Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-09-08 Minutes• - NOTICE OF AND CONSENT TO A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD The undersigned hereby acknowledge receipt of official and timely notice of a special meeting of the Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, to be held September 8, 1983, at 3:00 p.m. in the Continuing Education Center, Room 204, Fayetteville, Arkansas. The purpose of the meeting being: 1. Hear a presentation from the Northwest Arkansas Resource Recovery Authority as to the status of the proposed Solid Waste Incinerator, Steam Recovery Facility. 2. Consideration of Resolutions authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the necessary documents so the Authority may proceed with this project. 3. Hear a report from CH2M Hill Engineers concerning possible alternative sludge disposal options. This is in response to comments received at the public hearing, at the Wyman Community Workshop and from the State Health Department. 4. Consider authorizing any necessary actions to expedite the com- pletion of plans for sewage disposal facilities. The undersigned further consent to the meeting at the time and place and for the purpose hereinabove set forth and hereby ratify all action taken at the meeting for said purpose. t 1L MAYOR Gi1G6�, o?. 149 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL BOARD OF DIRECTOR'S MEETING A special meeting of the Board of Directors was held on Thursday, September 8, 1983, in Room 204, Continuing Education Center, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Noland, Directors Lancaster, Orton, Sharp, Osborne, Bumpass and Johnson; City Manager Grimes; Assistant City Manager McWethy; Finance Director Linebaugh; City Engineer Bunn; City Clerk Griffin; members of the press and audience. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Noland called the meeting to order at 3:20 p.m. NORTHWEST ARKANSAS RESOURCE RECOVERY AUTHORITY The first order of business was a status report by Northwest Arkansas Resource Recovery Authority on the building of a resource recovery plant in. Northwest Arkansas for solid waste disposal. Chairman Ann Henry reported that the Washington County Quorum Court had unanimously approved, in principle, a contract with the Authority for disposal of trash collected by the County. Mr. Louis Watts, Project Director of the Resource Recovery Project, spoke about specific operational matters for NWARRA, stressing that it was necessary at this time for contractual commit- ments to be made for specified amounts of solid waste from each entity involved in the project so the project could move ahead with steam contract negotiations and financing It was noted that negotiations were underway with the University of Arkansas to purchase steam that will be produced by the facility, at a discount, which would mean a substantial savings to the University. Mr. Jim Reynolds, Engineer with Hennison, Durham & Richardson, Consulting Engineers for NWARRA from Omaha, Nebraska, presented a slide presentation regarding the selected incinerator. The slide presentation was accompanied by an open discussion session between the Board, NWARRA personnel and the Engineers present on how the plant operated, what it looked like, a cost comparison of the pro- posed incinerator system versus the cost of current operations, plant location (Razorback Road, South of Highway 62), estimated cost of plant, etc. .It was particularly noted that this system was environmentally safe, and had been designed to exceed the pollution control standards set by State and Federal regulations. Further, it offered a long-term solution to waste disposal. 149.1 149.2 149.3 149.4 150 9-8-83 After further Board discussion, Director Johnson made a motion to adopt a resolution to execute the waste supply contract with Northwest Arkansas Resource Recovery Authority. The motion was seconded by Director Orton and upon roll call, passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. RESOLUTION # 108-83 APPEARS ON PAGE 3i( OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTIONS BOOK XVI CH2M HILL ENGINEERS REPORT/ALTERNATIVE SLUDGE DISPOSAL OPTIONS The next order of business was a report from CH2M Hill Engineers to the Board and the Water and Sewer Committee on sludge management alternatives, in connection with the City's wastewater treatment program. Rick Hirsekorn, of Ch2M Hill, gave a status report regarding their answer to Arkansas State Department of Health's response to the final draft of the 201 Facilities Plan that had been submitted. He stated that he and Cliff Thompson had met with State Health Department Staff in Dr. Salzman's office in Little Rock (Dr. Salzman is Director of the State Health Department), accompanied by Bob Blanz, Assistant Director of DPC&E and Ted Ivy, Staff Engineer from the State, with whom they had been working. They had addressed the Health Department's concerns point by point and thought they had satisifed them, with the exception of one point, and it was this point that CH2M Hill needed Board direction on. Mr. Hirsekorn then summarized the six points of concern the State Health Department had expressed, along with CH2M Hill's response: (1) The first concern was over seasonal standards that the State had proposed for the upgraded and expanded treatment plant facilities to meet. The portion of the letter expressing this concern stated: "This office feels that if the plant design is proposed, it would be practical and environmentally advantageous to practice and maintain the best possible treatment capabilities the year round, rather than less stringent requirements in the Winter and more stringent requirements in the Summer." Their response to this was that basically, the design of the plant was based on Winter -time conditions and includes the design of the biological treatment system as predicated upon the fact that the lowest design average wastewater temperature will be a certain low value in Winter that the plant will function satisfactorily at, at that time. The standards are such that the same strict standards would not have to be met at that time as they are in the Summer. The Health Department response to this is that they just wanted to be absolutely certain that the treatment plant is operated to the optimum limits all year round . Mr. Hirsekorn said that on behalf of the City, he had informed them that this was the intent. 150.1 150.2 150.3 150.4 150.5 1 1 1 9-8-83 (2) The Health Department had expressed their concern over Lake Francis and the 'increasing potential for THM formation in the Lake due to continued discharges. Mr. Hirsekorn said that there was general agreement that this plant treats the wastewater far and above the normal limits that exist in the area and across many areas of the country. (3) The next concern was for the addition of complete n itrogen removal from the plant. The response was that the proposed plant, in accordance with the State guidelines that are being established for discharge, involves the conversion of the n itrogen from the ammonia state to the nitrate state, not complete removal of that nitrogen; and the purpose of that, according to State standards., is to lessen the possibility of dissolved oxygen ✓ iolations in the stream that the ammonia in the unconverted form would effect on the stream. Bob Blantz, Assistant Director of DPC&E, had informed the State Health Department that they could not see any advantage in going to the extra cost and trouble of completely removing the nitrogen rather than convert it from one form to another as Fayetteville's proposed plant would do. Mr. Hirsekorn said he had pointed out that the plant is also going to remove phosphorus and it is very difficult to remove phosphorus and completely remove nitrogen at the same time. He added that this seemed to satisy the Health Department with respect to this concern. (4) Mr. Hirsekorn said that their next comment dealt with their lack of experience with the type of treatment process being proposed for the upgraded and expanded plant. He said that once again, we informed them of the process and the operation guarantees that CH2M Hill is working out with the City, agreeing to give them all the information that we have used in developing our confidence that it is a system that will not only do the job for Fayetteville, but one that they will be standing behind contractually for the two year period, adding that when this period was up, they would be leaving the City staff trained and ready to take over. The State Health Department said they would like to see this information and would take an objective approach in looking at it. Mr. Hirsekorn stated that he felt their concern was mainly generated by a lack of experience with this type of system. 151 151.1 151.2 (5) The fifth concern expressed dealt with the sludge management plan. A portion of the letter expressing this concern stated, "The Sludge Management Plan should be further addressed; this office cannot approve some of the concepts contained in the facility plan; as a minimum, the sludge should be ultimately dis- posed of by land application with incorporation or burial restricted to an area above the flood plain. Mr. Hirsekorn stated that he presented the Health Department with the same information thathe was presenting to the Board at this meeting adding that he had told them the plan was not etched in concrete but that they are now in the process of receiving input from local experts, from the public, assessing land availibility above the flood plain, and would report back to them to keep them up -dated on the status of where the design and implementation of the sludge plan actually stood. 151.3 151.4 152 9-8-83 (6) The item that had not been completely resolved with the State Health Department dealt with the discharge of a portion of the effluent. Mr. Hirsekorn stated that there would be approxi- mately a 50-50 split of the treated wastewater from the proposed plant - half being planned to go to the White River, where it all goes now and the other half planned to go through a pump station and force main up and be discharged into Mud Creek where, at that point, it would take advantage of the approximately 160-170 feet of natural fall along that run of the creek into Clear Creek and eventually into the Illinois River. The State Department of Health's letter had stated that they felt the outfall line should extend to the confluence of Clear Creek; failing this, the minimum acceptable outfall line would terminate at the bridge across U. S. Highway 71. Mr. Hirsekorn said that plans at present call for a pipeline that would take this portion of the treated effluent and discharge it in Mud Creek at Highway 45 in the vicinity of the treatment plant, but the pipeline the Health Department was requesting would be approximately 31/2 miles in addition to what the City has now. He said he pointed out to them, with the State supportive of their statement, that the pipe- line they were requesting would present the following problems: (A) The creek itself is allowing the City, through natural means,to reaerate this wastewater and assists in further aeration of the water all the way through the stretch of Mud Creek, through Clear Creek,all the way to the Illinois River. Putting a pipeline in this portion of the creek would defeat the purpose of putting it in there in the first place. They had expressed concerns to the Health Department about enclosing the effluent in that pipeline and not allowing it to cascade over the rocks or be entrained in the air as it moved down the creek, which could cause potential water quality problems and possible violations at the point it would be dis- charged because the dissolved oxygen content would not be sufficient. 152.1 1 152.2 1 (B) CH2M Hill felt it was a resource to the creek and a benefit 152.3 to the project to utilize the creek; by putting the pipeline atHighway 71 or at the confluence of Clear Creek and Mud Creek, they felt would be implying to the people immediately that there really was something wrong with it. The psycholo- gical effect of the pipeline could be just as serious as potential water quality violations. (C) The additional cost the City would have to incur to put this pipeline in along with a reaeration structure at the end of the pipeline would be approximately $1-1.5 million. Mr. Hirsekorn then advised the Board to keep in mind that this would be a violation of the State standards and what it boiled down to was a violation of law versus complying with the wishes of the State Health Department. He stated that the cost of this pipeline and reaeration structure would not be eligible for Federal funding because in the State's opinion, it was not necessary to meet the water quality standards. 152.4 152.5 1 9-8-83 Mr.;Hirsekorn said that this was the point that CH2M.Hill wanted to discuss with the Board and would need direction on how to proceed. Director Johnson asked if the water modeling runs had been received. Mr. Hirsekorn answered that they had not gotten these from the State because they had just asked the State to run them again and let them know what the effects would be if they tookthe effluent all the way down to a point, for instance, the Highway 71 Bridge. He said that the Board could go along with what has been developed, giving them conditional approval, depending on whether or not a potential water quality problem develops as a result of the modeling run, which they will report to them, or wait for the results before making any decision. 153 153.1 153.2 After lengthy Board discussion regarding the points of concern 153.3 that had been expressed by the State Department of Health and the responses CH2M Hill had made to them, Director Johnson, seconded by Noland,made a motion to affirm the Board's position of putting the waste- water in Mud Creek at the Highway 45 Bridge, as presently planned. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7-0. City Manager Grimes suggested CH2M Hill draft a letter for the Mayor's signature, confirming the Board's position, with all the points that had been made at this meeting,and sending it to the Department of Pollution Control and Ecology with a carbon to the State Health Department, because they were an Advisory to the DPC&E. The Board concurred. Mr. Hirsekorn stated that the State Department of Health asked them to develop a cost estimate, get with the State and obtain the results of the water quality mottling run, discuss it with the Board and then come back to them. They said that any letter they developed with this posture would be brought to the Board for their review and approval. He added that the Health Department had indicated they did not want to do anything to damage the project; they wanted to take into consideration the same infor- mation that was presented to the Board. The Board was then. presented with five sludge management alternatives: (1) Application of liquid digested sludge on farmland using Cooperative farmers only. (2) Application of liquid digested sludge on farmland using a combination of Cooperative farmers and a City -owned dedicated disposal site. (3) Composting the sludge and marketing the resulting 153.9 product. 153.4 153.5 153.6 153.7 153.8 154 9-8-83 (4) Application of liquid digested sludge to farmlands 154.1 under contract. (5) Application of liquid digested sludge to farmland which 154.2 is totally owned by the City. Each alternative was discussed in detail, including the costs associated with each one and the advantages/disadvantages of each alternative. The Board members present (Director Osborne left at 5:45 pm) concurred in the following 6 recommendations, and to take these recommendations to the full Board for their consideration at the September 20th regular Board Meeting. Those recommendations are, if a land application alternative is finally selected as the sludge management system, that: (1) The present land owner or lessee will be given the 154.5 first choice to operate the system; (2) Irrigation water (plant effluent) as well as sludge 154.6 will be offered to the farmer; 154.3 154.4 (3) The land be shaped so as to accommodate modern 154.7 agriculatural machinery; (4) The farmer be allowed as wide a range of crop 154.8 alternatives as possible and still be consistent with the intent of the program; (5) All setbacks as required by the regulatory agencies 154.9 be met; (6) The illustration in the Draft Facility Plan (Figure 6-1) showing definite areas in the Wyman area which would be used as sludge application sites, be deleted. Mayor Noland, seconded by Orton, made a motion to approve the above -referenced recommendations. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6-0, with Director Osborne absent for this vote. ADJOURNMENT 154.10 154.11 The meeting adjourned at 6:30 P.M. 154.12 1 1 1