not only does it alleviate the problem of not being able to meet the 6 ppm DO standard on the White River, but also the portion of the flow that goes into the Mud Creek area, there is approximately 150 feet of drop through a good tumbling creekbed which provides a good, natural means of reaerating the discharge. It will essentially prevent any deleterious effects that could be experienced from the discharge of the wastewater into the other area in question, which is a flat, slow moving stream. Arkansas River (Regionalization), Springdale and Fayetteville Together, Or Fayetteville Alone With the two cities combined, the Springdale wastewater treatment plant effluent would have pumped, via pump station and force main, to a combination point with the Fayetteville effluent. The pipeline would carry both effluents and go to two booster pump stations and a storage commune located several miles away at the top of the hills over which the effluent would have to travel to get to the Arkansas River. One the way down to the river, it would pass through two power generating stations prior to discharge which would recover some of the power that was used to pump the effluent to that point. 47 47.1 47.2 47.3 47.4 The principal advantage of the Arkansas River alternative is 47.5 that the advanced wastewater treatment level (the stringent treatment level) that is provided by the plants previously discussed is not required. It would not have the advanced nutrient removal that is being proposed for the White River. 48 48.1 Common Elements of the Two Plans The treatement level that is provided by the two alternatives that have been discussed involves several more treatment units which were located in this area. The upgrade of the Fayetteville plant would be much less extensive, about half the cost to pro- vide additional capacity in the future at the secondary treatment levels that are currently being provided. The principal disad- vantage of this alternative is simply the cost. Approximately 56 miles of large diameter pipeline would be required to reach the Arkansas River. 48.2 The Fayetteville -only discharge to the Arkansas River requires basically the same treatment plant improvements. At secondary treatment levels the same additional elements, pumping stations, and storage lagoon at the top to even out the peaks and flows, and to provide a steady flow to the power generating stations down to the Arkansas River are needed. This would be approximately 45 miles of pipeline. The principal disadvantage is the cost associated with the pipeline effort all the way to the Arkansas River. Summary of the Four Alternatives 48.3 The two alternatives that deal with the White River (advanced wastewater treatment plant) are: (1) total discharge to the White River - this process poses difficulty in meeting dissolved oxygen standards but is the most cost efficient; (2) White River split flow discharge - this offers an affordable and an environmentally acceptable solution. 48.4 Arkansas River discharge alternative (Springdale and Fayetteville) - this encompasses secondary treatment levels, less stringent treatment, less work at the current plant, but a much more expensive pipeline effort. 48.5 Arkansas River discharge alternative (Fayetteville only) - same as both Fayetteville and Springdale alternative. Summary of Most Cost Effective Alternatives 48.6 The White River is the most cost effective followed by the White River split flow. The Arkansas River alternatives are con- siderably more, anywhere from two to two and one-half times more, in costs alone. The operational costs vary slightly. When calculating the present worth cost, the alternatives are still ranked in the same order. 48.7 Dr. Thompson stated that one point which should be made on the costs is that all the work will assume the $15 million federal grant throughout. With that in mind, he felt it was 1 important to remember that with the White River split flow, all of the costs for the pump stations, about $ 1,100,000.00, would be 100% City money. Therefore, the EPA would not likely participate in that activity. Alternatives Dealing with Sludge Management Dr. Thompson stated that in all the prior presentations, it had been obvious that sludge has not been looked at in sufficient detail. The comments that CH2M Hill and others have made are that the current sludge watering operation is expensive. The current disposal process is not acceptable from an environmental standpoint. He felt that there was enough money to be saved in 0 operation to perhaps offset any capital costs. QThe alternatives that were rejected because of cost included composting and burning the sludge in reuse incinerator. The four alternatives that were discussed were all within a cost range comparable to the city's current operation. Under the current operations, the sludge is dewatered, stabilized with the lime, which is useful in the watering process, with very high chemical, operational and maintenance costs. The current cost for the maintenance and the operation for sludge dewatering is $ 470,000 per year plus the capital costs of upgrading for future use. This makes its present worth cost about $4.8 million. Sludge Maintenance Alternatives Lime Stabilization - According to the regulations, there are two methods to stabilize sludge in order to apply it to land: (1) Add enough lime to bring the ph to 12.0, and (2) biologically digest the sludge through aerobic digestion. There are essentially four alternatives that use these concepts. First, stabilize the sludge to be able to spray for treatment on land The problem associated with lime stabiliza- tion is that the calcium used in the laboratory would present management problems in terms of the sludge spray tool. Second, digestion of the sludge, biologically, to take it from an unstable organic material to a stable organic material. After digestion, the sludge would be pumped to an application site in the proximity of the existing plant and would be applied. This has a present worth cost of about $5.9 million, as opposed to present worth cost currently of $5 million. Third, use lime to stabilize the water and allow it to be used for public use. This method is acceptable and will meet all the guidelines and requirements, but it requires a lot of land to stabilize the sludge. The fourth process is the digestion of the sludge to dewater it and make it available for public use. 49 49.1 49.2 49.3 49.4 49.5 This has the highest present worth cost of all the alter- 49.6 natives. Some people are unwilling to use the sludge The firm 50 50.1 feels, however, that based on their experience in a number of locations, that this really isn't a problem that would be dif- ficult to overcome. It would, however, require an educational program, and a program on the city's part, to make sure that the sludge is properly applied and managed. CH2M Hill tends to favor the digestion liquid land application on the City site. There was general discussion on how this plan would be used on dif- ferent types of soil. 50.2 CH2M Hill developed a concept to cost out and determine the cost to aerobically digest the sludge at the plant and pump it through spray irrigation into the five spray areas. This repre- sents disposal technique which is essentially land application. From a cost standpoint, we have assumed that the City would own it and lease it out to a farmer. Under this system, the value of the crops produced could offset the maintenance costs and some of the fuel costs to maintain the site. CH2M Hill favors this method primarily because the City would have control of the sludge operation. 50.3 The costs of this method are present worth costs of $5.9 million and current present worth costs of $44.8 million. To Put All Four Plans Into Perspective 50.4 Assuming that $15 million federal grant money is available, the relative costs are as follows for the different alternatives: 50.5 White River total discharge would require about $7.7 million of City money; White River split flow would require about $9.2 million of City money, regional Arkansas River would require $25.8 million of City money; and Fayetteville only Arkansas River would require about $38.6 million of City money. 50.6 State funding covers only 25% of plant costs for line work and EPA states their funding only covers those facilities that are deemed necessary to protect water quality. CH2M Hill believes $15 million would be maximum funding. If they assume that the State would reduce their funds because the line work was greater than 25% of the treatment work, then it would slightly affect the city's share for the White River total discharge. All these assume the same amount of rehabilitation, the same amount of interceptor work, the same sludge option. Comparison of Annual Revenue Requirements for 1987 with 1982 50.7 All of these capital costs have been upgraded to current costs. White River total discharge would require from $3.5 to $6.6 million in revenue to implement; White River split flow would require from $3.5 to $7 million in revenue to implement; Regional Arkansas River would require from $3.5 to $9 7 million 1 1 in revenue to implement; Fayetteville only Arkansas River would require from $3.5 to $11.9 million in revenue to implement. CH2M Hill had essentially used Black and Veatch's figures to compute these revenues. Dr. Thompson concluded that any one of the four alternatives, from an environmental or from a technical standpoint, would be implementable depending on what the City would be willing to pay for these plans. ID Mayor Noland stated he felt the total discharge to the White River could be eliminated because it was too costly. 51 51.4 0Director Lancaster, seconded by Director Bumpass, made a 51.5 motion to eliminate the alternative of total discharge to the White River. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6-0, Q with Director Orton being absent for this vote. Mayor Noland submitted a letter prepared by Director Orton in 51.6 which she stated agreement with either of these alternatives. Mayor Noland felt, that based on her letter, she would have had some objection to eliminating the total White River discharge at least at this point. It was her feeling that either of these alternatives would probably be satisfactory. 1 1 Mayor Noland then opened discussion to Arkansas River alter- 51.7 native and White River split flow. A speaker from the audience addressed the Board and stated that he had never heard discussion concerning the White River split flow. In explanation, Dr. Thompson stated that the proposed con- cent was to return the water to the watershed that it was generated from. The split would be about 55% back to the Illinois; 45% to the White River. He stated that at an earlier meeting, discussions were held with the property owners that would be affected by discharge to Mud Creek. Dr. Thompson felt that the flooding problem could be handled and that CH2M Hill expects the permit to dictate how they would manage this flow split. Peggy Treber stated that Dr. Thompson had mentioned a possi- bility of funds that had not earlier been thought available and asked about these funds. Dr. Thompson stated that he had no basis to assume that there were any funds Because of the enormous amount of interest in the Arkansas River alternative, there had been interest at the State and Federal level. If such funding could be made available, 51.8 51.9 51.10 51.11 52 52.1 these alternatives would become more practical from an economic standpoint. 52.2 Scott Van Laningham asked whether CH2M Hill had figured what would happen to the Arkansas River Regional Plan if Rogers were included Dr. Thompson stated that this had not been done. 52.3 Wilson Kimbrough stated that the split flow plan to the Illinois was considered at some previous time. He asked why this plan was being considered now when it was thought to be inappropriate earlier. There was general discussion about the plan and why it was being considered at this time. 52.4 Wilson Kimbrough asked Dr. Thompson to characterize the impact of the plan on wells in the Clear Creek area. 52.5 Dr. Thompson stated that it has been modeled. He stated that at a certain point that essentially the characteristics have been lost. At this point it becomes a resource rather than a liability, from a pure water standpoint. He added that realisti- cally the summertime was when it would be expected to have the worst problems, but he did not anticipate any problems. 52.6 Director Sharp stated that the operation costs would be fan- tastic if the wastewater is treated to 5-5-2-1 and then pumped to the Arkansas River. 52.7 Dr. Thompson continued that if Board, within about 30-45 days they amendments to the 201 Facility plan 30 days after that a public hearing this plan was selected by the would have completed the , submit it to the state, and would be held. 52.8 A speaker from the audience stated his property are used by his cattle and He fears that it won't be acceptable in having a plan come out in the paper one day, and the next day, you read between the lines, and he called the City Manager's office today and found out that there was a meeting. that the wells he has on are acceptable water now. the future. He resents 52.9 Ron Bumpass asked if the State would test the resident's water and determine the impact or if there would be an impact from this plan when the permit from EPA was applied for. 52.10 Dr. Thompson replied that the area would be tested. There was general discussion regarding this system. 52.11 Bill Martin, Fayetteville, a resident on 45 East, addressed the Board. Mud Creek enters the city on his property. He attended the meeting this afternoon and the representative of the city informed him and the people at that meeting that the water going into Mud Creek will be of superior quality to the water that's in Mud Creek. He felt this was conceivably the best 1 1 1 1 • solution that is available to us If this proposal is accepted, then he hopes that the City will go to bat for the citizens in all the steps along the line. If that plant is built and does not function properly, then he feels the City has a solemn obli- gation to the citizens to close the plant. 53 53.1 Mayor Noland stated the City would attempt to work in this 53.2 direction. A member of the audience expressed her concern about wells 53.3 1.11 in the area becoming polluted. 0 In response to her question, Dr. Thompson stated that if 53.4 there is concern the waste will affect anything, it can be turned off at anytime in a short time period. Q The question was asked about who invited the landowners to 53.5 the meetings. Mr. Grimes stated that he met with and contacted as many of the property owners up and down Mud Creek within the city limits as he could within the time that he had. 53.6 A comment was made that Mud Creek is currently polluted. 53.7 Mr. Grimes stated the City had a problem with a stretch of sewer main along Mud Creek, west of Hwy 71. It's a relatively new main and an electrolosis problem is causing its break. We're replacing 1500 feet of line. He felt this was where a lot of that problem was coming from. As a representative of Mud Creek property owners, an audience member was wondering about the flooding. He suggested cleaning out the Mud Creek channel in preparation of this project. 53.8 53.9 Director Osborne stated he felt that someday a regional plan 53.10 would be developed. Dr. Thompson stated that CH2M Hill had tried to point out through this presentation that so many of the elements of the plans are common to all four plans. A regional plan sometime in the future would certainly be compatible if there was a reaso- nable plan. Money has been budgeted to do some channelization of Mud Creek. Director Lancaster stated that he was sorry the City had not heard from Springdale. He would have liked to have received some feedback on our extension because their permit is coming up right away. 53.11 53.12 54 54.1 Dr. Mitchell addressed the Board. He felt the decision was whether or not to go with one plant or two plants for the split flow plan. He outlined the manner in which the plant would operate and to what capacity the effluent would be processed. 54.2 The cost to build the plant on the west side is $ 8,600,000 and a similar $750,000 for the plant upgrading on the east side. The sludge handling facilities on the east side or existing plant would be sufficient to handle the production without any upgrading. 54.3 Mayor Noland stated that the Board was simply trying to determine the best method for all the people at the most advan- tageous cost. 54.4 Dr. Murray stated that most of the comments go back basi- cally to operations. It seems the City of Fayetteville can do one thing. He felt the superintendent of the plant and the City Engineer should be under the Civil Service Commission. He felt the responsibility for the fish kills belonged to the operators of the plant and not always with soup companies. 54.5 A speaker stated that the City has qualified, competent people working on the plant. 54.6 Director Lancaster, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to approve the Mud Creek design. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. Sludge Disposal Option 54.7 Mayor Noland stated that he thought, based on what Dr. Thompson stated and after reading the report, he would prefer the digestion land application option which would involve a capital cost of about $4 million and the acquisition of land to enable us to implement the land application. 54.8 Director Sharp, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion for Dr. Thompson's recommendations to be accepted. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously ADJOURNMENT 54.9 There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned. 1 1