HomeMy WebLinkAbout76-82 RESOLUTION4
•
•
RESOLUTION NO. 176 — g�
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE A RESOURCE RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION CONTRACT
WITH HENNINGSON, DURHAM & RICHARDSON, INC.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and
directed to execute a resourse recovery implementation contract
with Henningson, Durham & Richardson, Inc. A copy of the contract
authorized for execution hereby is attached hereto, marked
Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof.�
PASSED AND APPROVED this /�yday of '/ , 1982.
V
r
n
,�. ^ A,
::ATTEST: *e
�4
it.
APPROVED:
9„1'i %%/SyedMAYOR'
RESOURCE RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION CONTRACT
This Contract, entered into on the /� day of , 1982,
by and between the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, (hereinafter referred to as (City)
and Henningson, Durham & Richardson, Inc., 8404 Indian Hills Drive, Omaha, Nebraska
68114, (hereinafter referred to as HDR).
WHEREAS, the City desires to engage HDR to do additional work
pertaining to the Solid Waste Resource Recovery Implementation Plan entered into on
the 10th day of April, 1981 between the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning
'Commission and HDR, and
WHEREAS, HDR desires to render certain services as described in
Exhibit A (attached); if the City wishes HDR to perform any Additional Services, it
shall be as provided in Section 12.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises
and representations herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:
Section 1. Employment of HDR. The City hereby agrees to engage
HDR and HDR hereby agrees to perform the services set forth in Exhibit A.
Section 2. City's Responsibilities. The City agrees to provide HDR
with all existing data, plans, and other information in the City's possession which is
necessary for the planning of the project.
The City agrees to designate in writing a person authorized to act as the
City's representative. The City or its representative shall receive and examine
documents submitted by HDR, interpret and define the City's policies and render
decisions. and authorizations in writing promptly to prevent unreasonable delay in the
progress of HDR's services.
EXHIBL A
1
Section 3. Time of Performance. HDR agrees to commence work
within 10 days of the date of execution of this CONTRACT and shall complete the
scope of services as set forth in Exhibit A as expeditiously as reasonably possible.
Section 4. Compensation. City agrees to pay HDR an amount equal to
the payroll cost times a factor of 2.5 plus reimbursable expenses. Payroll costs are
defined as salary plus 35% for fringe benefits and payroll taxes. Reimbursable
expenses shall include such costs as commercial travel, meals, lodging, printing and
computer time. Travel in private car will be billed at 20 cents per mile.
It is agreed that the total cost of all services under this Agreement is
estimated at $60,000 and that this amount will not be exceeded without the written
approval of the City.
Section 5. Payment. Requests for payment will be made every four
weeks. Invoices will show manhours, payroll costs, expenses, and the amount invoiced
for the period.
Upon receipt of the Request for Payment, the City will promptly process
the Request. If the City fails to make any payment due HDR for services and
expenses within sixty days after receipt of HDR's bill therefore, the amounts due
HDR shall include a charge at the rate of 1 1/296 per month from said sixtieth day;
and, in addition, HDR may, after giving seven days' written notice to the City,
suspend services under this Contract until it has been paid in full all amounts due it
for services and expenses. Payment is considered contested if the City informs HDR
of this action in written form within 30 days of receipt of the Request for Payment.
Work will he stopped until the issue is resolved. No penalty will be incured in the
case of contested payment.
Section 6. Subcontracts. HDR shall subcontract certain parts of the
work as defined in Exhibit A to McClelland Consulting Engineers (MCE) as HDR and
MCE deem appropriate.
- 2
fi
Section 7. Equal Employment and Non Discrimination. In connection
with this Contract, HDR agrees to comply with the provisions of Exhibit B. (Equal
Employment Opportunity Clause)
Section 8. Reports and Meetings. HDR shall bear the responsibility of
maintaining close liaison with the City and of making sufficient meetings, oral
briefings and other contact with the City and participating agencies to allow proper
coordination of work. Not more than three public meetings are expected to be
attended by HDR during the performance of the work as presented in Exhibit A.
Section 9. Reports and Materials. All reports, drawings, data
(including base data) and other materials formally prepared in the performance of this
Contract shall become the property of the City on payment for the services
performed as specified in this Contract, and all such reports, drawings, data and
materials shall be delivered to the City as specified in this Contract, or upon any
termination thereof. Any risk or loss, destruction or damage of or to said reports,
drawings, data and materials shall be borne by HDR prior to the time when same are
delivered to the City nor shall any such loss, destruction or damage excuse
performance of HDR under this Contract. Any reuse without written verification or
adaptation by HDR for the specific purposes intended will be at the City's sole risk
and without liability or legal exposure to HDR.
Section 10. Contract Termination.
A. Termination of Contract for Cause. The obligation to provide
further services under this Agreement may be terminated by either party upon seven
days' written notice in the event of substantial failure by the other party to perform
in accordance with the terms hereof through no fault of the terminating party. In
the event of any termination, HDR will be paid for all services rendered to the date
of termination, all Reimbursable Expenses and termination expenses. In the event of
termination, all finished and unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings,
maps, models, photographs and reports prepared by HDR shall, at the option of the
City, become the property of the City and HDR shall be entitled to receive just and
equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such documents and
other materials.
- 3
B. Termination for Convenience of the City. The City may terminate
this Contract at any time by a notice in writing to HDR. In that event, all
unfinished documents and other materials described in Paragraph 9 above shall, at the
option of the City, become the property of the City. If the Contract is terminated
by the City as provided herein, HDR will receive final payment from the City in an
amount not less than the actual costs incurred by HDR for and during the duration of
the Contract. This payment will be made only after HDR has filed a project status
report.
Section 11. Amendment. The parties agree that no change or
modification to this Contract, or any attachments hereto, shall be of any force or
effect unless the amendment is dated, reduced to writing, executed by both parties
and attached to and made a part of this Contract. No work shall be commenced and
no costs incurred in consequence of any amendment to this Contract or any
attachments hereto unless and until such amendment has been executed and made a
part of this Contract.
Section 12. Additional Services. If the City wishes HDR to perform
Additional Services, it shall so instruct HDR in writing, and HDR will be paid
therefore as provided in Section 4.
Section 13. Documents Forming This Contract. The parties agree that
this constitutes the entire Contract between the parties hereto, and there are no
agreements or understandings, implied or expressed, except as set forth specifically in
this Contract and that all prior contracts and understandings in this connection are
merged into and contained in this Contract. The parties hereto further agree that
this Contract includes Exhibits A and B incorporated herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on this
7S day of , 1982.
- 4
I
•.
City ,e€ -Faye jtevij1, Arkansas
By Paul Noland
Mayor
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
t, HENNINSON, DURHAM
Witness: & RII1-jARDSON, INC
By: Harvey D. Funk, P.E.
Vice President
r
EXHIBIT A
WORK PLAN
Introduction
In July of 1981, Henningson, Durham & Richardson, Inc. (HDR) and McClelland
Consulting Engineers, Inc. (MCE) presented to the Northwest Arkansas Solid Waste
Authority a Resource Recovery Plan which conluded that resource recovery appeared
feasible, and recommended certain actions toward implementing resource recovery in
Northwest Arkansas. The Authority authorized HDR to initiate the first step of
implementation by evaluating critical issues of implementation in the northwest
Arkansas area. In April of 1982, HDR and MCE presented findings of the first step
of implementation to the Authority, and recommended further action toward full
implementation.
Because the City of Fayetteville is the single largest contributor toward
implementation of resource recovery in the northwest Arkansas
recommended that they control much of the implementation process.
other recommendations made in the report of April, 1982, the City of
authorized HDR to continue with the implementation of resource
completing a second step of implementation.
area, it was
With this and
Fayetteville
recovery by
Scope of Work
The second step of implementation will carry the City through the following:
Preparation of and review of responses to an RFQ.
Negotiation of energy purchase and waste supply contracts.
Initiation of permits for a facility and a residue/by-pass landfill.
A 1
r.
•
To achieve this goal, HDR will perform the following tasks:
Task I Development of Risk Posture
Development of a risk posture is an essential element in the implementation of a
resource recovery program. Such development presents the "pros" and "cons" of
various elements of implementation concerning which the City must establish its
position. From this posture the City can then develop contract negotiation positions
and evaluation criteria for RFQ's and RFP's, as well as positions on procurement and
financing.
HDR will meet with the City to discuss various risks of implementation and will
assist the City in developing this risk posture by presenting to it the various options
open to the City and advantages and disadvantages of various risks. As contracts are
negotiated, various new options may present themselves in which case those also
would be discussed with HDR before decisions are made by the City.
Task 2 Development of and Review of Responses to RFQ
A request for qualifications provides for vendors to show their interest in this
resource recovery project and to provide information regarding their experience and
technical and financial qualifications. It includes background information regarding
the project including waste supply and ownership, anticipated markets and the general
intent of the City. Also included is protocol for vendors to follow in responding and
evaluation criteria of the City. A specific list of information which is requested of
vendors is also included. •
HDR will prepare all necessary documents for issuance of a Request -For -
Qualifications (RFQ). Such documents will include the following:
Applicable State and Federal Environmental Regulations.
State or Local Acts authorizing a Solid Waste Authority if applicable.
A - 2
f
I
f
Project background information including waste generation and ownership;
energy markets; contract arrangements and siting.
Information requested including complete technical capabilities of
respondants and financial status, and concerns regarding such a project.
Evaluation process and criteria.
Tentative timetable for the selection of vendors.
HDR will print and issue adequate numbers of RFQ's to appropriate vendors and will
review all vendor responses according to established criteria and recommend
responsive vendors qualified to receive a formal Request -for -Proposals.
Task 3 Waste Supply and Energy Purchase Contracts
Waste supply and control, and the sale of energy are vital issues in the
implementation of a resource recovery program. The quantities of waste that are
available t9 the resource recovery facility dictate not only the facility size, but also
the revenues that can be derived through tipping fees and energy sales. The type of
assurances made in supplying waste and selling energy directly effects the security of
the financing arrangements for the facility.
HDR representatives will sit with representatives of cities, counties, and energy
markets to negotiate the requirements of each energy purchase and waste supply
agreement. The agreements will be reviewed by HDR before being presented to the
City for their review. It will be helpful for the City to perform a legal review of
its own also (by city attorney). HDR will meet with the City and/or the City
attorney to describe the requirements of the agreements, and discuss any questions.
Task 4 Initiation of Environmental Permits
Preparation of environmental permits will strengthen the position of the City when
dealing with vendors. HDR will prepare any applications for water, air or sewer
permits as the information becomes available Some applications require the
A-3
ii
knowledge of technical aspects of the facility and., must be completed after selection
of the vendor. However, all permit requirements will be identified and included in
proposal requests.
A residue landfill that is designed to also accept non -processed solid waste is an
integral part of a resource recovery system. The selection of such a landfill may
require several months of site review and permit preparaton prior to pre operation
construction. HDR will identify all necessary requirements of landfill permits
including the time required to issue a permit. Permit requirements will be included
in the proposal requests. The City should initiate actions necessary to acquire a
landfill site.
Task 5 Review of Economics
In the Step 1 Implementation Program, HDR developed a computer program to assist
in the determination of the effect of various parameters on the cost of owning and
operating a resource recovery faciltiy. In this second step of implementation, HDR
will use that program and any new information gathered from vendors to update the
economics of this proelct. Only a review or update will be done now. More detailed
analyses will be done in the next step of implementation which includes the review of
proposals from vendors.
Task 6 Report
HDR will prepare a report to be presented to the City which will describe activites
performed during the second step of implementation. The report will include:
Description of the City's Risk Posture.
RFQ documents.
Summary of RFQ responses.
Identification of recommended vendors.
A - 4
Waste supply and energy purchase agreements as well as required future
activities if any.
All documents pertaining to environmental permit requirements including
data required to complete such permits.
Summary of the review of economics.
Timetable
As we have done in the past, HDR will work as expeditiously as possible to complete
this step of implementation. HDR anticipates the above work will require four to six
months duration to complete. This assumes a sixty day response time in which
vendors have to prepare a response to the RFQ. Any shorter time frame tends to
limit the number of vendors who are willing to reply. In addition, this assumes no
major problems with waste supply and energy purchase contract negotiations. Such
contract negotiations are expected to require approximately four to five weeks of
effort.
Prior to these tasks being completed a risk posture for the City must be developed.
Such a psoture is expected to require four to five weeks of effort initially and as
other issues present themselves, additional time will be required. Any major delays
may require a longer time frame to complete the project.
A - 5
j
lama
•
•
•
EXHIBIT 13
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY CLAUSE
During the term of this agreement, HDR agrees as follows:
a. The Engineer will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for
employment because of race, creed, color, sex, or national origin. The
Engineer will take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed,
and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their
race, creed, color, sex, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not
be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer;
recruitment or recruitment advertising; lay-off or termination; rates of pay or
o ther forms of compensation; and selection for training, including
apprenticeship. HDR agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to
e mployees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth its' Equal
Opportunity Policy.
b. The Engineer will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed
by or on behalf of HDR, state that all qualified applicants will receive
consideration for employment without regard to race, creed, color, sex, or
national origin.
•
c. The Engineer will send to each labor union or representative of workers with
which he has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or
understanding, a notice advising the said labor union or workers' representative
of the Engiener's commitments under this non-discrimiantion article, and shall
post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and
applicants for employment.
The Engineer will comply with all provisions of Executive Order No. 11246 of
September 24, 1965, and of the rules, regulations and relevent orders of the
Secretary of Labor.
B 1
•
e. The Engineer will furnish al information and reports required by Executive
Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, and by the rules, regulations and
orders of the Secretary of Labor, or pursuant thereto, and will permit access
of his books, records, and accounts by the commission and the Secretary for
purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations,
and orders.
f. In the event of the Engineer's non-compliance with the non-discrimiantion
Article of this contract, or with any of the said rules, regulations, or orders,
this contract may be cancelled, terminated, or suspended in whole or in part
and the Engineer may be declared ineligible for contracts in accordance with
procedures authorized in Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, and
such other sanctions may be imposed and remedies invoked as provided in the
said Executive Order or by rule, regulations, or order of the Secretary of
Labor, or as otherwise provided by law.
g•
The Engineer will include the provisions of sections "a" through "g" in every
subcontract or purchase order unless exempted by rules, regulations or orders
of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to Sec. 204 of Executive Order No.
11246 of September 24, 1965, so that such provisions will be binding upon each
subcontractor or vendor. The Engineer will take such action with respect to
any subcontract or purchase order as the Commission may direct as a means of
enforcing such provisions, including sanctions for non-compliance, provided,
however, that in the event the Engineer becomes involved in, or is threatened
with, litigation with a sub -contractor or vendor as a result of such direction by
the Commission, the Engineer may request the United States to enter into such
litigation to protect the interests of the United States.
h. In accordance with regulations of the Secretary of Labor, the rules, regulations,
orders, instruction, designations, and other directives referred to in Section
403(b) of Executive Order No. 12246 remain in effect and, where applicable,
shall be observed in the performance of this contract until revoked or
superseded by appropriate authority.
B - 2
- 8404 Indian HiIIe Drive
.Omaha, NE .6811-4- '
(4021399-1000
:—Hennings—b?:—Durhamr6 RicherrHson
-=June "2; -1-982
Ms Sherry Rowe -- --
=-C1tyCl-rk- -- -
--City _ of-Fayettevil l e.—
P.O. Drawer _F..--
-Fayetteville, AR 72701
- -- -=-:Dear-.Ms Rowe. -
--- - -As- __ - -As-per your:request-of_May 26, enclosed. please_fi nd one -copy of the
_-_Resource-Recovery impreMentation-Contract-between the-City:of
-
.- _ -Fayetteville, and-Henningson,-Durham=&=-Richardson-, Inc.
-__- — We -are -pleased to to-ser-vethe_City of__Fayettevill-e-and
--surroundrng_communrtres=i_n=their-_-endeavor to -improve the management
of -theft sol id-wastes=We-_feel eonfislent-that-by worki ng --together,
- a project-will=6-m
eodel:ed_that=best benefits-tfieC.i.ty and-nei_ghbor-
_ oommunn
-- _ ing ities".- -_ - -
If I may -be -of-further assistance.,z.pi:ease-feel_free to cal 1. -.---
__
Sincerely - - a _
HENNINGSON.,--DURHAM�& RICHARDSON_,
c -
-_Arcnitecture:- Jilts_ Reynolds
Engineering----P-r-o7ect- Manager -_
—_
Systems JR: dd -
Encl:osur_e
Alexandria--
Atlanta — CC Louis Watts- -
- - --- Austin — -
Charlotte -- - - -
Chicago -
--
- "' Denver -
-
Helena- - -. -=7---
- _ Houston--- -
_----
-_ -' Minneapolis-------
• Norfolk. _ _ - -. - . _
__ -Omaha - __..__ - - _.
---Pensacola -
LPhoenix
- -- -
▪ �.
Santa Berbera----
_ -. _Seattle _ - -
Washington. D:C: _ _.____ __ ---`-- - -
•
•
FAYETTEITILLE, ARKANSAS
P. 0. DRAWER F
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
72701 (501] 521.7700
May 26, 1982
Mr. James Reynolds
Project Manager
Henningson, Durham & Richardson, Inc.
8404 Indian Hills Drive _
Omaha, NE 68114
Dear Mr. Reynolds:
•
Attached are three copies of the contract between the City of Fayetteville
and Henningson, Durham & Richardson, Inc., for services and work for Step II of
Implementation of the Resource Recovery Project.
Please execute copies and return 1 of the originals to me at the above
address. If I can be of any assistance, please let me know.
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Louis Watts
Sincerely,
Sherry Rowe
City Clerk
FT'
Aler.enr Irl°
ALIOr Le
Ausan
Cherkn:^e
ChtoeQo
Delles
Denver
Helene
Houston
Ono. vale
NlunxeahoAe
Pensucolo
Phoenin
Se me Gertner°
SeeLI:!e
Washington. D.C.
•
May 17, 1982
Mr. Louis Watts
Northwest Arkansas Solid Waste Authority
406 N. Shilo Street
Springdale, Arkansas 72764
•
Dear Louis:
Enclosed are five (5) copies of the Contract for Services and Work
Plan for Step 2 of Implementation of the Resource Recovery Project.
Please execute and return two (2) copies to me.
Also enclosed for your information are four copies of the Official State-
ment for the sale of bonds relative to a project we are involved with
in Haverhill, Massachusetts. You will note the complexity of such a
financial arrangement and the engineer's feasibility report. Something
to look forward to.
If there are any questions, please call.
Sincerely,
HENNINGSON, DURHAM & RICHARDSON, INC.
i
M.�
J Reynolds
Project Manager
JR:glc
Enclosures
•
Alexandria
Atlanta -
Austin
Charlotte
Chicago
Dallas
Denver
Helene
Houston
Knoxville
Minneepolis
Norfolk
Omaha
Pensacola
Phoenix
Santa Barbera
Seattle
Washington. 0 C
May 14, 1982
Mr. Donald L. Grimes
City Manager
P. 0. Drawer F
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Re: 201 Facilities Plan Review
Gentlemen:
MICROV{LMED
We propose .to render professional engineering services in
connection- with the proposed 201 Facilities Plan Review
(hereinafter called the !'Project!'). We understand that the City
will furnish HDR with full information as to your requirements,
including any special or extraordinary consideration for the
Project or special services needed, and also to make available
pertinent existing data.
Our services will consist of preparing the 201 Facilities Plan
Review, all as set forth in Section 1 of the General Provisions,
attached to this letter, and such additional services as you may
request.
Charges for these services will be on the basis of Payroll Costs
times a factor of 2.4 plus Reimbursible Expenses. Maximum billing
cost for the services set forth in Section 1 of the General
Provisions is twenty-eight thousand dollars ($28,000.00). Billing
will be monthly for services and Reimbursable Expenses.
•
This proposal is based on a timely notice to proceed with the work
and timely completion of the work. Should notice to proceed or
completion of the proposed work be delayed beyond a period of six
(6) months, the agreement will be subject to renegotiation to take
into consideration changes in price invoices and pay scales
applicable to the period when services are in fact being rendered.
The general understandings applicable to our relationship with
you, are set forth in the attached General Provisions which are
attached to and made a part of this proposal.
This proposal and the General Provisions represent the entire
understanding between HDR and the City of Fayetteville, in respect
of the Project and may only be modified in writing signed by both
of us. If it satisfactorily sets forth your understanding of the
l
Page Two
Donald L. Grinmes
May 14, 1982
arrangement between us, we would appreciate your signing the
enclosed copy of this letter in the space provided below and
returning it to us.
Very truly yours,
HENNINGSON, DURHAM & RICHARDSON, INC.
Az- A -0 -
Peter L. Davis, P.E.
Vice President
Environmental Engineering Division
Accepted this / / '"`day of
City of F etteville, Arkansas
6)
hy "
•
191oL.,
atetzii_WY
•
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Attached to and made a part of LETTER AGREEMENT dated May 14, 1982 between the
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (Owner) and Henningson, Durham R. Richardson, Inc.
(Engineer) in respect of the project (Project) described therein.
SECTION 1 - BASIC SERVICES OF ENGINEERS
Task 1 - Mobilization
1.1 Conduct organization meeting with members of City staff and HDR to
establish lines of communication, functions, and responsibilities
of HDR and City staffs.
1.2 Establish project schedules and procedures for obtaining data.
Task 2 - Evaluate design Basis
2.1 Review land use, population and industrial projections.
2.2 Review 1/1 and SSES work and results predicted and/or obtained.
2.3 Review industrial waste survey and evaluate industrial
pretreatment program or potential for separate treatment of
industrial wastes.
2.4 Review historical records used to establish design loadings.
•
Task 3 - Review of Treatment Standards
2.1 Obtain and review present and future effluent limitations set
forth in NPDES permit.
2.2 Evaluate potential for change in future effluent standards.
2.3 Review water quality standards for area and potential for change.
Task 4 - Alternative Review
4.1 Review selected alternatives to establish if they are feasible
solutions to the problems present.
4.2 Evaluate capabilities of present facilities and investigate their
use in proposed alternatives.
4.3 Investigate use of other treatment processes.
4.4 Review proposed sludge handling methods and quantity estimates.
4.5 Investigate alternative methods of sludge handling includinguse
of existing plant and land application.
J1
Page Two
4.6 Review land disposal of effluent analysis.
4.7 Review proposed action to determine operability under existing
conditions.
Task 5 - Cost Review
5.1 Review all cost (capital and 0 8 M) estimates for accuracy and
completeness.
5.2 Investigate funding potential and estimate cash flow.
5.3 Evaluate staged construction to coincide with grant availability.
5.4 Estimate additional cost to City and effect on sewer rates.
Task 6 - Report Preparation
6.1 Review finding and recommendations with City staff.
6.2 Prepare report for presentation to City.
SECTION 2 -- ADDITIONAL SERVICES OF ENGINEER
.2.1 Normal and customary engineering services do not include services
in respect of the following categories of work which are usually
referred to as "Additional Services." If Owner wishes the
Engineer to perform any Additional Services, he shall so instruct
the Engineer in writing, and Engineer will be paid therefor as
provided in the Letter Agreement. Additional Services include:
o Preparation of applications and supporting documents for
governmental financial support of the Project.
o Services to make measured drawings of existing facilities.
o Services resulting from significant changes in the extent
of the Project or major changes in documentation
previously accepted by Owner where changes are due to
causes beyond Engineer's control.
o Preparing to serve or serving as a consultant or witness
in any legal or administrative proceeding or public
hearing.
o Providing services normally furnished by Owner.
SECTION 3 -- OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES
3.1 Owner shall provide all criteria and full information as to the
Owner's requirements for the project; designate a person to act
Page Three
with authority on the Owner's behalf in respect of all aspects of
the Project; examine and respond promptly to Engineer's
submissions; and give prompt written notice to Engineer whenever
he observes or otherwise becomes aware of any defect in the work.
SECTION 4 -- MEANING OF TERMS
4.1 Payment for "Additional Services by the Engineer" shall be based
on payroll cost times a factor of 2.4 plus Reimbursible Expenses
at actual cost.
4.2 The Payroll Costs used as a basis for payment mean salaries and
wages (basic and incentive) paid to all personnel engaged directly
on the Project, including, but not limited to, engineers,
architects, surveyors, designers, draftsmen, specification
writers, estimators, other technical personnel, stenographers,
typists and clerks; plus the cost of customary and statutory
benefits including, but not limited to, social security
contributions, unemployment, excise and payroll taxes, workers'
compensation, health and retirement benefits, sick leave, vacation
and holiday pay applicable thereto.
4.3 "Reimbursible Expenses" mean the actual expenses incurred directly
or indirectly in connection with the Project for: transportation
and subsistence incidental thereto; telephone calls and telegrams;
reproduction, drawings, specifications and similar Project -related
items in addition to those required under Section 1.
SECTION 5 -- MISCELLANEOUS
5.1 Late Payment: If Owner fails to make any payment due Engineer for
services and expenses within sixty days after receipt of
Engineer's bill therefor, the amounts due Engineer shall include a
charge at the rate of 1% per month from said sixtieth day, and in
addition, Engineer may, after giving seven days' written notice to
Owner, suspend services under this Agreement until he has been
paid in full all amounts due him for services and expenses.
5.2 Termination: The obligation to provide further services under
this Agreement may be terminated by either party upon seven days'
written notice in the event of substantial failure by the other
party to perform in accordance with the terms hereof through no
fault of terminating party. In the event of any termination,
Engineer will be paid for all services rendered through date of
termination, all Reimbursible Expenses, and termination expenses.
5.3 Successors and Assigns: Owner and Engineer each binds himself and
his partners, successors, executors, administrators, assigns, and
legal representatives to the other party of this Agreement and to
the partners,successors, executors, administrators, assigns, and
legal representatives of such other party, in respect to all
covenants, agreements and obligations of this Agreement.
11
Page Four
5.4 Nothing herein shall be construed to give any rights or benefits
hereunder to anyone other than Owner and Engineer.
•
•
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
201 FACILITIES PLAN
PUBLIC HEARING,
AUGUST 15, 1983
CENTER FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
Amy Lou Aston
NSVRA Certified Verbatim Reporter
2374 Raven Lane
Fayetteville, AR 71701 501-521-6071
WS -34.3
CRoftLkt€G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
•
PROCEEDINGS
MAYOR NOLAND: According to the clock, it's seven
o'clock, and we need to move ahead with our public hearing.
The purpose of this meeting tonight is to receive public
comment on the potential economic and environmental impacts
of the proposed alternative of rehabilitating certain portions
of the wastewater collection system, construction of a pump
station, interceptor improvement to transport all wastewater
to the existing White River treatment plant site, upgrading
and expansion of the existing wastewater treatment plant on the
White River to advanced wastewater treatment capability,
construction of an effluent storage reservoir,pump station
and force main.to divert a portion of the treated wastewater
to Mud Creek in the Illinois River drainage basin, with the
remainder of the flow being discharged to the White River.
Construction of a land application system for sludge management.
The main thing that we'll be doing here, sort of a format,
we'll have a presentation from CH2M Hill of more detail of
what's actually being proposed. We'll have a short question
and answer period, then we'll take a short break, about
fifteen minutes. We'll come back and get the actual comments
that
some
here
you have, pro and con, from the audience. We may have
reply from CH2M Hill or our rate consultants who are also
, and then we'll proceed on that basis, so that we'll take
1
our break before we have the formal comment period from each
of you that might want to make such a comment. If you would
prefer to make written comments and we just received a
written comment from the Beaver Water District'--- we will
take written comments until August the 19th, so they may be
entered as part of this hearing up to the 19th of August.
We might introduce who's sitting up here at the head
table. We have City Manager Don Grimes; City Engineer Don Bunn,
Rick Osborne, one of the directors; Marilyn Johnson, another
one of the directors; Marion Orton, another director; city
director, Frank Sharp; this is Vernon Rowe with McClelland
Engineering; Cliff Thompson, with CH2M Hill; Jim Otta, with
CH2M Hill; and Rick Hirsekorn, with CH2M Hill, the engineering
consultants who are working on the plans.
I guess this microphone has now been connected, and
so we'll proceed with the presentation from CH2M Hill as to
what's actually being proposed and what we are receiving
•
comments concerning tonight. Dr. Cliff Thompson.
DR. THOMPSON. Good evening. My name is Cliff
Thompson. I'm the project administrator for CH2M Hill for
the wastewater work that we'll describe tonight. With me
tonight is dim Otta, who is our land treatment specialist, and
Rick Hirsekorn, our project manager. Rick will present the
details of the plan. Many of you have heard most of these
details described. He will present slides and tables using
2
1
an overhead projector. Jim will describe the aspects of the
land treatment system. At the conclusion we'll be happy to
respond to comments, time willing. So at this point I'd like
to turn the program over to Rick Hirsekorn.
MR. HIRSEKORN: Thank you for the introduction,
Mr. Mayor, Cliff. We usually find as a project proceeds that
the project goes a lot smoother than the setting up of the
overhead projector and the microphone prior to the public
hearing.
To begin with, this is the 201 Facilities Plan
Public Hearing for the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas on
the final draft that was presented to the State on behalf of
the City forty-five days ago. The purpose of our public
hearing tonight is to describe the recommended plan, the
elements of theplan, how and why the elements of the plan were
developed, and then afterwards to receive questions, provide
the answers.that we can tonight, provide official responses to
•
all the questions that are asked, and then receive the official
comments from the interested parties.
As previously mentioned, our presentation on the
wastewater management system will be approximately forty-five
minutes to an hour, and we'll be most happy to receive all
questions at the conclusion of our presentation.
Fayetteville is located in the northwest corner of
the state, approximately thirty miles from the Missouri state
3
line and twenty miles from Oklahoma, in the approximate center
of Washington County, as shown on these figures. The general
planning area that's covered by the 201 is shown on this
figure, and the wastewaters from this area that are presently
generated are treated at a high rate activated sludge plant
located east of the City of Fayetteville.
The proposed wastewater management system that
resulted from the study consisted of infiltration inflow
rehabilitation and interceptor and pump station improvements
throughout the system, expressed in 1983 dollars of $7.3
million.
An upgraded and expanded wastewater treatment plant -
to meet the more stringent discharge requirements as
established by the State, which are more stringent than
existing standards. The modifications for the upgrading and
expanding of the treatment plant are estimated at approximately
$10.9 million. The residual solids removed from the treatment
a
process are to be handled with a sludge land application
system, approximate cost of $2.9 million. The effluent from
the upgraded and expanded plant, if need be, can be handled
in a treated effluent storage reservoir, approximate cost of
$1,7 million. And to comply with the State discharge
requirements and the stream standards to which the effluent is
going, there is a planned treated effluent pumping station to
essentially split the flow to two discharge locations, as will
4
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
be discussed later in the presentation, foran approximate cost
of $1.4 million.
The total project cost, in May 1983 dollars, is
$24.3 million.
As I mentioned, the existing plant, existing
standards right now are secondary treatment standards.
Basically, what that consists of is treating of wastewaters
to a level such that, in the effluent that's discharged, no more
than 30 milligrams per liter of biochemical oxygen demand and
30 milligrams per liter of total suspended solids remain.
The reason for the upgrading and expanding of the
plant facilities is that the future requirements will require
reduction of the constituents in the effluent to 5 parts each,
5 mg. per liter of biochemical oxygen demand, or BOD, and
total suspended solids. And in addition to that, nutrient
removal requirements, 2 mg. per liter of ammonia nitrogen and
1 mg. per liter of phosphorus.
•
The existing situation as of the 1980 census was
slightly over 39,000 persons in the planning area, in the
communities of Elkins, Farmington, Fayetteville, and Greenland,
served by the project. Tne sewered population at that time
was slightly less than 39,000, or 38,500.
The existing treatment plant, as I mentioned
previously, is a secondary treatment plant, which consists of
grit removal, settling of the heavy particulate matter.
5
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Activated sludge and biological treatment --- this is the
secondary portion of the plant, for actual treatment of the
wastewaters, settling of the solids prior to chlorination and
discharge into the White River. Currently, the residual solids
are thickened, stabilized with lime, and buried on the
treatment plant site.
In our revision of the 201, the plant was evaluated
and found to be capable of treating an average flow of
eight million gallons a day to secondary standards, and in
the past several months, the plant has been functioning
actually better than these standards, averaging somewhere
between 20 and 30 mg. per liter of BOD and total suspended
solids.
As part of the 201 facilities planning process, not
only the treatment plant is evaluated, but the sewer system
is evaluated as well, first through an infiltration inflow
analysis, which in essence determines the amount of
extraneous flow that is entering the sewer system, either
through underground sources, or uncapped or broken surface
sources,that allow the direct inflow of either surface water
or groundwater into the sewer system. This is an important
aspect of the study, as eventually it's necessary to do a
cost-effective analysis to determine whether it's more
economic to treat the extraneous flow or to try and remove it
through infiltration inflow rehabilitation.
6
C
The original estimates of the severity of the problem
put the maximum amount of infiltration inflow above 40 million
gallons a day, and estimated that by rehabilitation techniques
that slightly over 50 percent of the infiltration could be
removed, or that coming from groundwater, and over 90 percent
of the inflow, or the surface water, sources could be removed.
As more data became available, and as more
information on the state of the art of rehabilitation became
available, it was decided that these predictions were somewhat
optimistic. The problem now is being studied through a
mini -rehabilitation program that's currently in progress to
take selected areas of the city and implement some rehabilitation
measures to measure the flows before, measure the flows after,
and determine how realistic these original projections were,
or if they need to be revised accordingly.
The peak flow that can be generated in the system,
in our opinion, is equal to what the system is capable of
carrying. And as we discuss the peak flow capacity of the
collection, interceptor system, and treatment plant, we will
address the peak flows and what we feel a realistic peak is
that could actually travel through the sewer system and reach
the treatment plant itself. The estimate of that flow that
we feel is a realistic, practical amount is 30 million gallons
a day. That's based on what the treatment plant would be
capable of treating when expanded to an optimum size.
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The way that the 30-mgd peak flow would be handled .
would be to, as we'll discuss under the sewer system
improvements, would be to modify the system such that the
30 million gallon a day peak is all that reaches the plant.
There undoubtedly will be periods of time under extreme wet
•
weather conditions when the peak flow generated within the
system, regardless of how much infiltration inflow
rehabilitation is accomplished, those peak flows will
undoubtedly exceed 30 mgd. When that happens, there's a
high probability that there will be overflows at certain points
in the system.
Now, the proposed plan addresses the primary existing
overflow points that are known now, and that are known to
affect the environment the most at the present time.
At the conclusion of the mini -rehabilitation program
and the work that's in the proposed program now, it will be•
better determined where the remaining overflow points are.
These will be recommended to the City as priority items to be
scheduled into a
capital
improvements
program and
eliminated
on a systematic
basis as
the funds are
available
within the
budget to do so.
The future situation is represented, from a
population standpoint, by the year 2005, approximately 20 years
from when the project will be implemented, the population
figures here that show that the increases in population,
I
R
a
C
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the estimate of the year 2005 sewered population is 69,185
people. This is what we've referred to and will refer to
throughout the presentation as our design year, or the ultimate
capacity of what the facilities are capable of handling.
It must be realized that this, in addition to the industrial
growth, are actually what fixes the capacity of the plant.
If the population grows at a quicker pace than 69,000 people
by the year 2005, then that's the point in time when the
capacity of the facilities will be met. If the population does
not continue to grow at the rates that have been predicted
here, and it's beyond the year 2005, then effectively the life
of the facilities are extended.
From these population projections, we have done
projections of what the average daily flow and what we call the
design flow will be. The residential and commercial flows,
based on a certain per capita or per person water consumption,
based on existing data from the City's records, and a certain
percentage of that water being returned to the sewer system,
to account for the washing of cars and watering of lawns,
et cetera, that would not be returned to the sewer system, we
come up with a value per capita or a person generation value
times the future population. And that results in the 3.7 and
3.2 million gallon a day values for residential and commercial.
The II., once again, is our best estimate of what the
infiltration inflow will be on an average daily basis.
9
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C-
Of course, when, during periods of extreme dry weather, you're
not going to have any direct surface water entering the system
and the groundwater is depressed, there wouldn't be any
infiltration entering. But this is proposed as an average
value to use in determining what the reasonable size of the
treatment facilities need to be.
The industrial portion was calculated from the
average maximum allowable permit limits that have been
developed by your City staff in working with the industries
and coming up with an industrial pretreatment program and
essentially a permit for each of the industries that states
what flows and what constituents they can be allowed to
discharge into the system.
The design flow is what we actually plan the
facilities to be able to handle on a monthly basis. Your
discharge permit is based on certain, constituents that I've'
previously referred to ---the 5 parts of ROD and solids and
2 parts of ammonia and 1 part phosphorus--- that needs to be
met on a monthly basis.
From historical data we find the variation of the
flows, from the average daily to what we would call the peak
or the maximum month out of the year, to be on the order,
long-term, of twenty percent.
These values for the design flow represent that
increase. The same with the infiltration inflow.
10
C
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The industrial component, once again, is not based on
historical data, but what's the maximum allowable flow that's
presented in the permits.
So the average daily flow is slightly over 11 mgd,
with the design flow slightly under 14 mgd for the proposed
treatment system.
Future waste loads, or the amount of BOD, total
suspended solids, ammonia nitrogen, and phosphorus that will
come to the plant, were calculated in a similar manner. The
residential and commercial contributions were determined from
an analysis of the residential wasteload, commercial wasteload
on the weekends and during a time period when the major
industrial contributors were not in service. And that was
projected times the population rate. The industrial amounts
here, once again, were determined on an average design
condition basis to be those that will be allowed and enforced
by permit by your City engineering staff.
With the flows and loadings determined, the
alternative analysis of the wastewater management then occurs.
This was done in four parts for Fayetteville: nonstructural,
which consisted of analyzing the ability of your existing
facilities to, with just optimization of the operation, to meet
the new and more stringent treatment levels as determined and
permitted by the State, and also an analysis of looking at
small and individual systems which would consist of
11
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
septic tanks and low -flow systems, vacuum systems, vacuum -
assisted systems, et cetera.
Under the nonstructural category, it was determined
that neither one of those categories, either optimization of
the.plant or small and alternative systems, would be viable
for the future loadings of Fayetteville and to meet the
standards as established by the State.
Next, under regionalization, in addition to the
existing plant, which in itself serves as a regional plant
for the surrounding areas, as we've discussed, there were
two major alternatives considered that consisted of a level
of treatment of secondary treatment, as we've previously
discussed, and discharge to the Arkansas River through an
approximate 55 -mile pipeline. This basically, as shown by
the schematic, consisted of the cities of Springdale and
Fayetteville combining their treated effluents of secondary.
quality, going through a series of booster pump stations, and
through a power generating station on the other side of the
mountains, discharging into the Arkansas River approximately
55 miles from the beginning point.
The other alternative, as I said, was the existing
plant, and -that was simply the areas that are now served by
the regional plant.
Treatment and re -use was examined. The treatment
and re -use alternatives that were closely considered were,
12
`/
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C
first, as cooling water for a nearby power plant. This was not
found to be favorable by the utility with the power plant.
The alternative was not considered any further.
Also there was another form of treatment and. re -use,
which is slow -rate land application, which essentially consists
of treating the water in an aerated lagoon to secondary
standards, lower standards than we're talking about in this
5-5-2-1, going into storage reservoirs, being pumped from these
storage reservoirs to land application sites around the area,
either with or without crop management, but essentially, once
■
it hits the land, a natural treatment system of the wastewaters. I
The plan most closely considered in a previous study,
found to be the most economically feasible under this category,
was what we call a split -flow slow -rate land application
system, which consisted
of a portion of
the
flow
remaining in
and being treated, and
discharged into
the
White
River basin,
and then as the city is divided into the Illinois River basin
also, a larger portion of the flow going to' that side of the
basin being treated and discharged at slow -rate land
application sites on that side of the town.
Under treatment and discharge, there were several
alternatives- that ought to be considered. The first one was
labeled White River total discharge, which consisted of
upgrading and expanding the existing plant and providing
filtration at the end of the plant, removing the nutrients as
13
A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we previously discussed, and total discharge into the White
River.
Another system was called the White River total
discharge, which involved advanced wastewater treatment, the
same removal of suspended solids, BOD, and the nutrients,
except discharge of the effluents into an overland flow
system, which essentially is another natural system, taking
advantage of the topography of the land, discharging the
treated wastewaters through this essentially natural filter
until it reached the waterway, which was the White River.
Another alternative considered was what we call the
two -plant split -flow alternative. This involved an
approximate 45:55, or almost equal split of the flows between
the White River basin, the Illinois River basin, with new
biological nutrient removal advanced wastewater treatment
systems.installed on the Illinois River basin side. The
White River basin side would also receive .a new biological
AWT plant. And in this case, the discharge of the Illinois
River side plant would be to the Illinois River, to the
White River on the opposite side.
Another treatment and discharge alternative,which
is actually.. a modification of the previously discussed
regional alternative, was the existing Fayetteville treatment
plant expanded for additional future capacity at secondary
treatment levels and then discharge through the pipeline
14
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
over the mountains and down to the Arkansas River, approximately
a 45 -mile distance on that pipeline. Once again, this was
secondary treatment, and it's developed to comply with the
treatment standards that would exist, discharge standards that
would exist for that location in the Arkansas River.
The final alternative that was considered was
similar to some of the, previous ones, in that the existing
plant was upgraded and expanded to provide advanced wastewater
treatment, solids, BOD, and nutrient removal, filtration,
effluent storage reservoir, and then a pump station that
essentially split the flow, the treated effluent flow, between
the White River and the Illinois River basins. And this one,
as we'll show a later slide, the discharge in the Illinois
River basin, is into Mud Creek, which flows into Clear Creek,.
which then flows into the Illinois River.
The advantage of this system was that the flows
would essentially remain the same or actually be decreased
slightly into the White River. The highly treated effluent
then discharged into Mud Creek would take advantage of the
natural topography in Mud Creek, with quite a bit of fall
between the discharge point of the effluent and where it en
the main watercourse, and would essentially serve to provide
natural re -aeration of the water, and by so doing, preserve
the standards in both watercourses.
Our screening evaluation produced four viable
15
Li
1
2
3
0 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
17
18
• 19
20
• 21
22
23
24
25
wastewater management alternatives: The White River total
discharge, which was the AWT plant at the existing site; the
upgraded and expanded plant with total discharge to the White
River. The White River split -flow discharge plan, which
essentially was the same treatment plant but the treated effluent
flow was split between the two river basins. The regional
Arkansas River alternative, which involved a combination of the
secondary effluents from the cities of Fayetteville and
Springdale with a pipeline to the Arkansas River. And then
the Fayetteville only secondary treatment plan, with a pipeline
discharge to the Arkansas River.
These alternatives were compared by using several
factors: The monetary cost of constructing, implementing, and
operating each of the facilities. Capital cost, operation
and maintenance cost all-inclusive. The environmental impacts
that each of these proposed systems would have on the total
environment. The reliability of these systems to function as
intended, and by so doing, consistently meet the standards
set by the State for the City to meet. Implementability,
which was, simply put, the ability of the City to implement
and put into service any of these systems. And the public
viewpoint and acceptance of the systems, without which none
of the systems would either be constructed or successfully
placed into operation.
The monetary cost could be done objectively.
16
C
1 The capital costs were developed for, each of the viable
2 alternatives,combining the operation and maintenance cost
3 projected at the design year. Based on a twenty-year period,
4 7 3/8 percent interest, present worth value in accordance
5 with EPA regulations, present worth costs were developed for
6 each of the alternatives. Actually, the lowest -cost
7 alternative was the White River total discharge alternative,
8 followed closely by the White River split -flow alternative.
9 The other factors considered, as you can hopefully see by the
10 headings, were the economics, once again, the environmental
11 considerations, reliability, implementability, and ease of
12 operation.
13 The White River split -flow alternative was chosen
14 even though it was the second most cost-effective alternative,
15 as being the most acceptable from consideration of all the
16 other factors involved in the evaluation process. Once again,
17 this consists of the wastewater coming to the plant, the
18 existing plant upgraded and expanded, new units added to
19 provide the additional level of treatment needed for the
20 additional removal of solids and nutrient removal, filtration
21 along with the advanced wastewater treatment processes to
22 ensure the -high quality of the effluent, effluent storage
23 reservoir to store the effluent in periods of slight plant
24 upsets and be able to feed the effluent back through :the plant
25 for additional treatment prior to discharge to either location,
17
A
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17•
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
either Mud Creek or White River.
It's fairly obvious that when you treat your
wastewater to a higher level, what you're doing is removing the
constituents from the wastewater that you don't want in there.
That process is proposed as a biological process, and the
end product of that process that produces the clean water from
the wastewater is the residual, the amount of residual solids
that's produced.
We looked at several methods of stabilizing the
residual solids, which consisted of, first, lime stabilization,
which is currently the practice employed at your existing plant.
That consists of feeding lime to raise the pH of the waste
solids very high for a period of a couple of hours, and then
essentially the wastes are considered to be chemically
stabilized. Currently, they're then dewatered and buried
on -site, in and around the plant site.
Digestion was also considered, both aerobic, which
essentially consists of a process similar to what takes place
in the treatment plant, wherein a population of microbes is
provided with the air, the oxygen, that's needed to utilize the
waste products as food, produce more organisms of a stable
nature, then -they're removed from the treatment process.
Digestion is the same process, except there's no new wastewater,
no new food provided. They essentially digest themselves.
It can be done in two methods, either aerobically, which is
on
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A
with air added, in
an oxygen -rich,
or aerobic
environment,
or anaerobically,
which is without
air. It's
heated and mixed,
and it's a different type of microbe that works in an anaerobic
digester. Both processes, properly designed, properly stabilize
the sludge. It's considered stabilized after it's been
contained for anywhere from in excess of twenty days, in the
case of anaerobic digestion at 95° and twenty days. Aerobically
digested, it's not heated, but it's well mixed and provided
with oxygen.
And then we considered composting. The kind that
would be the, least
labor-intensive would be
mechanical
in
vessel composting.
There are several other
different
composting
methods that were
considered in analyzing the type of
solids
stabilization that would be the best for Fayetteville.
Our conclusion from this analysis was that digestion
would be the best way for Fayetteville to go. Your current
process of lime stabilization, as we previously stated, doesn't
biologically stabilize the materials. That occurs further on
presently, after they're buried in the ground. The natural
bacteria that are going to stabilize it in the digestion process
don't have optimum conditions in the ground, but sooner or
later, in an- unpredictable time period, these will become stable
composting, from a cost standpoint, was prohibitive
for a system of this size and this nature. Digestion was
chosen to be more environmentally acceptable and within the
19
C
Li
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
realm of being cost competitive with the lime stabilization from
the standpoint of needing to continually add so much of the
chemical to stabilize the solids, and the power involved
with that.
The residual solids, once stabilized, then have
basically four methods or means of ultimate disposal. These
are: burial in the ground, essentially as you do now at your
existing treatment plant site. Incineration, which is in a
large furnace atmosphere where the sludge is burned.
Deposition in a watercourse, which is more of an alternative
in a coastal environment where the sludges, whether they're
stabilized or not, are taken far out to sea on barges and
deposited in the water. And then some type of beneficial re -use,
application to the land, if you will, a giveaway of the solids
to interested parties that would like to use them in an
agricultural manner.
I'd like to, for further discussion of the different
methods of the residual solids, as Cliff introduced previously,
we have Jim Otta, who's our land treatment specialist. He's
an agricultural engineer, and he'll serve as the project
manager in the development of our re -use system for
Fayetteville.- The reason that we have arrived at the
recommendation of some type of re -use system is that we feel
that it's more environmentally sound than the burial system
that you have now. If there can be some positive re -use of the
20
C
1
2
• 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
product, then it stands to reason that that program should be
implemented, rather than simply burying it in the ground.
This also eventually is going to be land -limited, and there's
going to be a cost associated with the acquisition of future
land to continue to bury the solids in an environmentally sound
manner. Incineration was considered to the point of looking
into a predesign, or preliminary design of a local proposed
project for incineration of solid wastes. Our sludge quantities, I
which will be approximately thirteen tons a day on an average
basis, from the proposed facilities, was going to take up a
major portion of the future capacity of the incineration project,
in addition to the fact that the digested solids, the
stabilized solids, have a very high water content. Out of the
digester, they're in the neighborhood of one to two percent
solids, which is 98 to 99 percent water. You can appreciate the
large amount of energy that would be required in terms of fuel
or whatever to drive off that moisture and eventually burn
the solids. Deposition in watercourse is simply put here
because that was a consideration, but there aren't any water-
courses nearby that can easily accept the highly treated
effluent, much less a large quantity, thirteen tons a day of
sludge, residual solids, whether they're stabilized or not.
So right now I'd like to turn the program over to
Otta. He's
going to
speak to
you about
some agricultural
IIJim
re -use systems
with which
we have
experience
that have been
21
A
C
C-
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
designed
and
are functioning
quite
well
across
the country. Jim?
MR.
OTTA: Could we
have
the
slides,
please?
Basically, as Rick was discussing, there are several methods
to dispose of sewage sludge. Over the years, all over the
world it's been a problem. Different people have developed
different means for handling it. If you look at sludge, sludge
can be applied as a liquid, which is less than 10% solids; it
can be applied as wet solids, which is 8 to 30% solids;
or as dry solids, 25 to 80% solids.
Typically, sludge will be applied as a liquid at
2 to 3, 3.5% solids, or dewatered to 15 or 20% solids using a
belt filter process.
Some of the different application methods ---
the objectives of a' land treatment system utilizing either
wastewater or sludge is first of all, it's a disposal technique,
and disposal is a terminology that land treatment people don't
like to use, because we like to consider wastewater or sludge
as a nutrient resource. It's a replacement for fertilizer,
it's a soil conditioner. Many of the land treatment sludge or
wastewater systems that are operating today go entirely to
privately owned farms and are purchased by those farm owners
for that use, as a soil conditioner or as water to replace
other resources to be used for public drinking water supplies
or free up petroleum products which are used to manufacture
fertilizers. So it is used as a resource.
22
C
1 Second, there is some additional treatment in some
2 aspects of wastewater or sludge disposal, depending upon what
3 level of treatment it receives at the treatment plant. The
4 particular system that's proposed here will not receive any
5 additional treatment on the land.
6 Nutrient utilization, which is what I was just talking
7 about, and it minimizes the environmental effect of burning
8 the sludge, depositing it in a watercourse, or simply burying it.
g In design of any kind of a land treatment system, you
10 need to involve a variety of experts, including environmental
11 engineers, agricultural engineers, hydrologists, hydrogeologists
12 soil scientists, geologists, sanitary engineers, and land use
13 planners. All of those people come together in a team approach
14 to land treatment. There are no two land treatment systems in
15 the United States today that are identical, because each one of
16 them is tailored to the site or to the area where it is located.
17 The application method selected is based on a variety
18 of considerations: topography, application rates, operation and
19 maintenance, land availability, and of course economics.
20 This is one method of disposing, or applying sludge
21 as a nutrient. This happens to be a big gun sprinkler system.
22 What you're seeing there is 2.5% solids --- I'm sorry, 3% solids
23 being applied in a liquid form to a. fallow field. They then
24 come back, incorporate it, and plant a crop.' The reason they
25 incorporate it is because of the specific area of the country
23
C'
1 that this is in. This was located in California. In California
2 you incorporate any kind of sewage sludge regardless of the
3 method or the amount.of solids before planting. It can be
4 applied with a big gun or a center pivot, traveling big guns.
5 It can be applied through anything with a nozzle size of about
6 an inch or larger. It can be applied to corn. It can be
7 applied to just about any kind of crop, provided you tailor the
8 application rate to the crop requirements.
9 As you can see here in this particular photograph,
10 this was on a recently mowed field. The reason that the sludge
11 appears so dark, or black, is because of the organic content
12 of the sludge. I'm sure you've all seen that dark black soils
13 are the same color. If you take and put this in a dry form,
14 it's very much the consistency of a loam and has about the same
15 odor. It's a fresh, earthy smell. Now, we're talking about a
16 digested sludge. We're not talking about a raw sludge before
17 it goes into the treatment plant. We're not talking about a
19 lime -stabilized sludge. We're talking about a digested sludge.
t9 Another method, you can see on the right-hand side,
20 there's a big gun applying it to a corn crop. On the left-hand
21 side, there's an injecter running behind a tractor. It's being
22 fed from that nurse truck that you see there. There's several
23 methods you could take it to a site. You can truck it, you can
24 pump it, or you can haul it directly from the treatment plant
25 in a truck that's used as an applicator. This is a hose being
24
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A
connected to a nurse truck which would load a field rig which
would then be used to inject it in the soil. This type of
method is used if you're dealing with a sludge that's not
digested sludge. In other words, it injects it below the soil
surface, so if there are any potential odors associated with the
sludge that you're dealing with --- a lime -stabilized sludge,
for instance, has a distinct odor --- this minimizes the impact
of the odor.
This is a spreading operation. This is the Biogro
project in Salem, Oregon. Biogro is simply an acronym for a
sludge product. It's used by the farmers in Salem on cropland,
on fallow land, a variety --- it's used on some row crops that
are grown and processed by some sort of heat process before
being marketed. The Biogro currently has a waiting list of
about fifty farmers waiting to receive the stabilized product,
or the digested product, and they have been operating this
project now for about five years, I believe, and have had a
great deal of success with it. The initial reaction to the
project was less than favorable, which is understandable.
It's difficult for people who are used to dealing with raw
sewage --- you go in the bathroom and you flush the toilet, and
that's what most peopleconsider sludge or wastewater. They
don't consider the fact that you put many millions of dollars
into building a treatment facility to treat that, to remove
most of .the less than favorable components of it that people
25
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
don't like to deal with.
This is just a. closer view of that Madison --- I'm
sorry, this is Ore -Ida. This is not a sewage sludge. This
is a processing sludge from Ore -Ida Foods. •They take and
pretreat their wastewater before putting it in the municipal
system, and apply it to the croplands from which it came as a
soil nutrient or soil conditioner.
This is a closeup of the injecter system that you saw
earlier. It's fed by a flexible hose that is dragged behind it.
The advantages of a system like this are that it's a continuous
feed system. The operator doesn't need to stop and fill up a
tank, so costwise it's much more effective.
Again, this is just another view of an injection,
system.
Systems monitoring. This is probably the most
important component of any land treatment system. Background
and ongoing monitoring, you determine background levels to
determine what impact, if any, the land treatment system is
•
having on the soil, the crop, the groundwater, or any surface
streams that might be in the area. Those are all components
that are monitored, either on a monthly basis, a quarterly basis
or an annual basis, as determined by the state regulatory
agencies.
You've got regulatory input and management of land
treatment. You can take the most perfectly designed system
26
C
C
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in the world. If it's not regulated or managed properly, it's
not effective.
The third thing you have is, in a systems monitoring
program, you're able to measure the treatment levels that
you're achieving. Because you can, by monitoring the different
aspects of the land treatment, the soil, the crop, the
groundwater, you're able to determine what the fate of the
constituents were that you applied, and able to detect early
warning signs of potential problems before they become a problem.
You need to have consistency. You need to do it
monthly, quarterly, or annually, as determined by the
regulatory agencies. If you don't, you really don't know what's
going on, and you really can't manage it effectively. There
are many mechanisms for managing it. If you determine that
you're applying at too high a rate, you can apply at a lower
rate. If there are some things that can be done in the
treatment plant to alter the characteristics of the sludge that
the site is receiving, those can be done. And then there's
a professional review, independent of the authority operating
the system, either by the state or a technical advisory
committee appointed by the state to review those results each
year and determine independently that that site is actually
achieving what it's supposed to be. And of course, the
monitoring entails monitoring of sludge, soils, crops, and
groundwater.
27
EI
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A
There's been some talk about a dewatered sludge.
This is a typical method for applying a dewatered sludge. It's
just a large truck similar to a manure spreader, which I'm sure
many of you are familiar with, and they just load it at the
treatment plant, it goes out and applies, comes back.
In this particular photograph, the site on the right
where that penned arrow is drawn received sludge five days
before that picture. The area right there to the left of it,
to that darker green area, received sludge a.day before this
picture was taken. And it received a sludge loading rate
very similar to what we're proposing here. You can see that
they're aren't brown streaks through the field, and the crop is
not knocked down.
I guess all I'd like to wrap up a general discussion
on land treatment or the methods, is to say that there are
approximately twenty-eight sites operating land treatment
sludge sites in the Southeast. Those are permitted sites by
the states. They're operating effectively, they're operating
efficiently, and they're being used as a resource by the people
receiving the sludge. To give you some examples, we designed a
site in South Carolina, it's a hundred and fifty acre site, it's
a dedicated site, it's near Conway, South Carolina. They are
moving a brand-new eighty to a hundred thousand dollar
subdivision in next to the site. The site currently has a
sod crop on it .that's grown for golf courses or football stadium:
R
C
C
that type of thing. The sludge site has actually enhanced the
2 salability of the land in the area because it has developed
3 roads, utilities into the area, and now they're developing
4 around the site.
5 Walt Disney World in Florida, all of the wastewater
6 and sludge generated from Walt Disney World, which is a very
7 hefty amount, is applied to the landscaping in and around
8 Epcott and Walt Disney World.
9 There are sites, the Metrogro project in Madison.
70 It's a truck project, it's a very large project. All of those
11 farmers there are cooperative farmers. There's the Salem Biogro
12 project. I talked about that a little earlier. I understand
13 there are two sites close to this area. There's a site at
14 Fort Smith and a site at Springdale. Both of those are
15 apparently using cooperative farmers. I really have not
16 checked into them at all, so I don't know any of the specifics
17 of the particular sites. But those are some examples of sludge
18 sites here in the united States. There are many more. There's
19 a lot of, in the last ten years, there's been a lot of
20 technology, a lot of background data, a lot of studies,,a lot
21 of pilot tests, a lot of actual facilities built and
22 operating from which to pull data to design systems.
23 So with that, what I'd like to do is to go into some
24 of the things that we're going to do from here on the
25 Fayetteville project. The plan that was presented in the
29
('
1 201 Facility Plan was generated from our experience with sludge.
2 It was generated from the Arkansas Department of Pollution
3 Control Guidelines, and from the EPA Purple Book, which is the
4 Land Treatment Manual that the EPA puts out for site regulation.
5 What we're going to do from this point on in that
6 particular project. -- this is an activity chart which shows
7 the basic steps that we go through in the design of a land
8 treatment site, be it wastewater or sludge.
9 The first thing is a data analysis. The data analysis
10 includes getting existing wastewater quality and quantities,
11 SCS soil surveys, ownership maps, land use zoning, regulatory
12 requirements, mapping, aerial and topo mapping, hydrogeologic
( 13 data and climatic data. That's basically the point that we're
14 at right now in the Fayetteville process is collecting this data
15 to go into a more detailed investigation of potential sites
16 that are in the Fayetteville area, going back to our little
17 overall diagram here.
t8 The first thing is that it splits basically into
19 two paths: Into a market assessment to determine whether sludge
20 or wastewater is marketable, in other words, are there
21 cooperative farmers in the area that are currently using
22 fertilizer is the form of animal products, chicken, hog, cattle,
23 livestock, any kind of those types of nutrients, or a commercial
24 fertilizer. And once that we determine that there is a market
25
for it, along the same lines, at the same time we've identified
30
C
A
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
some potential sites for it. Once the market assessment is
completed and sites are identified and we determine that it is
feasible, that there are interested individuals who want to
receive sludge, then we go into and evaluate or screen the sites
And what we do is, in that development, we develop
screening criteria with the local people. In other words, we
contact the people from the University, from the Soil
Conservation Service, any other local experts that we're made
aware of in the process of investigating these sites.. We
inspect the maps, SCS maps, aerial photography maps, topo maps,
we do visual inspection of the sites, and select the potential
sites. This is once we've talked to the farmers and they -know
what kind of a product they're going to be receiving, what its
components are, the monitoring program that's associated with
it, so they feel comfortable with the product. Our intent is
not to force it on anybody or any sites that are not interested
in receiving it. It's viewed as a 'resource. Typically, in
those areas in Salem where they had some less than favorable
reactions to the initial plan to put sludge on the land, they
went to a cooperative farmer who had, I believe it was a
hundred and fifty acres, and operated a site as a demonstration
site for twoyears. In other words, they proved to the farmers
in the area that when you applied it, that you couldn't smell it
five hundred feet away, that it was not a visual problem, that
their site was receiving sludge once a year, and it was
31
C
Li
1
2
3
4
5
7
8 II,
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
receiving approximately three inches, and that might have been
put on in two applications, but there was a one-time deal each
year. It was not something that was going on from day to day or
from week to week or from month to month. It was once a year.
Once they were made aware of all of the components of
the sludge system, like I said, the city now can't provide the
amount Of sludge that there's demand for in the Salem area.
In fact, they've closed down the demonstration site in order
to make that available to other cooperative farmers in the area.
And that's what we do. Once we've done all of our
homework and educational process, we go with the market
assessment, and we identify potential users. We interview those
users, determine regulatory requirements, what are the
regulatory agencies going to require in the way of individual
site monitoring and testing each year, and to find other
potential markets. There may be a composter in the area. Many
of the ladies in the audience may use potting mix in their homes.
Well, about 5O% of the potting mix that's marketed in the United
States nowadays contains either domestic or animal sludge.
It's not harmful. It's been composted, and you've all dug your
hands in it. It doesn't have any other consistency other than
soil. But it's not a fact that most people are aware -of.
Once we finish evaluating the sites, then we go through
a site selection, determine all the potential sites, and lay out
a plan to deliver sludge to those sites. We work with the
32
C
C-
1 farmer, determine what his requirements are, what his needs
2 are, when he wants it, where he wants it, what form he wants
3 it in, and see if that fits with what we have available, what
4 we can supply. Obviously, we can't have four or five different
5 delivery mechanisms, so we'll select one that is the most
6 compatible with the most people, and if some of the other
7 farmers are willing to change some of their requirements, they
8 can be considered. And once that's all done, we go into a
9 final design. And that final design, again, just to reiterate
10 that it's not.a one -person thing. It involves a variety of
11 people. It involves a variety of agencies. It involves
12 agronomists, agricultural engineers, it involves the general
13 public in public hearings, in workshops, other public formats,
14 public comment. It involves the EPA. It involves the Arkansas
15 Department of Pollution Control, the University of Arkansas,
16 Soil Conservation Service, our wastewater treatment plant
17 designers, the hydrologists, the City, hydrogeologists, and
18 soil scientists. And all of those people come together on
19 this particular project under my direction to come out with
20 a completed product that's acceptable to all of the people.
21 And that is where we're headed from this public
22 hearing on the City of Fayetteville's sludge.
23 MR. HIRSEKORN: Thank you, Jim. As Jim alluded to,
24 the proposed land application system that was presented in the
25 final. draft of our plan was a dedicated land application system;
33
C
1 that is, a certain size parcel of land that was designed on a
2 preliminary basis to receive the digested sludge from the
3 treatment plant by pumping and distribution through a series of
4 buried laterals and big gun sprinklers, as you saw in some of
5 the slides.
6 At the stage of our analysis that we were at at the
7 time that the final draft was prepared, that type of system
8 was found to be the most economic and thought to be the most
9 expedient from an implementation standpoint.
10 As Jim stated, on a project of this type and this
11 magnitude, this caliber, we very much need, solicit, and listen
12 to local input of the people who live in the area, the local
13 agricultural and agrononic experts who, individually and in
14 their departments and their agencies, have essentially spent
15 their entire professional careers developing a detailed
16 knowledge of. the area in which they live and work. When we
17 were here last month to present the plan, we had the
18 opportunity to meet with the citizens of the Wyman area, which
19 was shown to contain the dedicated land application system that
20 was listed in the plan. Suffice to say, the citizens of
21 Wyman, with no prior knowledge of the plan, no benefit of any
22 additional systems throughout the country that have or haven't
23 worked, the methods that were used, what was planned for their
24 system, were not thrilled by the possibility of such a system
25
going in in Wyman. At that time, we expressed the opinion
34
A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that this was a preliminary plan, as presented in the draft,
and it was the first step in proposing, recommending a system
that could be, to a certain level of detail, shown in the plan
and costed out for estimation purposes, and stating that the
City did have a proposed plan, and in costing out and reserving
the money from the federal funding agencies through the State
to implement such a plan, or a plan that would be derived from
that plan.
We don't just say that we're listening to the local
input; we really are. And we once again would like to express
that that plan, aside from the very important concerns that
there would be, if implemented exactly as shown in the plan
tomorrow, there would be relocation of families that live in
the area. But that's not cast in concrete. We're in the first
step right now of our process that Jim described to you.
And as a sign that we do indeed solicit and listen to the local
input, we would like, while Jim's here this week, to have a
workshop or meeting session, if possible, if there's interest
in the area, to talk further and in more detail of every aspect
of establishing a sludge management plan that Jim alluded tom
his brief talk, like I said, in more detail.
In -developing a sludge plan for the area, it's
obvious to us that what we're probably going to have as a final
system will be a type of hybrid system. We still would
recommend to the City that the best system for the City would be
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
•(
a dedicated system of some type. That allows them the most
control and the best flexibility in controlling their own
system
and their
own destiny. Realizing
the public
concerns
and the
possible
limited availability of
contiguous
sites, we
would also look to possibly a combination system of a certain
size dedicated and/or demonstration project, combined with a
liquid or solid distribution program of the digested product,
as Jim showed in the liquid tanker trucks out to sites of
farmers that would request such material, or from time to time
as we're required to use lime as a chemical in our treatment
process, we would dewater that stabilized product and make that
available in a solid form to augment the pH of the soil for
farmers who, once again, would want to accept that product.
So, once again, that's an explanation of what we had
in the plan, why it was there, and where we're going from there
with regard to sludge management.
The interceptor and pump station improvements shown on
this map, without going into the detail of every line and every
pump station, as previously mentioned, represent approximately
$7.3 million of work.
The upgraded and expanded treatment facilities at the
existing site,
represented in
this
preliminary layout, on
the
small drawing
on the left-hand
side
here you can see the
curve
of the White River, the existing treatment plant site, and the
location to the north of the existing units of the proposed units)
36
LI
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Also, this is the proposed location of the storage reservoir,
which, once again, would store the treated effluent that might
not be the quality that's required for discharge, that would be
fed back through the plant for additional treatment prior to
discharge. We have the existing units in this location here.
This really illustrates one of the major advantages of this plan,
both economically and just from a resource standpoint. This
plan fully utilizes all of the existing facilities that you have
at your existing site, a several million dollar investment in
concrete basins, in existing equipment, some of which may have
to be replaced after a detailed analysis is done during the
design phase, but most of which is fully usable in the proposed
plan. The new units, which you can see represent substantially
more units than you have now and of a larger size, are shown here
to the north of the existing units. The basins here represent
the biological nutrient, or the nitrogen and phosphorus removal,
followed by the normal secondary treatment, or solids removing
processes, chlorine contact for disinfection, filtration, and
a pump station for splitting of the treated effluent into
Mud Creek and into the White River. The digestion is shown here
to the north of the pump station. Our preliminary evaluation
has recommended aerobic digestion. Due to the nature of the
biological phosphorus removal process, we have a concern over
the possible re-release of phosphorus from anaerobic digestion.
We do .intend, however, to. look, during our detailed design,
37
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
-23
24
25
in detail, once we have the process requirement details firmed ul
further, at, once again, another analysis of aerobic versus
anaerobic digestion to study the possible energy recovery from
anaerobic digestion, once we know more specifically what our
energy costs are going to be here at the plant. That's done
in some locations as the anaerobic digestion generates methane
gas during its process. Once again, the aerobic digestion
that's shown here is simply open basins with aerators in it,
very similar to the biological treatment process, but without
raw wastewater added to it for food.
Our land application was planned for this area to the
east and across the river. Just to re-emphasize once again
what was in the plan, as a dedicated site out in that area is
not etched in concrete. We're going to continue to work with
the local agencies, agriculture experts, and you, the citizens,
to come up with a system, possibly a combination system, of
dedicated and nondedicated sites that will be accepted and
acceptable to everybody that's concerned.
Here's a map of the area that shows the location of
the treatment plant. Part of the effluent is, once again,
discharged into the White River. This shows the routing of the
effluent pipeline up to the discharge point at Highway 45 into
Mud Creek, and the route that the treated effluent would take
in falling through the creek. This is the area that we referred
to earlier that would provide positive benefit to the water.
M
`\
I
C-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
It's approximately a hundred and fifty feet of fall in this area.(
The rocky creekbed would allow the tumbling of the wastewater,
and essentially a re -aerating of the water to saturation at
this point. It would flow down into Clear Creek at.this point,
and then Clear Creek on to the Illinois River.
As we mentioned right at the first, the capital costs
in 1983 dollars are $24.3 million: The rates that are proposed
by the City's rate consultant are currently being reviewed by
your City Board. A final decision has not been made on the
rates. At the time that we did the final draft of the
Facility Plan, we made this estimate of what the new user
charge
in
the start-up
year,
1987, would be. Just
to briefly
state
the
alternatives
that
are being considered,
there are
two very different funding methods that would be considered to
cover these capital improvements and then the operational costs,
those being a sale of revenue bonds, or the implementation of a
sales tax. This rate shown here is $22.80 per month, would
range from approximately $13 to $27 a month, depending upon the
(type of financing approved and implemented. Once again, this
lis something that has not been firmed up, adopted, or implemented)
Iby the City, and this is the range of rates that could be
Iexpected, depending on which way the financing goes.
Just to say one more thing here, the $13 rate right
snow essentially represents no increase except that which would bel
)attributable to inflationary effects. That would be the
39
C
•1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
sales tax alternative. A revenue bond would be the $27. And
that was from information that was just recently presented.
The final plan would be reflected in that.
Our implementation schedule, which I hope is readable
more than two rows back, is to complete the Facility Plan and
to receive the final approvals on what is called the Step One
or the Facility Planning Process by the spring of next year.
The detailed design, which we have been authorized to begin,
would be started immediately, and we're now underway with the
I.
design, certain elements of the system, would need to be done,
to qualify for the next year's allocation of grant funding that';
available to the City, by the middle of next year in a biddable
form. The construction that we would expect to begin around
the beginning of 1985 would be planned for approximately a
two-year period. We'll be working in and around the existing
facilities, tying in old basins to existing structures and to
the new structures. The start-up period would be late '86 or
early '87, and that would be the time frame that the new
facilities would be expected to be on-line and fully operational.
A cursory discussion of the environmental impacts of
the proposed plan would essentially involve what we feel are
the most desirable impacts, if you will, on the environment of
any of the plans that were discussed. The construction of the
interceptor rehab pump station improvements, et cetera, is the
25 same with all the alternatives. Any adverse environmental impac
40
C
N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would be due to construction, would be of temporary nature,
and will be primarily in existing easements and rights -of -way. The
treatment plant with a split discharge, part to the White River
and part to Mud Creek, offers the best solution to meet the
water quality standards as established by the State. By
splitting the flows, it gives us the best opportunity to meet
the dissolvefl oxygen requirements in both the White and the
Illinois River and the tributaries, creeks that feed the
Illinois River.
The sludge application system, once again, as we've
discussed, when it's firmed up and finalized and implemented,
would be done in such a manner that we would hope that, instead
of environmental impacts, we'd be talking about the benefits of
the systems as a resource to the people who accept and want to
use the product.
That is a basic description of what was presented in.
the plan. I'll now turn the program back to the Mayor. for
either a break or. a question and answer period.
MAYOR NOLAND: We might take a few questions at this
point, if Dr. Cliff Thompson would respond to them, or the
particular individuals. So if there are some questions, you
might go to the microphone, if there are any microphones out
there, so they can hear you back on the television set.
If you have a question, you might give your name and. address.
MR. DAVID HENSON: I'm David Henson, Route 9, out
41
C.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
on 45, and I would like for you to put back up the detail map
showing where the plant is and where you plan to put the
secondary storage business, and where you're going to do all
this expanding on your plant down there. I'm a little bit
confused. I know you have the present plant in the floodstage
in the floodplain, and I know that you made one mistake. You
stated that you were burying the sludge out there. Now, if
you done it, you done it since yesterday. There's a bunch of it
just flat being dumped out on top of the ground on the side of
the hill where any runoff will go right back into White River.
Now, that I know because I looked at it from the air yesterday.
Have you been out there? Are you familiar with the ground?
You made the statement.
MR. HIRSEKORN: Yes, sir. The existing ---
MR. HENSON: Do you know where they're dumping the
stuff now?
MR. HIRSEKORN: Yes, sir.
MR. HENSON: Well, are they burying it?
MR. HIRSEKORN: Today I'm not fully aware of ---
MR. HENSON: Well, they weren't yesterday, and
I just wondered if they'd done --- somebody has buried a whole
hell of a lot of it if they done it since yesterday.
MR. HIRSEKORN: No, sir. We ---
MR.. HENSON: Now, if your --- if where I've got in
mine, you've got a little deal marked out there. Can you
42
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
tell me how many feet it is from your plant up to where your
secondary storage or your storage and what the size of that
would be, the capacity?
MR. HIRSEKORN: Yes,
sir.
That lagoon
--- I'm not
sure of the exact distance in
feet.
I would have
to scale that
off the map. The current sludge burial areas where sludge
has been buried --- this is the north portion of the City -owned
parcel. The south portion has received sludge in certain areas.
There are burial ---
MR. HENSON: The whole thing has had it. It's had
holes dug in it buried in there. I've seen it all. I live
out there.
MAYOR NOLAND: Mr. Henson, let's talk about the new
plan rather than the old plan.
MR. HENSON: You're talking about digging a pit up
there. I want to know if you're going to dig it where you've
already buried a bunch.
MR. HIRSEKORN: Yes, sir. I'd like to respond to that
if I could, please. The new facilities, as well as this area
in this where I'm showing right now with my pen, have received
buried sludge. They are burial areas. We intend, during the
preliminary stage of our design, to do detailed geotechnical
investigations in that area. That includes borings to
determine the amount of the sludge, the depth, the extent, the
size of the burial pits, if you will, that have been used.
43
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
This area where the new treatment units are planned for, the
sludge will either be removed or built on top of with whatever
foundation procedure proves to be the optimum measure. The
storage reservoir is not planned for an area that to our
knowledge has received sludge. It is planned for fourteen days
storage at the design flow, which is approximately 200 million
gallons of storage. That would represent, at the depths that
we'd want to maintain it, approximately a 50 -acre site. That is
planned to be a lined pond, if you will, and, once again, is not
planned for the area where there has been sludge previously
buried. Those areas, to our knowledge, according to the City's
records, are in this area here. We plan to work in and around
that area, utilizing all of it that we can. The sludge that is
in that area that's been there for many years has been
stabilized by now. If it needs to be removed, it will be.
Basically, that's our plan. We're not planning on using, for
the storage reservoir, at least, any of the areas where sludge
has been previously deposited.
MR. HENSON: Well, now,. you've worked on the sludge
thing. Now, most of the people here are concerned with your
bringing the treated effluent back out, and what effect it's
going to have on them, and I'm sure there's probably some here
from Oklahoma or wherever. Now, 'the only thing I'm really
concerned with .is where you aim to cross my pasture; because
that's the first one you're going to have to cross. And
U
L!
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
right there is where we're going to sit down and I'm going to
want to know who your banker is. That's --- just to make a
long story short, I know you have an easement across me for a
sewer line. I know where the sewer line easement is, and I
don't think that will exactly fit into your plan for running an
effluent line. And in a case like that, you're going to mess me
up and you're going to mess up one of my neighbors. Now, where
it goes on down through there, them people may be real glad
to get it on down the creek. I don't know about that, but
that's going to be their problem. "Now, the pipeline, once it's
in, isn't going to bother me except for the restrictions that
go with an easement. And I know that you've got the power
to put it through there, but that'll be after the argument.
And I think you need to deal more with that subject rather than
what we're going to do with the sludge, because you've been
handling that in kind of a haphazard manner for a good many
years. Now, you haven't, but the City has. And it's been
pretty terrible.
MR. HIRSEKORN: Yes, sir. That's why we've
recommended a new type of system that would first stabilize the
solids and then dispose of them in art. environmentallysound
manner. One of your first comments with regard to the flood area
we have contacted the Corps of Engineers. We've received the
various flood hazard maps. We found that all of our facilities
at the existing plant are several feet above the hundred year
C
R
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1O
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
floodstage.
MR. HENSON: The present plant isn't.
MR. HIRSEKORN: According to the maps that we have
and the elevation that ---
MR. HENSON: Well, I've been around as long as the
Corps of Engineers has, and --- or at least in this area, in
the Soil Conservation Service, and I have seen water all the way
around your existing plant. I've seen them where they didn't
have anyplace to dump the supposed solids, and I suppose most of
these people here know what solids"is out of sewage. And I've
seen them take it and dump it right along the side of that
county road because they didn't have anyplace else to go with it.
They couldn't. The whole thing was in a flood. And it does
go under it. It is in a floodplain. I don't care what the
Corps of Engineers says. I've seen it there myself.
MR. HIRSEKORN: I don't doubt what you say about
having seen it flooded. What I was referring to is the
.
hundred -year flood.
MR. HENSON: Well, maybe we've already had the
hundred -year one, and the next hundred one, if it's far enough
down the road, won't bother me. But I have seen it there, and
more than once.
MAYOR NOLAND: Do we have another question? Here's
a lady back here. Would you speak into the microphone?
MS. WELSH: Some of the gentlemen from CH2M Hill
C
R
C-
1'
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
came out to Wyman Community. My name is Barbara Welsh. They
came out to the Wyman Community, and I taped the meeting.
They stated that there would not be any. berms built around the
sludge dump to keep it from running into the valley. That river
at times gets a half a mile wide. Right now you can jump
across it. The City, according to some of the engineers that
I talked to that were doing surveys, at this point is dumping
13 percent of the time raw sewage into the river. They also
stated, on tape, that if we weren't willing to sell, the City
could condemn it and take it anyway. The map that you have in
your final plan has some chicken houses drawn on it that burned
down ten years ago. There's been hundred thousand dollar homes
built out there, and I don't think the City, the Mayor, or
anyone having to do with the sludge dump, other than the
engineers, has any idea what's out there. According to the
monetary costs, there's new chicken houses, there's homes,
several million dollars that you all haven't figured in there.
Can you make a statement right now as to which land you intend
to use?
DR. THOMPSON: I might stop at the first question that
was raised. I think we must have been misunderstood on the
tape, but wd'do plan to put berms to prevent the runoff into
the river.
MS. WELSH: I specifically asked you that question.
You said no, there would be no berms. built.
47
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
!/ 12
13
14
15
16
17
•18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DR. THOMPSON: Either we misunderstood the question or
you misunderstood the answer, but we do intend to put berms.
MS. WELSH: You intend to put berms? Could you give me
the legal distance from the houses in that community that you
can dump this sludge?
DR. THOMPSON: Let me answer the --- you've asked
four or five questions. I think maybe Jim Otta would like to
speak to the issue of buffer zones, which we talked a little
bit about when we were out at Wyman. But the issue of what
specific plan, I think Jim also addressed, in that we'll be
having a workshop on Wednesday, and, as he's shown in his
schedule, there are a number of things that have to take place
before we can be very specific about what specific site.
The plan that was presented in the 201 did not intend to spray
the sludge in the areas that were shown, but it was
conceptual, to show you generally the amount of acreage that
would be required, based on the nitrogen loadings that we
I calculated.
MS. WELSH: .510 acres?
DR. THOMPSON: Rii
MS. WELSH: Okay.
in that valley and still be
510 acres that you've drawn
you're going to sludge over
brand-new houses.
ht.
The The only acreage that you can use
within the legal guidelines is the
out, and you show on that map that
brand-new chicken houses and
1
2
3
4
5-
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C
DR. THOMPSON: Well, as we pointed out at that
meeting, and hopefully we did again tonight, we don't intend
to spray the sludge over .the chicken houses and new houses.
Now, what we've talked about tonight is a mixed system where we
might perhaps have a 400 -acre site, as an example, and then
make the sludge, stabilized sludge, available to landowners
to supplement the additional acreage. Jim, you might speak to
the issue of buffer zones, because I know that's somewhat
confusing, because there is not a specific buffer requirement.
It depends upon the topography and the actual conditions.
MR. OTTA: As far as buffer zones go, it very much
has to do with the regulatory agency in a particular state,
and depending upon what kind of facility you're talking about.
If you're talking about an occupied dwelling, if you're talking
about farm buildings, if you're talking about residential
areas, parks, playgrounds, schools. It varies from state to.
state. it is usually on the order of a hundred feet.
MS. WELSH: A hundred feet from my house?
MR. OTTA: A hundred feet from the property line.
MS. WELSH: Which would be 400 feet from my house.
MR. OTTA: I don't know where your house is, so
I can't really say ---
MS. WELSH: That's right. Most of you all don't.
MR. OTTA: The other thing is that in the workshop
and in the additional planning processes, those will be defined.
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. WELSH: So you really haven't set anything? Is
that what you're telling us? You really don't know what it's
going to. cost you? You don't know what it's going to cost the
City of Fayetteville? Do you?
MR. OTTA: I'll let Cliff answer that.
DR. THOMPSON: For the first time, we have addressed
the issue of residual solids disposal. Up until now, it has
essentially been ignored. We have put together a conceptual
plan that includes sludge stabilization; it includes transport
cost; it included the cost of land, and that may be debatable,
whether that cost is accurate; it included the operational cost.
So we have conceptually at least the same level as the other
parts of the plant put together a cost estimate for sludge
treatment and disposal. So we do have a cost.
MS. WELSH: You have a cost of seventeen -fifty an
acre, which is about half what it's worth, so if you condemn.
it, what is it worth then?
DR. THOMPSON: Well, we would have to pay what the
appraised value was. The City has a specific procedure for ---
one of your other questions was, you asked how would the
City acquire the property, and I think I gave four or five
steps, four -or five processes that might be used, and
condemnation was, I think, only one of the four. But if it
went through the condemnation process, there are specific
procedures that would have to be followed, and the City would
50
t
R
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have to pay
the fair
market
value for
the
land.
MS.
WELSH:
Okay.
I spoke
to a
gentleman whoison
the Beaver Lake Water Committee, and you told us that night
that you had already met with them, and your plan was fine
with them, to dump the sludge. Now, that's not the reaction
that I got from them.
DR. THOMPSON: I think what I said was that the
Advisory Committee for the Beaver Lake, who went on record as
endorsing the overall 201 Facility Plan, and did so, I think,
before the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology at the
meeting in Little Rock.
MS. WELSH: Okay, now, the crops, the type of crops
that are raised out there now. Dairy cattle can't eat •off of
this land; right?
DR. THOMPSON: Jim, would you want to respond to that?
MR. OTTA: You're talking about grazing?
MS. WELSH: That's right. Dairy cattle •
---
MR. OTTA: The State of Arkansas does not allow
dairy animals to graze on land that has been applied with
sewage sludge for, it's a period of thirty or sixty days.
MS. WELSH: Okay. What about bean crops that the
people are eating? Is that okay?
MR. OTTA: it depends upon the state regulations,
whether they'reprocessed or not. I'm more familiar with the
guidelines, say, in California, for food consumption. Most
51
Ct
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
states do not allow sewage sludge on consumable crops,
regardless of whether they're processed or not.
MS. WELSH: Okay. Do you know what kind of crops are
being raised out there now?
MR. OTTA: I drove through the area. I saw some
sorghum and some beans, mostly pasture, and then the chicken
houses and stuff.
MS. WELSH: Several dairy cattle.
MR. OTTA: I'm sure that's true.
DR. THOMPSON: One point, though. That was one of
the specific reasons why we opted to go with the dedicated
site, because the City would be able to control the land more
carefully that the land was applied to, not only the land, but
also the application rate, and go through the monitoring that
Jim described. So it's for some of these very reasons that
we were leaning toward the dedicated site as opposed to a
giveaway program.
MS. WELSH: Okay. I would like to address this
question to the Mayor. How much would you give for my property
if they're dumping sludge right in front of my house?
MAYOR NO AND: That's kind of like buying a pig in a
poke. I don -!t know ---
MS. WELSH: It sure is.
MAYOR NOLAND: --- where your property is or ---
MS. .WELSH: It smells like one, too. They can call it
J i
52
0
R
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
an earthy smell if they want, but ---
MAYOR NOLAND: How far. do you live from the treatment
site?
MS. WELSH: From the treatment site now? A little
over a mile, across the field, and it stinks like high heaven.
You can hardly breathe out there at night. I was told by an
older man that when the new sludge disposal plant was built that
the city fathers said it was clean enough to drink out of. And
he said, "I'd like to see them drink out of it now."
Also, I do have one other thing that I'd like to, state. There
was a house that burned down out there a couple of years ago,
and the City Fire Department, who is now planning to dump their
sludge on us, stood there and let it burn down. They
couldn't --- they wouldn't and couldn't put it out. Now, you
intend to give us all this crap and you won't help us at all?
MAYOR NOLAND: Any other questions? Here's a man
back here. I guess --- are, you through?
MS. WELSH: Well, you didn't answer my question ---
[inaudible to reporter].
MAYOR NOLAND: I don't know that there's a good
answer. We can talk about this sort of thing, but I really
don't think that last question has anything to do with what
we're talking about here tonight.
MR. ED FITE: My name is Ed Fite. I'm from Oklahoma,
Tahlequah, live on the Illinois River, have a farm there.
53
LI
R
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I had to, speak to represent Oklahoma, I guess. On this
split flow that you're intending on improvising, what
percentage is going to go the Oklahoma way?
DR. THOMPSON: Approximately half.
MR. FITE: Approximately half? Will there be a
set of valves on there where somebody can come in and just
open one valve up and let it go all to Oklahoma?
DR. THOMPSON: No, if anything it'd be --- to go to
Oklahoma, we pump over a ridge, so it's actually a pumping
system that brings it up over the elevation.
MR. FITE: Okay. Are you all aware of the water
qualities for Arkansas compared to the state of Oklahoma, as
far as drinking water, scenic rivers, and so forth?
DR. THOMPSON: I'm not aware of the differences ---
MR. FITE: The standards of Arkansas are a lot lower.
I don't have the precise figures. But I think if Arkansas is.
going to come up with a plan to do the split flow sewage, let
it be in their state, or else bring the standards up to
Oklahoma standards, and then maybe we'd be a little bit more
receptive to your plan. Now, I give great applause to the
fact that you all were trying to come up with a good effort.
I think that every community, including a lot in Oklahoma, which
I could name all night, need to pay the fiddler now and not
worry about it twenty years from now. And I hope that you all
will think about that before you send your water our way.
54
io
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I .thank you.
DR. THOMPSON: Just a word or two in response. The
water quality to be maintained in the essentially Mud Creek,
which is a dry creek most of the year, will be at a dissolved
oxygen level above six, which is probably as stringent of any
standard I'm aware of anywhere in the country. Secondly, by
the time it gets to the Clear Creek area, it'll be very
difficult to distinguish that you have any treated, even if
it's a highly treated effluent. And by the time it gets to
Oklahoma, it'll be, in my opinion,' nothing but an asset that
Oklahoma may very well be glad to get in terms of the water.
MR. FITE: I wasn't downing your proposal. I was
just letting you know how we felt, you know, about ---
you know, if you bring it up to our standards, I'm sure everybody
in Oklahoma will be glad to have the extra water.
DR. THOMPSON: It's going to be a very high standard
by the time it gets to the state of Oklahoma.
MAYOR NOLAND: Here's one more question down here.
Let's take another question, then we'll take a short break
and then come back for your specific comments.
MR. PHIL 'RUPERT::. My name is Phil Rupert..
I live on Greathouse Springs Road. Clear Creek runs through
my property, and I've got a couple of questions for the
engineers or the Directors. Has an environmental impact
statement ever been prepared on this project?
55
DR.. THOMPSON: Yes, it has.
MR. :RUPERT,: Where can somebody see it?
DR. THOMPSON: Where would be the depository? I think
the city library?
MAYOR NOLAND: Fayetteville Public Library.
MR. RUPERT:. Is there one in the library now?
MAYOR NOLAND: Should be.
MR. .RUPERT;. Now, the other thing is, on Clear Creek,
nave you examined the flows of Clear Creek and what the
addition of 250,000 gallons per hour would be on that flow in
:he creek?
DR. THOMPSON: Yes, sir. We have looked at the ---
There are parts of Mud Creek right now that have flood problems.
�.dding roughly 6 million gallons per day, which is about
?50,000 gallons, has a minimal impact that would be impossible
to measure during a flood condition. If you think about it
Ln terms of the normal stream channel, it's a matter of only
raising the elevation by an inch or so, or an inch or less,
luring a flood condition.
MR. RUPERT:. Well, I want to refer you to June 15th,
L982. We had a flood in Clear Creek. The water was eight feet
Jeep over the bridge at Highway 112. The addition of 6 millions
s day on top of that flood?
DR. THOMPSON: You wouldn't know it. It's incredible,
the volume of water that you're talking about.
R
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR.
RUPERT:: But
my point is,
it would aggravate
what flooding
there was.
DR.
THOMPSON: In
our opinion,
it wouldn't be
measurable.
MR. RUPERT:,
Have you got some figures to stand
behind those?
DR. THOMPSON:
Yes. We've gone through some
calculations ---
MR. RUPERT.:.
Where are they?
DR. THOMPSON:
Well, we'd be happy to show them to you.
I don't have them ---
MR. RUP.RT,`4
I want to see them.
DR. THOMPSON:
Okay. But if you can think in terms
of --- we're talking about around six or seven cubic feet per
second, and if you have
a cross-sectional area of fifty square
feet, you can think in terms of what the elevation raise is..
And it's impossible to measure.
MR. RUPERT:
Well, I'm just concerned about Clear
Creek going through its
banks, going through my property, and
washing my property away, and I don't like it.
DR. THOMPSON:
Well, this won't help any way. If
there is a flood problem,
it will continue to be one.
MR. RUPERT:.
It's aggravated by the sewage flow.
One more question. You
have tiptoed very carefully about the
removal of nitrogen. and
phosphorus. Has any attention been paid
57
11
04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to the removal of heavy metals, cyanide, some of the other
objectionable things?
DR. THOMPSON: Well, certainly the State and EPA are
very concerned about that, and the permits are written so that
it will not allow the discharge, either within the sludge that
would go to the land application site, or the effluent that
is really taken care of predominantly in the pretreatment
program that the City has underway.
MR. RUPERT: How?
DR. THOMPSON: Well, it prevents the industrial
dischargers from discharging in the first place, and the
program is underway now, and they greatly enhance the
pretreatment requirements of industry. But from the very
sophisticated level of treatment that we're providing, there
should be very little concern about constituents like cyanide
or heavy metals in the treated effluent. We have a very
sophisticated biological system that couldn't tolerate those
constituents.
MR. RUPERT: Well, the point I make is that you're
depending upon regulations of the pollution control people.
They have neither the manpower nor the inclination to do any
monitoring o€ this. They were supposed to monitor the solid
waste disposal which is within half a mile of myself. There
was never anyone there, not once. You think they're going to
bother around about the checking on the pollution in the
58
C
1 effluent or in the land treatment? I just don't think so.
2 DR. THOMPSON: Well, in this case, CH2M Hill has
3 been asked to guarantee the effluent and to operate the system
4 for two years. I -.can assure you we will be checking to ---
5 MR. .RUPERT.: For two years?Well, i'll give you the
6 benefit of the doubt. For two years we're clear, but with the
7 sorry record of Fayetteville of dumping things into the White
8 River, what are we going to expect after that? This is after
9 the fact, after the damage has been done. And we in a rural
10 area are helpless. We can't do athing about it. I'll have
11 some more to say when you start discussing how you're going
12 to pay for it, too.
t3 MAYOR NOLAND: Well, I think after such stimulating
14 questions as we've had here the last five minutes, maybe we'd
15 better take about a ten-minute break. We'll be back here about
16 five after nine, and we'll be ready then for your comments.
17 [A brief recess was taken.]
18 MAYOR NOLAND: We have written comments here from
19 at least five different organizations, and I don't know if any
20 of those individuals want to --- I have five comments in
21 written form from various organizations and individuals.
22 I don't know if any of those people want to make an oral
23 presentation in addition to their written comments. Bob Mayes,
24 representing the citizens of Wyman Community. Bob, do you want
c25 to make any oral continents? All right. Would you come forward
59
C
04
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and find a microphone here and say what you'd like for the
record. Here's a microphone. And I might say while he's coming
forward, it will help our reporter, it will help our replies
to you, and any comments that we might want to make to you if
you will give your name and where you're from, if you're
representing an organization, we'd like to know that. And do
it into the microphone if you could, please.
MR. BOB MAYES: I'll try to be as brief as possible,
Your Honor and membem of the Board that are present at the
current time. This certainly is a critical and important
issue, and we're all aware of this, and you've discussed this
seemingly for light years. But I appear to you not as a
citizen necessarily tonight, but as a legal advocate for and
legal advocate of record for those citizens and individuals who
live in the Wyman Community area.
We have discussed, and in fact have met, as you're.
probably aware, and have discussed the final draft of the 201
Facilities Plan. I have read the final draft and the
environmental impact statement numerous times for the purposes
of preparation for this meeting. Primarily, our direction was
toward the proposal to dedicate a sludge area within the
Wyman Community itself, and to address those obvious defects
and deficiencies of the plan, those omissions of the plan in
relation to the impact upon the community of Wyman and the
citizens of Wyman.
60
T
C
R
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
It's been softshoed somewhathere tonight, and I
don't know if that's diplomatic. I don't mean that as an
insult. But I suppose it's an attempt to defuse the natives
somewhat. Possibly it's an honest effort by the engineers to
approach the people and hear their feelings, hear their
exclamations in regard to the dedication of the sludge site.
Primarily --- you have my written statement. There's
been considerable effort put in that written statement, and
I'll try not to duplicate the same. But it is the unqualified
purpose of these citizens here tonight, of the citizens of
Wyman, subscribing to the position paper that you have before
you, or have of public record now, and I ask that it be
acknowledged as being of public record --- it's their avowed
intent to resist •at all administrative and judicial levels
their opposition to the proposal to pump thickened primary
waste and activated sludges onto a very large geographic area
designated as being within the White River basin which lies
east of the wastewater treatment plant and within the Wyman
Community itself.
I haven't heard much tonight, and the reports don't
contain anything, really, in relation to the community of
Wyman. It's -stated that there's a few isolated farmers that
live in the area. The word Wyman is mentioned on one of the
maps, but that's it. I think anyone that's lived in this
area, and I am a native, Wyman is known to most of us as an old,
61
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C
established, rural community. It has been larger in time, has
had more activity. But it has approximately. 300 persons
located in the geographic area of Wyman. They do vote, as
you're'.probably well aware, in the precinct of Wyman at the
Wyman Community Building. The city, again, itself is east
of the wastewater treatment plant, and is simply in the center
of the proposed sludge area. The mixture of residents in the
area seem to be long-established families. There are some
recent residents who have moved into the area who seem to be
desirous of seeking the old established community flavor, not
to speak of the solitude and richness of rural life. The
talents and the skills of the people in this community, as
I've learned them, as I have met these people and have become
acquainted with them, are many and varied. But the basic
implementation of the area is agricultural.
It is generally accepted in the agricultural field
that river bottom lands are the best soil available for
farming. It is accepted within this area that the river
bottom lands in the community of Wyman are some of the more
productive farms in Washington County. It is also a fact that
these are noted as prime agricultural lands. And five hundred
plus acres --- I think it's 540 acres, it's proposed, if the
alternative of the dedicated sludge site is effected, will be
taken of prime farmland. It's established that already, through
history, that these are suitable for farming in harmony with the
62
C
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
environment at a high level of productivity, and in our time,
when prime agricultural lands are rapidly diminishing as a
critical resource, due to the rapid encroachment, of course,
of urbanization, private and commercial development --- this
speaker is
not an
engineer. I
have no qualifications in
sludge
disposal.
I have
no education
in relation to wastewater
treatment. I appear as a lawyer. I am a fly fisherman, and
I've probably waded every stream, major stream, in Arkansas.
I've waded numerous times as a fly fisherman below the
wastewater treatment plant, and I can tell you, ladies and
gentlemen, that it's a septic smell for miles down that river.
It has been for some time, it is now, and it was today.
I commend you for wanting to change. that. I commend you that
you have hired, obviously, an illustrious group of engineers,
an illustrious firm, who are well qualified, but yet a firm
who apparently haven't, in my opinion, done their homework.
They have not gone --- they went to the Wyman Community
Building on one occasion. I realize that the Wyman Community the center of the Wyman Community is where the dedicated sludge
site is to be located under the selected proposal, the selected
proposal which has been withdrawn apparently this evening in
exchange for_ some sort of hybrid plan. That's fine; we'll talk
about that. But we came here tonight prepared to talk about
the dedicated sludge area that's proposed on the map. The
engineers mentioned that, well, there's also fourteen hundred
63
1 additional acres in that area that we could acquire in the
2 future. Well, there's the secret to the whole plan. We cause
3 540 acres to become inactive because of constant application of
4 sludge, and we buy more land. We expand. And then we destroy
5 that farmland, and we buy some more. What happens to the
6 community? This happens to me every time I leave my notes,
7 also, but I'm trying to make this a little rapid for you.
8 As an amateur naturalist --- and that's a vain pride --
9 but as an amateur naturalist, I'm concerned with the impact on
10 nature. To view the current wastewater management problems of
11 man solely from the perspective of economics, as certainly we've
12 discussed this evening and will in the future, from the
13 perspective of engineering convenience, urban necessity,
14 progress, or profit advantage, is to overlook the reality of
15 nature in her cycles and rules and benefits. Mankind must be
16 educated to the eternal truth that he came from nature, he
77 must exist in harmony with nature,. and he needs observe the
18 rules of nature, and that finally he will cycle back to that
19 nature from which he came.
20 It should be clearly evident to all of us that we are
21 not in harmony with nature at the present time, and we're
22 rapidly destroying those natural things we love and cherish
23 with very little immediate concern for our loss.
24 In addressing the present water problems,•the current
25
/ wastewater discharge, sludge application, agriculture runoff,
64
H
IN
Q.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
industrial discharge, acid rain, chemical spills, and
channelization methods have polluted our streams, rivers,
lakes, wells, and soils to an alarming degree. I think we're
all aware that Congress and the courts have begun• to mandate a
basic restoration of the physical and biological integrity of
the nation's waters and environment. It is the national goal
that to discharge pollutants into the streams and lakes be
eliminated. The U.S. Congress has recognized that each person,
each individual citizen, should enjoy a healthful environment,
and that person has a responsibility also, with that enjoyment,
to contribute to that preservation of nature, including
productive and culturally pleasing surroundings.
These governmental responses, in the form of
legislation,
arose
from an
obvious long-time
pollution of
our
streams, our
air,
and our
water bodies in the
environment
itself.
The realization that these contaminants were likely to be
passed along in the food chain to man himself was of concern.
Water consumption, recreational use, and food consumption have
(been either limited or forbidden in areas throughout the nation
due to such contamination. Fortunately, we haven't arrived
at that point yet.
we,are mandated to use all practical means and measuresI
in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare I
and to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature I
can exist in productive harmony.
65
Northwest Arkansas is no exception to this obvious
2 problem. The continued pressure of urban sprawl, private
3 development, poor land management, and environmental
4 irresponsibility has already altered the quality of our
5 environment in Northwest Arkansas.
6 However, to focus on the city of Fayetteville as
7 being the sole cause of our problem certainly is without
8 justification. The problems associated with the poor quality of
9 our streams, and particularly Beaver Lake, must be borne by
10 all of us here this evening. The old concept of making a
11 bigger and better treatment to accommodate a growing population
12 is not the long -tern solution to the ever-growing problem.
C13 We must think in terms of restricting the source of pollution
14 ourselves, in order that smaller, more efficient disposal and
15 recycling plans can be implemented. Continued plant expansion
16 can only mean more and more environmental loss. We must realize
17 that individual conservation is the key to any solution to
18 pollution. When we realize that we waste millions of gallons
19 of water annually by outdated home disposal methods, when we
20 seriously begin to conserve and recycle these resources, these
21 resources that we now clutter our environment with, when
22 ultimately we. reach the point where we realize nature will
23 tolerate no more violation of its rules, then we will have
24 begun the journey to rehabilitation of our harmony with nature.
( 25 Most residents of Northwest Arkansas are very much
66
C
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
aware of the current problems with pollution, the pollution
that threatens our own drinking water. The 201 Facilities Plan
concludes that the City of.Fayetteville is the major
contributor to that pollution ---I want to say that again:
the 201 Facilities Plan concludes that the City of Fayetteville
is the major contributor to that pollution ---the current
wastewater treatment plan is not capable of meeting the NPDES
requirements without major alteration, and that a split flow
between the Illinois and White River basins would diminish
(the Fayetteville impact on Beaver Lake. The logic of discharging
septic materials in the White River and into Beaver Lake from
which we chemically treat waters, drink and cycle back again
in an impure state, escapes the logic of this speaker. The
thought that the water we drink through our city water system
may be a detriment to our health is on the mind of more than
a few people in this community today. The belief that a
split flow, whereby a large portion of wastewater from the
wastewater treatment plant will relieve the current problem,
confuses those of us who aren't engineers by trade. Are we
saying that we will spread our pollution equally among everyone
in the region? Is the pollution of three streams and two
reservoirs better than one? Is it better to dump our sewage
on our neighbors than properly deal with it ourselves?
Suppose we study treatment facilities which emit clean, pure,
water, and which leave our environment in a state to be enjoyed
67
11
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
by all? Such plants do exist, ladies and gentlemen. Do we
feel the cost is too great?
In relation to the sludge proposal, the 201 Plan,
the existing management of sludge, as we've been told, consists
of burial at the site of the wastewater treatment plant.
Disposal of sludge is the most critical element of the
wastewater system. Presently, the sludge is not recycled,
as we've been told. It's stabilized by dewatering and treated
by large amounts of chemicals, and it's buried. No development
or use is obtained, as has been pointed out. The sludge
contains concentrated amounts of heavy metals and other
potentially harmful elements. The Citizens Advisory Committee,
reporting directly to this Board in its adopted report of
February 19, 1981, determined that, "We have a problem with
the sludge buried at our present wastewater treatment plant
site." That was 1981. The Committee found that the dangerous
waste was buried within the 100 -year floodplain and was in
an area of the watershed of White River. The gentleman who
spoke a moment ago in relation to the wastewater treatment plant
is correct in that it does lie within the universal or
100 -year floodplain. It was the consensus of the Committee
that existent sludge should be closely monitored and possibly
removed, whatever solutions were arrived at under the 201 Plan.
The 201 Plan we've been presented with in relation
to sludge does not propose any solution to sludge accumulated
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
on the wastewater treatment plant site to date. We did have
a comment this evening that it would be dealt with. We have
no plan --- we have the' 201 Plan to study. Comments that are
made this evening, it's difficult to assess. We have a
thorough plan, and we update it or alter it or pull things
out of it at the meeting, it makes it very difficult for those
of us who are in a position of representing others in regard
to their opinion.
What tests have been administered at the present site
to determine whether this sludge is possibly a present or future
danger to underground water supply? We've been told that
the stabilization rate is somewhat questionable and
unpredictable. What are the plans for this disposal site?
The 201 Plan, among other alternatives, proposes an Alternative I
Alternative A is what was softpedaled or withdrawn this
evening, for the time being. Alternative A is that the sludge
would undergo present chemical stabilization and then be pumped
to the prime farmland located east of the wastewater treatment
plant across the White River into the.kheartland of the Wyman
Community for direct and open application to the river bottom
soil. The only quote "suitable areas" unquote from the report
are classified as quote "class 2" close quotes, which is
described as being --- and I want you to hear this. The
engineers are putting this on soil that is quote "marginally
suitable requiring high level of management. It is proposed
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 III
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that 510 acres of this prime farmland be procured for this
alternative, however that is deemed appropriate. It is, in
fairness, stated that this should be through negotiation.
(That's the nice way.
The proposal further concedes that the continued
application of the. sludge to the area would increase the soil
pH and salinity to levels where any agricultural use could not
be made of the land after its exhaustion. No alternate use
after the life of the application area is exhausted is presented.
There's certainly comments made tonight of grazing and raising
certain crops that don't get into the dairy cattle or the milk
that are not consumed by humans, but after this area is
exhausted, which I believe is some twenty-three years,. which
I would
question
that
figure,
there is
no plan, there is no
proposal
made for
what
we're
to do with
this land afterward.
The proposal, in stating that fescue and orchard
grass can be grown on the site, says the fescue orchard grass
mix, to be harvested as hay, silage, grain, and used as
pasture, excluding dairy cattle, has a potential nitrogen
uptake of approximately 2.75 pounds per acre per year. That's
on 512 of the Facilities Plan.
This speaker submitted these figures to the Soil
Conservation Service and was advised that this figure, 2.75
pounds per
acre
per
year,
seemed to be
a very
high uptake
for
any soil.
The
SCS
agent
was familiar
with the
particular
soil
70
C
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that we're talking about, in fact, one of the precise farms
to be acquired, and he suggested that, as a site for sludge
disposal and fill, that any placement of sludge near the river
in the floodplain would be of great risk. I told him I
wouldn't quote him. His statement was --- I will anyway;
it's important. His statement was, "To put the sludge in the
floodplain would be criminal." The opinion of the agent was
further that sludge should not be placed in the 100 -year
floodplain, as the actual floodplain is not understood to any
degree of accuracy, as has been demonstrated here tonight.
The opinion was that the higher elevated soil would have a
slower release of nitrogen. The SCS is mindful of the danger
of overland water flow through and over fields of sludge into
the river. The quote of 2.75 pounds per acre doesn't confirm
to the Corps's recommendation of 1.25 pounds per acre.
In dry conditions, nitric poisoning can occur at 2 pounds per
acre. It is the position of the agent conferred with that
Bermuda grass, which is not mentioned in the report, has a
much better release of nitrogen than the grasses proposed.
Of major concern to the SCS agent was the ratio of metal
contents in the sludge which might well drain into the subsurface
water or cross the surface into the river itself. This concern,
coupled with the concession of the proposal, the 201 proposal,
that the majority of the soils to be used are only marginally
suitable, causes this writer, or in this case, speaker,
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to wonder what risks we're willing to take with our own health
and our own life.
Of vital interest also is the discussion of the
proposal of available nitrogen. The case appears, we need
also consider not available nitrogen. This form of nitrogen
is the excess that is not cycled, and which accumulates over
the long period of application. The proposal leaves this
very real factor to our own speculation, or I suppose we're
to be trusting. Isn't it only logical to conclude that
nonavailable nitrogen that accumulates, trickles, or drains
in liquid form, especially during very wet periods, through
the marginally suitable soil into the water source underground
or eventually down the floodplain into the river? Quite
frankly, it appears that the 500 -acre application site will
simply accumulate heavy metals and other chemicals until the
soil is simply a disaster waiting to happen. The fact that
the proposal clearly points out, page 6 through'18, that the
overall site contains 1400 acres of land that are potentially
suitable for sludge application reveals the true character
of this proposal. In essence, we're saying that more and more
land will be perpetually required for this destructive process.
In Section 6_of the proposal, in discussing the productivity,
short-term versus long-term, there is no information one could
use in determining the effect of the sludge sites on the
long-term productivity of the land.
72
Should not there be an operating plan for the
proposed facility, as discussed in 40 CFR in Part 257, which
would assist in safeguarding against potential health hazards
from cadmium? What do we do to guard against excess cadmium?
What do we do to guard against it entering the food chain
MAYOR NOLAND: . Bob, let me just comment here.
Fayetteville does not permit any cadmium in its discharge
anymore. We've taken care of that. I've just done a little
calculating, and if all the twenty-five speakers that we have
speak the same time as you've spoken, it'll take ten hours
to get through.
MR. MAYES: Well, I appreciate your ---
MAYOR NOLAND: I wish you'd try to summarize what
your main objections are. Now, you're getting into a lot of
detail, and I think that's very good, and we'll respond to this
written testimony as best the engineers can on each specific
question. But I think that we really need to move along
because we have twenty-five people that want to speak.
MR. MAYES: Well, Your Honor, the engineers ---
MAYOR NOLAND: Some of these other people are
representing, the entire state of Oklahoma, you see, so ---
MR. MAYES: Your Honor, the engineers were not
restricted whatsoever in their presentation,and I resent your --
at this time --- [applause].
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
•
f
MAYOR NOLAND: Well, I tell you what. If you all
have the time --- I'm trying to be fair to all the speakers,
is what I'm trying to do. And if you all have the time to
sit here for ten hours, I'm sure we do. So just continue,
if you'll promise to stay here with us.
MR. MAYES: I'll be here.
MAYOR NOLAND: All right. Just stay with the
rest of us. Go ahead, now. I just wanted to correct one
point that you've made there about the cadmium.
MR. MAYES: Well, I don't think you've corrected
that, sir, but I appreciate the pointing it out to me.
I did not say that the City of Fayetteville did not restrict.
I said there's nothing contained within the report.
MAYOR NOLAND: Oh, I see. Okay.
MR. MAYES: What of buffer zones? This was
mentioned very briefly, but there's no discussion found in
the proposal to control public access to the sludge area,
which is required by government regulations. It appears the
consultants or planners simply ignored the fact that numerous
citizens live in and near this potentially dangerous sludge fill
The obvious question of floodplains is basically discussed in
Section 4, 2-19. I find no Attachment A as quoted, but there
is an Appendix A, and in the narrative, and only in the
narrative, is it discussed that there are floodplains in
relation to interceptor sewers, and the flood hazard areas
74
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
•
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C-
calculations are pointed out. Why is there no discussion of
the obvious floodplain itself, and the location of the
floodplain? Assuming floods are necessary cycles and acts of
nature, then what impact would the facility have on the flood
(path? If barriers or structures are erected in the site to
restrict surface flow to the river, then would not this cause
result in flooding on the other side of the river? Some
diversion of flood paths would have to occur. What is the
impact? I don't know. I'm not an engineer. They don't tell us
What are the alternatives? Appendix A in the Notice states
that there will be no structures constructed in the floodplain,
and the Plan involves no development in the floodplain. How
can this be? This statement is contrary to fact. Should not
we also address the very real problem of the displacement of
area residents and their families? What of the farmer who
operates a productive farm who loses a portion of his farm,
being left with a smaller portion of farmland which will not
support him? Isn't he forced to leave farming, like the farmer
who loses all his farm? I suppose the unfortunate farmer
moves to Fayetteville and contributes to the sewage which
would cover his former farm. What of the social and economic
impact on Wyman when farmlands are turned into sludge? What of
the impact on Fayetteville, Northwest Arkansas, and its citizens
Surely this.is a consideration. But I find no such thoughts
expressed in the proposal. What impact will this large
75
R
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sludge fill, with its probable offensive odor and unsightliness,
have on the future growth of the area? Does anyone really here
tonight believe that the value of surrounding land will remain
constant or increase in value? What cautious developer do you
know that would consider large expenditures for residential
development in an area of a solid sludge area? This most
important issue is not discussed, is my point, in the Plan.
We're talking people now, and people are not discussed in this
proposal 201. The citizens of Wyman are being threatened
with a sludge operation of great magnitude, yet what has
Fayetteville done to decrease that sewage flow? What plans
exist regarding more stringent sewer use? What nutrient
controls are in effect and which are being enforced, if any?
What educational approaches are being made to cause
Fayetteville's sewer users, industrial and private, to
develop and practice conservation? Is it so foreign to our
nature to consider on -site treatment practices? What of
future development? Could Fayetteville not require builders
to install only plumbing and sewer techniques which vastly
reduce wastewater? is it simply easier to disrupt communities,
families, traditions, heritages, and the environment by
requiring large tracts of prime farmland for disposal; farmland
which likely will be waste for generations, if not forever?
Another critical flaw in the proposed sludge
management system is that the 201 Plan, pages 6 through 14,
i1
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
provides that the aerobic digesters will retain the sludge
no more than 18 days, which is unexplained, and in any event,
is in clear violation of the strict requirements of federal
regulations that require such digestion. The process is
conducted by agitating sludge with air or oxygen to maintain
aerobic conditions at residence times ranging from 60 days at
15° Centigrade to 40 days at 20° centigrade. See Environmental
Protection Agency Regs, Part 2574, Appendix 2.
There are no details or graphic material in the
proposal regarding the method of storage and where such is
to be located. There simply is no proposal of the capacity
required. I could find no discussion of the impact of odor
on the geographic area itself. We've had some comments this
evening that were enlightening. Passing mention is made
in the proposal that the odor shouldn't be a problem for the
residents of Fayetteville, but conveniently omits any odor
impact on the citizens who live near the site of the sludge
area. The proposal states that the prevailing westerly wind
will assist Fayetteville in this regard. Well, that same
westerly wind will carry the odor directly east to the Wyman
Community. The sludge is not to be stabilized in accordance
with 40 CFR,-Part 257. This writer is confident that we will
all be given a sales pitch that the sludge will not smell
offensive. Well, I wrote that before the meeting tonight.
We did get that sales pitch. Any logically thinking. person
77
L/
1
2
3
f
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
could never accept this promise. This writer, in conferring
with the supervisor of the Fort Smith sludge management, was
told that yes, it does smell strong at times. I would conclude
it smells all the time, but it's worse at others. I was
advised that the sludge from Fort Smith's plant, which is
sold for distribution on agricultural lands, which our
engineers haven't looked into, is dispensed on farms that
contain several thousand acres for the purpose of lessening
the impact of the odor to surrounding residents. Are we so
gullible to believe that we can put sludge on topsoil and not
expect odor? Or is this simply an unknown factor with which
the Wyman residents themselves will be asked to deal?
What of the impact on the wildlife? What about
especially the birds, which are attracted to the raw sludge?
This is not discussed in the proposal, is my point. This is
not a comprehensive proposal. It's most important to us as to
the impact on the surrounding environment, not only people,
but nature. This is no discussion of this impact on the
proposal to dump sludge on our neighbors, and there's no
discussion in relation to the historical and archeological
resources in the sludge area. In addition to several old
farmhouses and residences, there's an old, over one hundred
years old, two-story house in this area which may well be
established for designation as a historical site. The fact
that the proposal does not even mention the obvious impact on
78
C
1 the cultural and traditional heritages and practices of the
2 Wyman Community is inexcusable and displays to this writer the
3 lack of sensitivity of this entire proposal in regard to the
4 sludge management, the most important resource of people and
5 their heritage. Wyman has a very spacious community center ---
6 that hasn't been discussed here tonight --- where the local
7 residents gather for fellowship, family reunions, discussion
8 of community needs, and it serves the people to hold a monthly
9 potluck meal. They gather there once a month for that. The
10 object of this gathering is for friendship and to get to know
11 your neighbors, which I find to be admirable in this day and
12 time of haste and preoccupation with oneself.
13 I can attest that approximately one week ago I was
14 asked to attend a community meeting in the Wyman area and to
15 listen to the discussion regarding the obvious threat of this
16 sludge plan. The meeting hall was filled with persons of all:
17 ages who conducted their meeting much like a New England
18 town meeting. I sensed a togetherness and understanding of
19 interdependency which I have rarely observed. Everyone knew
20 everyone else and seemed to display a strong will and resolve
21 born only of those who till the soil. Surely this aspect was
22 meritorious of consideration by the planners and the engineers.
23 Possibly these are qualities beyond their perception.
24 We submit, Your Honor, members of the Board, that the
25 alternative of controlled and monitored application to private
{
79
14
1 farms, golf courses
cemeteries, parks, and other areas, of
2 both slud e
g and .pure wastewater, is of high merit and worthy
3 of stronger g consideration. Obviously the cost will be great
4 and the
provisions need be made to assist the poor with their
5 burden. But to fail
to select the proper alternative regardi
6 our basic
and vital resources is of danger to us and our
7 children.
8
This writer has conferred directly with Officials
9 of both Fort Smith and
Springdale regarding their sludge
10 mana ement.
g Fort Smith has contracted with a private firm,
11 Arkansas Fertilizer,
who adds lime and stabilizes the sludge
12 themselves ---
the contractor does this ---and who sells the
• 13 product to Arkansas and
Oklahoma farmers and gardeners. The
14 Fort Smith officials are satisfied
15 with their plan whereby they
pay the contractor $10.50 per wet ton to stabilize and apply
16 this sludge. The plan is approved by PCE and is confined to a
17
management area whereby Fort Smith can observe and evaluate
18
nitrogen and metal effect. Because of the offensive odor of
19
the sludge, part of the management consists of applying only
20
to large farmlands. The plan also calls for periodic soil
21
samples and ultimate testing to properly measure the impact
22
of the controlled application. If anyone is interested, they
23 /
might call tor. Bill Graham, who is the contact person with tV
24
sludge operation in Fort Smith.
25
The speaker tonight was also told that agent,
0
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Arkansas Fertilizer had expressed interest in a similar
arrangement with Fayetteville, and had in fact contacted
officials unknown to me in our own City government in relation
to possible purchase of sludge or solid waste.
Springdale hauls their own sludge. They haul this
product to large farms. The stabilized sludge is carefully
applied at a maximum rate of one pint per square foot. The
average number of farm users is between thirty and fifty.
In 1982, 413 dry tons were managed in this manner. During the
wet period, 63 tons had to be stored on drying beds, which
consist of cement, to avoid drainage into the water table.
This sludge was later removed by local gardeners. Complete
records are maintained by Springdale officials as to who takes
what sludge and where it's disposed of.
Why were these close geographic examples of
management not pointed out to us in Proposal 201?
As a conclusion, Your Honor, I'ra sure which will make
you happy, the management of sludge and wastewater is probably
the most pressing problem facing our people today. The task
is great in magnitude and the science is underdeveloped and
actually little is known of the long-range effect of our
present practices.
One thing we do know from experience is that the
ecological battle is currently being lost. The discharge of
impure and polluted wastewater into our already polluted
C
R
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
drinking water source in the hope that we can continue to treat
on both ends of.the cycle with heavy concentration of chemicals
is unrealistic. Science is not our total solution. We and
only we acting collectively in an effort to conserve our
resources and to live in harmony with the nature on which we
depend to survive can save ourselves. Economics are and will
always be a factor. But if we can pave roads and build
hospitals and operate large administrative government, and can
dedicate parks,. then surely we can ensure pure water and clean
environments and maintain existent cultural traditions and
practices. What price tag is too high to ensure our own
existence?
The City of Fayetteville has clear power to implement
and enforce conservation methods which will reduce greatly the
burden on the present wastewater treatment plant, which now is
inadequate and outdated.
The proposal to ultimately fill hundreds of acres of
prime farmland in the existent floodplain with a sludge which
may leak downward to our water supplies and into Beaver Lake
is literally preposterous. An entire community would be
uprooted and the entire area detrimentally affected by odor
and unsightliness and drainage into the White River water basin.
The animal and bird life in the proposed area would either be
displaced or endangered by the polluted soil and water.
The creation of a site larger than the most nuclear waste dumps
82
C
C
9
1 are is totally unreasonable. Surely if the federal government
2 proposed to buy 500 acres in Wyman for disposal of nuclear waste
3 and submitted a proposal as vague as 201, with as many unknown
4 factors, and had omitted so many critical considerations
5 regarding social impact, and which also didn't meet federal
6 standards, the Fayetteville City government would be the first
7 to resist implementation and would logically distrust the
8 assurances and promises of that government that everything was
g safe within the scope of current knowledge.
10 Resistance by these citizens of Wyman inures to the
11 benefit of every person and creature who drinks from the waters
12 of Beaver Lake. If further resistance is called for, then
13 these other consumers of Beaver Lake water will be asked to
14 join our small group to fight this ill-conceived plan for so
15 long as the law allows.
16 We urge this body to study all alternatives in light
17 of a long-term solution. Fayetteville -has this one opportunity.
18 to establish a model system of sludge and wastewater management.
19 We beseech you in the name of all mankind to resist the
20 temptation to adopt a proposal of such detriment to so many.
21 Let us all endeavor to resolve the problem together in order
22 to leave a complete legacy to our children. I thank you for
23 your patience.
24 DR. THOMPSON: I think we mentioned earlier in the
25 presentation that we had planned a workshop to discuss many of
83
AA
1
2
3.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C.
these specific issues that have been raised. We intend to
spend sufficient time to cover each and every point, and I hope
that you will come to that meeting, because there is a very
simple answer to most of the issues that you've raised. I don't
think this is the time or the place --- it would take several
hours to go through this --- but I'll invite you to come. We'll
be passing out a list asking people who would like to attend to
sign up, giving us address 'and telephone number. I guess we
will also put the time and location at the City Hall so that
people can call in and find out, if you haven't signed up, but
it's Wednesday night.
MR. HIRSEKORN: We have it tentatively planned for
Wednesday night. There's a sign-up sheet on the round booth out
in the lobby. When we know the number of people that are
interested in attending, we can find a suitable site
and contact everyone.
MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Which Wednesday night?
DR. THOMPSON: Wednesday of this week. We can set it
now at 7:00 o'clock, and location, we're going to have to
identify a place.
MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Why is this time selected?
There are a lot of people here tonight who already have plans
for Wednesday night, and I don't really feel that's sufficient
time for people to plan and for you to notify other concerned
citizens.
•a
C
C
C
1
2
3
4
15
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DR. THOh1PSON: Our problem is, we have people in
Fayetteville this week who will spend the week here, and to
reschedule it again for next week would be quite difficult.
MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: I think it's not a question of
whether it's rescheduled, but a matter of what's important,
and it seems like you don't consider this important enough.
DR. THOMPSON: Well, I think there are two points
there. This is the first of a series of workshops, and we will
have one this Wednesday night, and we will likely have more.
We will address every single issue that's been raised. We can
assure you that, one, even if we wanted to, we would not be
allowed to design, construct, and operate a facility that
didn't meet federal standards. There is no intent to do that.
In fact, we will meet, and have already planned to meet, as
described in the 201, all of those standards. But rather than
take two hours tonight to respond to each one of those issues
for some of you who may not care to even talk about sludge,
I think it would be more appropriate that we do that on
Wednesday evening. We will have another workshop. As described
by Jim, this the beginning of a long-term process that ends up
in an operation plan that deals specifically with some of the
issues that were raised.
MAYOR NOLAND: Mr. Winfield Guist? Is he here? Are
you ready to make your presentation?
MR. GUIST: Well, mainly what I'm concerned in is ---
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I wrote a little deal out here. I had to rush it. I didn't
put in there all I wanted to, but ---
MAYOR NOLAND: Where do you live?
MR. GUIST: I live out on Route 2, out on West 16.
And I'd just like to find out, I think I read this in the paper,
and I don't think I got it wrong, but how long, if this deal
goes through, how long is this going to last before they have
to do something else?
MAYOR NOLAND: Well, the Plan will cover the next
20 years.
MR. GUIST: Okay. I seen that in the paper. I have
this little deal. It won't take me but about three minutes to
read. It says: To whom it may concern. I am against
discharging treated wastewater into the Mud Creek. This will
pollute the Illinois River, which is the water supply to
Siloam Springs and other small towns. Now, I don't know, I
think there's one or two other little towns in Oklahoma that's
on this. As a lifetime fisherman, I am also concerned about
the fishkill that would occur in the Illinois River. It is
the only' remaining clean river in this area. Now, don't
misunderstand me. It's not clean, because Springdale and Rogers
is polluting -it. But the people of Northwest Arkansas and
eastern Oklahoma want to keep it this way. If 60 percent of the
Fayetteville wastewater discharge, along with the already
presently dumping of the Rogers and Springdale, this would cause
L�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a large fishkill. I'm sure many of you have been down the
Illinois River in the last two weeks, you can see how low it is
right here at the first bridge. And in the past, the City of
Fayetteville would not admit that the cause of the fishkill
in the White River was because of discharging treated wastewater.
Most likely, no one would take the blame if a similar
occurrence should happen in the Illinois River. It was stated
in the local newspaper --- and I'm not sure which paper, but
I think the Northwest Arkansas Times --- that if adopted, the
Plan would pass, would take care of the problem for
approximately twenty years. What will happen after this
twenty years is passed? Will the people be taxed again? Will
the waste be piped to the Arkansas River next, and which we
would come up with another large tax deal, and I can't see
how the --- there's so many people right now, as all you
people on the City Board know, that there's so many people
right now out of work, and I just can't see how people can
• go on and carry on these high taxes that's going on. They're
going to reassess our property, and you know what's going to
happen there. And I can't understand how they can just keep on
adding taxes and adding taxes. That's all I have. Thank you
very much. -
MAYOR NOLAND: Thank you. Mr. R.A. Hickman of
ABLE. That's Association for Beaver Lake Environment.
MR. HICKMAN: Mr. Mayor and Board members. I'm
ME
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Al Hickman. I'm from Rogers, Arkansas. I'm a member of the
Board of Directors of the Association for Beaver Lake
Environment, sometimes known as ABLE. My statement is very
brief.
In the Tulsa World for Sunday, August 14th, there was
an interesting article, "Freshwater: Natural Resource Issue of
the 80's." In this was a discussion of the legal aspects of the
use of water in adjoining states and the impact of polluted
water, as well as the loss of water from the Ogallala aquifer.
The points made in this article are germane to the problems we
face here in Northwest Arkansas. The current Fayetteville
program for a split -flow alternative for their disposal of
waste into both the White River and the Illinois River as
outlined in the 201 Facilities Plan =-- don't be surprised ---
is quite acceptable to the Association for Beaver Lake
Environment, ABLE, of which I am a member of the Board of
Directors. However, it should be pointed out that by the year
2000, only 17 more years, all of Northwest Arkansas will be
involved in a serious.problem equal to the present Fayetteville
problem, because of population growth. In a recent communication
to members of ABLE, this paragraph was included:
Beyond any doubt, a collector system approach with a
common pipeline for treated wastewater to the Arkansas River is
the most feasible and logical solution for meeting the future
needs of Northwest Arkansas. This would remove the greatest
C
ci
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
single pollution source from Beaver Lake, as well as greatly
benefit other water resources of this area. What better time
to pursue this now while local, state, and federal officials
are fully aware of the need? Public backing is necessary for a
joint effort of this magnitude. A pipeline of sufficient size
to meet growth requirements of all the towns and cities of
this area could be jointly financed and installed along the
newly procured right-of-way for U.S. 71 Highway and the bypasses.
This would enable an early start program with savings that
could be counted in the millions of dollars. We feel that a
joint community effort would be a long-range and best possible
solution to this problem.
MAYOR NOLAND: Thank you. John Shannon, Administrator
for the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission. I believe John has
been here before for some of these public hearings.
MR. SHANNON: I've submitted my comments in writing
to Don Bunn previously, but I'd like to read them into the
record, if I may.
Good evening, Mayor Noland, members of the City Board
of Directors. My name is John Shannon. As a representative of
the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission, I am here to express
opposition to the proposed Mud Creek split flow of wastewater
generated in the City of Fayetteville.
According to the final draft environmental information
document, the proposed discharge into Mud Creek would be
N
ti
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
expected to cause increased nutrient enrichment of the Illinois
River. Changes toward less biological diversity, and more
bluegreen algae are possible. This increased nutrient loading
would total approximately 7 percent during average flow and
10 to 15 percent during low flow. That low flow period, of
course, being right now, the middle of the hot, dry summer,
when the Illinois River is most heavily used for recreational
purposes.
These changes would be considered degradation of water I
quality and would be inconsistent with scenic rivers designation
currently protecting the Illinois River in Oklahoma.
According to the final draft Facilities Plan, no
significant differences in the overall environmental impacts
would be expected, whether you adopt the Mud Creek split flow
or continue full discharge into the White River through an
updated plan.
Therefore, Mayor Noland, I am inclined to conclude
that the Mud Creek split -flow option is being considered, not
for economic parsimony, nor for environmental integrity, but
for political feasibility and expedience.
Again, the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission is
opposed to the initiation of this indirect discharge into the
Illinois River._ Thank you very much, Mayor.
MAYOR NOLAND: The next speaker that we have that
signed up is Jim Miller, representing the Save the Beaver
90
I
I
R
LI
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Coalition from Harrison. Jim?
MR. MILLER: Again, I want to thank the City Council
for this meeting and this very informative explanation of your
intentions. As you can see, I have returned, as I promised last
week, with several supporters, and we have made the 90 -mile trek
over from Harrison, and we'll have to go home tonight, and that's
the reason that I asked to be allowed to speak an hour. or so
ago, but that wasn't possible, so here we are still. I brought
with me a map of the lake system built on the White River.
And Beaver Lake is just the latest and smallest of the other
systems that are one after the other following the discharge of
Beaver Lake. There's Table Rock, Branson, Missouri... There's
Lake Taneycomo. There's the large lake, Bull Shoals. And
further down there there's North Fork Lake. Now, as you can
see, the red line here represents the Boone -Carroll pipeline.
This is a water district that was formed some ten years ago and
has been under construction and is now serving Eureka Springs,
Berryville, and Green Forest, and is planned to continue on
to Harrison in the near future. And of course, that is why we
are here, because we are concerned vitally with the quality of
this water, not only now but for the next twenty to fifty years,
for the growth of our area. And of course, we realize that
Fayetteville does have a problem right now with sewage treatment
and disposal, because you are also drinking Beaver Lake water.
And we want Fayetteville to have the very finest facility that
91
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A
money can buy, because as federal taxpayers we're going to be
helping pay for it as well. But we feel that this plan
presented tonight is fatally flawed, and I can certainly tell yoi
that it's been enlightening to watch these slides and see this
sludge injected into the soil and dumped on the soil and sprayed
on the soil, and hear talk of this four or five hundred acres,
or the fifteen hundred acres which may be condemned for this
purpose. It might be inspirational at this point to read a
little poem. I'll try to be brief. I didn't write any
longwinded speech tonight. But this is called "The Parable of
Eureka Springs."
Jesus often taught by parable, and is still, for those
who will. Listen to a story of old, how Victorian vacationers
flocked to Eureka Springs, Arkansas to bathe and drink sulphur
water, much as they do to hot springs wherever they occur on
earth. Eureka prospered, and the town grew, from 1880 to 1920.
Buildings were erected where a goat would fear to go. Planning
was nil, but business all uphill, until the hand of God begun
to awaken doctors and morticians alike to the dangers, of impure
water and haphazard waste. Typhoid and hepatitis strike alike,
filth and waterborne, no purification plant or filter will
remove. Hogs wallow in their own filth. Even dogs have more
sense. They do not pee or poo where they eat. Humans in 1984
should do more. Reverse the cheap flushing of the past. Focus
technology on the task. Use it for fuel or fertilizer, but
92
C
LI
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
do not put it in my drinking water, thank you very much.
Eureka Springs unwittingly killed the goose who laid the golden
eggs with filth and contaminated the very springs on which the
fame of the health spa was built. Disease and death now flow
thirty years later where pure and healing waters originally
came out. The underlying Boone limestone absorbs like a sponge.
Once it took in filth and held itNow it spreads poison the
same way. Eureka must look far for water because the entire
water table is contaminated. So let us learn by our mistakes
and listen to this old story with renewed insight. God's
hand works in mysterious ways, revealing a portion of his plan
for us at each turn. But we must educate ourselves and listen
to the voice inside our head. God's computer is your mind.
Use it or lose it. Fill it with knowledge and you can better
serve Him and your fellow man. The spiral double helix is
the ladder of life. A step up or fall back too. It's His
plan, but it's up to you, too. Our time is near, but never
fear. Trust in the Lord. Amen.
And that's, you know, very personal, but I think a
very telling story about Eureka Springs and how they
contaminated unknowingly the very springs that was bringing
fame and wealth to their little town. And here we see the
City of Fayetteville opting for a solution to their waste
problem by dumping sludge on the banks of the White River
that flow ineffably into Beaver Lake. And this, as you can see,
93
Lt
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
injecting this into the ground or dumping it out onto the ground,
where is it going to go? No flock of hummingbirds is going to
come along and carry it away. It's going to leach into the
ground, and in that ground it's going to go by subterranean
passage to the river, where it's always gone, and it's going to
go into the White River, and directly into Beaver Lake. And
these nutrients are what kill the fish. And when the fish
die and they're eaten by the animals, then they too become sick
and die. It's a whole chain of ecology which Mr. Mayes has
laid out to us so beautifully this evening. This is our concern.
We want to help the City of Fayetteville solve this problem,
but in a more well -considered vein than this proposition brings
us. I was fascinated with the engineers' use of a term,
"natural land application." You know, this --- what could
be less natural than dumping it in your drinking water or
putting it out where it's, going to go directly into your drinking
water? I see here by my notes that my first objection this
evening should have been that this is our real first public
notice of this plan. The local residents may have known
something about it, but we're far afield. We don't read the
Fayetteville paper. And I just became aware of this some two
weeks ago. And. that's why I spoke out at your meeting last
week. My outrage stems from knowledge and from having an
instructor in geology in my school. He's sitting here, from
NACC, who taught me that this Boone limestone does absorb
N
C -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
everything, and it does have lots of passages and cavities down
in there where this goes to the nearest creek. This is a fact
of our geologic area. This can be used for fertilizer
wonderfully anywhere, but not in an area that's going to drain
directly into our drinking water. This is insane. I can't
believe that grown people are sitting here, you know, expecting
us to believe that this is not going to pollute Beaver Lake,
when we know that it is already. The existing plant, if
everything was dug up and moved far away, would still be
leaching into the soil for ten, twenty, or thirty years, who
knows? The city of Eureka Springs springs are still poisonous
thirty years after they have modern treatment facilities and
modern sewage. Thirty years later, it's hazardous to your
health to drink the water out of those springs. So there are
chemical toilets. There are composting toilets available. Why
can't all new construction in the Fayetteville/Springdale area
use these modern facilities. Certainly it'd cost more. It's
going to cost all of us more. But hepatitis, you know, is
serious, too. Thank you very much.
MAYOR NOLAND: Thank you, Mr. Miller. Reford Akins
from Westville?
MR. AKINS:. I'd just like to ask a question. I'm from
the Scenic Rivers Commission. I'd like to ask the engineer
that told us how pure the water would be, would you drink that
water when it's dumped into the stream?
95
L
MR. HIRSEKORN: I wouldn't drink the water in the
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
C13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LN
creek whether it had any wastewater in it or not. That's the
only answer I can give you. I don't think that we're producing
drinking water with a 5-5-2-1 effluent. That's not the intent.
MAYOR NOLAND: Alvin Luther. Mr. Luther lives out
on the Illinois River.
MR. LUTHER: I'm Alvin Luther. I live in the Savoy
area, which my land adjoins the Clear Creek. And I'm opposed
to putting the effluent into Clear Creek. I believe that the
effluent will get into the well water, the drinking water, and
I'm opposed to that. There are other problems with dumping
that into the river, as far as crossing the river from one
field to another field, which you have to cross, the amount of
flow that you're going to put in there. You can't do it.
There's numerous problems that you would have in that area.
That's all I have to say for you tonight. I'm strictly
opposed to it.
MAYOR NOLAND: Thank you. Lois Imhoff?
MS. IMHOFF: Mr. Mayor, I just have two very short
questions. First of all, a statement was made by the engineers
that the method of disinfection is going to be used of
chlorination; as in our present plant. Many of us who've been
following this whole issue --- and I was a member of the CAC
sometime back --- we have been very concerned about the creation
of trihalomethanes, known carcinogens, that flow into Beaver
C
3
A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
,16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Reservoir and become a problem in the drinking water. Cannot
we use a more sophisticated method in our new plant for
disinfection of effluent?
MR. HIRSEKORN: As we stated in other public meetings,
we don't feel that the effluent as it currently exists contri-
butes to the trihalomethane problem in Beaver Lake. We think
that it's a natural precursor that shows up upstream from
the discharge; that the discharge of chlorinated effluent hasn't
been shown to have an increase in the trihalomethanes. Now,
if in fact that were the case, it could be shown to be the case,
there are other disinfecting techniques that could be utilized.
They are more expensive, and when there's no benefit to be
derived, then you wouldn't choose those. But if evidence could
be shown that the effluent when chlorinated was increasing the
trihalomethane content, then we would certainly look at other
alternatives.
MS. IMHOFF: I also wanted to ask about the
environmental impact statement for the entire project. The
documents we saw earlier had very little on the Illinois River
basin. Are we going to be getting more data on the gathering
of information on the Illinois River basin?
MR.. HIRSEKORN: Have you seen both the 201 Facility
Plan and ---
MS. IMHOFF: Yes.
MR. HIRSEKORN: That is what's been submitted.
97
C
1 MS. IMHOFF: It seems that we really need more
2 information on the Illinois River. Thank you.
3 MAYOR NOLAND: I'm going to go through these cards
4 of people that signed up. If there are others here that wish
5 to speak after that, why, we'll be glad to entertain your
6 comments and questions at that time. Larry Brown from
7 Fayetteville? Gayle McKenzie from Fayetteville? Jack Walters,
8 lives out on Clear Creek near Greathouse Springs.
9 MR. WALTERS: Ladies and gentlemen, I don't know
10 exactly how to say this. I hope that you realize that all of
11 us sitting out here, or most of these people are not stupid.
12 I know you're not, and you have spent a lot of time on this
13 plan. But one thing I do want to mention, and one thing I think
1.4 that this City always seems to do, is they do just enough to
15 get by. I can remember when you were dumping raw sewage in
16 West Fork, and I wonder how far we've come. But one thing
17 want to say is about this overflow that you're talking about.
18
I think this is a big problem with Fayetteville. The storm
19
sewer system here connected with the sewage system. When you
20
get a tremendous rain here in town, not just in town, this
21
whole area of drainage into the sewage system here, which is
22
of course connected, then you get an overflow in your station,
23
and I don't believe the station can take care of it that you're
24
planning. And I think this is one point that most of us have
25
overlooked, and I think this is one of the most important points
98
C
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of our present system, that they can't take care of the rush of
material and water when we have a tremendous rain. I would
like to ask the question that someone asked before. Would you
take your livestock out and let them drink in Clear Creek?
I ask you this question. Would you do that?
MR. HIRSEKORN: Let me address both, if I might, the
overflow issue first. We're approaching that in two areas.
Number one, there is a rehabilitation program underway now
to identify how cost-effective it is to remove this
extraneous water through improvements, rehabilitation of the
sewer system.. We're also proposing to spend about $7 million
•
to essentially build increased interceptors, pump stations, to
handle that excess water. What we made was, even when you do
that, there will still
be some
overflows.
MR. WALTERS:
That's
what I'm talking about,
right
there.
MR. HIRSEKORN: So what we said is, we're going to
improve what we've got now considerably. Overflows from that
point on are going to have to be addressed on a priority basis.
It will be, just like any design event for a storm conveyance
device, there will be a certain event that will exceed the
capacity of the system.
MR. WALTERS: Then why do this system? Why not go
all the way? Why not the City of Fayetteville decide to go all
the way, or even involve the whole county or the whole area?
C
1 We need something here. Let's quit the stopgap measures as
2 we've been doing in the past. And I've been here thirty years,
3 and I know what stopgaps have done. But this is, I think, very
4 important.
5 And I wanted to ask you about this thing of the cattle
6 drinking out there in the creek, and that's where mine drink.
7 MR. HIRSEKORN: Given that we're putting a 5-5-2-1
8 effluent, or proposing to, into Mud Creek, I would have no
9 problems with the cattle grazing in the area of Clear Creek.
10 MR. WALTERS: I'm talking about drinking out of the
11 creek.
12 MR. HIRSEKORN: Well, that's grazing and drinking out
13 of the creek. Now, right now, as you know, there are some
14 overflows that get into Mud Creek, Clear Creek. These are the
15 ones that are on the highest priority to be corrected first.
16 And what we're proposing to do will actually improve the quality
17 during certain time periods of Mud Creek, Clear Creek, because
18 there are overflows, because of pump stations that can't handle
19 the flow.
20 MR. WALTERS: Have you walked down Clear Creek?
21 MR. HIRSEKORN: Yes, I have. I've gone down Mud Creek.
22 and Clear Creek, and I know that there are places where there
23 have been overflows, and as I say, we intend to correct those
24 first.
25 MR. WALTERS: You know how much water is in
100
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Clear Creek?
MR.
HIRSEKORN:
Depends on
the
time
of the
year.
MR.
WALTERS:
Very little.
And
it's
that
way most
of the time.
MR. HIRSEKORN: That creek has been modeled, and
time and travel studies have been conducted, and it's our
opinion that we will be able to maintain the dissolved oxygen
content, a minimum of six, which is enough oxygen to support
smallmouth bass.
MR. WALTERS: I would like to ask the Board, do you
want to pollute the only stream that hasn't been polluted by
the City of Fayetteville?
MAYOR NOLAND: Which stream are you talking about?
Clear Creek or Mud Creek?
MR. WALTERS: Clear Creek. Mud Creek never has much
water in it. Just think about the situation. I've seen the.
rivers around here, White River and so forth, so dirty that
nothing could go into it.
MAYOR NOLAND: Jack, I know you're a plant pathologist,
and we've been dealing like 30-30 discharge, and we're trying
to achieve a 5-5, and that means it's about six times cleaner
than what you've been looking at coming down.
MR. WALTERS: Why not go all the way? Involve us all.
Why not go all the way and go to tertiary? Get the system where
it's worthwhile, where we don't have to ---
101
N
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAYOR NOLAND: What would tertiary achieve, I mean,
as far as ---
MR. WALTERS: Where we can drink the water after we
get through with it.
MAYOR NOLAND: That's what they're saying, that this
5-5-2-1 is essentially tertiary.
MR. WALTERS: Some cities, you know, drink the water
they clear up.
MAYOR NOLAND: I'd say that 90, percent of the people
in the world aren't drinking water that good, Jack,as you know.
MR..WALTERS: That's probably right.
MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: No reason why we shouldn't,
though.
MR. WALTERS: That's another point right there. Why
should we merely meet State requirements? This is a wonderful
area in this part of the state, and I've elected to live here
in this area. I could have found a better paying job someplace
else, but I elected to live in this wonderful place here. Why
can't we get the place to --- the City of Fayetteville, bring
it up to the standards of Northwest Arkansas. I'm sorry, I'm
being sentimental.
I want to mention the fact that I do know that you
can effect the use of sludge over periods of time on farmland.
I know you can do it. You see, I have --- I know a little
something about this myself. I know in Pennsylvania they're
102
C
ci
C-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
doing it very well. But one thing that I resent. I resent the
fact that you'll be asking the affected people, the landowners,
to help pay for the privilege of receiving the City of
Fayetteville's sewage in the form of the effluent and the sludge.
That is an insult. We have no recourse. We have no vote.
But here you are proposing a tax to help pay for this for you
who live in the City of Fayetteville to enjoy, and we as
people who have to trade in the City of Fayetteville are going
to have to pay for it.. Thank you. That's all I have.
MAYOR NOLAND: Appreciate your comments, Jack. I'll
meet you over a cup of coffee and talk about Fayetteville
sometime building a plant here to process chickens and process
milk and a few things like that that the people out in the
agricultural areas do derive a little benefit from this sewage
treatment plant. Nolan Smith, Illinois River Property Owners.
Mrs. Nolan Smith.
MRS. SMITH: I'm Mrs. Nolan Smith, I live on the
Illinois River on Route 6, Fayetteville. And my comments,
I would like to go into the record, because it is directed both
to the Fayetteville Board of Directors,, to the Department of
Pollution Control and Ecology, the Environmental Protection
Agency. As residents along the Illinois River, we make this
statement of protest.
We are opposed to the City of Fayetteville discharging
its sewage effluent into the Illinois River by whatever route
103
1 it may enter the stream. Why? Because we are concerned about
2 our water supply and the effect it will have upon our home and
3 farmland investment. We feel it is unfair to penalize people
4 who have chosen to live in a rural area in order to clean up
5 the problems brought about by the growth and progress of our
6 area's cities. We believe, if our State agencies concerned
7 with the water quality of all streams in the state were properly
8 monitoring the streams; it would be evident that the Illinois
g River has deteriorated to a point it cannot assimilate what is
10 presently entering the stream. We understand the Federal
11 Clean Water Act to provide that all streams shall be protected
12 from pollution that cannot be assimilated and still provide a
13 specified water quality level. Belonging to an organization
14 which has funded two water quality studies on the Illinois River,
15 we are aware this stream has not been thus protected.
16 With these things in mind, we urgently plead with
17 the Department of Pollution Control and Ecology and the
18 Environmental Protection Agency to consider the effects the
19 added effluent in this stream will have on the rural area
20 along the Illinois River and the people of Siloam Springs,
21 Gentry, and of Watts, Oklahoma, who receive their water supply
22 from the Illinois River and from wells and springs near the
23 river, and to fairly protect all of the citizens of this area
24 by denying Fayetteville's request to shift its effluent from
25 one stream to another.
104
C
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAYOR NOLAND: ' Thank you very much. Mrs. Smith is.
one of the ladies that attended the Citizens Advisory Committee
meetings, probably more than half of them, so she's sat through
a lot of the deliberation that went on when that study was
going on. Next speaker is David Pearce, also from Route 6,
Clear Creek property owner. David? Jay D. Cole, Route 4,
Fayetteville, Clear Creek landowner.
MR. COLE: Mayor Noland and members of the Committee,
my name is Jay Daniel Cole. We reside on the north side of
Wedington Woods. We own approximately 138 acres on or near
Clear Creek. I am the director of a missionary organization,
a church and missionary service organization. We have come to
Arkansas, we came about eight years ago, purchased the land
where we are now for a specific purpose, that is, to conduct our
mission and church activity. We have numerous uses for Clear
Creek. We purchased the property there mainly because of
Clear Creek, and David Pearce lives right just on the adjoining
property from us and I can speak for these folks, too. They had
to leave early. We have, first of all, a state of consternation
as to why such plans would be made after the extensive and very
well outlined conditions on the east side of our city have been
presented here tonight, why we can't understand that that exact
same thing will be repeated on the west side of the city within
just a very short time if this situation is permitted to
progress. First of all, Clear Creek, we understand from the
105
1 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
people we purchased the property from, has never gone dry. It's
been a clear running stream as far back as even the Indians can
remember. As has just been stated, it is the only remaining
partially clean stream, and we need to speak to the City about.
the sewage that Springdale and Fayetteville are leaking into the
stream now, which hasn't existed very long. But it's the only
remaining clean stream we have.. We want it to stay that way.
We've spent a sizable sum of money and approximately three
months' effort with our heavy machinery cleaning up the debris,
the clean debris that you could burn, the logs and things that
have flowed down that creek for thousands of years,and create
a real picnic area, a real clean area where our ministry could
function. We have youth meetings on that creek. I•don't know
if it concerns --- I'm sure it would concern some of you --- but
we had seven young people accept Christ as their Saviour in the
meetings that we have in the area that we prepared. The kids
come and they swim, and then we have our wienie roast or
whatever, and then we have a Bible study. And this is why we're
there. That's our total purpose. We have a church that we have
just constructed, along with our mission offices, that's not
500 feet from Clear Creek. We do feel that the flooding --- we
see the flooding. We live there, and we watch our field go
under water. We would hate to see the sewage effluent cover
that field. The creek is approximately a half mile wide there
at times, from mountain to mountain. Mr. Woody Collier owns the
106
C
0
a
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
property across the creek that adjoins ours, and he sends his
very heavy resentment of these plans tonight.
Also, I'm wondering about flowing your effluent across
private property. My deed states that we own that creek to the
centerline of Clear Creek, where Mr. Collier's property picks up.
We feel that, you're invading private property by even making
such plans in this direction.
We came here --- I'm an old native Arkansawyer, but we
moved back here from Dallas, or from Garland, Texas, some eight
years ago, where we had an extensive experience with cities and
sewage systems. The city manager of Garland, Texas at the time --
and I ran for mayor of that city just simply to see if I could
move that man out, and we were able to do that. But we had him
propose that they were going to turn the sewage system into a
rose garden there. Well, that rose garden doesn't smell like a
rose garden to this day. And I saw the sewage effluent backup
in what is now Lake Ray Hubbard, which the good citizens of
Dallas are drinking. I've seen what comes out of that lake.
Because we lived there; we watched what went on. We watched as
the plug was pulled when the heavy rains came, and the sewage
and the toilet paper hung in the weeds out across the fields.
So I know what happens in these things. I experienced it
for eleven years. And I've had very close contact and extensive
studies with cities who said, yes, we're going to send you nice,
clean effluent. Folks, it just isn't so. It never happens.
107
1 As all of us know, government officials die and pass on .and
2 get out of office, and others get into office, and they really
3 don't care what the ones before them did. We still live there,
4 and we still experience the havoc and the hardship that come
5 from this. There is no such thing, in most cases, as clean
6 effluent. There are numerous, numerous wells. Mr. Pearce,
7 whose name you just mentioned, has just about a year ago put
• 8 down a beautiful well, drilled into a fantastic underground stream
• 9 with flowing, clear water. This would be destroyed. We have a
10 well on our property. We have Fayetteville water right now,
11 which, by the way, we have to distill in order to drink. But
12 we have a well there that we can use. We couldn't use it if
13 you send your effluent our way.
14 Just to be brief --- and I know there are other
• 15 speakers --- we have absolutely no intention of Fayetteville
16 sewage effluent ever coming down Clear Creek. We will fight.
17 whatever battle we need to fight, civil or otherwise. But
18 folks, don't send your sewage our way, please.
19 MAYOR NOLAND: Thank you, Reverend Cole. Next speaker
• 20 is Raymond Tedford, lives in the Wyman area. Mr. Tedford?
21 Mrs. Sharon Tedford? Dr. Murray? You get to speak at all of
22 these hearings, and you're a former member of the Citizens
23 Advisory Committee and the City Board and a property owner
24 along the Illinois River and a former veterinarian, and you
25 know all these people, and you asked if you could speak again.
CI
108
C
C.
1 DR. MURRAY: Well, let me correct that one statement.
2 You said a former veterinarian. I still am.
3 MAYOR NOLAND: A former practicing veterinarian.
4 Excuse me.
5 DR. MURRAY: I'll buy that. There's one statement
6 I'd like to get correct. I might've misunderstood. On this,
7 what you had given, I believe this reservoir, did you say that
8 was a 200 million gallon reservoir? Sixteen feet by twelve?
9 MR. HIRSEKORN: Yes.
10 DR. MURRAY: That's a pretty good flow of water there.
11 Now, I'm going to try to keep this in the proper perspective,
12 and that's the reason I was wanting to find that out. Is that
13 correct, 200 million it will hold?
14 MR. HIRSEKORN: Yes, it is, with a fourteen -day
15 storage of 196 million gallons.
16 DR. MURRAY: All right. I asked you last time on
17 this storage, and I believe I was informed it was 25 million.
18 Well, that was the reason this sort of surprised me on the
19 200 million gallons. Well, when I was getting ready and I was
20 reading over the 201 final draft, I had some people drop in the
21 house. They asked how was it coming, and I said, well, I was
22 at a disadvantage on this thing. They wanted to know how.
23 I said, I hadn't been away from home long enough to be an
24 expert on this. So you'll have to bear with me on it.
25 Now, the people of Northwest Arkansas have one hope or desire,
109
C
1 and that is to see that the City of Fayetteville come up with .a
2 solution to the problem of disposal of its waste products,
3 or waste byproducts. This includes both your liquid and your
4 solid. We're dealing at this time with our liquid solids.
5 The primary issue tonight, as I said, is the liquid waste
6 disposal. The criteria by which one must evaluate tonight's
7 presentation is, is the present and the future water supply of
8 Northwest Arkansas fully protected? If the answer is yes,
9 then the other questions are relative. I am personally
10 satisfied, after reading the report, that the initial problem
11 remains to be answered. I do believe that the report in
12 discussion tonight has touched the majority of the bases, but
13 it is not the complete answer to the City's problem. There is •a
14 gross overestimation as to the efficiency of the procedures
15 listed. Time will definitely prove these inadequate features.
16 Let's take the effluent split flow. We have an effluent pipe
17 to the White River, another to Mu& Creek. We have another to
18 the proposed reservoir ---now, you had told me 25 million gallons.
19 couldn't find this in the report, now ---which the treated
20 effluent flow is to be held for a few days. We have separate
21 lines from the reservoir to the discharge point on White River
22 and to Mud Creek. This will be sufficient until the reservoir
23 is filled. Within four days, with the present flow, going
24 again on the 25 million that we've had previously, when the
25 rains come and the system will --- the effluent lines to
110
C
1 Mud Creek and White River together with the reservoir lines,
2 mind you, the reservoir is supposed to be a backup to the
3 excess flow of the I and I; that is, the inflow and infiltration
4 The City no doubt will disagree with this assumption. We have
5 the same situation at the present plant. We have always
6 believed that you cannot teach an old dog new tricks. The
7 present plant was turned over to the City by a local engineering
8 firm as a 10 million gallon capacity plant. It has, according
9 to this report, been downgraded to a 7 million gallon plant.
10 The proposed plant is estimated at 13 plus million. We have
11 experienced in the past, during rainy wet spells, a complete
12 overload of the present system, well in excess of the present
13 proposed plan. We have a correction of the inflow and
14 infiltration problem in the plan, with the possibility of a
15 correction, with proper construction, of only 40 percent.
16 This says that this should --- mind you., should --- take care
17 of the problem. We will have, as stated, dumping in the White
18 River and Mud Creek. The reservoir is not sufficient to handle
19 a potential flood problem.
20 Now, let's look at the sludge disposal fraction of
21 the report. Land selected for this operation is inadequate.
22 Calculating with the figures supplied by the report and
23 inquiries to the City, I cannot see how it is possible to make
24 a proposed application of sewage on 510 acres of land.
25 Deviating from the figures on the report, and using a slightly
C-
111
C
1 smaller number to find out that the land will not take that
2 break. The fraction of a gallon per square foot, that is,
3 two-thirds of a gallon, per square foot per acre, is going to
4 be what is put on the land. This is going to be two to three
5 times, I understand, a year. By using the figures to total
6 flow, it equals about, as I said, two-thirds of a gallon per
7 square acre. Now, I have tried to take into consideration the
8 total gallons of .sludge proposed and the action of the•
9 anaerobic tanks on the total volume and the eight to twelve
10 hours contact action together with fourteen holding days of
11 sludge would require a storage reservoir with a capacity of
12 approximately 2 million gallons. Figure 53 and 63 do not show
13 this proposed storage. The report states that the fourteen
14 day supply of liquid sludge will be retained at the present
15 plant location. Now, as it appears that this sludge will have
16 to be either dehydrated, composted, or --- and then rehydrated
17 to 2.5 as stated in the report, prior to land application.
76 This sludge will have to be held fourteen days at temperatures
19 of approximately 13° Centigrade or 59° Fahrenheit. I do not
20 find any mention as to how the temperatures are to be achieved
21 in hot summers or cold winters. These two facets of the report
22 'are, in my opinion, the objection to this report.
23 As I have stated earlier, the primary, question's in
24 waste treatment and disposal --- and I do not believe that the
25 question has been completely addressed. I listened to a
112
C
1 rendition of this in the middle 60's of the virtues of the
2 present plan. I was opposed to the concept and the location.
3 The concept of this plant is very good, but the proposed
4 disposal inadequate. As I have always contended, this plan,
5 with modifications, should be adequate if the effluent flow
6 were directed to the Arkansas River. The City Board has
7 decided it is appropriate to call an election to increase the
8 City sales tax. This report before you tonight has stated
9 that the other alternatives were not feasible. I do
10 believe, with this proposed sales tax, the people should have
11 an opportunity to decide if we want to go the -extra mile and
12 have this present effluent flow removed from the City and this
13 entire area. This area will surely, in time, view this action,
14 and only the alternatives for the rest of the cities will be
15 required to follow suit. The sales tax should definitely be
16 of an interim nature. The public must be kept informed and
17 given an opportunity to address this very complex problem.
18 Thank you.
19 MAYOR NOLAND: Thank you, Dr. Murray. Mrs. Johnson,
20 do you have some comment back there? Is she still here?
21 Lilie Johnson. She lives at 173 South Hill Street here in
22 Fayetteville: No comment? All right. Millard Blevins,
23 Route 9, Fayetteville. Is he still here? Okay. Is this
24 B.M. Minard, Route 5, Fayetteville? Okay. Victor Ray,
25
cBroken Arrow, Oklahoma?
113
C
1 MR. RAY: I currently live in Broken Arrow. I've had
2 property on the Illinois River for eighteen years now. When
3 we bought the property, the rivet was clean, water was
4 sparkling. I picked up some rocks today from the bottom of the
5 river just to give you an example of what has happened during
6 the time that we've owned the property. I'm assuming that
7 the degradation that has gone on since then has been due to
8 other causes than Fayetteville, but if Fayetteville adds to the
9 Illinois River problem, I'm sure that that problem will get
10 worse. If you'll notice, the rock that I took from the middle
11 of the river is green. It's not moss. You scratch it, and
12 I'm not a specialist in this area at all, so I can't comment
13 on that. But I do think that there needs to be some review
14 as to specifically what is planned to be put into the Illinois
15 River water. The brochure we received here tonight does not
16 specifically say anything about the eff.luent or the quality of
17 water going into the Illinois River.
,18 And one of the points I want to make on this is that
19 this was taken at Peyton's Place, the particular samples.
20 I haven't been up and down the river to find out what the
21 concentration of the discoloration is on the rocks. I assume
22 that as you so further down the river it will be less and less,
23 but as time goes on, it'll get down into Lake Tenkiller, and
24 we'll probably be in the same boat down there as you are with
25 your Beaver Lake. That's the impression I have. That's about
114
1 all I have to say. It's been very well presented here tonight.
2 I might leave these rocks here. You might want to throw them
3 at somebody.
4 MAYOR NOLAND: Thank you. I'm glad you laid them
5 there instead of throwing them. Okay. We have Barbara and
6 John Welsh, Route,5, Fayetteville., Would you like to speak,
7 Ms. Welsh?
8 MS. WELSH: Some of our neighbors had to go home.
9 They have to work in the morning. I'd like to make a statement
10 on their behalf. None of the farmers --- or.I'll say not all
11 a couple of them were contacted by the engineers about the
12 sludge dump that was actually going to be dumped onto their
C' 13 property. Now, the gentleman that got up and left a little
14 while ago didn't know until three or four days ago that the
15 sludge was actually going to be dumped on his property. No one
16 has been out to talk to us, to tell us• exactly what they
17 had planned. The engineers popped up and said, you know,
•18 "Call everybody you can think of." Well, if somebody hadn't
19 called us, we wouldn't have known about it. I think --- this
20 is an uneducated guess, but I think this is going to cost you
21 about twice what you think it's going to cost. And you people
22 I don't think realize that there's nine times the amount of
23 sewage going into that river as there is water to wash it down.
24 Mayor, could you give me a guess as to how far this sludge dump
25 is above the head of Beaver Lake?
115
1
MAYOR NOLAND: We've heard reports that it may ---
and I've been out at the --- at certain times it gets clear
2
3
down into the upper end of the lake.
4
MS. WELSH: Okay. There is cancerous fluids that
5
t
Washington Regional is dumping into, or flushing into the
6
stools, that they draw out of people's stomachs, you know,
7
and 13 percent of the time this is raw sewage that runs into
8
Beaver Lake, and you're drinking it.
g
MAYOR NOLAND: Of course, that's what this is all
about. We're trying to do something about that sludge, and
10
11
we're trying to do something ---
MS. WELSH: Okay. But can you guarantee me that
12
13
you're not going to wind up --- man, this is flood land. That
14
river is a half a mile wide. It gets thirty foot above the
15
road. It is flood land. And you won't have anywhere to go
16
in that valley. Now, you're talking about a population of ---_
17
how much was it?
18
MAYOR NOLAND: Seventy thousand, I think it was.
19
MS. WELSH: Seventy thousand is the population that
20
this will cover?
21
MAYOR NOLAND: No, that this will serve. Seventy
22
thousand people.
23
MS. WELSH: Okay. What's the limit on your population
24
when it will be outdated?
25
MAYOR NOLAND: 2005.
116
C
1 MS. WELSH: Okay. Your population, right, will
2 cover how many people?
3 MAYOR NOLAND: Seventy thousand. That's the capacity
4 of the plant and the system.
5 I4S..WELSH: Okay. So you're saying that, gee, this
6 is going to last twenty years. People are flocking in here
7 like crazy from other states. Now, there's no guarantee that
8 you can give the people of Fayetteville and the people in
9 the surrounding vicinity that that population isn't going to be
10 reached in ten years. So you're outdated before you get
11 started. It's going to be four years before the thing's ever
C 12 operational. I really feel like that we were snowballed,
13 people in other vicinities were snowballed, and you're being
14 snowballed. Because I'd almost guarantee you that it's going
15 to cost you twice what they're saying it's going to cost.
16 Thank you very much.
17 MAYOR NOLAND: Ms. Welsh, do you all plan, or try to
18 come to that workshop?
19 MS. WELSH: Well, I really can't understand. He said
20 that it was, you know, simple to answer these questions, but
21 he hasn't answered one tonight.
22 MR. HIRSEKORN: Well, I think I said it would take
23 two to three hours to go through, and we would like to have
24 some dialog. We would hope that there are some people that ---
25 MS. WELSH: Okay. But when I asked you these
117
C
3
1 questions, and.I have it on tape, I asked you if there was
2 going to be berms built around this, and you said no.
3 MR. HIRSEKORN: I said there were. I'm sorry if
4 I misunderstood you, but ---
5 MS. WELSH: I asked you at the time, and this is
6 two weeks ago, and you said you'd have your answers tonight.
7 I asked you at the time how far from my house are you legally
8 allowed to dump it, and you don't know. I've asked you a
9 dozen questions and you don't know the answer.
10 MR. HIRSEKORN: Well, some of the questions you asked
11 are specific to a site that's yet to be defined.
• 12 MS. WELSH: But you don't have anywhere else to go.
13 The only thing left in that valley out there is ditches.
14 The only thing left in there that is not flooded is ditches.
15 If you bought the whole 1400 acres, you couldn't use it.
16 MR. HIRSEKORN: Wednesday night we'll answer all
17 the specific questions.
18 MS. WELSH: I'll be glad to be there Wednesday night.
19 You're taking --- my house burned after I was married eighteen
20 months. Okay. I built that thing. I'd crawl into bed, into
21 a bed full of sheetrock, at two or three o'clock in the morning.
22 After working all day, I'd come home and work on my house.
23 And I was raised in a one -room shack. And I've worked my
24 fingers to the bone for what I've got, and you all are telling
25 me it's not worth anything. You're telling --- you told me
118
C
1 on tape that you are absolutely not buying houses or buildings.
2 Now, you guys have an estimated value of $1750 an acre, so my
3 property that I worked my fingers to the bone for is worth
4 $3500, three thousand five hundred dollars for a three -bedroom
5 two -bath home.
6 MAYOR NOLAND: Well, I think some of us will be
7 out there Wednesday night and hear some of this.
.8 MS. WELSH: Okay. I just really wanted you all to
9 understand that you haven't --- you haven't been told what it's
10 going to cost. You don't know. Thank you.
11 MAYOR NOLAND: John, you want to say anything else?
12 John Welsh?
C13 MS. WELSH: That was my son.
14 MAYOR NOLAND: David Pickle, Camp Paddle Trails,
15 Oklahoma Scenic Rivers, Watts, Oklahoma.
16 MR. PICKLE: It's been a very interesting evening,.
17 to say the least. I'd like to make a few comments, Mr. Mayor
18 and the Board. I would like to commend Jim for his work on
19 the land application and the attempts that he's been trying
20 to make. I would hope that the local farmers look at that
21 with great interest. They have everything to gain, as proven
22 with other projects throughout the country, if properly
23 implemented and maintained. The City of Watts now has a
24 land application project under construction that I hope will
25 prove its usability in the area, for we cannot continue to dump
C-
119
C
1 our sewage in our lakes and streams, destroying them and
2 everything around them also.
3 People of Beaver Lake, it is of most importance to
• 4 you to push for land application, as we on the Illinois River
5 have, for we will not allow any more effluent to be discharged
• 6 into the Illinois. River. The study done by the Oklahoma
7 State Health Department in 1977 stated that the Illinois could
8 no longer stand any more loading of phosphates or nitrates
9 which is being caused by the dumping of effluents from Rogers,
10 Springdale, Siloam, and Tahlequah. A new study, with final
11 reports out today, by the Oklahoma Department of Pollution
12 Control, as required by the EPA, states that the nitrogen
13 loading at 81 percent and phosphorus loading at 85 percent from
14 point sources. This has got to stop at all costs, while we
15 still have a river to work with. Allowing Fayetteville to
16 begin discharging any effluent into the Illinois River basin:
17 is totally out of the question, and we'll do anything and
18 everything possible to stop the dumping.
19 MAYOR NOLAND* That completes all the people that
20 signed cards, unless the Tedfords have come back in,
21 Gayle McKenzie, Larry Brown? Have any of those people come
22 'back? If net, then I think we're free to take other comments
23 from people that have not previously spoken, if you'd like
24 to come down and make a statement. Mr. Henson?
25 MR. HENSON: Mayor, I'd just like to say that
120
A
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18,
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I realize that you folks didn't create this problem; you've
inherited it. And I wouldn't want your job. I wouldn't have
it for anything. And you're not going to be able to make
everybody happy; I realize that. And you all just as well to
face up to it. I don't know what the hell you're going to do
about it, but you got a mess on your hands.
MAYOR NOLAND: Good summary, I think. Any other
comments? Any other questions? Bob, do you have anything
else you'd like to say?
MR. MAYES: No, Your Honor.
MAYOR NOLAND: I thought all of these comments might
have precipitated some other thoughts?
MR. MAYES: Are you baiting me, Your Honor?
MAYOR NOLAND: No, I'm asking for comment. You had
some good points there awhile ago.
MR. MAYES: I left on a sour note, probably, a moment
ago. But people that know me know I'm very sincere, Your Honor,
in what I believe. And I do believe that the people of this
Board are committed. I know you're good people. I know
everyone of you. I promised --- no, I didn't promise Don Grimes
that I'd speak ten minutes..He asked me to speak ten minutes.
The .fact i's, _I asked him to wade below that thing with me ---
I waded, he wouldn't go, so that should tell you something.
He was working for you. i appreciate the dedication. I know
you're concerned. But it is, as stated, one hell of a problem.
121
IA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And why take a stopgap measure? You have the people to contend
with; I realize this. You represent the people, and the people
don't want additional taxes. But someone's going to have to
bite the bullet somewhere. I love the statement, "Why do we
just have to continually meet the very minimum requirements?"
MAYOR NOLAND: Bob, I don't know if you realize
this, but this is the most stringent requirement that's ever
been put on a city in the State of Arkansas, this 5-5-2-1.
There are no other cities that have a cleaner effluent than this.
And I daresay there isn't a city in Oklahoma that has a cleaner
effluent than this.
MR. MAYES: The present one?
MAYOR NOLAND: No, the 5-5-2-1 that we're trying to
achieve is the most stringent requirement that's ever been put
on a city in Arkansas. No city has ever had more stringent
requirements put on their discharge. If we had our present
plant located in Fort Smith, we could continue to discharge
with our present effluent. But it's not in Fort Smith. It's
out here on the White River, so we have to clean it up.
Mr. Rupert, I think you had your hand up. Do you want to say
something? Could you come down to the microphone? They can't
pick you up on the television. You make a good appearance there
on T.V.
MR. RUPERT: The reflection off my bald head will
blind you. Just a couple of questions. You just got through
122
El
��
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
saying how clean this effluent is going to be. Why don't you
discharge all of it into Beaver Lake? Why do you have to
split it? It doesn't make sense to me.
MAYOR NOLAND: Because we cannot maintain the
dissolved oxygen content in the White River if we put all the
discharge in White River. If we split it, then we can get the
fall. We don't have that 130, 140 feet of fall that we'll have
on Mud Creek in White River. And that's part of our problem.
We turn it loose and it stops. But to get the oxygenation,
you've got to get this stuff coming down over the rocks, and
that 140 feet of fall is what'll give it.
MR. RUPERT: And it's impossible to aerate it
mechanically?
MR. NOLAND: You can aerate it and turn it into a
stream that has less oxygen than you already have, and what
have you gained? Right now, I don't even know if there's any
flow above our treatment plant, but I daresay we're turning
loose an effluent that has a higher dissolved oxygen content
than what's coming downstream into the plant.
MR. RUPERT: In other words, you're using Clear Creek
for a sewage treatment plant.
MAYOR NOLAND: No. We're using those rocks to put
oxygen in. That's what we have to do in order to meet the
stream standards that the State has given us.
MR. RUPERT: You're going to have to spell it out
123
1 a little clearer for ---
2 MAYOR NOLAND: Well, I'm a novice talking on this,
3 but maybe some of the engineers ---
4 MR. RUPERT: One other point. There's an old
5 Christian ethic that says, pay your own bills. Now you people
6 are proposing a sales tax. We're in the trading area of
7 Fayetteville. As a matter of principle --- I don't give a darn
8 about the money --- as a matter of principle, do you think I'm
9 going to continue to trade in Fayetteville continually to help
70 pay for something that doesn't do me a damn bit of good? I get
11 tired of people reaching into my pocket. It's bad enough you've
12 got your hand out all the time for government money, which is
C13 my money also. And I cannot understand why you won't accept
14 the principle, pay your own bills. You've made the public
15 statement, which I was very pleased to see, that you don't
16 want to pay for anyone else's sewage problems, and you don't
17 want anyone else to pay for yours.
18 MAYOR NOLAND: Mr. Lancaster, I think, made that
19 down here.
20 MR. RUPERT: Maybe so. Anyway, it was the best
21 statement I've ever seen on the subject. Why do you have to
22 hang the like of Fayetteville on the rural population? It's
23 bad enough you dump your solid waste on us. You have inflicted
24 this highway to nowhere on us. You've spent $200,000 trying to
25 put in a regional airport on the rural population. For
124
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
•10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
heaven's sakes, get off our backs.
MAYOR NOLAND: Let me ask you a question, Mr. Rupert.
Do you think Fayetteville should shut down our poultry
processing plant? Do you think we ought to shut down our
milk processing plant?
MR. RUPERT: I couldn't care less.
MAYOR NOLAND: Well, you're asking the rural
population, you're representing them, and all I'm doing is
saying as a citizen of Fayetteville, then we also have to
provide facilities for processing these agricultural products.
That's what we're doing in the city.
MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: They tried to stick us on that
airport.
MAYOR NOLAND: Well, not us. That's some oldtimers
behind us. We weren't involved in that, fortunately.
Jack, do you have another comment?
MR. WALTERS: Yes, I do. I think we seem to forget
that we've got floods in this area. And every time you have a
flood, you're going to have raw sewage going into both of these
places, and you know that. I just want to re-emphasize that.
I think you just made the statement that it wouldn't.happen,
but it will happen, and you know it. Under this system, it
will happen.
.MEMBER OF AUDIENCE. I've got one more thing I'd like
to say. I know that the city of Fayetteville --- I live in
125
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the country, but I know that the city of Fayetteville does have
a problem. But I think the mistake they're making --- I may not
live to see it, I'm sixty years old --- but I think in twenty
years that they're going to eventually go to the Arkansas River,
and the taxes are going to be so outrageous that people can't
I pay them.
MAYOR NOLAND: Here's another comment back here.
MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Mr. Mayor, I enjoyed the
statement you made awhile ago that when it comes to technical
terms in relation to this study that you are a novice. May I
remind you, sir, that you will be listening to the engineers,
but tonight at this hearing, or this open meeting, was for the
purpose of comments pro and con. I have not heard anyone
here from the City of Fayetteville support what is being
proposed by this study. And I hope that this is taken into
consideration.
MAYOR
NOLAND: Let
me answer
that.
This is the
third or
fourth
alternative
that we've
had a
public hearing on,
and I've
yet to
see a public
citizen come in
and support it.
I think
I told
the press, I
predicted
to the
press before the
meeting
started
that we would
not have
a single citizen come in
and support it.
MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: I would think that would tell
you that, the people of Fayetteville and surrounding areas are
not in favor of it.
126
�7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
• 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAYOR NOLAND: Well,, we've come here to hear the
comments, and we've heard the comments. You're making a good
point. I wonder where those people are, too, on the previous
two or three alternatives that we've concluded.
MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Mr. Mayor, what happened to the
alternatives when they worked for hours and suggested to have
the flow go to the Arkansas River? What happened to that plan?
How much money does it cost?
MAYOR NOLAND: it would cost the citizens of
Fayetteville about $30 million.
MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: And how much money did we
spend in studies? How many studies have we had?
MAYOR NOLAND: We've spent less than $30 million,
I'll say that.
MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: How much?
MAYOR NOLAND: Quite a bit less.
MR. JACK WALTERS:. [Inaudible to reporter.)
MAYOR NOLAND: But that's Fayetteville money I'm
talking about, Jack. We're talking about $9 to $10 million of
local money for this proposal, and we were talking about
$30 million of local money for the Arkansas River proposal.
MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Well, you know, you all lost
your money because of Hot Springs. That's exactly how the
people along Mud Creek and Clear Creek feel when all of a
sudden this was dumped on us, first time we ever heard about it.
127
C
1 MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: How much more money will it.
2 cost ten or twenty years from now?
3 MR. HIRSEKORN: I think just a point to make, the
4 Arkansas is one that would be very difficult to expand in
5 twenty years. When that pipeline capacity is utilized, you
6 essentially parallel it with another pipeline. And the $30
7 million local share was for a pipeline that would carry the
8 flow projected twenty years into the' future. The plan that
9 we proposed is one that's readily expanded, one that can be
10 expanded upon without having to duplicate and parallel existing
11 facilities. I think that's an important point to keep in mind.
12 MS. WELSH: You know, I can't understand why
13 Fayetteville, Rogers, Bentonville --- why don't you guys go
14 together and do something? Why can't you do that?
15 MAYOR NOLAND: We contacted those cities when we
16 first started studying that proposal, and they said they
17 weren't interested at that time in joining with us.
18 MS. WELSH: well, if you run into their drinking
19 water, they're going to have to do something.
20 MAYOR NOLAND: Are there other comments? Here's a
21 comment right here.
22 MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: I'm a resident of the city of
23 Fayetteville, first one I've heard tonight. Maybe I'm the only
24 one here. I'm not going to vote for that tax. What about
25 Campbell Soup and some of those folks? Are they going to
128
C
1 have to help pay?
2 MAYOR NOLAND: Certainly. That's what we've been
3 working on all day today.
4 MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Through their sales tax?
5 MAYOR NOLAND: Through their payments, for their
6 sewage treatment.. Like $40,000 a month•or something like that.
7 MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: What are they paying now?
8 MAYOR.NOLAND: I don't know what it is. Fifteen ---
9 twelve or fifteen ---
10 MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: [Inaudible to reporter.]
11 MAYOR NOLAND: Well, just as a rough figure, in five
12 years, we will need, with the sales tax, about a 33 percent
13 increase in total revenues. That is for operation and
14 maintenance, increased electric cost, and what have you. We're
15 expecting a 33 percent increase in total revenues that we have
16 to get from our user customers in someway. Of this 33 percent,
17 industry would cover some 53 percent, and residences would
18 cover about.42, something like that.
19 MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: [Inaudible to reporter.]
20 MAYOR NOLAND: Well, just looking at these rates,
21 the choice you might have, say if you're using 5,000 gallons
22 of water a month through your sewer system, your rates will go
23 from about $10 a month now to about $30 a month, if we go the
24 bond route. If we don't go the bond route, they would go
25
from $10 a month to about $13 a month. So you would have to be
129
C
El
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
spending somewhere in the neighborhood of over $1700 a month
just in retail sales to make up the difference. We worked
through examples today, and that's what --- in other words,
to get that $17,.the difference from $13 to $30, you would
have to spend $1700 a month in retail sales at one percent
to make up that difference. I don't know if there are other
examples, but ---
MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: I don't have very much money,
but I'd donate a thousand dollars if you'd take it to the
Arkansas.
MAYOR NOLAND: Director Lancaster.
DIRECTOR LANCASTER: I'd like to ask where all these
people were when we were fighting so hard to get to the
Arkansas.
MAYOR NOLAND: I don't know. Any other? Mr. Purdy?
MR. PURDY: I hope people can hear me. I've heard.
nothing but criticism tonight, but there is one person, one
citizen on your side. I'm highly sympathetic to the terrible
problems you're facing, and I'm glad you have it and I don't.
It causes me to be resentful when you work hard for a long
period of time to put something together and people do nothing
but gripe. Please forgive me. I didn't intend to say a word,
but you have one on your side.
MAYOR NOLAND:. Thank you.
MR. CLARK: My name is Kenneth Clark. I live at
130
A
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Wyman. In fact, I've got a farm that's in the proposed sludge
area. I've lived there all my life. I'm going to give you a
little bit of history of why we don't trust --- I remember
clear back in the days when Carl Smith was engineer. We had
problems. He would get on the news and in the paper and say
it was the farmers that put chicken litter and it washed into
the.river. Now, this came out in. the paper, and I'm sure residents
here will back me up on this. It hasn't rained in three months,
not very much, anyway, but that's where the trouble's coming
from. Then in the 1960's, they were going to build a new
sewer plant, the most sophisticated thing anywhere. We were
going to have some relief now. I believe that thing was
completed in 1964, and in 1966 we had one of the worst fishkills
we ever had. It never worked then, it don't work now, and it
hadn't worked any time since then. Now, I don't know if
history is going to repeat itself. I hope not. I realize you
people have put in a lot of work. • Your engineers have worked
hard. And the City of Fayetteville, you're down to your
last --- everything you put up somebody shot it down. This is
probably your last alternative. I realize that.
MAYOR NOLAND: We have one more.
MR.. CLARK: Well, I hope you use it.
MAYOR NOLAND: We can buy nine thousand outhouses
and scatter them out over the city of Fayetteville. That would
be one for about every four people. That would probably take
131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C -
care of our problem.
MR. CLARK: My point is, the reason you are criticized
is because we've lived out there. We know what happens. It's
not been told to us. We've seen it. We've lived there all
our life, and there's never been anything but a problem to us.
Sewage is going into Beaver Lake all the time. It has for
years. And when it's bad enough that it kills the fish, and
when it gets low like now --- I'll admit that it's better
right now than it usually is this time of year, but you wait
till school starts. It gets bad. I have to move my cattle
out, because they won't drink it. Now, that's the reason ,
you're criticized here tonight, is because some of the people
here know that. And your engineers, like I said, they've
worked hard, but they made two things up there that tells me
this won't work. One of them is the ADF, average daily flow.
That tells me there's going to be days .when it overflows and
it's going down into the drinking water just like always. The
other comment was, we're going to run it for two years, and
anything that is not monitored or regulated is not worth,
I believe you said two cents. I agree. And after two years,
I don't believe it'll continue to be regulated and monitored.
It hasn't been in the past. I hope it is. Thank you very
much.
DIRECTOR LANCASTER: I'd like to make a comment.
I vowed I was going to be. quiet tonight and not get involved,
132
11
LI
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
because I figured there would be some rocks thrown. But I want
to make a couple of comments on the sales tax issue. I'm a
director of the City Board, and I represent the City of
Fayetteville. I try to represent all the citizens. And I
for one --- I haven't said I was going to vote for the sales
tax either. But when I voted to put this issue before the
people on September, whatever date it is, I voted to give the
people a chance to them make the choice to tell me how they
want to pay this bill, because it's going to be paid by the
citizens of Fayetteville, one way or another. That is why
I voted for the sales tax.
MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Everybody in the rural area
is going to have to help pay for it.
DIRECTOR LANCASTER: That's exactly what I mean,
yes, sir.The citizens are going to pay for it regardless.
MR. CLARK: Well, we're stuck with it.
MR. RUPERT: We get nothing out of it.
MAYOR NOLAND: Mr. Clark, I think that's why we're
here tonight. We're trying to do something about it. I can't
guarantee you that in ten years it's going to be any better
than it is today, but I hope it is. The best engineering
expertise that we can find is telling us that they will
guarantee to operate this plant at a specified level for two
years, and that's in our operation contract.with them. We're
trying to do something about that area out there. I know it is
133
C
1 bad, maybe not as much as you people that live there, but we
2 know it's bad, and that's why we're trying to correct it.
3 And I hope we can. We're just working in that direction.
4 DIRECTOR LANCASTER: I'd like to enlighten them why
5 that two-year operation is in there, for the fact that this
6 Board wanted to be sure that when they spent this money this
7 time, that we got what we spent it for. And that's why we
8 asked for a two-year contract. If this facility will operate
9 for two years, it can be made to operate, then we have no
10 excuse for it not operating. That's why we said we must have
11 a contract that the plant will do what you tell us it will do
12 when you get through with it.
13 MS. WELSH: But you know that it's going to be
14 outdated in a few years. What are you going to do then?
15 MR. HIRSEKORN: When the capacity is exceeded,
16 as normal with wastewater or utility systems, it'll be expanded.
17 MS. WELSH: Where?
18 MR. HIRSEKORN: If we took 500 acres of land for sludg•
19 application now, and the City grew, or the population area
20 served grew at 2 percent a year, we would need to expand that
21 sludge acreage 2 percent a year at the end of the twentieth year
22 MS. WELSH: Yeah, but where are you going to go
23 with it?
24 MR. HIRSEKORN: We talked about a mixed system of a
25 dedicated land site and a program to encourage and to work with
C
134
C
R
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
farmers to use the sludge.
MS. WELSH: Well, can't you do that right now?
Can't you all let the farmers have it as much as they want,
along with your sludge dump? You could cut it in half. You
may not even have a sludge dump.
MR. HIRSEKORN: We may very well cut it in half,
and in fact, that's what we talked about, that we're going to
be talking about on Wednesday night. We may not want to put
600 acres on a dedicated site. Maybe half that amount, with
the balance of the sludge ---
MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Why any of it? Why not just
do it with trucks and be done with it?
MR. HIRSEKORN: We want to evaluate that alternative.
I think we pointed to two problems, one being that there is
lack of control of where that material goes and its impact,
and secondly, there's a question about whether there's enough
land area that's in need of sludge within a reasonable haul
distance to take care of the sludge on a year-round basis.
But again, on Wednesday night, we'll discuss that in detail.
And we really have been responsive to the concerns that have
been raised, and as we pointed out, we're in the early phase
of the planning, and look forward to addressing these questions
that have been raised. Most of them are very simply addressed.
But we'd like to have dialog so that when we address them and
give the answer, the person who may have concern can continue
135
1 the dialog. Because the answers are pretty simple. Most of it
2 is just misunderstanding some of the data, some of the
3 information, some of the regulations.
4 MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: My concern now is, I don't -know
5 how the Board takes action,when they will decide. Is it after
6 the tax vote, or several more meetings like this, that you
7 decide what you're going to do?
8 MAYOR NOLAND: We will have to look at the comments
g that have been made tonight, both the written comments and
10 the written things that come in between now and whenever it is,
11 the 19th of August, and look at the response that the engineers
12 are making to these questions, and the objections that have
13 been raised, and just evaluate and assess them, whether we
14 want to go ahead and proceed.
15 MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Well, you have been told by
16 several groups represented here tonight that they will fight -
17 you to the limit. How far will you fight?
18 MAYOR NOLAND: We've been told that in every proposal
19 that we've made. When we proposed to go to the Arkansas River,
20 we had people tell us they'd fight us to the limit there. We
21 said we'll have a split flow and go to the Illinois, and they
22 told us the same thing on that. So here we are again tonight
23 with a third alternative. You know, we've heard all this before,
24 and we know that whatever we do --- if we buy the nine thousand
25 outhouses, we'll have people fight us. So we're in
136
CA
c:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(that situation.
MS. WELSH: Well, you all have a map there that shows
1400 acres. Some of these farms are like 300 -acre farms, and
you all are proposing to take only their flatland and leave
them a mountainside. You can't do that.
MR. HIRSEKORN: Again, we don't have specific plans
to take any portion of property.
MS. WELSH: Well, okay, but again I'm telling you
that your 510 acres you've got mapped out there is all there is
[inaudible to reporter.] So if you take their flatland and
you leave them 200 acres of mountainside, how can you do that.
You told us on tape, again, that you're not going to pay for
the whole farm. You're just going to take the good land.
MR. HIRSEKORN: I think you misunderstand what I said.
We didn't intend to take parts of the farm and just leave the
high land. We said that we didn't want the floodplain because
it was not usable.
MS. WELSH:. Well, what are they going to do with it?
MR. HIRSEKORN: Well, that doesn't mean we're going
to cut somebody's land in two and only buy part of it.
MS. WELSH: Every piece of that property that you've
got, you've sot a farm. You've got every farm in that vicinity.
MR. HIRSEKORN: That's taking a boundary literally.
We didn't intend that to be the specific property that we
intend to take or buy or whatever. it was intended to show
137
11
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
how many
acres
and
relatively
how it
would
overlay over that
piece of
land.
It
wasn't an
intent
to try
to divide property
along a boundary.
MS. WELSH: Well, okay, but still you're in a
position where you only have 500 acres [inaudible).
MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: If I understood you right, did
you say that this is a tertiary treatment if it's done this way?
MR. HIRSEKORN: Yes. This what we call advanced
waste treatment or tertiary step. It's one step beyond the
secondary treatment.
MAYOR NOLAND: Are there any other questions or
comments?
MR. COLE: I'd just like to say one thing, first of
all. If I came on too harsh tonight, I apologize. I realize
you do have a problem, and certainly you realize that we don't
want to have your problem pumped our way. Something has been.
said here that I think should have been brought up earlier,
about the use of the sludge. A major network just about a
week ago had a late evening one -hour program pointing out the
problems. We saw some pictures in California where the sludge
was being applied. That has now become a major problem,
according to, the EPA and other agencies, because the food
that's coming from California, major production areas out there
now are being warned about it, that it's being poisoned with
with heavy metals. I think it was ABC that ran that program.
138
J
C
N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We have a videotape of it. This is a dangerous situation.
So just this one thing. Again, I don't want to belabor the
matter. I don't think you can speak of the Bible too much.
But the Bible very clearly points out that in the Last Days
one-third of the people will die of poisoned water. That's
the Book of Revelations, 8th chapter, I believe. So this
could seriously be considered, you know. The Bible has always
been right, and man has never been right, so I think now that
our major networks are looking into the serious situation of
this stuff being applied to the land, we should stand back
and take a real serious look at that.
MAYOR NOLAND: Any other comments? Well, if not,
we appreciate your patience and appreciate your being here.
Thank you very much.
[The public hearing was adjourned.]
139
C
WRITTEN COMMENTS
1. Arkansas Department of Health
2. Association for Beaver Lake Environment
3.
Beaver
Lake
Coalition
4,
Beaver
Water
District
5. Johnny Bowen
6. Winfield Guist
7. Mrs. Alvin Luther
8. Oklahoma Department of wildlife Conservation
9. Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission
10. Scenic Rivers Association of Oklahoma
11. Sierra Club, Oklahoma Chapter
12. Mr. & Mrs. Nolan L. Smith
13. Wyman Community
14. Wyman Community
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
4815 West Markham Street
Little Rock
• McClelland Consulting Engineers,
„ P.O. Box 1229
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72702
August 22, 1983
C
Inc.
ln"
RE: 201 Facilities Plan
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
EPA Project llo. C -050366e01
84 E 27-3
Gentler..^.en:
We have completed our review of the final draft copy of the referenced project
and in part, concur with its conclusion, more specifically as follows.
1. We concur that the proposed ''White River Split Flow Plan is,
at this time, probably the most economical and most expedient
plan to improve the current discharge inadequacies.
2. We concur that the proposed White River Split Flow Plan can
be and should be accomplished with the flexibility to allow
the construction and operation of components necessary if a
regional pipeline project to the Arkansas River is ever
Implemented. This office feels that a regional system is
the rest environmentally acceptable approach and that consid-
eration toward such a project be given the highest priority
In future planning as well as further consideration at this
ec.
time.
The proposed White River Split Flow Plan,., does, however, present several areas
of concern with this office as listed below,
1. This plan will substantially reduce the nutrient levels dis-
charged into the White River and subsequently into Beaver
Lake. Howevw.C, the proposed seasonal discharge permit
limitations allowing higher nutrient level discharces in the
:-'•
winter months seems inappropriate. This office feels that .
with a plant design as proposed, it would be practical and
environmentally advantaceous to practice and maintain the
best possible treatment capabilities the year round.
2. Lake Francis, Siloam Spring's water supply, has shown in recent
rr.
sarrplinq, an increasing potential for trinalomethane (1t41)
.
kr
'ti14
j1A
_
McClelland Consulting Engineers
84 E 27-4 2 Auc,ust 22, 1983
formation, We are concerned that this tendency will, in the
near future, present a problem for the Siloam Springs water
system in meting the Maximum Contaminant Level for THM's,
particularly with the added nutrient loading proposed in this
:::..• facility plan. ,;, ...
3, This office feels that consideration should be given by the
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology towards
establishing a discharge limit for total nitrogen in addition
• to ammonia -nitrogen. Also, a cost evaluation should be pro-
vided for the addition of a-denitrification process to the
proposed plan.
4. This office does not have any experience with the A/0 type
biological nutrient removal process and we are not aware of
any plant in Arkansas utilizing this process. Sufficient
operational data is needed to ensure the process is capable
of meeting the discharge standards. The facility plan
indicated that the discharge limitations can be met by a
properly designed and operated facility. However, the City
of Fayetteville has had operational and/or design deficiencies,
which have lead to periodic hazardous conditions created by
i the discharge. This office is concerned that operational
complexities and the lack of expertise, as well as sewage
quality and quantity variations, could lead to similar
undesirable conditions.
5. This office does not feel we can approve the open discharge
to Mud Creek. The planning commission has supplied us with
population projections that indicate the general area of -the
discharge will be one of the leading residential growth areas
for the City of Fayetteville. We feel 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.
b. The sludge management plans should be further addressed.
This office cannot approve some of the concepts contained in
the facility plan. As a mini\^.um, the proposed aerobically
digested sludge should he ultimately disposed by land appli-
cation with frttorporation or burial restricted to an area
above the flood plane.
In addition to the above comments and concerns of this office, the following
priority ranking of the various viable alternatives is presented for your
consideration,
1.2
Y•
McClelland Consulting Engineers
84 E 27-4 3 August 22, 1983
RANK ALTERNATIVES
1, Regional System (Fayetteville & Springdale)
.VL ..
with secondary treatment to the Arkansas Tt"
River will eliminate discharges to Beaver =4=.
Reservoir and Lake Francis.
2. Fayetteville with secondary treatment to
the Arkansas River will eliminate discharge
to Beaver Reservoir.
• 3. Advanced Waste Water Treatment - Single
plant with split flow to Mud Creek and
White River - compromise will partially
eliminate discharge to -Beaver.
We would appreciate any comment, response, and/or questions you may have
concerning this matter. We are retaining this report for our files.
When submitting correspondence pertaining to this project, please include our
reference number 84 E 27-4.
Sincerely,
T. A. Skinner, P.E.
Chief Engineer
oil
Division of Engineering
• `• tea
TAS:LG:jp
cc: Mr. Dick Wittincton, Regional Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 6, 1201 Elm Street, Dallas, TX 75270
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
Mr. Don Grimes, City Manager, P.G. Drawer F, Fayetteville, AR 72701
Mr. Don Bunn, City-E-ncineer, City of Fayetteville ✓
Jerry Hill, R.S, Director, Bureau of Environmental Health Services
• '. .h
..N.
. 1'lvl . .
1.3 2^
August 15, 1983
City Engineer's Office
P. 0. Drawer F
Fayetteville, AR 72702
COMMENTS AT THE PUBLIC HEARING
MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 1983
Fayetteville, Ark.
In the Tulsa World for Sunday, August 14th, there was an interesting
article - "Fresh Water: Natural Resource Issue of the 80s." In this was a
discussion of the legal aspects of the use of water in adjoining states and
the impact of polluted water as well as the loss of water from the Ogallala
Aquifer.
The points made in this article are germane to the problems we face
here in Northwest Arkansas. The current Fayetteville program for a split -flow
alternative for their disposal of waste into both the White River and the
Illinois River as outlined in the 201 Facilities Plan is quite acceptable to
the Association for Beaver Lake Environment (ABLE) of which I am a member
of the board of directors.
However, it should be pointed out that by the year 2000 - only 17
more years - all of Northwest Arkansas will be involved in a serious problem
equal .to the present Fayetteville problem because of population growth.
In a recent communication to the members of ABLE, this paragraph
was included:
"Beyond any doubt, a Regional Collector System approach with a
common pipline for treated wastewater to the Arkansas River
is the most feasible and logical solution for meeting the
future needs of Northwest Arkansas. This would remove the
greatest single pollution source from Beaver Lake as well
as greatly benefit other water resources of this area. What
better time to pursue this than now while Local, State, and
2.1
-2-
C
Federal Officials are fully aware of the need. Public
backing is a necessity for a joint effort of this
magnitude. A pipeline of sufficient size to meet
growth requirements of all the towns and cities of
this area could be jointly financed and installed along
the newly procured right-of-way for the U.S. 71 highway
and bypasses. This would enable an early -start program
with savings that could be counted in the millions of
dollars.''
We feel that a joint community effort would be, long-range, the
best possible solution to this problem.
Jr
2.2
L`l FY
j a'
pH
A/\9 'cc9 �-i /AILJ
t II 17J3
• RECEIVED,
AUG221983"y
i -c Ord •-
L:1-Q.fi C1I Gr I�TPALLE.,;;} .
_3
(L%
L C j f�
!i... I/L.C c1/`Z'.iC�C/J �C.C�fi\l"\t C-��• ���Qi J'tX_�J -.`-
3.1
I,
"'"i
<r Fayetteville City Council:
Dear Citizens:
ile, the Seaver Lake Coalition, who ":ere able to attend. the
Aug. 15th. meetin? would. li;_e to add these t'__ou^-hts to our alread;.r
vocal cor:pla.ints.
1. First of all, I want to conrrradul<te you. on nro'ucing a
plan of action to upgrade your facilities, in as ;.nzch ..s it is
10 to 20 years p�.st due.
r\ \ ,..r'; on ♦ nd as i a_' `n l \T a ♦`: -1 s
2. oecon �l.r I want to .≥o record �.._ he: -..ti_., e___ oz i .::.
the Split -flow progra�: out of fair:^e.s to the torso?1♦' 5y of the
area. - Nud gees- sho tld carry at lest half the burden, as the
White River has ca.rr-ied it all for 20 yerr-.
3. The ne'waste ^mater tre^.tr_.ent fz.ci li ties shc--:U be fancied
an built on a health-erner7ency basis -PR0'?I0I.:w tlr:.t the 5.
proposal — sludge and land aprlic^.tio , can be :'i':Cii B fro'a the
;!hire :ever • Baser. forever.
This sludge dumpin; proposal iS iN:3-&1.i an a i c: the tot^.l focus
f of Our concern. The fra.ileTalc'"a subsoil men.ti oned by :-r. i ill2ird
if r his attached
.tt.- h e which
. - fi .... fro.- the t..'?.sh.in to
qi i._ ��.uU_:e_i'_c. letter, ti°,.._i..:. he identifies _..
'`J � =''69, el ?r Ci`n'.:'C G�: ar.Y36
County Soil purvey published in _, --�
that the entire tret.tr.:ent plant area co t^i^s soil of the worst
possible nt ture for E. satur i.tion—t;; pe slu. '_ e d n. This in f or:.tion
would be a serious omission on the part of your encineers, .even
it '^ere not on theban'.a of the +l?ite River and 51d.not now pass
directly into Beaver Lake. •
On behalf of the 100,000 citizens who hone to d.rini: pure :'-:ter
fro Beaver Lalre for the nest 50 yertrs, I i-:plore you to move
this sludge duniin Dlctn to hiTher ground, f=ar re?• oved from the
ihite River Basin a-, ?ervc:r Lr:l.e. I furcLer i_:plore \:Tou to
cleru preC .-....0, e t ♦ ec and
r T the _l. il-."�.t -�.:te V�h tr V' nt p ant city d1J '.p,
so tht they do not continue to leach into the Mute -=1`ic:r ':nd -
Beaver Lake the accunu1•'.ted sins of the 1'st 2? years. ...:.
Yo';.r er: i _e :r -ro.TY _cs left a rre:.t des]. to be desired, as
their nn' lid. relc tionc effort o ei :hed their tec iaal ez}1~.rition
"La^0 C'^Sn of ul'lri -e cov nit'- d.1 ac -es ^.n.: ^ ati.r�a" I- n9. ^.nr.1'c.^.tion
♦ 1•e s .T'r O•- -. `— ♦:: ��70-: :: ( b(-iln - On1. t_ '.O t _ 0 ..:1 - _n] ., ..t'it .On..
•�
3.2
L•'
{
The map you rresented sho,:ed the tonogrzchy of i;ud ,reek
Cwell
enough, but co:pletely ignored. the White -Liver an& eairer
'Lake, which directly abutt the present facility.
There is no serious ruestion as to the fact the present
facilities ^n'. surrounding. fannlar_ds are in the 100 year flood
plain as to the farmer-nei hbor-witness at the Au.1 hh. meetin^,
and the fact of the :rater line on John Banks Jivil `ar en brick
f;
house in the 'irnian con unity, ;._ where I personal?.Tr s^.cr the ground
floor warped and rotted by obvious water damage at some list?.^t
date, easily some 40 feet above the current vhite Liver level
an:'. in full flood st•. �e chest —deep over the enaire mile •rude
White River bottom —lands:
Harrison suffered such a flood in 1962, Clinton, Ark in 1^.•83.
If the Fayetteville White 11iver Bottoms suffered such a do^:n—snout
w.'p.t r:ould becc^e of the 500 acres of ad?.ition^1 sled -e or the
40 acre sTh.dze "Lagoon" or t'^e present facilities??
Mr. Tom it-illard, whose persona.?. letter an m.np docunents are
enclosed, spent 31 years in the Soil Conservation Service an: has
Cnose
for 7 years tausht Geology and Geo r^thy at = orth err.. Jo'.
College here in Harrison. Please see his enclosed •r.varn'_nr-s.
T;r. Bob Jook lil;er:ise spent 37 yearn .:!it=: the SCS in the
Ozarks flegion and testifies in the enclosed letter to his
myriad crarinings about the proposed facility plan ar_d its potential
for harm to the entire Ozarks 'eater table. Please readhis letter.
Last but not least, let me offer as expert witness my minister,`
Dr. Lloyd Taylor of the First Christian Church of Harrison, who on •.
a fishing trip last year, caught fish so diseased at your end of
Beaver Lake that he refused to throe; them back, for fear they should
suffer more or spread the•dise::ses they car.-ied. His testimony and
that of many other vitally concerned citizens of this area will
hopefully rally under ours and other ecolo�*y banners as these
problems are shared as is o.iir .drinking water.
3 -
.
C-
Another area of profound suspicion vrts t'_,e nroiected
gro'Arth notential of Eayett. ville. Sure1- the citir father: ust
expect much more sectacular growth than the projected fim?.res.
Does the 37,5J0 present fir7u_re ircl:,ide t!_•. 16,000 student, or
are they si7p1:r "trr-nsients" who live t,ler-: for Q months?
?till cot the school 'nd ares. ?non to more than the projected
65,0)0 people in 20 years? Everyone kno:•:s the grorat'h rotential
of the _ayettevil' e— Sprin�'ale U'eggaplex onto the Tontito n
r -_-..plain is: inevitable — rr? e e e -i11 their vraste fio? _ .
•
• Martha I;_ilburn and Lucille Ro;::lanJ attended the meetinc as
life long. Audubon Society observers; they '.-nor: boy, import^nt
pollution of our eevironment is to the bir4.s =.nd anirals, to
say nothinz of its effects on us himans - they asL me to also
• express their HORROR at the sludge disposal positinr of this plan.
• Mr. Jorge Oregon drove the 90 miles to rays tevi1_e ::ith
• his 4 lovely daughters to expre::.s hi£. concerts for R re •?a.t?r.
Their are members of the Seventh Jar :i3Iren'_i_st ihin_•ch, =.n' their
church is studying the effects of impure foods and vnt r at the
Loma Linda Research Project in Jalif. ',:'here sci:ntistc are
• finding that Cancer is erid.em.!ic because of our eatii:. and
drinking IMPURE foods anr': .,ester.
• In conclusion, let me include a colt of !;r "Parable of
Eureka 3princs" poer., for the-essa-e is very r: al for Payettevill(
as it is your drin -in- crater I O`,'i ; .
J1
^ Gre141 -\
�/
Save Beaver Lake Coalition
IT Ji':-iller, -' -.1hairman
cc EPA
Ark. RCE
Beaver Lake Aut.
Boone -Carroll 'Viater
sovenor :lin
State Health Dept.
John Paul 'Iazmersc?•?•:j.dt
Veta Sheid
Bob ;,:ayes
3.4
L .A.'
il..
a.
THOMAS T. MILLARD
CONSULTANT SERVICES
NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORIES
HARRISON, ARKANSAS
72601
Phone: 741 -4415
• Soils -Interpretation
•Soil Percolation Tests • Real Estate
• Subdivisions Feasibility Data • Farrn& Rar-ch Land
• TSI - Timber Stand Improvement • Unimproved Lands
• Mineral Research
ism
(I
/tc74 ( Lar2 ci�nC[ l�Gi�� C�f� ,���c
£a.lCv 5t /orn ,ULiti �/ 0
if Icy, S-
_ & 4 L
flu
3.5
THOMAS T. MILLARD
CONSULTANT SERVICES
NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORIES
HARRISON, ARKANSAS
72601
Phone: 741 -4415
• Soils -Interpretation
• Soil Percolation Tests
• Subdivisions Feasibility Data
• TSI • Timber Stand Improvement
• Real Estate
• Farm & Ranch Land
• Unimproved Lands
•Mineral Research
AurtiaJ £,we
04 h'1 C7' , /22tcrt
0 [�Cr S
O� L�[�Ln /CiGJ-YYJ,wti.LLA-LiCr �C et-GC�-cz (/tl�.� v,�1 aovol/
te
LGt'i[�. &sci ,gin.?` &tiaJL Ccue4
LL 4
/A rL (r )&4'S 4tLLO4-%4.
mat -'
&r .Q �A,,u iL ,lei
0 GI
`7)a/r , , fl £C. . 4 a W.
THOMAS T. MILLARD
CONSULTANT SERVICES
NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORIES
HARRISON. ARKANSAS
72601
Phone: 741 -4415
'Soils. Interpretation • Real Estate
• Soil Percolation Tests • Farm & Rar.ch Land
• Subdivisions Feasibility Data • Unimproved Lands
• TSI- Timber Stand Improvement
•Mineral Research
tt 4
PJoxnl Gm c1 c4oL-p Qru,�2t .�.ta ah LIt
• O
4d ,L qou
kflck CSI, Le'n1 • r tk:
/th- 2wjocc1&Lr- ,f IL Matt LI1i�vfyGzz a
£A 4ccrz1rA&t%L SS— Phi
,
V
.14 U-s-/?�cU+t &i , IALsaKA 4x.
CC Gtr �� /C �,,,�� r� fI Ct
C,? t vrruz C Crni -crv- /L s &, AZIC-0;
r j1 '1 c%e, ,lam/ CcV1J At ZL
3.
C
IC -
p
��*^.� _ i L¢ "~�- Ta rrr• ••� moo.'
• a, ToA - R4
;__-•• • + •' `• .- to ) dumn • _ •/.
' SIC2 - . .IL2
... S _: _
�' ' SS02-
).. SW? 1)50I SSAffri
.c�.N,. W. ti•... 8"T><a6 Sn ::. a'c'l+-'�:s lC+. h S 'fi *f`
yTJ,•��"ii: .Y, v}, .;'.MoDrcsQ.� ....
7 j t
< I r
SnI
i- /:r ?7 t ' � SSA . 1; C. 1 � , 1 S. A y c.••
-r ' TaA ;_...J;.. Sn
a' -r ♦-.ii` `_ Sd � .rim (((�p�J • Ta
•
i.• S1 Vi'; J..•. `� r , / ••fir
&. O SSA • J'
p LkC2 • ♦.ems.' _ ...Ta • 5n '� ' d
T •%�>StL .y Cn
>9" Ba
' .:. _ — .:. p. ,.'.: .,_ ` ToB
' r ICTC it .,.EJ fjr�' •- ,�; :•i�.> i '�: {.::::p4 Q.F4 AE A •n
,C IIr.I1pYRY6F.{ti�� .r'
i ) . x;�•, �J ♦ �a S T CA Y jr• )
••••
) 1r..` �-}� ,r.-4 �' , J. Sri - Jo r-
ir
• t\' ^K�)�. •. [. •.�•, TY _t_r. 'y0. G .••.f4� !!* •�?/j� )
LFC2 1 •s'fi•.. V .� ;Ft. yi ruµ J
F : tiw� • of ' -? . F.K ...� •:w- _ »L' ��
. •fti. • i ...-/ . Ir' Gcttt Tr- EaL' >�, - '.; Jl.•i f • i.. ..�.^L
•,•:>2 . •'.ErF z.•(.t ...'.:'•.: _ .. ... Y.r • r kl, Su
• Try ry, r .'\ _ .` .•.• a" .. Y"•.-. •v ` • EIF � a
E ISM
ri)'•'YY I SIE)5.L r r t ^ ♦ J.. , JoI.
1'cr:: -, ..i.
)
3.8
__ 64 SOIL SURVEY .T-^• .,.
TAul,r: a.—Engrneerin
I
--. -. l . Snilahilily :n.,,niceaf— - •• '
- _: tinilahililc for
Soil and amp symbol j winter grading
Road subcrade 'Topsoil ttrit,•I :;
• - and fillI
.. ... 1o:•. 4-r:, ..:,.,..:.. i .....
.. _ „ .. .: ..gip
Sogu (So) ._.__.. - ----------------------------------------Poor -Poor__-- Poor -_ ., l iond.__:5:_L��:
.. - Summit: ••: -:•:. -
Silts clay (Sp. SsA, SsB. SsC2, Ss D2) -------------- Poor: high Pour -...- ._ Ynor - Pilor...ct
1 shrink -swell •-�
-.:-.: ... . . .. potential. .T•r:e
Stony silly cl:p• (StD2. stc2) __________________. _..... .-_ Poor: high I'oor Poor _ .. Fair ._-
• " . Hshrink-suvll
..: •.• pol rue i:d-
•..T:iloka(Ta. ToA TOB)-_-___J-I -LLe__C_____ ------ I':Iir-__-___ - Poor. I'nor Poor
t
¢.ik
f� G� ,�aT 4-,e"
ity index. The clay mineralogy indicates no serious limit:(- not high, and both profiles have a low plasticity index.
tiontoits use asengineeringmaterial. Samr.nrrnh. silt loan. —Savannah soils arc similar i
Johnsburg silt engineering
soils are somewhat Johnsburg soils except that they are moderately we
poorly drained and have a fragipan. They formed in silty drained.
material. As shown in table G, the mineralogy of the two profile
Vermiculite and kaolinite are the dominant clay min- suppled is essentially a mixture of vermiculite and k:
erals. As shown in table 6, profile 7-2-1 contains slightly olinite. Vcrnnculite is dominant in the soars clays of pro
more kaolinite than profile 12-1G and less montmorillonite file i3-2. and kaolinite is the more abundant in the. coax.
and interlayered vermiculite and montmorillonite in its clays of prolile 72 Illite. interlavered vermiculite au
medium and fine clays. The content of expanding clays is ill e, and rplartz make up the rest of the coai_Cl;)
.l?=c:
t•
.un,r: G. —( ft, g nrinernloi
• r:
(Dashed liure utc:
_.-- ...... I--..
l Gin,
silt (5 to 2 micruus)
Cuarsc chic
(2 mieruus l0 0.2 micron
I
Depth
.
Soil Sample nu ether
Horizon
from
'
surface
Pererul-
1'rreonl-
""
age of
\ lim•ra l,,gs'
og,• of
- \liuernlogt
I
1 stiiiplr
s:Illlplo
;•_-,"`
I
I
In.
Allen loans. S -03 -.ark -72-12-1
Ap
II -S
4.6
£O percenq t u:iri z, I.i
pre-
- 4.9
40 percent kaoliniie, 2:,
i
c,•ul illit,•, 3 prrcrni
.
percent. illilr, 211 per-
:
kanliuitr, 2 ....whit
cent tormirnlile, I:,
'
!
patu.h (4-h1-p:n.
percent quartz.
•-
S -Oa -Ark -i-_'-12-4 `$^_26
2!)-39
4_i
SO..,•rerun Ipiarl'r.,
I:. per-
14 a
45 prm•ut k:wliuitr, all
I
erne. illilr, 4 prierot
percent terulivnlitr, I:
kaoliuitr, I prrcrni
percent iililr, S perern
lmlash feldspar.
_ •
gllari z., 2 p,rern6 gihh
sill.
S-lia-:\4-k-72-l2-:i
C
39-4.:
5. S
Sit prrrruI gnari,
12 114-1-
12.11
40 prrcrni kaolinitr, 30
cl•n1 i Il ill, :, prrrruI
prrcrni tern ticuli I e,
k:odiuiir, 2 prrcrut
pertrut. it lily, S peewee
l
polish fr•Id=par.
I per-•
gnariz, 2 prrrruI. ulna
crnl pea giortla•
uinrilluulte, 2 prn•out
frids1, .
gihhsita.
-
• .-
...,..,'— ......r ��
3.9..
:>.:....:�..;,..-,,
_°4-;a ..-
_
J
R-ASIII\GTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS
;, ,ywidnunsnil in tied
•.. .. .... Soil fr':Ihur_.:dfrctiug--
F:ulu pond$
- L:nld Ir\'141118
'
:\,Y.I'ividllll':Il
frl'il:nlilln •rr•I,:IrI', :tad
- -- -
dr:nll:IRI.
Ili%ersiolls
`.,Ito Svrvnir:ima -I 1•:ulhnukun•ut :
,... =.
shallow over Rucks; limited hnr- I Slopes; rucks; slut!-
1aassrc dr:linc :lg. '
Poor agricultural ! Shallow over ..' '
;:.irks:
bedrock, row Il material. low over bedrock.
I
soil. 1 bedrock; forks.
I
\u limiting fratun,._Late sLrpagr, rata.; Sloprs loo sterP in
Vow slow prnnl:- �
1
Pine texture; � 11 igh shrink -swell
slopes.
i low strength and places. -
ability; pundiitg
slopes. potential;
. I
slabdity,
-4- ill k -i•l arras. i
r ` s:
tlllilailtr. rvatilres._ la,w sevpa4if rate; .logos, Stolle`____-__
\IIIIh ratlil' good
SII'I. , stoics; stones__ Steep 5111 It'4; Light
I - I I 6
No
low 5I 1'I;Ilglll :IIId
Il l':I I I I a gt:. I
I skirt 1111-5U ll
polcul Lill; sl oac7.
sLunn
'-i limiting fratnrcy-_ Lnw soipagn into; \Inn ads or gentle
\1a'y dluw pcnne-
\lonuds or gentle I \founds or grutle
{.
ill ill
low $t rrugth and j sLglr3 in places.
Chili a.y.
slopes Illacos. slopes piacl•�.
' - st:lbilit.v.
fraction in each There arc sigfiifieault auunmts of
tilt, soils of \1-:Is1liurtuu Cunutv for selected uullf:trul n c-.
profile.
or interlavered vermiculite and tnont.tno-
The degree of limitation
reflects all the features of a gncu
tunntmorillonite
in the medium days. Amorphous material and
soil, to a depth of 5
feet. that affect a particular use. 1-rly/
rillonite
are dominant in the him clays. The con-
.slight indicates that
tlicre is fill lifiutation or that the litiurt-
Cnnitmorillonite
of expanding clays is about 10 percent.; hence, the
tlon is fiuuor amt very
emits overcome; shy/it iii'ir:u
•nt.
is high
that. the limitation
is nut set -Hills and is easily uvercvute:
III:1-1 icily index not
vtrldrruh; indicates
that the liuutattoi _enerally eau be
Uses of the Soils
Corrected be practical
im•alus:.,'eecre, that. the hniitatiolk is
11OIlfarm
dillicult to oyerc'IIIC
and teas severe, that the use of the
'fable i, 70, the degree and kind of liiititatiou of
Soil for a pai titular
purpose generally is impractical.
p. gives
of selected soils
abscuce of datal
M cdinm etas (0.2 to 11.01 niic rot)
I'•a'erul agi
of Minerdngy
S:I1111111;
7. 4 70 perccut anmrlolunls umtcrial,
'!11 perccut k:utiiuiti•, 10 pi'rceol:
illite.
lie :i 4.i peace fit intrtslra(ifird crrmicn-
lite :utd uloutuunillnuite, 33 I,
perccut :uuorplimis matt rial, I0:
perccut illitc, 10 perce 1L
kaoliuite.
'. 1 45 pereiut iulrnlratified vermicu-I
Iii c:tiul nuns uuni lluuito, 411
Perceui. :uuurphun$ ul:u,ri:d, I11'
prIt-vot illi1r, -I pvIcrut j
kauli oil e.
Fiuc clay (h•ss Ijut,, 0.01 micron)
Percentage
of \Iiner:dcgy
sample
l) - ---------
i
`!. G 45 perccut ntoutntorillunitc,
40 perccut autorphotls
material, IU percent
verutiruliie :and umul-
niorilluuitc, 5 percent illite.
.4 45 prret ilt moot inn Iillnuiti,
30 percent :uuurphuua
nut! -riat. 211 peret fit. intcr-
ot :Ilili, d vrrnliculib' nod
maul m„rilluw lr, .I peredit.
I illitc.
TM:d!
Calculated
Percentage .
per-
cal ion- 1
of fare -
centnge
cxchmlge
Iron Is
of etlty
I Capacity of i
Fe,lla
clay
fravtion
in
i](Q1tib Qlll.
.- .
I'!. -
-______________
1.4
15. ^_ 44
19.5 43
2.1
20
3.10
723 :Jest South Avenue
Harrison, AR., 72601
8-18-83
Fayetteville City Council
Fayetteville, AR., 72701
Dear Gentlemen:
I retired as a Soil Scientist; U.S.D.A. on 9/24/74 after 37yrs.sery
Thirty yrs. ago I began service in Northwest Arkansas with most of previous
service in adjoining area to the South -in Water & Soil Conservation. I am a 1937
graduate of the University of Arkansas as well as one daughter, two son -in-laws
and more recently two grand daughters graduated with Honors.
ttth less than a weeks notice and mindfull my water bill doubled
here past two months due to Boone -Carroll Water Districts anticipated cost- I
attended your Council meeting of the 15th instant. To begin please pardon my
brief summary and suggestions on this enormous problem.
a. Lengthy, repeateous,indefinite answers and lack of knowledge of local physical
factors and state laws by the imported engineers 'as disgusting to the layman
and to this former technician. Perhaps the engineers were not allowed to
present alternative plans.
b. In the real world of industry and factory waste disposal --pray tell me how
the plants and industry stop(cease) disposing toxic, synethic, inorganic poisonous
e. ."cadmium" by a directive from city Mayor,is hard to believe.
c. Chemical treatment plants have not been known to remove the above mentioned
deadly subances. What about a local citzen contracting Hepatitis in upper Beaver
Lake in recent months? Maybe you have not heard about a minister from here
catching fish in upper Beaver Lake this year with so many sores that he used the
fish for flower fertilizer. In the 1970's I know the Arkansas and Missouri labors
-ones did not identify toxic substance killing water life and cousing large open
on fish in Table Rock and Taneycoma Lakes from industry near Springfield, Mo.
Common sense practices must be enforced as any knoww treatment is too late after
the well or lake is dead. Thirty years ago in Annapolis area wells as deep as
800 feet were destroyed by toxic synethic clothing chemicals. Again layman's
fears must be quieted by deeds and not by promises if cooperative success is to
be achieved.
• d. tten I review the "tract -record" of the past forty plus years of the city
of Fayetteville and only during past five years the "flu -diarrhea" problems
especially among athletes and students being traced to poor quality city water.
e. For the city Council t4have public trust- I believe many positive actions lik
complete removal of sludge and solid waste from flooded land. Surely a new start
could be made on deep heavy upland with a shale base.
f. Fayetteville being in oldest portion of North A.merica(geological) when streams
flowed north as the tthite RivEr and later changed directio.ortheasterly then
easterly and later down stream to the south. No doubt underground caverns have
likewise been affected. Harrison is down hill and to the east of Fayetteville
and since the faulty creation of beaurcratic Boone -Carroll Water District --we are
directly affected by any thing short of clean water from Beaver Lake and your area
In addition to above may each one choose God and our American Country as top prior
,Sincerely and Respectively Yours,
V k , ,-
O re�.m≤E060
-0.-OO1H
- SC bID OC
-"t
tOb; "•
CCC NO =9L
c_�'.EvFIDffig ��n
O Rg4rt�IDE3- muR
.0m=e 6 4
Q�3.c.�cn9am N=F
=a 1 3;, EA., t S,ao'
a m F _ S
R C L L C m C O A-
-1 V V ., 11]L
7 '' c= n
rt_St.
..b
C. eo_ai 8c,i:
aF O N ID O Q
-= E LEIDjT
333w °
T1..._ oc'� 5' ro,b
z zai; EOt
^ S Pf Fo S
A = J m
R 'GCRmo -m=O
NSF
= nn2mESL'ID c.a :�
FGFn ^I A 31 a z:
c $j �T i,mpm Na ;n
�_m-n eF-oo�
O S J-.O#--"a-O,rRNS m
m m rt D -tat.,
g�03= -
-c n-cFe5
SE gme ncne�-f-S,r2
ELs o
sAOb^^ , n=rt_F 0i
^��Sl p A rgCi�-
9I X F ? om=• Z:mc�5
I R = it SF=F+�mF
�C 1 10 N 0 c C i G L
I0 Fa q
- m
y 0 �nx • S c S C
C OO
:L F o l
ti
5
'C
b
F
rQ
0
ism
r-
m
r
a.t't'1
�
m
C
n
s=
CD
i
a
r7
a
2
tIJ
z
�
C
cn
l Vuu .... __ J
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
�t1l:Jr:
The Beaver Lake Coalition carried
the banner of pure water to Fayet-
teville on Aug. 15, this Monday night.
The Fayetteville city council
presented a waste water plan with
graphics and slides presented by their
engineers. The planned sludge
disposal on 500 to 1,500 acres of White
River bottomland with high-pressure
injection machines was shown along
with dumping, spraying and last but
not least lagoons of sludge.
Please, let ue examine this last
sententi lest our language trip us up.
• A lagoon is a tropical paradise, but if it
is filled with treated sludge what would
`itbe? A black lagoon is not a paradise,
.but a pit of death 40 acres large waiting
to overflow.
Please let us not allow Fayetteville
•to release this into the White River or
Beaver Lake. because or Boone -
Carroll Water District is planning on
us drinking it for the next 50 years!
All sludge must be removed from the
White River and Beaver Lake basins
for our future drinking water to be free
of hepatitis and other modern
maladies, such as cancer. Think about
it, then pray about it and then do
something about it. Join the Beaver
Lake Coalition to protect your future.
Sincerely,
�l •', Jim Miller, Chairman
,I 3Y.
FIGURE 5.4.
Location Map
White River Split Flow.
Underwritten by the Cities of Rogers, Fayetteville, Springdale and Bentonville, Arkansas
BEAVER WATER DISTRICT
JOE M. STEELE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
P.O. Box 400
LOWELL, ARKANSAS 72745
August 15, 1983
Hon. Paul Noland
Mayor of the City of Fayetteville
P.O. Drawer F
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Dear Mayor Noland:
Beaver Water District would like to have the attached remarks by
Dr. William A. Drewry entered into the record at this public hearing,
which is being held this day, August 15, 1983.
Respectfully submitted,
?tardy W. Croxtbn
President
Beaver Water strict
tiWC : to
Attachment
Beaver Water District, comprising Washington and Benton Counties. Arkansas was formed in 1959 for the purpose of contracting for
and developing the use of water for industrial and domestic purposes from Beaver Reservoir. The District has contracted for the stor-
age in Beaver Reservoir, a Corps of Engineers project, of 120,000,000 gallons of water per day.
PLENTY OF HIGHEST QUALITY ARKANSAS WATER
FA
PRESENTATION TO THE
ARKANSAS POLLUTION CONTROL AND ECOLOGY COMMISSION
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS
May 27, 1983
by
William A. Drewry, P.E.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board:
b
My name is William Drewry. I have been employed as a con-
sultant of the Beaver Water District of Lowell, Arkansas, to pro-
vide an independent review of the various studies and reports re-
lating to the water quality in Beaver Lake, waste discharges in-
to Beaver Lake and their impact upon water quality, and the im-
plications of the current situation and anticipated future activ-
ities on the ability of the Beaver Water District to produce a
finished water that is suitable in all characteristics for use by
its customers and to be able to do so in an economical manner.
Further, I have been asked by the Beaver Water District to present
a summary of my findings and recommendations to this Board today.
My own personal philosophy relative to production of a high
quality drinking water that is also suitable for all other munic-
ipal uses is to begin with a high quality water supply source.
This philosophy is consistent with a new policy that is being
developed by the American Waterworks Association. This proposed
policy says in part, "The American Waterworks Association supports
the principle that water of the highest possible quality should be
used as a source of water for potable water systems. To meet this
4.2
1 - -2-
objective, each water utility should actively and aggressively
engage in the protection and enhancement of water quality and
the planned management of available water resources."
This proposed policy further states in 'part, "The quality
11
of water supply sources must be controlled to facilitate the
effective and economic production of safe, adequate and aesthe-
tically acceptable water for domestic uses and to enhance the
economic value of the water for community and industrial water
supply purposes. Enforcement of effluent'limitations upon waste
discharges cannot guarantee accomplishment of these objectives."
Thus, a primary objective of my presentation is to insure that
appropriate attention is focused on protecting the primary water
supply of a major portion of the urban population of Washington
and Benton Counties while providing for adequate resolution of
the waste water discharge problem of the City of Fayetteville.
A thorough evaluation of the various studies and reports
makes it apparent to me that the water quality in the upper
reaches of Beaver Lake is at times severely impacted by waste
discharges into the lake. These discharges include both point
and non -point sources. The major point source of waste dis-
charge is,
of course, from the City of
Fayetteville
Waste Water
Treatment
Plant. These combined waste
discharges are
a signifi-
cant causitive factor in the low dissolved oxygen problems in the
upper reaches of the lake which result in significant iron and
4.3
-3-
R
manganese releases into the lake water. The present treatment
capabilities at the Beaver Water District plant allow for ade-
quate iron and manganese removal, but at increased operating
cost. These same combined waste discharges also appear to be
the causitive factor in excessive algae growths within the up-
per reaches of the lake during certain times of the year. The
increased organic loading from these algae growths and the taste
and odor problems associated with them have been, for the most
part, adequately handled by the present treatment capabilities
of the Beaver Water District plant. However, it is apparent to
me that if the problem intensifies at current and projected rates,
the treatment capabilities of the Beaver Water District treatment
plant will'be outstripped, and unless extensive and expensive
modifications to the plant are made, there will result lower
quality water provided to the municipal systems of Springdale,
Fayetteville, Rogers and Bentonville. In addition to the afore-
mentioned problems, it must be pointed out that the use of chlor-
ine to solve the iron amd manganese problems in the water treat-
ment plant increases the potential for creating even more severe
problems through the production of such. compounds as trihalo-
methanes. Therefore, the Beaver Water District is approaching a
Catch -22 situation in which the current necessary practice of
pre -chlorination to control the iron and manganese problems and
algae problems within the plant may place them in violation of
4.4
m
-4-
the current trihalomethane standards. Thus, it is imperative
that there be recognition of these water treatment problems and
that they be given adequate consideration in the solution of
waste water discharge problems in the upper reaches of. Beaver
Lake.
There have been several studies addressing water quality
problems in Beaver Lake and involving the use of water quality
modeling techniques to evaluate the impact of various water re-
source management scenarios. It is my opinion that the recent
study undertaken by Black and Veatch, Consulting Engineers, which
resulted in a report titled, "Water Quality Study of Beaver Lake,
Arkansas," is the most thorough and comprehensive to date. I
have thoroughly studied this report, and I have concluded that
the methodologies and techniques used were correct and appropri-
ate and that the results of this study provide the best basis
for developing a water resource management strategy for the area
under consideration. From these various studies, and in partic-
ular the Black and Veatch report, I must conclude that the best
water resource management strategy to insure protection of this
major water supply source is to eliminate discharge of waste
water effluents from the City of Fayetteville in the upper
reaches of Beaver Lake. The Black and Veatch study concluded
that complete elimination of the Fayetteville waste water plant
discharge into the White River would probably result in a reduc-
4.5
- -5-
El
tion by 50 percent of the algae concentrations in Beaver Lake
and an increase by 53 percent in the dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions in the hypolimnion of the lake.
It is recognized that such action would most likely not
solve all
of the
dissolved
oxygen
and algae problems
in
the upper
reaches of
Beaver
Lake. It
most
likely would reduce
the
inten-
sity of the problems to a manageable level for the Beaver Water
District for the near term. Further, it would provide an oppor-
tunity to allow assessment of the impact of the non -point sources
of pollution and provide time to develop and implement strategies
to at least partially control these non -point sources.
My review has made it apparent to me that capital cost con-
siderations, revenue generating capabilities to provide for oper-
ation, maintenance and debt retirement, and the constraints re-
lated to current EPA funding levels most likely preclude the
possibility of implementing a no -discharge into the White River
strategy at this time. However, a strategy that does appear
economical and implementable at this time is the split -flow op-
tion being proposed by the City of Fayetteville. The Black and
Veatch report indicates that this option, combined with the
5-5-2-1 discharge standard, would result in a 40 percent reduc-
tion in algae concentrations at the Beaver Water District treat-
ment plant intake structure and would further provide for a 44
percent increase in the dissolved oxygen level in the hypolimnion
-6 -
El
of Beaver Lake. Thus, about 80-90 percent of the no -discharge
strategy benefits could be achieved through implementation of
this split -flow strategy. Implementation of the proposed split -
N
flow strategy with the one milligram per liter phosphorus efflu-
ent limit should show significant water quality improvement at
the intake to the Beaver Water District plant. This improvement
may very well be of such magnitude that major water treatment
plant modifications would not be needed, at least over the near
term. Also, implementation of the split -flow strategy with phos-
phorus control would still set the stage for a more definitive
analysis of the non -point source phosphorus contributions and
their impact.
A review of the split -flow treatment scheme currently being
proposed by the City of Fayetteville does raise some questions.
The biological phosphorus removal process proposed by the City is
not an overly reliable process, particularly when subjected to
severe shock loads. By shock loads, I am referring to both or-
ganic loadings as well as hydraulic loadings, or both. The treat-
ment plant in Fayetteville has a well -established history of
sever hydraulic overloads. Concerns about these hydraulic over-
loads have
been adequately addressed
in the
facility
plan as
developed
by NicGoodwin, Williams and
Yates,
Inc.
and
McClelland
Consulting Engineers. These studies show that under design con-
ditions for the year 2005 that while average plant flows are on
4.7
-7-
11
the order of 10 to 11 million gallons per day that peak hydraul-
ic flows during wet periods may be on the order of 28-40 million
gallons per day. Rehabilitation schemes costing on the order
of 2-3 million dollars have been proposed that would reduce
these hydraulic peaks to on the order of 17-20 million gallons
per day. However, in the report "titled, ."Development, Screening,
and Comparison of Waste Water Management Alternatives for the
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas," dated May, 1983, as prepared by
CHZM Hill and McClelland Consulting Engineers shows a design flow
peak of 13.1 million gallons per day (TAble 5-1, Page 5-3). This
wide range is projected peak hydraulic flows should be clarified
and adequately resolved.
Another concern about the proposed split -flow strategy has
to do with possible land application of the waste water treatment
plant sludge on lands immediately adjacent to or near the White
River. While it is desirable and perhaps possible to have such
a practice without surface runoff which would reach the White
River, it is difficult to envision how this sludge disposal
strategy could be implemented in an economical manner. The con-
cern stems primarily from the fact that the phosphorus to be re-
moved in the waste water treatment plant will be an integral part
of the sludge. If the phosphorus in the sludge reaches the White
River, and thus Beaver Lake, through surface runoff from the land
applications area, then the phosphorus removal strategy will have
been defeated.
4.8
-8-
V.
0
I recommend to the City of Fayetteville that serious con-
sideration be given to providing chemical phosphorus removal
capabilities in the split -flow treatment scheme as a back-up to
the proposed biological phosphorus removal process to insure that
a waste water effluent discharge limit of one milligram per liter
can be met at all times. I would also recommend that serious
consideration be given to sludge disposal schemes other than
land application in areas where surface runoff might reach the
White River in order to provide for absolute control of phosphorus
removal from this point source.
I would like to re-emphasize my concern over the phosphorus
discharges into the upper reaches of Beaver Lake and their con-
tribution to the increasing algae problems that have a direct im-
pact on treatment costs and quality control in the Beaver Water
District plant. The problems are real. They are not the fig-
ment of someone's imagination. These problems can be diminished
in severity through implementation of the proposed split -flow
strategy with phosphorus control. Based on my own experience in
water quality studies, water quality modeling -efforts, strategy
implementation, and observance of results therefrom, I believe
that this approach will buy everyone the time that is needed.
It may actually solve the problem for the Beaver Water District
throughout the
design
period,
and perhaps
beyond.
It
will at
least diminish
the
problem to
a manageable
level
for
the near
4.9
-9 -
term and provide the time to develop and implement long-term
strategies to protect this important water supply source.
I thank the Board for this opportunity to appear before
you in order to make this presentation. I will be glad to
address any questions that you may have at this or any future
time.
Thank you.
R.�
4.10
Route 2, Sox 79
',jest Fork, Arkansas i;=
August 12, 1933
Dr. Paul R. Noland, Mayor
City of Favetteville
Post Office Drawer F
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72702
Dear Dr. Noland:
I wish to make the following comments on the "Environmental information
Document" prepared by Ch2N Hill and flcClelland Consulting Engineers:
Section 2.1.3.3.3 Illinois River: On pane 2-21, my master's thesis is
referenced and the statement that oxygen concentrations of less than
6.0 mg/1 are not uncommon during low flow conditions" is inferred as being a
conclusion of my study, wnch it is not. Without qualifyinc this statement, it can
he easily taken out of conr.ext, possibly being attributed to point source discharges
in the basin. In fact, me thesis shows the results of 89 dissolved oxygen
measurements on the Illinois ,fiver in Arkansas, and only two of these (5.8 moll and
5.3 mg/1 measured at Savoy) •re less than the 6.0 mo/i standard. These violations
are not related to point source discharges.
On pace 2-22, the statement that "The dissolved oxvicen problem [for the
Illinois River] is similar in character, but not in magnitude, to that described for
the White River" is inconsistent eriTh the findinas of my study. The D. 0. oroblem
on the White River is caused primarily by the point source discharge from
Fayetteville. The D. 0. violations I measured were due to nonooint sources and the
fact that near stagnant flow conditions existed at the ti:':e of samDlina. My
sampling and review of available data did not show any D. 0. violations in either
Osage Creek or the Illinois River beinw Osage Creek in=.ransas, which is the
portion affected by the cischarges from Springdale and kocers. The statement in
paragraph number 5 that '...:There such discharges occur, even lower dissolved oxygen
levels are observed" appears to be incorrect.
In oaragraph number 21 on page 2-29, the foilowino statement is made in
reference to my master's thesis: "He found that loadings of phosphorus are probably
in the range 0.2-1 pounds/acre/year; and nitrogen icadinos are in the range of
2-4.5 pounds/ac"elvr." There is no such "finding" in my thesis. Nor did I
calculate "potential nutrient loadings based on per -animal contributions from the
watershed," as is stated in this paragraph. What I did state in my thesis is that
"On an annual basis, loadings of nutrients from nonpoint sources may exceed those
from point sources."
The reference for_"AS!WCC (1979 b)" is
statement that "...Bo':ren's figures indicate
kg/yr or more, which again is consistent w,ri
the ASWCC report "'Jonooint Source Pollution
Basin" does not present any nonpoint source
not given in the bibliography, The
a phosphorus l;:aoirro of 50,000-1(.0,000
:h the ASWCC findings" is puzzling. since
Assessment Summaries for Arkansas River
nutrient loading fiiurer.
Sincerely yours,
of nn P.E.
5.1
l
}
It l., :..�l.V•ft
-Lk c..t 71L L(,IJ�\*;:,.. -A. l..in.� ,^ G.. /1.��._1 �,.1,•,,,�, ,/GI"fi,l.��C� <:
j
•
1.:lr!.Sic . T ` J>ti ` IC.4'lt ±%$ '-A'. rLLJt :ter
.5�.�: ✓�i.'V . V ♦til Ct..L" t. \:i?�\,. 1 ✓ ��,.-ti N�` �\ ...L.�1 ��'-. VJ ` '
l q i•. C UUU
z ? 1L\ ,.
yt, CL hG »n r` .,,l1lirL.\ v L p ,y* _*L,1)
k!A\J_,c•i �l ('�1. J �` ��:1li '.:✓ l �1 ,i �,/�\ �. yr�:.V1\.'� �F''
4
' . �vi(\:• �`�:\.!_ y\C r}C� {:h�7 vLJit.l ..� _.i �rILA::..G 1 ..J'''l"e 4-+
4,' 1 i 'U
1� -.^.•.
# a
`j 1 1
(� 1 1 1
1 e/�
I.
�.1.\ '..' `.\. �l. lr .',J l � 1 4. ,.•+ � •.� ":•� �..�. � /c i 1�i '`i'` t 1 V/1..'.� t \ -.{. ... 1.. :
..101. \t'\_...,
1
l _ ti
*.
2O � �� il � ��J `\:.�'� �i..... ��n �l'ti. �-'ice {✓•. ��1. 1. 4"\'(,.�_,. -.
?FJ JJrl.'.:A,: �� f� Ly�,l' lc. tt.r ft r1. ; ,//+_e �//`��f .- ':)�� r^..,,.:
I
C
C
i
C
C
t..
C
C.
I
:•:a & Nancy Luther
Route 6, Sox 271
Faye7evi, A'R.72701
Phone 432-7x335
Q.c
.c 'C C\ `&cL
•
•
Cnck S\
w �,'-� .�. � tom• ���
-to 3.
v�s
7.1 1
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
STEVEN ALAN LEWIS. DIRECTOR
ROY BOECHER
JUO LITTLE -
`^
CHAIRMAN
MEMBER
"
GARLAND FLETCHER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
DON R. GREENHAW
DOYLE BURKE
-
CHARLES R. WALLACE. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
VICE CHAIRMAN
MEMBER
LB. SELMAN
H. B. ATKINSON
SECRETARY
MEMBER
DEPARTMENT
OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
JOHN D. GROENDYKE
CARL PIERCEALL�"'
MEMBER
MEMBER
1801 N. LINCOLN
P.O. BOX 53465 OKLAHOMA CITY. OK 73105 PH. 521-3851
August 10, 1983
City Engineer's Office
P.O. Drawer F
Fayetteville, AR 72702
Dear Sir:
The purpose of this letter is to reaffirm our agency's
position regarding your selected alternative for wastewater
management.
The alternative was described in a recent public notice
announcement for a public hearing on Monday, August 15, 1983
at 7:00 P.M. in Fayetteville. The alternative describes four
phases including "construction of an effluent storage reservoir,
pump station, and force main to divert a portion of the treated
wastewater to Mud Creek in the Illinois River drainage basin...".
Our agency remains strongly opposed to any proposal that
would directly or indirectly introduce wastewater from Arkansas
into the Illinois River drainage. We ask that our position be
entered into the official hearing record.
cc: Senator Ro=ell
Ed Pugh
OSRC
PCCB .`,
Sincerely,
Steven Alan Lewis
Director
8.1
11
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
SCENIC RIVERS COMMISSION
P.O. Box 292 TAHLEQUAH, OK 74465 (918) 4563251
15 August 1983 Public Hearing
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
Comments by John Shannon, Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission Administrator
Good evening Mayor Noland and members of the City Board of Directors.
My name is John Shannon. As.a representative of the Oklahoma Scenic
Rivers Commission, I am here to express opposition to the proposed
"Mud Creek Split -Flow" of wastewater generated in the City of Fayetteville.
According to the final draft Environmental Imformation Document, the
proposed discharge into the Mud Creek would be expected to cause
increased nutrient enrichment of the Illinois River. Changes toward
less, biological diversity and more blue-green algae are possible.
This increased nutrient loading would total approximately 7o during
average flow and 10-15% during low flow.
These changes would be considered, degradation of water quality and would
be inconsistant with scenic rivers designation.
According to the final draft Facilities Plan, no significant differences
in the overall environmental impacts would be expected whether you
adopt the Mud Creek Split -Flow or continue full discharge into the
White River through an updated plant.
Therefore, I am inclined to conclude that the "Mud Creek Split -Flow"
option is being considered not for economic parsimony, nor for
environmental integrity, but for political feasibility and expedience.
9.1
Preserving the Illinois River and Flint Creek
THE SCENIC RIVERS ASSOCIATION
OF OKLAHOMA
C
C-
1541 KEELER AVE.
BARTLESVILLE, OK 74003
FH. S19/336-20SS
Au;_ust 14, 1983
City Engineer's Office
P,O.Drawer F
Fayetteville, AR 72702
PRESIDENT
PHILIP B. LORENZ. CARTLESYILLE
VICE PRESIDENT
CIIE>TER L. EY!:U::7, I:Dr^.:1AN
SECRETARY
KATHRYN D. JONES. TULSA
TREASURER
LOMETA PANCIERA, STILLWATER
Our Association wishes to protest the vv stev:ater management
system that entails discharge into the Illinois River basic:,
We recognize the marked improvements over earlier plans
e
but the threat to the Illinois River is still objectionable.
The continuing degradation of the river is suite obvious, even
with its present burden of nutrients. Any increase at all is
a step in the wrong direction, and will devalue man: invest -ants
by Oklahomans in businesses and as individuals.
Two points are of particular si ni:icanca:
1. Partial diversion of effluent into the Illinois River
basin is proposed to protect the 'chit:, Giver. This
obviously recognizes that a ha.r_:iul effect is expected
fro:.: the discharges,
2. It seems inevitable that there will be future increases
in discharge to the Illinois, once the facility is
built.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
'=ours truly,
P_ ilip E. Lorenz
-S Pr.sicent
10.1
"A Scenic River Is A National Treasure"
•
0
August 16, 1983
City Engineer's Office
City of Fayetteville
P.O. Drawer F
Fayetteville, Arkansas
Dear People:
Sierra OW
Oklahoma Chapter
Mark Derichsweiler
Conservation Chair
1503 ¶4. Dakota
Norman, OK 73069
We have reviewed the revised 201 Facilities -Plan and revised Environmental
Information Document for the referenced project. The following comments
are submitted on behalf of the officers and members of the Oklahoma Chaoter
of the Sierra Club. We wish to incorporate by reference our previous comments
on this project and the resolution of the Executive Committee opposinq
wastewater discharges to the Illinois River which were submitted for the
record of the May 24, 1982 hearing.
While some improvement has been made, we remain fundamentally opposed
to any alternative involving a wastewater discharge tO the Illinois River or
any of its tributaries. As we have pointed out previously, this stream is
one of the outstanding natural resources of our State and receives heavy
recreational use. We continue to believe, and feel that the facts demonstrate,
that any increase in pollutant loadings, even at the advanced treatment
levels proposed, would result in further deterioration of water quality in
the Illinois River and Tenkiller Reservoir and would seriously deqrade
the recreational experience enjoyed by so many Oklahomans that use these
bodies of water.
For these reasons, we oppose the recommended plan and urge the City
to pursue other alternatives. We believe that costs for the land apolication
alternative could be substantially reduced if the City entered into a lease
agreement rather than purchasing the needed land. This, or some other no
discharge alternative would appear to be the best solution, given the circumstances.
We continue to bel
in the context of a ful
our request that such a
Thank you for your
ieve that many of these concerns would be best addressed
I Environmental imoact Statement and re -affirm
study he undertaken.
consideration of these comments.
SincererlyG /�
Mark Derichsweiler
Conservation Chair
cc: US EPA Sierra Club/Oklahoma Chanter
... To explore, enjoy and preserve the nation's forests, waters, wildlife, and wilderness .. .
(Recuceed ➢area) 11. 1
...
It
..
14
11
May 17, 1982
The City of Fayetteville
City Engineer's Office
P.O. Drawer F
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72702
Dear People:
Sie#ra Club 1
Oklahoma Chapter
P.O. Box 2083
Ada, OK 74820
Re: Fayetteville Facility Plan
Enclosed please find copies of a resolution expressing opposition of
the Oklahoma Chapter of the Sierra Club to plans by the City to discharge
wastewater to the Illinois River and a letter to the Environmental Protection
Agency requesting an Environmental Impact Statement for this project.
The Oklahoma Chapter is quite concerned about this proposal. The Illinois
River in Oklahoma is a high quality stream and a major recreation resource.
It is virtually the only canoeing stream in the State. We feel that the
proposed discharge would significantly affect this stream, as well as
Tenkiller Reservoir.
The Oklahoma Chapter will be represented at the May 24 public hearing
by Ms. Donna Griffin. We will provide the City with a written copy of
our comments at that time. Due to the problems associated with a discharge
to the Illinois River, as well as the White River, we would urge the City
to pursue land application or another no discharge alternative.
Thank you for this opportunity for input to the planning process
Sincerely,
Bill Zo __icl
Chairman
Sierra Club/Oklahoma Chapter
... To explore, enjoy and preset
)rests, waters, wildlife, and wilderness .. .
neh) ]1.2
4.
0
C -
aSi.e/rra CluG
Oklahoma Chapter
A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO PLANS BY THE CITY OF FAYETTElILLE, ARKANSAS
TO DISCHARGE SEWAGE EFFLUENT TO THE ILLINOIS RIVER
AND REQUESTING -AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WHEREAS, the Illinois River is one of Oklahoma's most outstanding scenic,
recreational, and environmental resources; and
WHEREAS, the Illinois River has been designated a scenic river by the
State of Oklahoma; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is considering a plan to
discharge up to nine million gallons per day of sewage effluent to the
Illinois river; and
WHEREAS, a waste discharge of this magnitude would have substantial
adverse impacts on the ecology and recreational uses of the Illinois river; and
WHEREAS, the existing Fayetteville sewage treatment plant has experienced
failures resulting in fish kills and other damages to the White River which
could occur on the Illinois River;
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Sierra Club, Oklahoma Chapter,
strongly opposes any and all plans for sewage treatment by the City of
Fayetteville which involve discharge to the Illinois River and urges the
City of Fayetteville to abandon such plans;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Sierra Club, Oklahoma Chapter, requests
that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency require a full Environmental
Impact Statement be prepared for the Fayetteville project.
APPROVED BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE THIS 15th DAY OF MAY, 1982
t1 {/7x
Ms. Lynda Morrell
Secretary
Mr. Bill lick
Chairman
... To explore, enjoy and preserve
(R
its, waters, wildlife, and wilderness .. .
.t) 11.3
C
15
SLena C&b -.1
Oklahoma Chapter
P.O. Box 2088
Ada, OK 74820
May 17, 1982
Mr. Dick Whittington
Regional Administrator, Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection_ Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75270
Dear Mr. Whittington:
It has come to our attention that the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
is proposing the construction of a wastewater treatment facility which would
discharge up to nine million gallons of effluent per day to the Illinois
River. This stream is designated a Scenic River in Oklahoma and is afforded
the highest level of protection under State law. The Illinois River is an
important recreation resource for the region as well as providing a source
of drinking water for several communities.
This proposal is very controversial. A discharge of such magnitude to
this high quality stream will have substantial adverse environmental impacts.
Since this project is being funded through the federal Construction Grants
program, we believe a full Environmental Impact Statement is required to
evaluate these impacts and consider alternatives.
The Oklahoma Chapter of the Sierra Club is on record as opposing this
discharge (see enclosed resolution). By this letter, we are formally requesting
that a full Environmental Impact Statement be prepared for this project.
Your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated.
Enclosure
cc: City of Fayetteville
Sincerely,
Bill Z ick
Chairman
Sierra Club/Oklahoma Chapter
.. To explore, enjoy and preserve
ts, warcrs, wildlife, and wilderness . . .
Comments on 201 Facility Plan respectiveI submitted
by the Oklahoma Chapter of the Sierra Club.
Presented for inclusion into the record at the public
hearing may 24, 1952.
I) Split flow Alternative
Our concern over this proposal stems from the possible
and probably impacts on the Illinois River. We feel
that a discharge of 9 mgd to this stream would impair
its use both as a recreational and hater supply source,
and its value as a fishery resource. Scientific eval-
uations of the Illinois River have shown that it is
not cabable of ass imulating add itiennl ',caste Tisch; g.
We are quite concerned about the long terra imnact
associated with this preferred alternative The
proposed routing of all excess flows to the wesc
storage will be discharged untreated. :ldinittedly
this might not happen for mane vears, but 1ci11
certainly happen sometime. Future growth will
increase the flow and loading to the facility.
Although design calls for advanced waste) ate)•
treatment levels, these '.till he Uilotaill;1111e as
the plant becomes overloaded, which we Feel will
occur sooner than anticipated. The existing plant
began operations in 1969 and •.cas surely designed
for a 20 year period, vet problems began occurr-
ing 10 years later. There is a ver•: gocd chance
10 years from now that the plant built on the
Illinois River will not be meeting design stand-
ards and will continue to deteriorate. We do not
want to sec this happen.
II) Design Flows
Design flows appear to b^ unrealistically high,
a rate of '00 gallons/person/day, which is out-
side the range commonly expected. It )could seem
that a great potential for floe, reduction
exists.
Howc':er, as in so many facia its: nuns, 11a.: reduc-
tion is glV fl lip service anti "hen written olf
with no re:1 I'�"a I U;It ior,. :\ total of ton lines out
of ;aorc than 100 pages is devpted to this topic.
Although thr c.;;Iacr ial :i::ld industri;Il sec:nrs
Contribute GIOI'e than (111' 01 pro etell flo'.cs and
11.5
F.
II) Des ign Flows (Continued)
have the greatest potential for conserv;:tion, iic.:
reduction in these sectors is not :-!ontioned. Rc -
ductions in water use of ZO-10 are not at allun-
common in cities with a aggressive :water conscrv:1-
tion program. Flow reduction of this magnitude
could have agreat impact on the selection of
alternatives in the facility plan. For cxanple,
flow reduction would result in a reduction in
acreage needed for land application of effluent.
We believe n thorough analysis oC flow reductions
and its implications is a very necessary part of
the planning process.
III) Financial Considerations
Using the costs presented in Section S of the
facility plan, the White River alternative costs
exceed the split flow alternative costs by 540.
As it appears obvious that the pursuit of the
split flow alternative winresult in lit i^_::ti"n
and associated delays, the City will, in all
likelihood end up paying much more due to 1 c gal
costs and inflation than if they prc•ccec! n::,;
with the R'Itite River alternative.
tVc realize that many of the quest inns concen-
ing the split flow alternative are beyo;.ki tit
scope of facility plan. For this reason, and
because we believe there are subs cant ial :adverse
environmental effects associated with the pre-
ferred alternative, we believe a full environ-
mental impact statement is required. We have
previously made a request for 1:IS to the EPA
Administraion and reiterate that request here.
DoNNn GDRIFFIti
`l . 6,\a'< P.
.
11.6
•
C
E
August 15, 1983
The Fayetteville Board of Directors
Dept, of Pollution Control & Ecology
Evironmental Protection Agency
And To Whom It May Concern:
As redidents along the Illinois River we make this statement of
protest: We are opposed to the City of Fayetteville discharging
its sewage effluent into the Illinois River by whatever route
it may enter this stream, .
Why? Because we are concerned about our water supply and the
effect it will have upon our home and farm land investment.
We feel it is unfair to penalize people who have chosen to live
in a rural area in order to clean up the problems brought about
by the growth and progress (?) of area cities.
We believe if our state agengies concerned with the water
quality of all streams in the state were properly monitering
these streams, it would be�evident that the Illinois River has
deteriorated to the point it cannot assimilate what is presently
entering the stream.
We understand the Federal Clean Water Act to provide that all
streams shall be protected from pollution that can not be
assimilated and still provide a specified water quality level.
Belonging to an organization which has funded two water quality
studies of the Illinois River, we are aware this stream has not
been thus protected"
With these things in min:, live urgently plead with the Depart-
ment of Pollution Control h Ecology abd the Environmental
12.1
Protection Agency to consider the effects the added effluent in
this stream will have on the rural area along the Illinois Ri-ler
and the people of Siloam Springs, Gentry and of Watts, Oklahoma
who receive their water supplies from the Illinois River and
from wells and springs near the river, and to fairly protect
all the citizens of this area by denying Payetteville's request
to shift its effluent from one stream to another.
Respectfully submitted,.
//LI:q fliiJ. ��/_C['t..•ti.
Mr. & Mrs. Nolan L. Smith
Rt. 6 ?ox ;06
Fayetteville, _.rk. 72701
R
12.2
POSITION REPORT OF THE CITIZENS OF
El
R
WYMAN COMMUNITY AREA
PURPOSE
The objective of this written narrative is to establish, of public
record, the express concern, reaction and collective position of those
citizens and residents of the Wyman Community and in the immediate geographil
area relative to the "Final Draft" of the 201 facilities plan which purpose)
certain alternatives for wastewater management by the City of Fayetteville.
Although the citizens of the Wyman Community have present concerns
regarding the total operation of the waste water treatment plan (WNTP),
located on the banks of the White River East of downtown Fayetteville, the
major thrust of their position paper must necessarily be directed specificall
at the proposed "dedication" of vital lands within their community for
sludge retention. The 201 facilities plan refers to such sludge retention
as "sludge management system". (see Sec. 5.1.54 of the plan).
For the reason that the public hearing of August 15, 1983, is a final
hearing, this position paper will also be addressed, in brief nature, to thEl
overall proposed wastewater management selection.
It is the unqualified purpose of the many citizens subscribing to
this position to register, of public record their oposition to and avowed
intent to resist, at all administrative and judicial levels the proposal
to pump thickened primary and waste activated sludges onto a very large
geographic area designated as being within the White River basin lying East I
of the existent WWTP, and within the Wyman Community itself. (see figure
5-7 of facilities plan).
13.2
INTRODUCTION
The community of Wyman is an old rural community of approximately
300 persons located approximately five (5) miles East of Fayetteville
and immmediately last of the present WWTP, the community spirit, entity and
interrelation would seem to be reflective of mixture of long established
families and those more recent residents who seek the old established
community flavor, not to speak of the solitude and richness of rural life.
Although the talents , skills and pursuits of the community residents
are many and varied, the basic implementation of the area is residential
and agricultural...
It is generally accepted that river bottom farm lands within this
community area are some of the more productive farms in Washington
County and indeed makes up a significant portion of the County's "Pripi:e"
- lands. The area also includes cattle and poultry operations. The land
at issue is outside the legal Corporate limits of Fayetteville and,
although such is within the Fayetteville planning area, such is under Count:
jurisdiction.
It is well established that these lands are more than suitable for -
farming, in harmony with the enviroment, at a high level of productivity
in an era of time when prime agricultural lands area rapidly diminishing
critical resource due to the rapid encroachement of urbanized, private
and commercial development. (see Sec 2.1.10.1.of 201 Enviromental informat
document).
The Author of this -Sinai position Paper is totally untrained and
unschooled in the field of engineering, sewage management and sludge
disposal and readily admits his commission is that of a lawyer. The Author
practices the art of flyfishing and wades or has waded all of the major
streams of Arkansas and out of vain pride considers himself an amateur
naturalist.
13.3
These leanings simply help in the direct , on site observation of man's
impact on our wilderness.
The 201 facilities proposal and enviromental information document has
been carefully examined, the feelings and opinions of the Wyman residents
garnered and weighed,arid the insight provided by direct contact with the
Soil Conservation Service, Department of Health, the Enviromental protection
Agency (EPA) representatives of municipalities either now consuming .�r i✓hicil
plan to consume water from Beaver Lake Resovoir, conference with other
cities who effectively deal with sludge management and other experts. The
final conclusion drawn is that the proposal to locate waste and sludge
materials within the Wyman Community is a breach of all enviromental ethics
As a separate point, it is most relevant that the "Recommendations of
the Fayetteville Citizens Advisory Comtmmittee" which were submitted to this
Board of Directors on February 19, 1931, specifically address this area of
concern. It is our understanding that the recommendations were formally
adopted as the policy of this Board of Directors. Thus, the Board's adopte
policy coincides with the concerns of our group of citizens as will be
developed herein. That most admirable policy must be abandoned if this
Board accepts proposal 201.
13.4
IMPACT ON NATURE
{
To view the current wastewater management problems of man solely from
the perspective of economics, engineering convienence, urban necessity,
progress or profit advantage is to overlook the reality of nature and her
cycles and rules and benefits.
Mankind must be educated to the eternal truth that he came from
nature, must exist in harmony with nature, needs observe the rules of nature
and that finally he will cycle back to that nature from which he came.
It should be clearly evident to all that we are not in harmony with
nature and are rapidly destroying those natural things ;•'e love and cherish
with very little immediate concern for our loss.
We, as a very intregal part of nature, must now recognize certain
realities:
I
.(a) Nature is extremely complex, indenendant and operates on
universal rules which we must obey in order to insure our own facility of
life and ultimate continuation of our species.
(b) Those actions or inactions we direct toward nature and it's
resources today will determine the quality of life for our children's'
children.
(c) Destruction of wilderness, farmlands, pollution of the streams and
the air, and the poisoning of our enviroment is in great part, irreversible.
(d) We may not assume that future scientific and political methods
will reverse our destructive acts of today.
(e) The initial step in perserving nature must be collective
conservation, and development of general ethical standards regarding our
existence with nature.
13.5
(f) Although, economics are an ever present burden, borne easier by
some than others, they must not be a limiting factor in our treatment of
nature. The fact that we can allocate monies to provide other so called,
"Basic Needs", must cause us to realize that these needs do not approach the
critical importance of clean air, pure water, wholesome food and healthy
enviroment.
(g) The final solution is an educated populace, collective individual
effort, supported by an aware and sensitive government responsive to the
present endangered plight of man and the world in which he lives.
1
13.6
• PRESENT WATER PROBLEMS -
The current wastewater discharge, sludge application, agricultural
runoff, industrial discharge, acid rain, chemical spills and channelization
methods have polluted our streams,
rivers,lakes,
ponds, water tables,
wells,
and soils to an alarming degree.
Congress and
the Courts have
begun
to
mandate a basic restoration of the
physical and
biological
integrity
of
the nation's waters and environment. It is the national goal that the
discharge of pollutants into the streams and lakes be eliminated. (see CleanI
Water Act).
The U.S. Congress has recognized that each person should enjoy a
healthful environment and that that person has a responsibility to
contribute to its preservation, including productive and culturally pleasing)
surroundings. (see National Enviromental Policy Act).
Arkansas has recognized the same current danger and has acted through
it's. legislative assembly by enacting numerous acts of enabling legislation
whereby we are mandated to clean up and maintain our streams and
environment. These lands, as enforced by the Courts, prohibit direct or
indirect pollution and destruction of our environment(see "Pollution of
Streams Act" (Acts 1951, No. 281)and "Arkansas Water and Air Pollution
Control Act", as ammended).
These governmental responses arose from an obvious long time pollution
of our air, streams, water bodies and environment. The realization that thcl
contaminants were likely to be passed along in the food chair to man himsel'i
4
Water consumption, recreational use and food consumption have been
either limited or forbidden in areas throughout the nation due to such
contamination.
Weare mandated to --"use all practicable means and measures.......
in a manner calculatedto faster and promote the general wellfare to
13.7
Ccreate and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in
productive harmony, and fulfill the social economic and other requirements
of present and future generations of Americans". (Sec Environmental Policy
Act) .
Northwest Arkansas is no exception to this obvious problem. The
continued
pressure of urban
sprawl, private
development,
poor land
management
and environmental
irresponsibilty
has already
altered the qualit}
of our enviroment.
To focus on this City as being the sole cause of our problems is
without justification.
G
13.8
CONSERVATION
Q
M
M
The problems associated with the poor quality of our streams and
particularly Beaver Lake, must be borne by all of us. The cumulative
impact of our belief that anything thrown, discharged, or that is allowed
to run off into a stream simply floats away or dissipates is bad logic.
The old concept of making a bigger and better treatment plan to
accommodate a growing population is not the longterm solution to the ever
growing problem. We must think in terms of restricting the source of
pollution ourselves in order that smaller, more efficient disposal and
recycling plans can be implemented. Continued plant expansion can only
mean more and more environmental loss when we can ill afford such loss.
As we have begun to realize that our resources can and are being
exhausted, we must also realize that individual conservation is the key to
any solution to pollution.
When we realize that we waste millions of gallons of water annually
by outdated home disposal methods, when we seriosly begin to conserve and
recycle those resources we now clutter our environment with, when ultimately)
we reach the point where we realize nature will tolerate no more violation
of it's rules then we will have begun the journey to rehabilitation of our
harmony with nature.
There was once a people inhabiting this land who conserved and made uscj
of those resources available to them. A people who truely lived in harmony
with and were much a part of nature. They lived by the streams and
refrained from pollution to the point of religeous faniticism. These
children of nature treated the environment and the wildlife as creatures of
the same Great Spirit from which they originated. Could we not begin to
learn from these same ethical behaviors.
13.9
WASTEWATER DISCHARGE
Most residents of Northwest Arkansas are very much aware of the current)
problems with pollution of our drinking water. The 201 facilities plan
concludes that the City of Fayetteville is the major contributor to that
pollution. The current [,1WTP is not capable of meeting APDES requirements,
without major alteration and that a split flow between the Illinois and
White River basins would diminish the Fayetteville impact on Beaver Lake.
The logic of discharging septic materials into White River and into Beaver
Lake from which we chemically treat waters, drink, and cycle back again, in
an impure state, escapes this writer. The thought that the water we drink
through our City water system may be a detriment to our health is on the
mind of more than a few people today.
The belief that a split flow, whereby a large portion of wastewater fro:)
the WWTP will relieve the current problem confuses those of us who aren't
engineers by trade. Are we saying that we will spread our pollution equally)
amoung everyone in the region? Is the pollution of three (3) streams and
two (2) resovoirs better than one (1)? Is it better to dump our sewage on
our neighbors than properly deal with it ourselves? Suppose we study
treatment facilities which emit clean pure water and which leave our
environment in a state to be enjoyed by all
the cost is too great?
Such plants do exist. Do we fl
13.10
SLUDGE PROPOSAL
51
0
The existing management of sludge consists of burial on an elevated
area at the site of the WWTP. Disposal of sludge is the most critical elemerl
of the wastewater system. Presently the sludge is not recycled, is
"stabilized" by dewatering, treated with large amounts of chemicals and
is buried. No development or use is•obtained. The sludge contains
concentrated amounts of heavy metals and other potentially harmful elements.
The Citizens Advisory Committee, in it's adopted report of February 19, 1981.
determined that "we have a probelm with the sludge buried at our present
WWTP site". The committee found that the dangerous waste was buried within
100 year flood plain and was in an area of the watershed of White River. It
was the consensus of the Committee that existent sludge should be closeLI
maintained and possibly removed, whatever the solutions were arrived at unde:I
the 201 plan.
The 201 Plan does not propose any solution to sludge accumulated on the I
WWTP site to date. We believe this to be a critical and dangerous oversight
The 201 proposal would leave us with two sludge disposal sites, both of whicil
are in the White River Water Basin.
What tests have been administered to determine whether this matter is
possibly a present or future. danger to underground water supplies? The
proposal
does
concede
that water
supplies are charged by surface water. Wha
are the
plans
for this
disposal
site?
The 201 Plan, among other alternatives, proposes an "Alternative A", th
the sludge undergo present Chemical stabilization and then be pumped to the
Prime farmland located last of the \QWTP across White River into the heartlan
of Wyman Community for direct and open application to the River bottom soil.
The only "suitable areas" are classified as, "Class 2" which is described as
being "marginally suitable requiring high level of management".
It is proposed that 510 acres prime farmland be procured for this
14
alternative.
The proposal further concedes that the continued application of the
sludge to the area will increase soil PH and salinity to levels where any
agricultural, use could not be made of the land. No alternative use, after t
life of the application area is exhausted, is presented.
The proposal, in stating that fescue and orchard grass can be groom on
site, says the fescue/orchard grass mix, to be harvested as hay, silage, gra
and used as pasture (excluding dairy cattle) has a "Potential nitrogen
uptake of approximately 2,75 pounds per acre per year." (see page 5-12 of
facilities plan).
This writer submitted these figures to the Soil Conservation Service
and was advised that this figure (2.75 lbs) seemed to be a very high uptake
for any soil. The SCS agent was familiar with the soil suggested as a site
for sludge disposal and, fill that any placement of sludge near the River in
the flood plain would be a great risk. The opinion of the agent was further
that sludge should not be placed in the 100 year flood plain as the actual
flood
plain is
not understood
to any
degree
of accuracy.
The
opinion
was
that
the higher
elevated soil
would
have a
slower release
of
nitrogen.
The
SCS is mindful of the danger of overland water flow through and over fields
of sludge.
The quote of 2.75 lbs per acre doesn't conform to the Corps
reccommendation of 1.25 lbs per acre. In dry conditions nitrate poisoning
occurs ar 2.00 lbs per acre.
It is the position of the agent conferred with that Burmuda grass has a
better release of nitrogen than the grasses proposed.
13.12
Of major concern to the SCS was the ratio of metal contents in sludge
which might well drain into sub -surface water or across the surface into the '
River itself. This concern, coupled with the concession of the proposal that
the majority of the soils to be used are only "marginally suitable" causes
this writer to wonder what risks we are willing to take with our own health
and life.
Of vital interest also, is the discussion in the proposal of available
nitrogen. The case appears we need also consider "not available" nitrogen.
This form of nitrogen is the excess that is not cycled and which accumulates
over the long period of application
factor to our own speculation.
The proposal leaves this very real
Isn't it only logical to conclude that not available nitrogen trickles
or drains in liquid form (especially during very wet periods) through the
"marginally suitable" soil and into the Water source cunderground or eventual
into the River?
Quite frankly, it appears that the 500 acre application site will sim:.nl}j
accumulate heavy metals and other chemicals until the soil is simply a
disaster waiting to happen. The fact that the proposal clearly points of
(P. 6-18) that " the overall site contains 1,400 acres of land that are
potentially suitable for sludge application" reveals the true character of
this proposal. In essence we are saying that more and more land will
prepetually be required for this destructive process.
In Section 6 of the proposal in discussing productivity (short term vs.l
long term) there is no uformation one could use in determining the effect o:I
the sludge sites on the long term productivity of the land. Should there no -1
be an operating plan for the proposed facility, as discussed in 40 CFR part
257 which would assist in safeguarding against potential health hazards fro:
r
L cadmium? That do we do to guard against excess cadmium entering the
food chain of man?
13.13
M
The obvious nitrogen problem is not covered in regard to accumulation
in the ground water and what such accommodations does to the quality of the
water. As a matter of fact there is no discussion regarding possible viral
and bacterial contamination of the groundwater. The sludge material
obviously will not be fully digested to reduce pathogens as required by
40CFR sec. 257. ( Also see 40 CFR Sec 2573-4 regarding contamination of
groundwater).
There is no discussion of the failure to treat the sludge in accordance
with government regulations to reduce pathogens. There is no discussion
pertaining to potential human health hazards from entoric organisms and
parasities in those living within or near the -proposed sludge field. Many
of the residents use shallow wells and this is ignored by the proposal' (see
257.3-4 40 CFR 257, which prohibits contamination of underground drinking
water sources).
What of buffer zones? No discussion is found in the proposal to contrc
public access to the sludge area which is required by government regulations)
It appears the consultants
or
planners
simply ignored the
fact that
numerous citizens live in
and
near
this
potential sludge
field.
The obvious question of flood plains is basically discussed in Section
4.2.19. I could find no "Attachement A." and Appendix A. in the narrative
only discussed flood plains in relation to interceptor sewers, and the
"flood hazard areas" figure. Why is there no discussion of the obvious
encroachment of the new facilities and sewage storage lagoon into the
flood plain? Assuming floods are necessary cycles and acts of nature then
what impact would the facility have in the floodpath? If barriers or
structures are erected in the site to restrict surface flow to the River
then would not this act cause resultant flooding in the other side of the
River? Some diversion of flood paths would have to occurr. What is the
impact? What are the alternatives?
13.14
Appendix A, in the "Notice"states there will be no structures constructed
in the flood plain and the plan involves no development in the flood plain.
How can this be? This statement is contrary to fact' (see sec 257.3-1 of
40 CFR 257 which prohibits restriction of base flooding.).
Li Should we not also address the very real problem of the displacement
of area;. residents and their families. What of the farmer who operates a
productive farm who loses a portion of his farm being left with a smaller
portion of farmland which will not support him? Isn't he forced to lease
farming like the farmer who loses all his farm? I suppose the unfortunate
farmer moves to Fayetteville and contributes to the sewage which will cover
his former farm.
What of the social and economic impact on Wyman when farmlands are
turned into sludge. What of the impact on Fayetteville, Northwest Arkansas
and it's citizens? Surely this is a consideration, but I find no such
thoughts expressed in the proposal. What impact will this large sludge
fill._ (with it's probable offensive odor
growth of the area? Does anyone believe
remain constant? What cautious develope
for residential development in the area?
discussed'
and unsightness) have on the future
the value of surrounding lands will
r would consider large expenditures
This most important issue is not
The citizens of Wyman are being threatened with a sludge operation of
great.magnitude, yet, what has Fayetteville done, to doth, to decrease the
sewage flow? What plans exist regarding more stringent sewer use? What
nutrient controls are i,effect and which are being enforced, if any? What
educational approaches are being made to cause Fayetteville sewer users
(industrial and private) to develop and practice conservation?
It is so foreign to our nature to consider onsite treatment practices.
What of future development? Could Fayetteville not require builders to
install only plumbing and sewer techniques which vastly reduce waste water?
13.15
Is it simply easier to disrupt communities, families, traditions, heritages,
ci
R
0
and the enviroment by requiring large tracts of prime farmland for disposal.
Farmland which likely will be waste for generations, if not forever?
One critical flaw in the proposed
sludge
management
system is that the
201 Plan
(see page
6-14) provides that the Aerobic Digesters will
retain the
sludge no
more than
18 days, which is unexplained and
in any event
is in
clear violation
of
the strict requirements of federal
regulations
that
require "Aerobic
Digestion:
The process is conducted
by agitating
sludge
with air
or oxygen
to maintain aerobic conditions at
residence times
ranging
from 60 days at 15°C to 40 days at 20°C......" (Enviromencal Protection
Agency Regulations part 257.4 Appendix II. There are no details or graphic
material in the proposal regarding the method of storage and where such is
to be located. There simply is no proposal of the capacity required:
I could find no discussion of the impact of odor or the geographic
area near this large area of sludge. Passing mention is made that the odor
shouldn't be a problem for the residents of Fayetteville, but convienently
omits any odor impact on the citizens who live near the site. The proposal
states the prevailing Westerly wind will assist Fayetteville in this regard.
That same Westerly wind will carry the odor directly East to the Wyman
citizens. (The sludge is not to be stabilized in accord with 40CFR part 257
This writer is confident that we will all be given -..a sales pitch that
this sludge will not smell offensive. Any logically thinking person would
never accept this promise. This writer in conferring with the supervisor
of the Fort Smith Sludgs..Management was told that "yes, it does smell strong
at times", I would conclude that it smells all the time but is worse at othe
I was advised that the sludge from Ft. Smith's plant (which is sold for
distribution on agricultural lands)is dispensed on farms that contain severa
thousands acre in order to lessen the impact of odor on surrounding
residents.
13.16
Are we so gullible to believe that we can put sludge on top soil and not
C
n
expect odor? Or is this simply an unknown factor with which the Wyman
residents deal.
Having floated and waded the waters below the present WWTP discharge I
can verify that the water always smells septic for a mile downstream. What
if the displacement of birds and animals who will lose their habitat? The
area is populated with quail, dove, hawk, crow, owl, and numerous song birds.
Rabbits, groundhogs, field mice, squirrel, and other animals vital to the
cycle
of nature
populating the area.
This writer knows of no wild bird or
animal
which has
adopted fescue as a
habitat.
What of the effects of wildlife (especially birds) which are attracted
to the raw sludge as food supplies? What of the culmulative metal content
and its ultimate impact? What plan is proposed to protect nature's
scavengers from picking at will at the heavy layers of dangerous sludge
material?
There is no discussion of the impact, of this proposal to dump sludge
on our neighbors, on the historical and archeological resources in the
sludge. area. In addition to several old farmhouses and residences there is.
an old (over 100 years) two story house in this area which may well be
established for designation as a historical site.
The fact that the proposal does not even mention the obvious impact on
the cultural and traditional heritages and practices of the Wyman Community
is inexcusable and displays to this writer the lack of sensitivity of this
entire proposal to the nest important resource of people and their heritage. I
Wyman has a very spacious community center where the local residents
gather for fellowship, family reunions, discussion of conutunity needs, and
serves the people as a place to hold a "Pot Luck" meal and gathering once
per month. The object of this gathering has been to share the friendship of I
13.17
a
neighbors, to get to know each other and their problems a little better
find this admirable in this day and time of haste and preoccupation with
self.
I
This writer can attest that approximately one week ago he was asked to
attend a Community Meeting to listen to discussion regarding the obvious
threat of this sludge plan. The meeting hall was filled with persons of all
ages who conducted their meeting much like a New England Town Meeting. I
sensed a togetherness and understanding of innerdependency which I have rare!
oberved. Everyone knew
everyone else and seemed
to display a
strong will
and resolve born only of
those who till the soil.
Surely this
aspect was
meritoious of consideration by the planners and the engineers? Possibly the;
are qualities beyond their perception?
As I listened to the residents speak of their concern and resolve to
reisist; to resist something really bigger than they were, I could not help
but hear the tranquil sound of whippoorwill in the cover near the River
curring over the pleasant crys of children playing in the field beside the
Community building in which their parents and grandparents prepared to defenc
their right to a clean unpolluted enviroment. I wonder if the children even
knew that their playground and this building was part of a plan, a proposal
pour sludge amoungst the grass and flowers. Possibly if they could have
understood the whippoorwill they would have perceived his desire to sing the:
to them, while he could and while they were there to hear.
13.18
Complete records are maintained by Springdale officials. IThy were these
close geographic examples of management not pointed out to us in the proposall
201?
Li
L
13.19
ij
C
14
ALTERNATIVE
The alternative of controlled and monitered appication to private
farms, golf courses, cemetaries, parks, and other areas, of both sludge and
pure wastewater is a high merit. Obviously, the cost will be great and
provisions need be made to assist the poor with their burden, but, to fail
to select a proper alternative regarding our basic and vital resources is
of danger to us and our children.
This writer has conferred with officials of both Ft. Smith and
Springdale regarding their sludge management. Ft. Smith has contracted with
a private firm (Arkansas Fertilizer) who adds lime and stabilizes the sludge
and who sells the product to Arkansas and Oklahoma farmers and gardeners.
The Ft. Smith officials are satisfied with their plan whereby they pey the
contractor $10.50 per wet ton to stabili.bil.'_ze and apply. The plan is approv
by PCE and is confined to a management area whereby Ft. Smith can observe
and evaluate nitrogen and metal effect. Because of the offensive odor of
the sludge part of the management consists of applying only to large
farmlands. The plan also calls for periodic soil samples and ultimate
testing to properly measure the impact of the controlled application.
(Bill Grant is the Ft. Smith Contact Person). The writer was told that
agents of Arkansas Fertilizer had expressed interest in a similiar
arrangement with Fayetteville and had in fact contacted unknown officials
of our City Government. (contact person is Earnest Bartlett of Arkansas
.Fertilizer Corp.)
Springdale hauls their own sludge product to large farms. The
ti.
stabilized sludge is carefully applied at the maximum rate of one (1) pint
per square feet. The average number of farm users is between 30-50. In 19:
413 dry tons were mangaged in this manner. During the wet period 63 dry
tons were stored on drying beds (cement) and were later removed by local
gardeners.
13.20
CONCLUSION
C
C
I
The management of sludge and wastewater is probably the most pressing
problem facing our people today. The task is great in magnitude and the
science is underdeveloped and actually little is known of the long range
effect of our present practices. One thing we do know from experience is
that the ecological battle is currently being lost.
The discharge of impure and polluted wastewater into our already
polluted drinking water source.and the hope that we can continue to treat
on both ends of the cycle with heavy concentrations of chemicals is
unrealistic. Science is not our total solution. We and only we, acting
collectivly in an effort to conserve our resources and to live in harmony
with the nature. on which we depend to survive can save ourselves.
Economics are and will always be a factor, but if we can pave roads,
build hospitals, operate large administrative government, can dedicate narks
then surely we can insure pure water, clean enviroments and maintain existent
cultural traditions and practices
own existence?
What price tag is coo high to insure our
The City of Fayetteville has clear power to implement and enforce
conversation methods which will reduce greatly the burden on the present
WWTP which is inadequate and outdated.
The proposal to ultimately fill hundreds of acres of prime farm land in
the existent flood plain with a sludge which may leak downward to our
watersupplies and into Beaver Lake is literally preposterous.
An entire community`,iould be uprooted and the entire area detrimentally
affected by odor, unsightleness and drainage into the White River Water
Basin. The animal and bird life in the proposed area would either be
displaced or endangered by the polluted soil and water,
13.21
ci
The creation of a site larger than most nuclear waste dumps is totally
unreasonable.
Surely if the Federal Government proposed to buy 500 acres in Wyman
for disposal of nuclear waste and submitted a proposal as vague as.201 with
as many as unknown factors and had omitted so many critical considerations
regarding social impact and which also didn't meet federal standards, the
Fayetteville City Government would be the first to resist implementation
and would logically distrust the assurances and promises of the govenrment
that everything was safe, within the scope of current knowledge. Resistance
by these citizens of Wyman inures to the benefit of every, person and
creature who drinks from the waters of Beaver'Lake. If further resistance
is called for then these other consumers will be asked to join our small
group to fight this ill conceived plan for so long as the law allows.
We urge this body to study all alternatives in light of a long term
solution. Fayetteville has this one opportunity to establish a model system I
of sludge and wastewater management.
We beseech you, in the name of all mankind, to resist the temptatil
to adopt a proposal of such detriment to so many. Let us all endeavor to
resolve the problem together in order to leave a complete legacy to our
children.
I
1322 .
BOB I. MAYES
C
at
August 17, 1983
Honorable Paul Noland
Fayetteville Board of Directors
City Administration Building
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
In Re: 201 Facilities Plan
EPA Project No. C-050366-01
Honorable Sir:
P. 0. BOX 388
33 NORTH BLOCK
FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS 72702
443-5731
AREA CODE. 501
In my capacity as legal representative for the citizens of Wyman
Community and the Wyman Community area, I am obliged to lodge, for
record, the following objection to certain follow up procedures in
relation to the "Selected Plan" (See Section 6) regarding "Proposed
Sludge Management System" (see page 6-6 of 201 Facilities Plan)..
In accordance with the public notice of the public hearing, by the
City of Fayetteville, at 7:00 P.M. on August 15, 1983, regarding the
�
"Selected Wastewater Management Alternative', a written "Position Report
of the Citizens of Wyman Community Area" was duly filed of record. Such
Report was documented by oral statement at such meeting.
OBJECTION
Formal objection to procedure is hereby made as follows: -
1. The 201 Facilities Plan and the 201 Facilities Plan
Environmental Information Document submitted to the Fayetteville
Board of Directors by CH2M Hill and McClelland consulting Engineers, Inc.,
were filed as "Final Drafts". (See title page to both Documents).
The
advised that
regarding the
such the pros
3. The
was prepared
prepared with
ammendments o
proponets of
Wyman citizens, through their legal representative were
this public meeting (8-15-83) was the final public meeting
"Selected Wastewater Management Alternative" and that as
and cons of such alternative would be presented and discusse
Position Report of the citizens of the
and the statement sunportative of.the "c
the clear understanding that no further
r changes would be made (of substantial
such alternative.
Wyman Community
on" position was
alterations,
nature) by the
14.1
Honorable Paul Noland
August 17, 1983
Page two
C
4. The meeting format was initially used by CH211 Hill representativE
to present the basic contents of this written Facilities Plan, with the
exception that the "Sludge Management Systems" as proposed in Section 6.1.E
of the facilities plan was orally altered and was not presented as a
"dedicated land site" method, rather it was, for the first time, stated
that Fayetteville probably needed a."hybrid plan" with both some
unspecified dedication of situs and agricultural usage.
5. The Wyman residents had no prior notice of this new issue or
alternative position of CH2M.Hill and were obviously prepared to debate
another issue.
C
6. CH2M Hill, at the 8-15-83 meeti
be held for "anyone interested" sometime,
1983, and that the numerous issues raised
of the proposal would be answered at such
of the revealed "hybrid method".
ag, advised that a workshop would
someplace on Wednesday August 17,
regarding the perceived defects
meeting, along with discussion
7. That objections were raised as to the short notice and uncertain;
of the time and location, however, CH2M Hill responded that this was the
only day (or night?) convienent to them. The workshop is obviously
intended for public relations and to answer the issues raised, however, the
notice is totally insufficient and the forum is improper for public
responses to the issues raised at the 8-15-83 meeting. The City Directors
will not be in attendance at such meeting and no transcript is being taken
of the proceedings for their review.
The citizens should be granted sufficient time to insure representative
attendance and the forum should be before the deciding body, the Board of
Directors, and CH2M Hill should not be permitted pursuit of proposals oth
than the one selected unless such is properly documented, reduced to
writing and made as a selection in the final 201 facilities plan.
zspect
BIM:kas
cc: Environmental Protection
Fayetteville City Engine
CH2M Hill
submitted,
14.2