Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-11-29 �McerioMo TELEPHONES: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS K � AREA CODE 714 S40-2910 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 9 6 2-2 41 1 P. O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92708 113844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) November 22 , 1983 NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DISTRICTS NOS , 11 21 31 51 61 7 & 11 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1983 - 7 :30 P .M. 10844 ELLIs AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of November 9 , 1983 , the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1 , 2 , 3, 5, 6 , 7 & 11 will meet in an adjourned meeting at the abov-2 noun and date. V I�/Z� Secretary WHB:rb Ilk BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 8127 of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: JOINT BOARDS Am 9622e11 14 AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1983 — 7:30 P.M. (1) Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation (2) Roll call (3) Appointment of Chairmen pro tem, if necessary (4) Report of the Joint Chairman (5) Consideration of motion to convene in closed session to review personnel matters (6) Consideration of motion to reconvene in regular session (7) Study session re long-term sludge disposal (Study information previously mailed to Directors on 11/18/83) (a) Presentation of sludge disposal alternatives: (1) Co-Disposal at County Landfills Consultant: John Carollo Engineers (2) Private Sector, Offsite Reuse/Disposal Districts' staff (3) Land Composting Consultant: John Carollo Engineers (4) Co-Combustion Consultant: Engineering-Science (5) Mechanical Composting Consultant: John Carollo Engineers (6) Combustion with energy recovery following Carver-Greenfield Evaporation Districts' staff (7) Deep Ocean Sludge Disposal Research Project Districts' staff (8) Environmental Assessment of Co-Disposal, Land Composting, Co-Combustion `..' and Mechanical Composting Consultant: EDAW, Inc. and R. P. Lindstrom & Associates (b) Questions of consultants by Directors (c) Further discussion f �..d (8) Staff recommendations on residual solids management, short-term and long-term compliance with State and Federal NPDES requirements (9) Consideration of response to EPA's 308 (a) letter dated October 31, 1983: See pages "A" (a) Short-Term Compliance re disposal of solids) ) See separate schedule (b) Long-Term Compliance re disposal of solids ) (c) Achieving verifiable influent and effluent flow metering at Plants Nos. 1 and 2 (See separate report and schedule) (10) Further consideration of the request of the City of Fountain Valley dated November 9, 1983, to delete from further consideration as sludge processing and/or disposal alternatives "mechanical composting" and "co-combustion" at Reclamation Plant No. 1. See page "B" (11) Other business or communications, if any (12) Consideration of motion to adjourn -2- 1' J�10 V4)� S, ` UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY F ~114P'011' REGION IX 215 Fremont Street �i San Francisco, Ca. 94105 OCT 3 1 1983 Mr. Fred A. Harper, General Manager County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California P.O. Box 8127 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Dear Mr. Harper: Under the provisions of Section 308(a) of the Clean Water Act [33 U.S.C. §1318(a) ] (the "Act" ) , the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is authorized to re- quire persons subject to the Act to make reports and furnish information as may be necessary for purposes of administering the Act. During the period June 6-8, 1983, representatives of EPA and ES Environmental Services conducted an evaluation of the Orange County Sanitation Districts wastewater treatment plants. It was noted during the evaluation that the District did not have verifiable influent and effluent flow metering for the wastewater treatment plants. Another significant element noted during the evaluation was the discharge of sludge and belt press filtrate into the effluent outfall . For the purpose of determining whether the County Sani- tation Districts of Orange County is in compliance with the requirements of the Act and any permit issued pursuant to Section 402 of the Act [33 U.S.C . §1342] , you are hereby required to provide the following information relating to facility operations within thirty (30) days from the date of this letter. 1 . A detailed schedule that describes how and when the permittee will achieve short term compliance for the disposal of all collected screenings , sludges, and other solids removed from liquid wastes. \"P' "A-1" AGENDA ITEM ##9 "A-1" f � Sludge is defined as follows: Sludge is the accumulated semi-liquid suspension of solids deposited in tanks or basins during treatment of the main wastewater stream, and includes all wastes ( including but not limited to supernatant, filtrate, centrate, decantate, thickener overflow/underflow, etc. ) in the solids handling part of the wastewater treatment system. 2. A detailed schedule that describes how and when the permittee will achieve long term compliance for the disposal of all collected screenings , sludges, and other solids removed from liquid wastes. 3. A detailed schedule that describes how and when the permittee will achieve verifiable influent and effluent flow metering for wastewater plants No. 1 and No. 2 . Under Section 309 (a) of the Act (33 U.S.C. §1319(a) ] , failure to provide the information required by this letter may result in an order requiring compliance or a civil action for appropriate relief. Section 309(c) of the Act (33 U.S.0 §1319 (c) 1 provides penalties for failure to comply or for making any false statements in reports. \Wmp� Your response to this request must be by letter signed by you or a duly authorized municipal official. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact David B. Jones at (415) 974--8089. Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated. Sincerely yours , Frank M. Covington, Dire for 6 Water Management Divisi cc: Mr. James Anderson, Executive Officer, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region "A-2" AGENDA ITEM #9 "A-2" T Nr,��,y` CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY y CITY HALL 10200 SLATER AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92708 �a�d UMN. November 9, 1983 .. Mr. Donald A. Holt, Jr . Joint Chairman County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P. 0. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Dear Mr . Holt: On November 1st, 300 concerned Fountain Valley citizens came before the City Council alarmed that the Sanitation Districts ' Boards of Directors were undertaking studies to determine the feasibility of constructing large facilities at the Districts ' Fountain Valley facility to process and dispose of sludges , which appears incompatible and incomprehensible to the people residing in this community. The two studies I am referring to are Mechanical Composting Studies being conducted by your consultant, John Carollo Engineers , and the Co-Combustion with Municipal Solid Waste Study being conducted by the firms , of Engineering-Science and William F. Cosulich Associates . The City Council is in unanimous agreement with our citizens that major facilities of this nature are not compatible with our community. Attached are the Council actions taken at its November 1st meeting . With regard to the Executive Committee 's recommendation , which is on the agenda tonight as Item 12( a) , I wish to make the following substitute motion : ' 12(a) Consideration of motion authorizing the staff to issue RFP ' s (Requests for Proposals ) relative to development of reuse/disposal alternatives for long-term utilization of the Districts ' sludge by the private sector ; and that the "mechanical composting" and "co-combustion" alternatives at the Districts ' Reclamation Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley be deleted from further study because they are not technically or environmentally sound. " My review with the Districts ' staff of the purposes of mechanical composting reveals that this process is no longer "B-1" AGENDA ITEM #"10 "B-1" Mr. Donald A. Holt, Jr. November 9, 1983 Page Two ar required for direct burial of residuals at the County landfill . The old requirement of 50% solids has been reduced to permit the direct delivery of mechanically-dewatered ( by belt presses) sludges at 25% solids . The co-combustion alternative calls for the installation of a massive burning facility on the Districts ' Fountain Valley property and the importation of hundreds of tons a day of trash . The purpose of the trash is to assist in the burning of 200-250 dry tons per day of produced sludge. We strenuously object to the construction of a facility such as this in Fountain Valley. If this is a viable alternative for trash burning after all the environmental and financial considerations are proven true, construct the facility at one of the approved landfills and leave our neighborhood alone . Please note that the Fountain Valley City Council has directed our legal counsel to search out all legal means to prevent the construction of either of these two alternatives in the event the Sanitation Districts ' Directors and EPA act to proceed. These two alternatives are not compatible with our community and we ask you to delete them from further consideration for installation in Fountain Valley. Sincerely, Barbara Brown City Councilwoman Attachment cc : Boards of Directors , County Sanitation Districts of Orange County City Council, Fountain Valley �d "B-2" AGENDA ITEM #10 "B-2" e November 1, 1983 Fountain Valley City Council Actions : Councilman Nielsen made a motion that: . (1) The Council take public opposition to both processes (burning or mechanical composting of sludge ) that are under consider- ation for Fountain Valley; ( 2) Copies of that resolution/action be sent to the surrounding cities, with a request for them to take action; (3 ) That legal steps be taken if necessary to stop this process; (4 ) That the Director of the Board of Directors of the Sanita- tion District be directed to request that these two processes be eliminated. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Brown and unanimously approved. "B-3" AGENDA ITEM #10 "B-3" 1 ICARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts Past office Box 8127 of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 N Telephones: JOIT BOARDS 96 -Area 2411 14 540-2910 �I AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. (1) Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation (2) Roll call (3) Appointment of Chairmen pro tem, if necessary (4) Report of the Joint Chairman (5) Consideration of motion to convene in closed session to review personnel matters (6) Consideration of motion to reconvene in regular session (7) Study session re long-term sludge disposal (Study information previously mailed to Directors on 11/18/83) (a) Presentation of sludge disposal alternatives: (1) Co-Disposal at County Landfills �(I vv, Consultant: John Carollo Engineers (2) Private Sector, Offsite Reuse/Disposal 1, Districts' staff (3) Land Composting Consultant: John Carollo Engineers (4) Co-Combustion Consultant: Engineering-Science (5) Mechanical Composting Consultant: John Carollo Engineers (6) Combustion with energy recovery following Carver-Greenfield Evaporation Districts' staff (7) Deep Ocean Sludge Disposal Research Project Districts' staff (8) Environmental Assessment of Co-Disposal, Land Composting, Co-Combustion and Mechanical Composting Consultant: EDAW, Tnc. and R. P. Lindstrom & Associates (b) Questions of consultants by Directors (c) Further dis us ion l �.d (8) Staff recommendations on residual solids management, short-term and long-term compliance with State and Federal NPDES requirements (9) Consideration of response to EPA's 308 (a) letter dated October 31, 1983: See pages "A" (a) Short-Term Compliance re disposal of solids) ) See separate schedule (b) Long-Term Compliance re disposal of solids ) (c) Achieving verifiable influent and effluent flow metering at Plants Nos. 1 and 2 (See separate report and schedule) (10) Further consideration of the request of the City of Fountain Valley dated November 9, 1983, to delete from further consideration as sludge processing and/or disposal alternatives "mechanical composting" and "co-combustion" at Reclamation Plant No. 1. See page "B" �- (11) Other business or communications, if any (12) Consideration of motion to adjourn fib'C -2- J��tEO S7��S F UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ~r'�PaoiE REGION 1X 215 Fremont Street �.d San Francisco, Ca. 94105 OCT 3 1 1983 Mr. Fred A. Harper, General Manager County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California P.O. Box 8127 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Dear Mr. Harper: Under the provisions of Section 308(a) of the Clean Water Act [33 U.S.C. §1318 (a) ] (the "Act" ) , the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is authorized to re- quire persons subject to the Act to make reports and furnish information as may be necessary for purposes of administering the Act. During the period June 6-8, 1983, representatives of EPA and ES Environmental Services conducted an evaluation of the Orange County Sanitation Districts wastewater treatment plants. It was noted during the evaluation that the District did not have verifiable influent and effluent flow metering for the wastewater treatment plants. Another significant element noted during the evaluation was the discharge of sludge and belt press filtrate into the effluent outfall. For the purpose of determining whether the County Sani- tation Districts of Orange County is in compliance with the requirements of the Act and any permit issued pursuant to Section 402 of the Act [33 U.S.C . §13421 , you are hereby required to provide the following information relating to facility operations within thirty (30) days from the date of this letter. 1 . A detailed schedule that describes how and when the permittee will achieve short term compliance for the disposal of all collected screenings, sludges, and other solids removed from liquid wastes. "A-1" AGENDA ITEM ##9 "A-1" Sludge is defined as follows: Sludge is the accumulated semi-liquid suspension of solids deposited in tanks or basins during treatment of the main wastewater stream, and includes all wastes ( including but not limited to supernatant, filtrate, centrate, decantate, thickener overflow/underflow, etc. ) in the solids handling part of the wastewater treatment system. 2. A detailed schedule that describes how and when the permittee will achieve long term compliance for the disposal of all collected screenings , sludges, and other solids removed from liquid wastes. 3. A detailed schedule that describes how and when the permittee will achieve verifiable influent and effluent flow metering for wastewater plants No. 1 and No. 2. Under Section 309 (a) of the Act [33 U.S.C. §1319(a) ] , failure to provide the information required by this letter may result in an order requiring compliance or a civil action for appropriate relief. Section 309(c ) of the Act (33 U.S.0 §1319(c) ] provides penalties for failure to comply or for making any false statements in reports. Your response to this request must be by letter signed by you or a duly authorized municipal official. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact David B. Jones at (415) 974-8089. Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated. Sincerely yours , Frank M. Covington, Dire for 6 Water Management Divisi cc: Mr. James Anderson, Executive Officer, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region ,a.d "A-2" AGENDA ITEM #9 "A-2" 4_ ro �$ {� CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY CITY HALL 10200 SLATER AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92708 November 9, 1983 .. Mr . Donald A. Holt, Jr . Joint Chairman County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P. 0. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Dear Mr . Holt: On November lst, 300 concerned Fountain Valley citizens came before the City Council alarmed that the Sanitation Districts ' Boards of Directors were undertaking studies to determine the feasibility of constructing large facilities at the Districts ' Fountain Valley facility to process and dispose of sludges , which appears incompatible and incomprehensible to the people residing in this community. The two studies I am referring to are Mechanical Composting Studies being conducted by your consultant, John Carollo Engineers , and the Co-Combustion with Municipal Solid Waste Study being conducted by the firms • of Engineering-Science and William F. Cosulich Associates . The City Council is in unanimous agreement with our citizens that major facilities of this nature are not compatible with our community. Attached are the Council actions taken at its November 1st meeting . With regard to the Executive Committee 's recommendation , which is on the agenda tonight as Item 12( a) , I wish to make the following substitute motion : "12(a) Consideration of motion authorizing the staff to issue RFP 's (Requests for Proposals ) relative to development of reuse/disposal alternatives for long-term utilization of the Districts ' sludge by the private sector ; and that the "mechanical composting" and "co-combustion " alternatives at the Districts ' Reclamation Plant No . 1 in Fountain Valley be deleted from further study because they are not technically or environmentally sound. " My review with the Districts ' staff of the purposes of mechanical composting reveals that this process is no longer �.d "B-1" AGENDA ITEM #{10 "B-1" Mr . Donald A. Holt, Jr. November 9, 1983 Page Two required for direct burial of residuals at the County landfill . The old requirement of 50% solids has been reduced to permit the direct delivery of mechanically-dewatered ( by belt presses) sludges at 25% solids . The co-combustion alternative calls for the installation of a massive burning facility on the Districts ' Fountain Valley property and the importation of hundreds of tons a day of trash . The purpose of the trash is to assist in the burning of 200-250 dry tons per day of produced sludge . We strenuously object to the construction of a facility such as this in Fountain Valley. If this is a viable alternative for trash burning after all the environmental and financial considerations are proven true, construct the facility at one of the approved landfills and leave our neighborhood alone . Please note that the Fountain Valley City Council has directed our legal counsel to search out all legal means to prevent the construction of either of these two alternatives in the event the Sanitation Districts ' Directors and EPA act to proceed . d.✓ These two alternatives are not compatible with our community and we ask you to delete them from further consideration for installation in Fountain Valley. Sincerely, Barbara Brown City Councilwoman Attachment cc : Boards of Directors , County Sanitation Districts of Orange County City Council , Fountain Valley "B-2" AGENDA ITEM #10 "B-2" b November 1 , 1983 Fountain Valley City Council Actions : Councilman Nielsen made a motion that: A l) The Council take public opposition to both processes (burning or mechanical composting of sludge ) that are under consider- ation for Fountain Valley; ( 2 ) Copies of that resolution/action be sent to the surrounding cities, with a request for them to take action; (3 ) That legal steps be taken if necessary to stop this process; (4 ) That the Director of the Board of Directors of the Sanita- tion District be directed to request that these two processes be eliminated. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Brown and unanimously approved. "B-3" AGENDA ITEM #10 "B-3" 1�.A;BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 8127 of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 JOINT e Telephones: BOARDS Area -24 1 14 540-2910 IIAGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 291 1983 - 7:30 P .M. (1) Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation (2) Roll call (3) o' t , if necessary (4) Report of the Joint Chairman L(6( ) Consideration of motion to convene in closed session to review personnel matters 113(o )) Consideration of motion to reconvene in regular session 1-,Sb (7) Study session re long-term sludge disposal (Study information previously mailed to Directors on 11/18/83) (a) Presentation of sludge disposal alternatives: (1) Co-Disposal at County Landfills Consultant: John Carollo Engineers $;¢� �!_�,,,� $•,d - 8 f 3 (2) Private Sector, Offsite Reuse/Disposal Districts' staff ( FAN) 1pi - $'•1 8 (3) Land Composting v Consultant: John Carollo Engineers (J�ZQ r ) (4) Co-Combustion Consultant: Engineering-Science CC" $'•43 (5) Mechanical Composting Consultant: John Carollo Engineers CL U Kv-et%) 8��3- g'•�� (6) Combustion with energy recovery following Carver-Greenfield Evaporation Districts' staff S:d$- !.Sy (7) Deep Ocean Sludge Disposal Research Project Districts' staff ( FAN) (8) Environmental Assessment of Co-Disposal, Land Composting, Co-Combustion `..� and Mechanical Composting Consultant: EDAW, Inc. and K. P. Lindstrom & Associates (,�j at�) {b Questions of consultants by Directors (c) Further discussion (8 Staff recommendations on residual solids management, short-term and long-term compliance with State and Federal NPDES requirements - FA N (9) Consideration of response to EPA's 308(a) letter dated October 31, 1983: See pages "A" (a) Short-Term Compliance re disposal of solids) ) See separate schedule (b) Long-Term Compliance re disposal of solids ) (c) Achieving verifiable influent and effluent flow metering at Plants Nos. 1 and 2 (See separate report and schedule) (10 Further consideration of the request of the City of Fountain Valley dated November 9, 1983, to delete from further consideration as sludge processing and/or disposal alternatives "mechanical composting" and "co-combustion" at Reclamation Plant No. 1. See page "B" (11) O er a unications, if any (12) Consideration of motion to adjourn -2- dry a�ISO sTgTR F UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PRO REGION IX 215 Fremont Street `,✓ San Francisco, Ca. 94105 OCT 3 1 1983 Mr. Fred A. Harper, General Manager County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California P.O. Box 8127 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Dear Mr. Harper: Under the provisions of Section 308(a) of the Clean Water Act [33 U.S.C. §1318(a) ] (the "Act" ) , the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is authorized to re- quire persons subject to the Act to make reports and furnish information as may be necessary for purposes of administering the Act. During the period June 6-8, 1983, representatives of EPA and ES Environmental Services conducted an evaluation of the Orange• County Sanitation Districts wastewater treatment plants. It was noted during the evaluation that the District did not have verifiable influent and effluent flow metering for the wastewater treatment plants. Another significant element noted during the evaluation was the discharge of sludge and belt press filtrate into the effluent outfall. For the purpose of determining whether the County Sani- tation Districts of Orange County is in compliance with the requirements of the Act and any permit issued pursuant to Section 402 of the Act [33 U.S.C . §1342) , you are hereby required to provide the following information relating to facility operations within thirty (30) days from the date of this letter. 1. A detailed schedule that describes how and when the permittee will achieve short term compliance for the disposal of all collected screenings , sludges, and other solids removed from liquid wastes. "A-1" AGENDA ITEM ##9 "A-1" Sludge is defined as follows: Sludge is the accumulated semi-liquid suspension of solids deposited in tanks or basins during treatment of the main wastewater stream, and includes all wastes ( including but not limited to supernatant , filtrate, centrate, decantate, thickener overflow/underflow, etc. ) in the solids handling part of the wastewater treatment system. 2. A detailed schedule that describes how and when the permittee will achieve long term compliance for the disposal of all collected screenings , sludges , and other solids removed from liquid wastes. 3. A detailed schedule that describes how and when the permittee will achieve verifiable influent and effluent flow metering for wastewater plants No. 1 and No. 2. Under Section 309(a) of the Act [33 U.S.C. §1319 (a) ] , failure to provide the information required by this letter may result in an order requiring compliance or a civil action for appropriate relief. Section 309(c) of the Act [33 U.S.0 §1319 (c) ] provides penalties for failure to comply or for making any false statements in reports. Your response to this request must be by letter signed by you or a duly authorized municipal official. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact David B. Jones at ( 415) 974-8089. Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated. Sincerely yours , Frank M. Covington, Dire for 6 Water Management Divisi cc: Mr. James Anderson, Executive Officer, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region "A-2" AGENDA ITEM #9 "A-2" NZ41 CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY CITY HALL 10200 SLATER AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 �v✓ cif'�b(IMTI.G�� November 9, 1983 .. Mr . Donald A. Holt, Jr . Joint Chairman County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P. O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Dear Mr. Holt: On November 1st, 300 concerned Fountain Valley citizens came before the City Council alarmed that the Sanitation Districts ' Boards of Directors were undertaking studies to determine the feasibility of constructing large facilities at the Districts ' Fountain Valley facility to process and dispose of sludges, which appears incompatible and incomprehensible to the people residing in this community. The two studies I am referring to are .Mechanical Composting Studies being conducted by your consultant, John Carollo Engineers , and the Co-Combustion with Municipal Solid Waste Study being conducted by the firms , of �..' Engineering-Science and William F. Cosulich Associates . The City Council is in unanimous agreement with our citizens that major facilities of this nature are not compatible with our community. Attached are the Council actions taken at its November 1st meeting . With regard to the Executive Committee 's recommendation , which is on the agenda tonight as Item 12( a) , I wish to make the following substitute motion : "12(a ) Consideration of motion authorizing the staff to issue RFP 's (Requests for Proposals ) relative to development of reuse/disposal alternatives for long-term utilization of the Districts ' sludge by the private sector ; and that the "mechanical composting" and "co-combustion" alternatives at the Districts ' Reclamation Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley be deleted from further study because they are not technically or environmentally sound. " My review with the Districts ' staff of the purposes of mechanical composting reveals that this process is no longer "B-1" AGENDA ITEM #10 "B-1" Mr. Donald A. Holt, Jr. November 9, 1983 Page Two \.✓ required for direct burial of residuals at the County landfill . The old requirement of 50% solids has been reduced to permit the direct delivery of mechanically-dewatered (by belt presses) sludges at 25% solids . The co-combustion alternative calls for the installation of a massive burning facility on the Districts ' Fountain Valley property and the importation of hundreds of tons a day of trash. The purpose of the trash is to assist in the burning of 200-250 dry tons per day of produced sludge. We strenuously object to the construction of a facility such as this in Fountain Valley. If this is a viable alternative for trash burning after all the environmental and financial considerations are proven true, construct the facility at one of the approved landfills and leave our neighborhood alone. Please note that the Fountain Valley City Council has directed our legal counsel to search out all legal means to prevent the construction of either of these two alternatives in the event the Sanitation Districts ' Directors and EPA act to proceed . �.d These two alternatives are not compatible with our community and we ask you to delete them from further consideration for installation in Fountain Valley. Sincerely, Barbara Brown City Councilwoman Attachment cc: Boards of Directors, County Sanitation Districts of Orange County City Council, Fountain Valley `i "B-2" AGENDA ITEM #10 "B-2" b �rJ November 1, 1983 Fountain Valley City Council Actions : Councilman Nielsen made a motion that: . ( 1 ) The Council take public opposition to both processes (burning or mechanical composting of sludge ) that are under consider- ation for Fountain Valley; ( 2) Copies of that resolution/action be sent to the surrounding cities, with a request for them to take action; ( 3 ) That legal steps be taken if necessary to stop this process; (4 ) That the Director of the Board of Directors of the Sanita- tion District be directed to request that these two processes be eliminated. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Brown and unanimously approved. 1113-3" AGENDA ITEM #10 "B-3" MANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT Post Office Box 8127 County Sanitation Districts 10844 Ellis Avenue of Orange County, California Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: Area Code 714 540-2910 JOINT BOARDS 962-24111 Meeting Date November 29, 1983 - 7: 30 p.m. On November 9th, the Boards adjourned to Tuesday, November 29th, for the purpose of reviewing the sludge disposal alterna- tives to determine responses to the Environmental Protection Agency based on its letter dated October 31, 1983, for short-term and long-term compliance of residual solids management and a schedule for achieving verifiable influent and effluent flow metering at the Districts ' facilities . On November 18th, study information on sludge disposal alternatives was mailed to the Directors . No. 7: Study Session re Long-Term Sludge Disposal . Joint Chairman Holt will declare a segment of the meeting as a study session to review presentations of the sludge disposal alternatives from Districts ' staff and consultants . No. 9: Consideration of Response to EPA' s 308( a) Letter Dated October 31, 1983 . Enclosed are the staff 's recommended responses to EPA' s October 31st letter for short and long-term compliance and verifiable flow metering . No . 10 : City of Fountain Valley Request Dated November 9, 1983 . Pursuant to the direction of the Boards on November 9, the request of the City of Fountain Valley to delete mechanical composting and co-combustion at Reclamation Plant No . 1 from further consideration has been placed on the agenda. Fred A. Harper General Manager FAH/ddk COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS AGENDA ITEM #9 Of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 812, 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 (714) 962-24I1 November 23, 1983 STAFF REPORT The staff recommends the following responses to EPA ' s 308 ( a ) letter dated October 31, 1983 : 1 . Short-term Compliance--Residual Solids Management . The Districts will continue to truck digested, dewatered sludge containing an average of 221% solids to the County ' s Coyote Canyon Landfill for direct incorporation with municipal solid waste into the operating face of the landfill . This activity will continue at the Coyote Canyon Landfill operation until it is closed in 1986 or 1988 . In the event Coyote Canyon Landfill is closed prior to 1988, the Districts will have the material trucked either by Districts ' personnel and equipment or private contractors to one of four existing private landfill sites listed below : BKK Landfill , West Covina (Los Angeles County) Simi Valley Landfill , Simi Valley (Ventura County) Bakersfield - 1 Landfill , Bakersfield (Kern County) Kettleman Hills Landfill , Kettleman Hills (King County) This short-term alternative will continue until the Districts implement a long-term disposal alternative . ( a) Sludge Dewatering Disposal . All sludges produced at Plant No. 2 are being processed. We have been constrained from handling all the digested , waste-activated sludge at Plant No . 1 because of odor problems associated with dewatering this specific sludge . We have modified the chemical dosing equipment, and, at present, we are handling 75% of the material without odors . We expect this system to be in full operation by January, 1984 so that all sludges generated at Plant No . 1 will be dewatered and trucked to the landfill . ( b) Belt Press Filtrate at Plant No . 1 . A contract to divert the belt press filtrate to the trickling filter clarifiers is currently out for public bid and will be completed by March 30 , 1984 . To avoid violation of our discharge requirements , the Districts have been operating other portions of the facilities beyond their design limits in order to consistently achieve the suspended solids limitations currently in force . 2. Long-term Compliance--Residual Solids Management . The Districts have been in the process of developing an ultimate sludge disposal project through the Federal Clean Water Grant Program since 1974 . The Districts were involved in the joint Los Angeles/Orange County Metropolitan Area Study (LA/OMA) with the City of Los Angeles , the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts , the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the State Water Resources Control Board, an extensive six-year study covering all aspects of sludge processing and disposal . When the study was closed out in 1980 , each of the three operating agencies was to go its own way. Our agency was given supplemental funds to continue further studies in 1980 ; this work has continued through to the present. The EPA is currently funding District investigations of four alternatives , co-disposal with municipal solid waste at County landfill sites , land-based composting , mechanical composting and co-combustion with municipal solid waste . On November 9th, the Districts ' Boards authorized a fifth alternative to be considered, which is off-site reuse or disposal by the private _ sector . Based on the information the Districts has at hand, the current approved method of sludge disposal for the Districts at the County ' s Coyote Canyon Landfill is environmentally sound, as well as very cost effective, when compared to the other options the Districts have under consideration as a whole . The Districts propose to immediately enter into discussions with County authorities in an effort to seek specific terms and conditions whereby our agency can continue the co- disposal alternative at the County landfills . We are hopeful that a permanent contractual arrangement will be in place by January, 1985 . The Districts propose to complete the current ultimate solids disposal facilities plan and EIS by November, 1984, to be eligible for EPA and State grant funding for leachate control and other necessary improvements at the County' s landfills under this proposal . The second preferred alternative for long-term sludge disposal is the off-site reuse/disposal by the private sector . Digested, dewatered sludge between 20% and 25% solids would be trucked to remote areas for further processing for reuse or disposal . This alternative will be conducted by private operators through long-term contracts with the Districts . The -2- Districts are currently advertising for interested parties to submit proposals by March 30 , 1984 . The Districts expect to enter into long-term agreements by March, 1985 , with implementation taking place in 1986 . These two long-term recommended alternatives , co-disposal and offsite reuse/disposal by private sector, are detailed on the enclosed time schedule . 3 . Achieve Verifiable Influent and Effluent Flow Metering at Plants No . 1 and 2 . ( a) Influent Flow Metering . Under a separate report and schedule, the Districts commit to an implementation schedule of March, 1985 for the influent meters at both treatment facilities . ( b) Effluent Flow Metering . The effluent flow metering presents some difficult engineering problems . We are currently considering the possibility of a system which would continuously monitor the water level in the ocean outfall surge tower, the ocean water surface level and continuously compare these two levels with a computer or micro-processor and continuously calculate flow utilizing the Manning ' s Equation concept with the micro-processor . We are also considering the installation of a propeller meter at outfall manhole station 8+00 . We have doubts that this will be satisfactory. We are requesting that the Districts be allotted additional time to respond to the effluent metering question as we wish to check with other marine dischargers . We suggest that we continue our investigation and report to the EPA Region IX office not later than May 31, 1984 as to how and when the Districts will achieve verifiable effluent flow metering for Plants No . 1 and 2 . -3- JOINT BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 1983 @ 7:30 P.M. Question & Answers Director Brown: For Mr. Lindstrom on the environmental study is there a written ,^ report on the environmental study on each alternative? Kris Lindstrom: We have prepared what we call a draft report. It is a consultant's report which is going to be reviewed by EPA internally and this book that we are preparing is going to be reviewed first by EPA and eventually printed and our sponsoring the documents in combination with Director Brown: At what point in time will that report be available to ? Kris Lindstrom: The report will eventually be printed and be noted. It goes through federal regulations of this informal notice and there is a notice of public hearing and availability of the document for public distribution and at that time it will be mailed out to a mailing list of the cities, Chairman Holt: All right. Further questions? Don Roth. Director Roth: Well, I'd like to make an observation relative to the BKK Dumpsite. public input opposing that particular dumpsite because it has so much hazardous waste already in the dumpsite itself. So I realize it is the lowest cost for the short-term alternative but it is an area of doubt as to how long in operatation because of public outcry and the serious problems that are involved in BKK at this time. Chairman Holt: Okay. Thank you, Don. Are there further questions? Yes, Buck. Director Catlin: I've got a number of brief questions. On the various co-disposal and land composting do you have to separate the waste? Solid waste, metal trimmings, what sort of separation do municipalities have to deal with? Bill Knopf: In the co-disposal alternative versus? No, the waste is just dumped in the landfill as it comes and the sludge is just hauled directly Director Catlin: land composting. Does it have to have any separation at all? Bill Knopf: No. Director Catlin: How about the co-combustion? Bill Knopf: No separation. Director Catlin: Next question is how long does the private sector off-site disposal continue? How long can it go on? Chairman Holt: Mr. Harper? Mr. Harper Mr. Chairman, we are asking for proposals from 5 years to 20 years. It is up to the proposer to come in with, to make the time to contract for the service. Director Catlin: The last question I have is on the ocean disposal, if you could solve the environmental issues would that be considered a long-range? Mr. Harper: Very definitely, yes. Director Catlin: In perpetuity. Mr. Harper: Yes. Director Catlin: Then it comes down to me that what it is is what is the longest range solution to the problem we have. If we can put it off for 20 years, that's not long enough in my terms. We are going to be faced with this in 20 years from now and the bottom line is what system has the greatest longevity. Which of these systems? Chairman Holt: Who would like to address that? Bill? Bill Knopf: I don' t think I have an argument with that because it's fine as a goal. , I guess the scope of the project the way we looked at it was we looked at a sort of a, I think a definite planning frame work in order that we could do economic evaluations and so forth. But I think that is something the Directors certainly should be interested in beyond that particular or which alternative will be Chairman Holt: I guess the question of Mr. Catlin is, which project, capital investment-wise, would take us further out into the future before it reaches either obsolescence or rebuild? Bill Knopf: Good question. It depends on a lot of alternatives, variables. The Prima Deshecha Landfill has got a life of 40 years. I mean that's, again that's limited and it will fill up someday. The ocean disposal alternative, I don't know if there is a life there. The pipeline will probably wear out in 40-50 years, but, you know, you could replace the pipeline. Director Catlin: How does New York handle their problem? Chairman Holt: Well, they take it by barge out to sea. Mr. Harper is that correct? Mr. Harper: There has been quite a bit of controversy about it. However, they are barging their sludge to what they call the 12 mile site. There is consideration now for them to move to another site 106 miles off the shore. At the present time they don't have equipment that could get out there and get back. Director Catlin: They have the advantage of having the continental shelf the wrong way and we have it Mr. Harper: The proposal that the Districts are pursuing is a research project to try to answer some of these perceived problems and until we can get the research work done with the top people in the country, it is going to be very difficult to go to the ocean. There is a very definite bias as far as the ocean is concerned. There are more things we do on land with less study than we do in the ocean. We do a tremendous amount of work in the ocean all the time. Chairman Holt: Okay, I have Barbara Brown, then Don Roth, then Dick. Director Brown: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask questions about two alternatives. One, on mechanical composting after reading the staff report that was typed for us it was really a moot alternative. It really isn't a viable alternative in mv. .Is that what staff is saying? That it really wouldn' t be productive in even asking more questions on mechanical composting, right? Mr. Harper: Yes, that's true. Director Brown: Thank you. Good. Got that one down. The next one would be the co-combustion and I have a number of questions in I think a number of areas. One is in terms of traffic, we looked at the traffic figures that you had there for cost. That really was one way was it not? You had almost 100 trucks that would have 200 trips per day. Would that not be so? Chip Clements: Yes, that's right. For example, the refuse trucks are 78 loads in. That's the truck coming in and then going back out empty. Director Brown: So we would have almost 200 per day? Chip Clements: Right. Director Brown: Here, the community I think the staff could help us here when we are talking_ about the annual cost. This would have one of the highest annual costs and I think there seems to be some feeling that there would be some funding held from EPA. Is that a real reality or what seems to be the record on EPA in funding these types of projects or is that something that we should give some real consideration Chairman Holt: Mr. Harper? Mr. Harper: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Any funding from EPA is nothing sure until you get the grant offer. However, in the, first of all I might explain that EPA itself does not give the grants here in California. That program is handled, it has been delegated to the State and the State Water Resources Control Board, their staff in Sacramento actually develops the priority list which are adopted by the State Board. We are at the present time scheduled in, I'm not sure if it is 1985 or 1986, for some 90 million dollars for ultimate sludge disposal. Now that would be from the federal standpoint would be 75% of that figure. However, that could change and there isn't anything sure about it. You would have to, when you get close to that time, that is when you would find out whether you were going to get any funding and whit the amount would be. Chip Clements: Mr. Chairman? Chairman Holt: Yes. Chip Clements: I would like to let Bill Cosolich add a comment about one of the other co-combustion facilities that he looked at in funding and just as an example. Now whether if you get that type of funding, of course as Fred was saying, isn't known at this time but it has, this project has been funded in the past. Bill Cosolich: The Glen Cove facility innovative technology by EPA. They got a grant of 85% Chairman Holt: Don Roth? Director Roth Yes, I wondered if one of our consultants could give us any information that again, going back to South Coast Air Quality in the San Diego County and City project of burning of trash, combustion type, and they spent millions of dollars in the plant and as a monitor they found out there were great difficulties because of lack of separation of trash. You got glass and metals and so it caused the plant to become unable to generate the amount of trash that was supposed to go through the unit and somewhat and soforth and has been a failure after spending several millions of dollars and I was wondering if there has been technology that has been so improved over a short period of say one or two or three years now, since the failure of San Diego combustion plant, that we can look at this thing as a viable project? . , Chip Clements: I don' t know if the San Diego project is a failure to start off with. The project, as far as I know, is still moving ahead. They are having various problems finding a site. Actually, the technology that Bill Cosolich looked at when we were reviewing the various ways of them, the ash burning technology where you don't remove the glass and metal and so on but just burn the refuse basically the way it comes in, removing all the bulky items, engine blocks and weird things like that that come in, this is the most proven technology. There are hundreds of plants operating all over the world right now and several in the United States that are proven and are working well now. The one point you bring up that is of concern specifically out here is controlling the air pollution from these facilities that do have all the contituents in them. That is one of the areas we spent the most time on and our discussions with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, they basically told us that this plan would have to put in the best available controlled technology, BACT they call it. And here if you'll remember the slide I had it involves de knox removing the nox compounds, the acid gas scrubbing and particular removal and that would make it the most sophisticated air pollution contiol plan Chip Clements: (continued)on any facility like this in the world. So that area is very crucial and is one that is one of the biggest costs of the plant. One reason the cost is so high is because you have to put in all of this air pollution control and it makes the 0 & M costs are much higher. It generates more ash and the plan would have to be very, very stringent • Using technologies, at least two of the technologies, De Nox and the acid gas scrubbing that aren' t very well proven on these types of facilities. Power plants have some of them and other facilities. As far as a waste energy this would be a state of the art air pollution control. Chairman Holt: Could we meet the criteria? Chip Clements: Arnie, do you want to elucidate on the. . . . . Arnold Stein: The entire air pollution control Unknown: Could we have him identify who he is? Chairman Holt: Yes. Would you stand up and identify yourself please? Arnold Stein: Yes. I'm Arnold Stein of Engineering Sciences. Chairman Holt: Thank you, Arnie. Arnold Stein: The entire air pollution control as described is strictly by the rules of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. As Chip said, the particular control using a bag house is very well- known, proven technology. The other two aspects, one for the removal of the acid gases, has been used in a number of instances but not on this specific type of equipment and the thermal de nox, while there are no regulations currently on the books for nox, the South Coast insists upon a removal of wherever the state of the art will bare. In this instance it is between 40 and 50%. Now, the technology really is there and I don' t think we should kid ourselves into thinking that there won' t be some developmental problems here because there very well may be with the exception of the particular control. Chairman Holt: Okay, thank you Mr. Stein. Vic, you had your next question. Okay, then Don Griffin please. Don? Director Griffin: Oh, I thought Vic was. . Chairman Holt: No. He passed. Director Griffin: I'm sorry. I'd like to know in looking at the cost per of dry ton of all these difference schemes whether or not the amount of grant eligibility has been considered and is there someway we can determine what effect it has on the cost to the Districts per dry ton. Chairman Holt: Who's best to answer that Mr. Harper? Mr. Harper: Well, the, about the only way we could comment on that Mr. Chairman would be to indicate that that portion of the project, maybe we "^ could go through quickly through this booklet, if you'd like. On the co-disposal because there isn' t any capital requirements other than some additional trucks, if we go to other landfills, it would be very minimum there. We' re talking something under a million dollars. But there could be some grant funding on that. On the private sector there would be no grant funding, if we go to the private sector. On the land composting the figure that's indicated in the booklet is between 53 million and 84 million dollars capital improvements that the grant eligibility portion of it would be something in the neighborhood of 46 million to 73 million. You'd have to use a figure of 75% for the federal funding and 12h% of that figure. So it would be around 80, usually we use 80% when we figure both of them because there's always some things that you don' t receive. I would say 80% of those two numbers, the 46 to the 73 on the land composting. On the co-cumbustion and the numbers we have Harper (cont) here that we gave you were 108 million to 120 million dollars for the co-combustion project and indicated here that, and this is the engineer's estimate of that portion that would be covered under the Clean Water Grant Funds from 70 to 78 million. Again, you'd use about 80% of that figure for the grant funding. Director Griffin: I'm trying to put it in perspective what the costs per dry ton is and can you consider a reduction of those figures shown for some of those high capital costs projects by using or reducing the amount shown by the grant eligible funds ? Mr. Harper: Not on the cost per dry ton because I think that's a projection of the total amount, so I don't think there's any reduction there because of the grant funding. Director Griffin: Okay. Mr. Harper: On the cost per ton. Chairman Holt: Mrs. Brown? Director Brown: Yes. One of the major disadvantages to the co-combustion seems to be, according to staff and also my view, is the on-site storage of municipal refuse. There's a lot of questions about when I remember that according to a definition here I noted to burn 200 tons of sludge you would need 400 tons of refuse brought in and stored. I have a number of questions. First, how are we going to address the environmental task maintaining that refuse here on-site and secondly, the fact that that garbage is going to take quite a bit of our land here and we have to admit that we are on a limited land area and bearing in mind any other future treatment requirements are '.dft� imposed on us, you know, by whatever regulatory agencies out there there is. How will that, is co-combustion in that really realistic here on this particular site? Chairman Holt: Mr. Harper, again, the environmental person. .Okay. .Kris? Kris Lindstrom: The facilities is, the design of it would be totally enclosed and there would be negative air pressure inside to control odors from the refuse but it would be designed such as it will handle about 2 to 3 days worth of storage and that would be maximum, but I think one thing would be obvious in the negotiations with the cities and and things is that you have contingency plans that if some of the plant were down it would go to a landfill. You have to maintain that option just like the Districts would want to do with any of the sludge alternatives. You've got to have some kind of back-up if something happened. Whatever it may be, strikes, whatever, equipment failure, those types of things. There is a redundency in the plan and if the sludge and drying portion were down you could still combust the refuse and be generating the energy and it's important in the design because the treatment plant is going to be dependent on the energy generated although there'll be a redundancy there. They're one of the biggest energy users in the county now and they are not going to be able to, they are always going to have to be functioning vital public service going 24 hours per day, 365 days per year, and, so, any system is going to have to take that into account. In terms of the 3-day maximum storage to be handled on site, it's going to be in an enclosed building. The, if you control the odors and, that would be the maximum there and you could combust it or if worse comes to worse, haul it away. But, I don't know if that has happened at other facilities Director Brown: In terms of land area, how would that impact us right here? Because we are really limited here Chairman Holt: Mr. Harper? Mr. Harper: Yes. Yes, that is a very real concern of the staff. It's very obvious that there is not going to be any additional lands available for wastewater treatment either at this plant or the other plant in Harper (cont) Huntington Beach. And, I think it's one of the secondary reasons why the staff would be concerned about utilizing as much land as the co-combustion would require even though that's an efficient use of land. I think that we'd be very concerned to use that at this time. Director Brown: That is really a major concern to the Mr. Harper: Absolutely. Director Brown: You say that's a secondary or primary? Mr. Harper: Well, I'd say secondary. Your cost, well it would be the cost and then the, whether it's a real proven system. Chairman Holt: Okay, Ruth Bailey? Director Bailey: Yes. On the summary of preliminary cost estimates. On the total annual costs, are we talking about a one year or are we talking about 20 years or ? Chairman Holt: We are addressing the pink sheet. Mr. Harper? Mr. Harper: Those costs, I believe, are over the 20 year period. Isn' t that correct? I believe that's the way they were calculated. Director Bailey: They were all calculated over the same? Chairman Holt: It's over a 20 year period is the response. Mr. Harper: That's right. Yes. Chairman Holt: Norm Culver? Director Culver: Ibwant to ask Mr. Harper if there presently any firms in the private sector. . This sort of intrigued me that the private sector. Are there firms that are inaugurating this in the state? Mr. Harper: I don' t know if there are in the state. There have been, uh, this seems to be a trend that some of the public agencies are going to because they can' t get out of their own territorial boundaries and there have been several proposals. Hartford, Connecticut, for one, had entered into an agreement with a company. I believe it's someplace in Ohio has two different proposals they are considering at the present time. We believe that the work that has been done by the LA/OMA study will give some of the private sector an idea of places where a lot of work has been done to look at the ground conditions, all the other, the transportation, a lot of things that have gone into some studies that they could utilize. Chairman Holt: Buck. Director Catlin: On the land composting alternative on Chapter IV, page Roman Numeral IV, page 1, regarding the Orange County Supervisors resolution. Would you review that again and off, and I gather they have taken a position against Bee Canyon. is to long so what are the possibilities ? Chairman Holt: Okay, Mr. Harper, could you address that as well as I guess the MOU again? Mr. Harper: Yes. At the present time following, I believe it was in 1981 when there was concern of the people in the north Irvine area of the Districts proposing to select a site out near the E1 Toro Marine Base for a composting site, the County Supervisors had at that time passed a resolution indicating that they would not permit any processing in that area so that you might say we are locked out of doing anything at that point. As far as the composting operation, we really aren' t interested in doing that at this time because we can go directly to a landfill. The 50% solids requirement pushed us into the composting arena. So at this time the whole idea of composting for the san districts is somewhat moot. Chairman Holt: Okay. I have Carol Kawanami, Sam Cooper and then Don Smith. Director Kawanami: In the report on page Roman Number VI-24, regarding the ash classification and co-combustion alternatives being non-hazardous or hazardous. It is my question to the onk consultant , in the is there a similar problem that you might have in this hazardous ash? Unknown: Blake Anderson: Yes, that's true. And we might talk a little bit about what we mean by hazardous. It's basically a measurement of the leachibility of trace contaminents, like heavy metals, out of the ash and it really would prescribe the kind of landfill in which the ash would have to be disposed. Director Kawanami: The other question I have is when did the great potential that the BKK dumpsite would be closed. In that event where would the ash that is classified that way be disposed of? Blake Anderson: The other Class I landfills that are alternatives are up near Bakersfield at Kettleman Hills and out near Santa Barbara at Casmalia. So that would add significantly to the amount of transportation distance. BKK is an important site for all hazardous waste right now. Director Kawanami: And the costs that we have on the pink sheet do not reflect the hazardous ash ? Mr. Harper: No. Director Kawanami: You would have to add that amount to the pink sheet numbers. Blake Anderson: Yes. Chip Clements: I don' t have the pink sheet but the costs that we represented were for, yes, were not hazardous. Director Kawanami: Not hazardous. Chip Clements: Right. Director Kawanami: Thank you. Kris Lindstrom: I would like to add a comment there. I'm working on another project that is dealing with specifically with some ashes and maybe if, right now the State Department of Health Services classifies the ashes as hazardous until proven otherwise by the specific leaching tests. And there is a difference between federal leaching tests and state leaching tests so it's still in limbo. There are many alternatives for, looking at potential reuse and recycling of the ash materials such as in material, and cement and other things that bind up the metals so that they're not available to the mountain water as a contaminent. So there are other positive aspects that come out of it. Not just the negative. So, try to look at how every can be recycled, also, and reused in an environmentally safe manner. Chairman Holt: Okay. Sam Cooper? Director Cooper: Yes. I have some questions. One question that relates to the Alalfa Dumpsite. The question I'm concerned with is at this time it says you need a ten to one ratio for trash over sludge Do we have any answers relating to when that particular site would have that capability? That' s number one. Chairman Holt: Okay, who on the panel can address that? Bill? Bill Knopf: The Santiago landfill? Is that the question? Director Cooper: No, Alalfa. Bill Knopf: Okay. Basically you could take sludge there now but you are just limited as to how much sludge that you would take by the amount of solid waste that goes there. And I guess that basically the area that is served by that landfill now, there would never be enough to .�. take all the sludge but there certainly is adequate solid waste to take some of it. About a third of the, as near as I can tell, about a third of the waste in the county, solid waste in the county, goes there now. Director Cooper: At this time there's no sludge going in effect? Bill Knopf: That's right. It all goes to Coyote Canyon. Director Cooper: I beg your pardon? It all goes to Coyote, okay. The other question is we talked also about the revising the Olinda site. Again, will that also be in the same category as limited sludge availability. Bill Knopf: I think that's a safe assessment. Director Cooper: Is that a fair assessment of that? Bill Knopf: I think there's only one site there in that area. Director Cooper: I said if there is, they're talking about perhaps increasing Olinda again , and that also would be the same set-up. Very limited. Okay. I noticed we used a tremendous amount of big numbers and millions of dollars and have any computations been made in general terms of the cost to the homeowner as it relates to grant to the cost and non-grant to the cost? In other words, what I'm 40h. saying is we're, we have to figure this today that we're paying for our sewer assessments. How much more will be required under different terms such as if there is an 8% grant, etc. and a non-grant. Have we given any thought to that? I mean you push all these numbers around and nobody says, well, this is what it's going to cost the homeowner. I think that's basically what it comes down to. Chairman Holt: Like that's similar to the question that Don Griffin asked in, you know, slightly different words. But as to whether the numbers were based on grant or non-grant availability, Blake, can you answer that? Blake Anderson: Well, I could give you one rough rule of thumb. It's for every 10 million dollars of annual costs, we can assign about $20.00 per year per household. So, that's close. Director Cooper: So that's, so we understand what we're talking about because we talk in big numbers but when it comes down to the basics which affects the homeowner, that's where we really have to know how much money it is going to cost the homeowner. Is that correct? That's what I want to get. So it's $20 Blake Anderson: In that ballpark. Director Cooper: In the general ballpark for each 10 million costs. Okay. Allright. Chairman Holt: Don Smith Director Smith: Mr. Chairman, I've always believed in the private enterprise very strongly and I'd like the staff report under that and the possibility and if the indication is good. If that's so and without the capital expenditures I certainly, unless I'm missing something, I, the costs per from 47 to 68, I'd certainly like to know more about that certain energy. Chairman Holt: Okay. Mr. Harper can you add more to that please? Mr. Harper: Well, Mr. Chairman. Of course these are our best guesstimates at this time. However, the way we approached it was to take the trucking costs. In other words, just, I'm not going to name a city a Harper (cont) because they probably would be down here tomorrow, but it would be someplace out towards the California line, I'll put it that way. We're looking at Chairman Holt: Quick! Get a map out. Mr. Harper: A big sweep. The California line is 3 miles off shore. But the, anyway we're looking at a cost of about $245 for a truck of the size that we operate to travel that distance and return. The tipping fee that we pay the county for each load that goes to the landfill is $142, so what we've done, we've made some calculations based on the basis of those costs and certainly a profit for the private operator and we believe that he can operate within a million dollars of what the san districts can operate which is in the, if we go to the sanitary landfill, we're looking at a cost of 2h million dollars where we are right now on an annual basis and up to 3h million dollars a year if we have to go to several landfills. So what we've done, we've expanded those costs for the private section between 3h to 5 million dollars a year and we think they can do it on that basis. We do believe there are some definite advantages to it and we think we' ll be getting some very solid proposals. We have not had good experience in the past with private operators and I think primarily because we looked upon sludge in a little different light than we do now. Many years ago we didn't want to spend any money to do anything with sludge and, in fact, I think when it got up to $3.37, we started looking around for another way to get rid of the sludge because it was too costly. And, at that time why the volume of sludge that we had each day was considerably less. But now with all of the new improvements we have put in these large treatment plants, we have a tremendous amount of sludge and it has to be taken ,.m%, care of. Director Smith: Mr. Chairman, you would still have your land available in that process and I think that co-combustion would be a poor alternative to take the land and the temporal improvements Whether it's local money or f$deral money, I guess it's still taxpayers' money and so that That's certainly, at this time at least, I know more about that and support Chairman Holt: Okay. Are there further questions of staff or the consultants? Barbara? Director Brown: I just had one final question. I think that with Mr. Clements there was one thing that I didn't hear and that was an important consideration in some sort of size relationships. One, we're talking about dryers and we're talking about burners and could you give me some idea of one? At this facility what the size would be in terms of pipe area, you know, visibility from the neighboring area? And secondly, on a broader perspective compared to any other co-combustion facility, what would be the relationship of this, if indeed you did put a co-combustion facility here, the size of this facility here to any other in the nation or in the state? Chip Clements: As far as the delta profile would look like, the buildings for the drying and the combustion are roughly the same height, a little bit lower, than the existing cooling towers out there from water factory 21, if you know what those are. The buildings . . Director Brown: Chip Clements: They are 60-70 feet. Something in that is what they are. I have the exact number somewhere so that the building themselves are but this whole part is the stack which would be 200 to 250 feet for the stacks. So that- s basically, you can see the stacks but not the building in the overall view. As far as the size of this co-combustion plant and the others in the country, the Glen Cove Plant. Bill Coselich, maybe you could explain the size of that one and also the one in Pennsylvania Bill Cosolich: Glen Cove is burning 150 tons per day but compared to a total of 650 tons per day I think it' s 4 or 500 tons per day . Several we visited in Europe are 600 tons per day Director Brown: So the answer here is here in the United States this would probably be 3 times larger than any facility in the United States. Chip Clements: Well, the one is 250 tons a day and Director Brown: Well, we'd be 600 Chip Clements: the other, we think is about 400 or 500 and this would be 650. Director Brown: So this would be the largest in the United States? Chip Clements: Right. Director Brown: On a system that we're not sure if it works . . . Chip Clements: As far as waste energy and burning refuse and so on, they are up to 3000 tons per day so those are much larger. But that's true. As far as co-combustion is concerned, this would be the largest. Director Brown: Okay. Chairman Holt: Mr. Wedaa Director Wedaa: Yes. Looking at the photograph on the board of plant 1 and recognizing that it does in fact have a limited amount of ,.a, associated with it, it cannot really be expanded. I wonder if staff has ever considered the concept of acquiring air space over the Santa Ana River for the purposes of expanding the facility? Mr. Harper: No, we haven' t, Mr. Holt, at this time. Unknown: Chairman Holt: That's a hell of an idea for building an airport. Right down the middle of the Santa Ana River! Director Wedaa: They do things like that they build in airspace. Mr. Harper: Mr. Chairman? Chairman Holt: Yes, Mr. Harper. Mr. Harper: The City of New York has, is starting to double-deck their treatment plants now. Director Wedaa: Well, they have an apartment house built above the approach to the Irvine air space. Chairman Holt: Okay. I have a couple of questions, if I may, myself. Since all parts of the county contribute towards the ultimate product, sludge, why are we not able to deposit the sludge a little bit at each landfill? Nobody knows? Mr. Harper: Mr. Chairman, I think this is a subject that should be a subject of discussion with the county authorities. In fact, I think that you'll find that it would be one of the recommendations later this evening. Chairman Holt: Okay. The next question that I have, Chip, if I may, going back to your presentation, you talked about 28 sludge trucks per day, I believe. Is that in total from Plant 1 and 2 or just from Plant 2 coming to Plant 1? Chip Clements: From Plant 2 coming to Plant 1. Chairman Holt: Okay. Those are the only questions I had. Are there further questions? Yes, Vic. Director Grgas: In terms of your cost estimate you could have used 20 year figures of the dry cost per Now in your co-combustion alternatives, did you take into account cost savings that may be attributed to the ability to sell back some of that power and how it reflects on overall operation costs from this ? Chip Clements: Certainly. For the co-combustion that's one of the big items in that cost summary I showed was savings from generating power. that, there's really no reason to feel that's a crime. Director Grgas: I think what I'm saying, though, is that we're talking about $100, let's say co-cumbustion, $123 to $137 cost per dry ton. What's that going to be 20 years from now or 15 years from now if you assume an escalating cost of energy which we will no longer have to pay. There will be some savings accrued and have these numbers been generated with that in mind. Chip Clements: I think that, isn't the number, the dry ton number is just for the present year. It's not projected out over Director Grgas: So there'd be no savings other than what we show here already Blake Anderson: It flattens any cost escalation is if you can get an energy back, that flattens any of the, of that one alternative, the overall cost. Director Grgas: So this number basically is our best number we're working at Chip Clements: That includes the energy savings. Director Grgas: That's what I was asking. Chairman Holt: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen. Ruthellen? Director Plummer: I noticed, I'd like to know about on the private sector disposal. We've got a cost per ton of the high mark of $68 which is double what it's costing right now to go to the county landfill. I'm wondering will the Districts be able to absorb that in a doubling up of cost or will there have to be some types of adjustments on these? Mr. Harper: Well, there will be an adjustment of fees. Depending on, really, what the ultimate costs are regardless of which system we go to. The, but at the present time, like the operating costs. Let's say it goes to the high side, to 5 million dollars. We'd be looking at $10, let's see? No, it would be $5 per household that would be the cost if it goes to the 5 million dollar figure. Director Plummer: Per year or per month? Mr. Harper: No. That would be per year. Blake Anderson: Per year. It would be $10. Mr. Harper: Oh, $10. Beg your pardon. $10. Right. Director Plummer: Will we have to have a series of hearings like we did before? Mr. Harper: No, we won't have to have a series of hearings for those districts that have user fees. But those that do not and we need to have user fees, they would have hearings. Chairman Holt: Bill Vardoulis? Dir. Vardoulis: The difference is only $5 not $10? Mr. Harper: Yes. $5. Chairman Holt: Are there further questions either to the consultants or to our staff on this? Don Smith? Director Smith: How does the staff feel about the time for the private sector to review In other areas? Have they done it for years? ^► Mr. Harper: In the private sector? Director Smith: Yes. Mr. Harper: No, they haven' t. There are probably some places that have been taking sludges for many, many years. Actually the Kellogg Nitrohumus is an operation that has been using the Los Angeles County Sanitation sludges for many, many years. And they took sludges from here at one time. What we believe will happen in our particular case that there will be proposals that will probably involve reuse, but they're not going to depend on that. They're going to have a disposal site and then, if they can reuse it and sell it, they will do that. But, I think that the emphasis is going to be on disposal. Director Smith: So then the cost per ton could be flexible? Mr. Harper: Yes. VJ Chairman Edgar: I think that the interpretation there that Fred has is that the private sector would tend to do the same thing we would do but without the limitation of county boundaries. Chairman Holt: Okay. Are there any further questions? Thank you. Well, it's seven minutes of. I've got seven minutes yet. Okay. I want to thank the Directors for all the questions that you have asked, as well as the consultants for your input and guidance to our Joint Boards. I have decided that in the manner of the dignity and decorum of the Chair that I will not use my train whistle tonite. But, in all seriousness, the next item is is there any further discussion in regards to the alternatives that have been presented to us? Then at this time I would like to bring us out of the study session mode and back into an open-type of session wherein motions and whatever can be made and counted and voted upon. And, moving on to Agenda Item No. 8 is in regards to staff recommendations on the residual solids management, short-term and long-term compliance with State and Federal NPDES requirements. Mr. Harper? Mr. Harper: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I might just make one comment before we go into the recommendations. These studies that have been conducted have been conducted with the approval of EPA and the State Water Resources Control Board, and they have been funded up to 87h% funding. And, so, it is our intention that these studies will be completed in accordance with the contractual arrangements we have made with the consultants. And then this information is going to be passed on to EPA and to the State so it can be used in other programs for other public entities. In the case of the co-combustion, one of the things that many of us have urged the EPA on several occasions, when good ideas come up that they should be constructed on some type of a modular size that could be repeated several times afterwards if it was a useful process. And, I believe, particularly with the co-combustion concept that has been developed by our consultants, we will be pushing again to see if we can' t have funding, not particularly here, but someplace where this process could be developed on a modular size that could be reproduced again once everything has been worked out on it so that the air quality could be tested and all of the other aspects of development of the process such as this. The Districts' staff has been in discussions with EPA personnel, as well as the State people, as to how we are going to proceed in this through the, what we call the residual solid management, and flow meter verification schedule that to comply with this 308 letter that we received from EPA. We have included in the agenda material for tonight, and maybe you have the large spread sheets, which is a duplication of what's up on the wall. The staff is recommending that the districts proceed with two alternatives. The first alternative, or preferred alternative, Harper (cont) would be continued co-disposal at county landfills. Now, this recommendation is coming without any discussions with the county authorities on the feasibility of this approach. However, in looking at the environmental impact report on the closure of Coyote Canyon, it indicates that the impact of sludge being blended with the solid waste at that site has minimal effect as far as the concerns, the environmental concerns. The other compelling reason to consider the co-disposal is the cost is the lowest of the various alternatives that have been studied. We suggest or recommend to the Board that we consider that as the preferred approach with the idea that we would be directed, the staff would be directed to work with the county authorities and bring to them some ideas that we have that would make the incorporation, if you will, of our sludges at the landfills, something in that would be possibly even more desirable than they believe today. There are grant funds that could be available for leachate control at the landfills, and so I think we do need to sit down and talk in more serious terms with the county authorities on the possibility of us having a long-term arrangement at the landfills. The, and I think that, Mr. Chairman, one of the thoughts would be that the landfills that, not just one landfill, but maybe some of the other landfills, would accept waste on a limited basis so that the environmental effects overall would be as minimal as possible. The other proposal that we are suggesting, and that would be the second recommended approach, is the, through the RFP's to the private sector, ands of course, that's an unknown until we receive those on March 30. Again, we would be looking at those proposals. The Board would set up a screening committee and then make recommendations around in July as to those firms that were selected to refine their proposals and then they would be given several months, as much as five months, to develop or refine their proposals for further consideration in the beginning of 1985. If the, that is the route we go, there would be no federal funding. However, and we wouldn' t know until those proposals come in, what the length of the contracts would be. One thought that we have had that we may, if we get several good proposals, the Districts may want to have more than one contract. The other problem, or the other part of the response to the EPA letter, has to do with our monitoring programs. We have a separate report that was mailed to you that recommends we proceed with a replacement of several meters, the total cost of which is estimated including the installation of something over $300,000. The time frame is on the back of that report. We're looking at ordering the meters possibly in January with delivery around September with several months for installation. We believe that this will, in addition to that there were a couple of short-term concerns that EPA had. One was that we were not processing all of our waste-activated sludge at Plant 1. That will be remedied. We'll have, it will all be processed for disposal at the landfill by January, just a little better than a month away. And the other was the filtrate from the belt presses that we will have that accommodated and taken care of that problem prior to March 30. The, it' s our understanding that the decisions that are made by the Boards considering, concerning the schedules of the waste management, as solids management as well as the flow verification, will be incorporated in the NPDES permit that will be issued, hopefully, on February 10. That will be the 301 (h) waiver permit and the conditions will be set forth for the implementation of our short-range, as well as our long-range, sludge disposal and the flow verification. So, Mr. Chairman, that would be our recommendation on this matter. Chairman Holt: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen are there questions or discussion with staff in regards to their recommendations? Unknown: Motion Chairman Holt: Allright, there is a motion and a second to move the staff recommendations under Item No. 8, which is the VJ Chairman Edgar: Isn't that 9? Chairman Holt: I'm sorry. Item No. 8. Well, all right. It would be 9. You' re right. Item No. 9 as far as the motion. Okay. A, B and C of Item No. 9. Is there any discussion to the motion? lA Dir. Luxembourger: on the dollar amount on the meters, because I came up at the last minute I'm anxious to know what account we are carrying this in? The $3u0,000. Mr. Harper: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I did fail to indicate that the, each of the Districts, each individual District will pay for their portion of the meter. In most cases the District that's named in the report will be funding that cost. Dir Luxembourger: It's prorated ? Mr. Harper: Well, like in the case of the Talbert Trunk, that's District 1. They will pay the cost of that meter. And the cost of that is going to be, looks like $31,000. Dir Luxembourger: Now does that money come out of or do we have 0 Mr. Harper: I don't know that we have a specific item on that particular meter but it would come out of our, the, which one of it? Mr. Sylvester: The reserve Mr. Harper: Yes. It will come out of the reserve in the accumulated capital outlay fund. Chairman Holt: Okay. Are there any further questions or discussion to the motion? Is there any opposition to the motion? Then if you'll please cast unanimous ballot. Next item is No. 10. This is in regards to AMK further consideration of the request of the City of Fountain Valley. This was contained in a letter dated November 9, 1983. Would the Director from Fountain Valley care to address the Boards? Director Brown: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Based on the bulk of the report that we heard this evening, based on the staff listing the advantages and disadvantages of all the alternatives and right now this final motion and recommendation from the staff has gave us a long-term and short-term alternative which were both viable and realistic in addressing our sludge problems. I would move that co-combustion at Plant No. 1 and mechanical composting at also Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2, that they are considered moot by the staff, be eliminated from further consideration. Unknown: Second Chairman Holt: All right. There is a motion and a second. Is there any discussion to the motion? Director Perry: Yes. Are they talking about, is this back to the original motion that we have a copy of to eliminate Fountain Valley from any thought of doing any of these things? Chairman Holt: She addressed both, Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2, that co-combustion and mechanical composting be eliminated from further consideration. Director Perry: I would urge the Board to vote that down. I don' t think at this time that we can actually eliminate anybody. Chairman Holt: Okay. Buck? Director Catlin: I would echo the same sentiments. I think we're closing an option on us. I have nothing against Fountain Valley but I think we ought to, closing an option we should always consider this as a possibility Chairman Holt: John? Director Thomas: Yes. At our last regular council meeting, the council voted unanimously to support Fountain Valley's proposal against co-combustion and mechanical composting at 1 and 2. We support them fully. Chairman Holt: Ruthellen? Unknown: What city is that? Director Thomas: Huntington Beach Director Plummer: I'd like to know, you mentioned that you were going to complete the studies. How far along are they? Are they finished? Are they half-way through? Or, if this motion passes, what happens to Chairman Holt: To the studies and the EIS? Okay. Mr. Harper? The question is, what happens to the studies and the EIS in regards to these two alternatives that's being recommended for deletion? Mr. Harper: Well, the percentage I'd have to ask the consultant to tell me what percentage they are complete with it. But, it would be our thought in the discussion I had with EPA, that they would complete their study so that that information could be used elsewhere. Chairman Holt: What would be the result, Mr. Harper, if we were to stop the study before completion? Would we receive funding in that same percentage or would we lose funding? Mr. Harper: That's somewhat in debate right now. We will have to have a meeting with the State and EPA to make a determination if we are closing out any of these options as to what, how much they will pay and how much the District would have to absorb. Aft� Director Plummer: Would this motion jeopardize our standing with EPA? Unknown: What was that question? Mr. Harper: I don' t know that I could really answer that. Chairman Holt: Let me paraphrase the question. The question was, if we were to proceed with this motion, would it jeopardize our position with the EPA? Is that correct? Director Plummer: Yes. Chairman Holt: Okay. Mr. Harper? Mr. Harper: Mr. Chairman, I must ask a question. How far along is the study at this point? What percentage is completed? Bill Knopf: , Mr. Harper. From the facility plan, itself, the technical engineering parts of it are, like, 75% complete. I think that the evaluations of all the alternatives are done. The only work remaining is to write the chapter on the apparent best alternative. Mr. Harper: Okay. Well, we could do that now. Bill Knopf: Yes. Kris Lindstrom: The environmental report is about 90% complete. We have to coordinate with the engineers on engineering rankings that are required under the grant regulations and then conclude our studies. Chairman Holt: Okay, I have Barbara, then Bob, Don and Sam. Director Brown: Mr. Chairman, I guess I was concerned here when I hear, you know, I am concerned about Fountain Valley's concern. I think it's a broader concern. The people in Fountain Valley are concerned about sludge disposal and realize that it is a major problem. And it isn't, you know, just our problem, but all of our problem and we are willing to deal with it. We've been dealing with this facility for a long time and we are happy to do it. We've been good neighbors here. And I think what we're really addressing is one, one Brown (cont) alternative that I happen to eliminate, mechanical composting, which is according to staff, if you'll look at your report, is entirely moot except the requirements for Class II landfills has been changed. So it's automatically out, you know. There seems to be there's no question on it. The other one that I'm concerned about is co-combustion. What we're being asked here is to consider a facility which is three times larger than any other facility in the United States which has not been proven. The air quality, air pollution standards, we don't even know if they can be met. And, I go through the staff's concerns. They're very great. It has the very highest capital cost. The fact, just the running of such a facility, the on-site storage and the municipal storage. We could be storing up to between 1200 tons of rubbish here at this facility. The traffic impact, I don't think, you know, the 200 trucks per day don't even begin to address, you know, how a residential area will be impacted. And, I think another question that really hasn't been addressed is the ash residue. Oh, okay. I have another thought here. We're not against co-combustion. You know, that's not what I'm asking. I'm not asking that co-combustion be eliminated as an alternative., I think it is probably a very viable alternative in the right place. What I'm asking is me not be an alternative but is in the middle of a residential area. Just as I would not approve it being in Newport or Irvine, or any other residential area. And I think that's basically the point that I'm bringing before you. Chairman Holt: Thank you, Barbara. Let me clarify something, if I may, with Chip. I believe the numbers that were used were 250, 400 and 650. But, Mrs. Brown, you continue to use the terminology three times as AM, large. Would you care to respond to it? Is it indeed three times as large? Chip Clements: No. The two plants that are currently operating, one is 250 tons per day and the other one, we believe, is 400 or so, somewhere in that range. So this would be 650, so it's, you know, twice as large as the small one and 50% larger than the one in Pennsylvania. Chairman Holt: Okay Bill Cosolich??: May I, there's just two things that I would Chairman Holt: Yes sir. Bill Cosolich?? One, where we would assign this study total look at the two treatment plants. Now there's other areas in the county where it could be built. That's number one. Two, I guess if I'm correct, those figures we have there all have to do with now before grant money. Chairman Holt: Before what, sir? Bill Cosolich?? Before grant money. Now, you look at co-combustion with the before grant money, and you're talking approximately $140 per dry ton, and looking after grant money, it's $35 That's right. So it's considerably less. Chairman Holt: Okay. I have a number of you that want to speak and it's Bob Hansen next. Director Hansen: I'd like to make a motion that this resolution be tabled until further study is done by staff. Unknown: Second the motion. Chairman Holt: All right. There's a motion and a second to table what? Director Hansen: To table Barbara's resolution, motion rather. Chairman Holt: To table her motion. Director Hansen: Until further study by staff. Chairman Holt: All right. Is that motion understood by everybody? All right. It's non-debatable. I'm sorry. Director Brown: No. You asked if it was understood by everybody. I just finished asking staff, the motion says further of motion until further study by staff, I just had a recommendation from staff, or ^- just gave input on what those alternatives. One, that one was obsolete and one that the other one was now Director Cooper: Mr. Chairman Chairman Holt: Yes. Director Cooper: You directed that there were going to be four people, you know, speak and I think that' s only proper before you somebody to make a motion other than what's on the table. I think Chairman Holt: All right. Well, Mr. Cooper, I can' t control who makes what motions and the only way that we can go on and take the other five or six people that want to speak is to vote in opposition of the motion. And, there cannot be a debate on a table motion. So the only way that you can do anything about it is to vote against it. And, unless there are further questions of the motion, I would call . Bill? Dir. Vardoulis: A point of information, Mr. Chairman. The motion says until further study by staff and to me that's not very clear. 'chat study? I don't understand. Chairman Holt: All right. Mr. Harper, excuse me, Tom Woodruff, and he is right in the point that you bring up is a point of order. It is indeed correct. That a move to table is period. A move to table to anytime certain, which yours' is getting a time when staff comes back, is a continuance. So the motion is improper. Director Hansen: Then I'll make a motion to table period. Unknown: I'll second it. Chairman Holt: All right. There's a motion and a second to table period. Any clarifications of the motion? Don Smith. Director Smith: Can the consultants finish their report under that? Tom Woodruff: They have a contract. Director Smith: They'll still continue it? Chairman Holt: Right. Is that correct, Mr. Woodruff: Tom Woodruff: They' re under contract to do it, and they've got some time schedules in the absence of some direction to stop work, and they would just continue on. Chairman Holt: Effectively it kills the first motion and it continues as currently outlined in detail. All right. All those in favor. .is there further question? Okay. All those in favor of tabling, please signify by saying "eye". Directors: Eye Chairman Holt: Those opposed? Directors: No Chairman Holt: Okay. The motion is tabled. That completes Item No. 10. Is there any other business or communication to come before this Joint Boards? Director Bailey: District 11 does not have a quorum. Is that a problem? Chairman Holt: Ladies and gentlemen, please. Let's clarify this. n Tom Woodruff: According to the Secretary relative to the, apparently, let's see, there was a quorum when we started, so you don't break the quorum to begin with. Secondly, it's a motion. Director Bailey: If you had a roll call vote, it might be a problem? Tom Woodruff: If we had that, it would be a vote by individual District. District 11, perhaps, then would have had a problem. But you can' t, you don' t lose the quorum because Mrs. Wieder left. Director Brown: Mr. Chairman? Chairman Holt: Okay. Under other business. . Director Brown: Can you request a roll call vote? Chairman Holt: There was a request for a roll call vote. All right, Mr. Woodruff advises me that the vote has been taken. The Chair did declare that the motion passed and the motion stands as voted upon. Any further business or communication to come before these Joint Boards? Consideration of a motion to adjourn in the second? Any discussion to the motion? Unknown: Yeah, I'd like to talk about. . . . Chairman Holt: Happy Holidays, ladies and gentlemen. Meeting adjourned at 10:19 p.m. , November 29, 1983. ,r. cLI r � U.��> e ' l� ° •� J ` L 111 � 1 �C 6 �s o G � I � / Z .�1 _ L OWN G� eye-- J - ss j. G �"`r — X�:mac�rl Cr �✓ -r c.,� ne-, rrl- 1 a7v vrw Lt- IL f S �' • t�� 7 1 r/�J G��,f I ���/���. (/ �I V � �<<G+4-� Sri=�f /'' 4� (�- COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 21 31, S, D, 7 AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CAi�3FORRIA e .. MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING ON NOVEMBER 29, 1983 ft d, y <J v m .` ADMMISTRA= OFFICES W 10844 FT.T.T-q AVE.= FOL�IT.UN VALLEY, CALIFOILNIA ROLL CALL Pursuant to the adjournment of the regular meeting of November 9, 1983, the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 met in an adjourned regular meeting on November 29, 1983 at 7:30 p.m., in the Districts' Administrative Offices. Following the Pledge of Allegiance and invocation the roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum r"sent for Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 as follows: ACTIVE DIRECTORS ALTERNATE DIRECTORS DISTRICT NO. 1: x Robert Hanson, Chairman Orma Crank Dan Griset x Robert Luxembourger x Don Saltarelli Ronald Hoesterey x Harriett Wieder Roger Stanton DISTRICT NO. 2: x Henry Wedaa, Chairman Todd Murphy x Don Roth, Chairman pro tem E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr. x Barbara Brown Marvin P. Adler x Sam Cooper Carrey Nelson x Donald Holt Robert Ruznik Dan Griset x Robert Luxembourger x Carol Rawanami William Odlum x Bob Perry Norman Culver x Don Smith Gene Beyer a Dorothy Wedel John Holmberg x Harriett Wieder Roger Stanton Duane Winters x Buck Catlin DISTRICT NO. 3: x Bruce Finlayson, Chairman Roland Edwards x Gerald Mullen, Chairman pro tem Otto Lacayo x Barbara Brown Marvin P. Adler x Norman Culver Bob Perry x Henry Frese Norma Seidel x Victor Grgas Joyce Risner x Don Griffin Jesse Davis Dan Griset x Robert Luxembourger x Frank Marshott Charles J. Rell Carrey Nelson x Sam Cooper x Don Roth E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr. x Charles Sylvia Anthony R. Selvaggi x John A. Thomas Robert P. Mandic, Jr. a Dorothy Wedel John Holmberg x Harriett Wieder Roger Stanton Duane Winters x Buck Catlin DISTRICT NO. 5: x Evelyn Hart, Chairman Philip Maurer x Ruthelyn Plummer, Chairman pro tem Jacqueline Heather x Harriett Wieder Roger Stanton DISTRICT NO. 6: x Elvin Hutchison, Chairman Orma Crank x Evelyn Hart, Chairman pro tem Philip Maurer x Harriett Wieder Roger Stanton DISTRICT NO. 7: x Don Smith, Chairman Gene Beyer x Evelyn Hart, Chairman pro tem Philip Maurer x Richard Edgar Ronald Hoesterey Dan Griset x Robert Luxembourger x Bill Vardoulis Larry Agran r'ft\ x James Wahner Harry Green x Harriett Wieder Roger Stanton DISTRICT NO. 11: x Ruth Bailey, Chairman Don MacAllister x Harriett Wieder, Chairman pro tem Roger Stanton a Ron Pattinson Don MacAllister -2- 11/29/83 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred A. Harper, General Manager, J. Wayne Sylvester, Assistant General Manager, William H. Butler, Secretary, Bill Clarke, Thomas Dawes, Blake Anderson, Rita Brown, Hilary Baker, Penny Kyle, Ray Young, Howard Lembke OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel, Walt Howard, Harvey Hunt, Bill Knopf, Kris Lindstrom, Don Martinson, Allan Burns, Howard Stevens, Chip Clements, William Kosulich, Gordon Magnuson, Greg Baker, Jim Anderson, Verna Nepstad, Darrel Cohoon, Bob Hirsch, Fred O'Brien, Ray Lewis, Gloria Jordan, Arnold Stein and others ; * * * * * * * * * * * * * I ALL DISTRICTS The Boards convened in closed session at Convene in closed session re 7:36 p.m. to consider personnel matters. personnel matters ALL DISTRICTS At 7:56 p.m., the Boards reconvened in Reconvene in regular session regular session. ALL DISTRICTS The Joint Chairman advised the Directors Study session re long-term sludge that the purpose of this adjourned disposal alternatives meeting was to review the sludge disposal alternatives presently under study by the Districts to determine responses to the Environmental Protection Agency's 308(a) letter dated October 31, 1983, requesting submission of plans and schedules for short-term and long-term compliance of residual solids management and for achieving verifiable influent and effluent flow metering at the Districts' treatment facilities. Chairman Holt then declared this segment of the meeting to be a study session to review presentations of the sludge disposal alternatives from Districts' staff and consultants. The General Manager referred Directors to the booklet mailed to the Directors on November 18th containing preliminary study information on short and long-term sludge disposal alternatives. He informed Directors that the consultant and staff reports on alternatives would follow the same sequence as the presentations in the booklet. Co-disposal at County landfills: Mr. Bill Knopf of John Carollo Engineers reviewed the co-disposal method currently being employed by the Districts at the Coyote Canyon landfill to dispose of the 25 truckloads per day of digested, dewatered sludge generated at the Districts' two treatment plants, which is trucked to the Coyote Canyon landfill and blended with municipal solid waste (MSW) on a 10 (MSW) to 1 (sludge) ratio. It is the most cost-effective of the allowable alternatives because of both low capital and operating costs. It also employs simple, proven technology. The -3- 11/29/83 major disadvantage of this method is that Coyote Canyon is scheduled to close between 1986 and 1988 and there is no viable alternative landfill site presently identified. Loss of recycle/reuse potential of the sludge and the difficulties of interagency coordination regarding the use of the landfills must also be considered. Private Sector, Off-Site ReuseIDisposal: Mr. Harper then discussed both the short-term and long-term private sector reuse/disposal alternatives. A major advantage of the private sector is that they are not limited in siting their operations. Private firms that operate various landfill sites in southern and central California are capable of handling the Districts' sludge on a short-term, o contingency basis in the event of early closure of Coyote Canyon. The General Manager reviewed sites and the cost range for this type of disposal. Other advantages include private sector assumption of all capital costs of the site and equipment, lower costs of certain private sites than the land-based composting, mechanical composting and co-combustion alternatives, and availability of these private sites as early as the summer of 1984. Disadvantages include the potential of increased permit restrictions on the sites and the need for backup sites in the event of wet weather problems at certain sites. This method also represents a higher cost at all private sites than the Districts are currently incurring for co-disposal. Mr. Harper then discussed the merits of requesting private sector proposals for long-term, offsite reuse/disposal of the Districts' sludges. He stated that preliminary cost estimates indicate this method would be lower than allowable alternatives being studied except for co-disposal at a County landfill. The advantages and disadvantages of contracting with the private sector are similar for both the short-term and long-term alternatives, with an additional advantage being that a long-term contract would fix the Districts' unit cost for sludge reuse/disposal for an extended period of time. The Districts could, however, face additional risk in the event of non-performance of the selected contractor and, thus, would need to develop a contingency plan to dispose of sludge at County landfills on an emergency basis. Land-Based Composting: Bill Knopf of John Carollo Engineers briefly addressed the land-based composting alternative. This method was originally recommended in the 1980 LA/OMA Report because the Regional water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) , at that time, required 50% solids content for sludge entering the landfill. However, this alternative was no longer relevant because the RWQCB has since relaxed its requirement for sludge water content for co-disposal purposes from 50% to 22.5% which allows trucking of the material directly off the belt-filter presses. He noted that this alternative does yield recyclable material, but no market has been established for the composted material. Co-Combustion: Mr. Chip Clement of Engineering-Science presented an overview of the co-combustion alternative, which would involve construction of a 7-acre facility located at the Districts' Reclamation Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley for the co-combustion of 400 tons per day of municipal solid waste with 200-250 dry tons per day of digested, dewatered sewage sludge from the Districts' two treatment plants. -4- 11/29/83 Mr. Clement reported that the advantages of this alternative are that it would generate large amounts of energy as well as a significant level of revenues from tipping fees paid by the municipal refuse haulers, and would significantly reduce the volumes of sludge and municipal refuse requiring disposal. He pointed out, however, that the facility has a high capital cost, operation of the facility was quite complex and would require air pollution control technology that had not yet been proven. Other disadvantages of this alternative include local public opposition to siting the facility, on-site storage requirements for municipal refuse, localized traffic impacts, and a substantial volume of ash residue which requires further disposal. Mechanical Composting: Mr. Knopf of John Carollo Engineers reviewed the mechanical composting alternative, which involves combining digested, dewatered sludge at 25% solids content with a carbonaceous bulking agent such as shredded newspapers or sawdust and aerating the material in silos. Mr. Knopf noted that this method, like the land composting alternative, was also no longer relevant because of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's relaxation of the 50% solids content for co-disposal. He further noted that this method had the highest operating cost of all the alternatives studied in addition to high capital construction costs; and that it generated more composted material than the original volume of digested sludge, and would require land£illing if a reuse market didn't develop for the material. Incineration Following Carver-Greenfield Evaporation: Mr. Blake Anderson, the Districts' Director of Operations, presented a brief r'q overview of the alternative of incineration following a Carver-Greenfield evaporation process. This disposal alternative, which has been selected by the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, produces energy, is quite space-efficient, and generates reduced trucking and air emission impacts when compared with the co-combustion alternative. Mr. Anderson indicated, however, that the alternative was quite capital-intensive, presented sophisticated operations and maintenance requirements, employed unproven, state-of-the-art evaporation process and air pollution control technology, and required disposal of the ash residue generated by the process. Ocean Disposal: Mr. Harper made a brief presentation regarding the Districts' proposed deep ocean sludge disposal research project. This alternative involves pumping digested, preconditioned sludge containing 1% solids through a specially-designed outfall to a disposal area approximately 7.5 miles offshore to a depth of 1,000 to 1,300 feet. Mr. Harper indicated that this alternative offered significant cost advantages to the Districts in that it would be the least expensive of all the _ alternatives and, in fact, was less costly than existing methods. It may also have the least environmental effects when compared to the land-based and incineration-based alternatives. The General Manager advised the Directors that this alternative did not have State or EPA approval for consideration at this time as it is not allowed by current Federal law and State regulations. He briefed Directors of the Districts' ongoing efforts to obtain Congressional authorization through legislative amendments to the Clean Water Act to allow the Districts to study this alternative for a five-year period but cautioned that we could not proceed without changes to existing Federal law and State regulations. -5- 11/29/83 Environmental Assessment of Co-Disposal, Land Composting, Co-Combustion and Mechanical Composting: �1 Mr. Kris Lindstrom of EDAW/K.P. Lindstrom & Associates, the environmental review consultants, presented a summary environmental assessment of the co-disposal, land composting, mechanical composting and co-combustion alternatives. He briefly described the anticipated impacts and proposed mitigation measures that would be employed for each of the alternatives. Mr. Lindstrom also explained the schedule for conducting public workshops and public hearings and for receiving inputs from affected agencies. He indicated that the review process was mandated by EPA, California SWRCB and Districts' policy as part of the LA/OMA Supplemental HIS/EIR review process. Discussion: '. The Joint Chairman opened the study session for questions from the Directors regarding the sludge disposal alternatives. The Directors asked a broad range of questions of the staff and consultants regarding the anticipated environmental impacts, capital costs, and timing of implementation of the alternatives, and also discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives at great length, and reviewed the estimated costs of each as summarized below: Range of Range of Total Annual Cost Per Alternative Cost Dry Ton Co-Disposal Coyote Canyon $ 2,500,000 $ 34 Alternative Landfills 3,000,000 - 3,500,000 42 - 47 Short-Term Alternative to Co-Disposal BKK 4,921,000 68 Simi Valley 6,770,000 93 Bakersfield 10,993,000 151 Kettleman Hills 13,905,000 19 1 Private Sector Offsite Reuse/Disposal 3,500,000 - 5,000,000 47 - 68 Land Composting 9,300,000 - 11,600,000 102 - 127 Co-Combustion* 10,000,000 - 11,200,000 123 - 137 Mechanical Composting 16,000,000 - 17,000,000 145 - 187 Incineration Following Carver-Greenfield Evaporation** 11,425,000 157 Ocean Disposal*** (850,000) ( 12)- (9) -6- 11/29/83 Notes *Net after tipping fees and energy recovery **Net after energy recovery ***Savings after allowing credit for current costs of dewatering, chemicals, labor and energy Following the discussion, Chairman Holt declared the study session closed at 9:53 p.m. ALL DISTRICTS The General Manager reviewed the staff's Approving schedule and plans for written report of recommendations and residual solids management and flow proposed schedule to comply with EPA's meter verification Section 308(a) letter dated October 31, 1983, relative to the Districts' plan for short-term and long-term residual solids management and flow meter , verification. Short-term Compliance--Residual Solids Management The Districts will continue to truck digested, dewatered sludge containing an average of 22h8 solids to the County's Coyote Canyon Landfill for direct incorporation with municipal solid waste into the operating face of the landfill. This activity will continue at the Coyote Canyon Landfill operation until it is closed in 1986 or 1988. In the event Coyote Canyon Landfill is closed prior to 1988, the Districts will have the material trucked either by Districts' personnel and equipment or private contractors to one of four existing private landfill sites. This short-term alternative will continue until the Districts implement a long-term disposal alternative. All sludges generated at Plant No. 1 will be dewatered and trucked to the landfill by January 1, 1984. Construction of a line to divert the belt press filtrate to the trickling filter clarifiers at Plant No. 1 will be completed by March 30, 1984. Long-term Compliance--Residual Solids Management Based on the information at hand, the current approved method of sludge disposal for the Districts at the County's Coyote Canyon Landfill is environmentally sound, as well as very cost effective, when compared to the other options the Districts have under consideration as a whole. Therefore, as the preferred method, the Districts propose to immediately enter into discussions with County authorities in an effort to seek specific terms and conditions whereby our agency can continue the co-disposal alternative at the County landfills. Hopefully, a permanent contractual arrangement will be in place by January, 1985. The Districts propose to complete the current ultimate solids disposal facilities plan and EIS by November, 1984, to be eligible for EPA and State grant funding for leachate control and other necessary improvements at the County's landfills under this proposal. Mr. Harper recommended that the Boards also direct the staff to work with the County staff to determine the long-term feasibility of the alternative because of the obvious financial benefits to both the Districts and the County as well as its limited environmental impacts. -7- 11/29/83 The second preferred alternative for long-term sludge disposal is the off-site reuse/disposal by the private sector. Digested, dewatered sludge between 20% and 25% solids would be trucked to remote areas for further processing for reuse or disposal. This alternative will be conducted by private operators through long-term contracts with the Districts. The Districts expect to enter into long-term agreements by March, 1985, with implementation taking place in 1986. Verifiable Influent and Effluent Flow Metering at Plants No. 1 and 2 The Districts will replace several meters at Plants 1 and 2 to achieve verifiable influent metering by March, 1985. The staff is currently considering the possibility of a system which would ' continuously monitor the water level in the ocean outfall surge tower, the ocean water surface level and simultaneously compare these two levels with a computer or micro-processor and calculate flow utilizing the Manning's Equation concept with the micro-processor to verify effluent flow. Also being considered is the installation of a propeller meter. An additional time allotment is being requested from EPA to respond to the effluent metering question until our investigation is completed. Staff will report to the EPA Region IX office not later than May 31, 1984 as to how and when the Districts will achieve verifiable effluent flow metering for Plants No. 1 and 2. Following a brief discussion it was moved, seconded and unanimously carried: That recommendations for residual solids management and flow metering /Ak\ verification set forth in the staff report dated November 23, 1983, to comply with the EPA 308(a) letter of October 31, 1983, be, and are hereby approved; and, FURTHER MOVED: That the General Manager is hereby authorized to initiate discussions with the County of Orange re the long-term feasibility of co-disposal of the Districts' digested, dewatered sludge at County landfills. ALL DISTRICTS The Joint Chairman recognized Director Tabling the City of Fountain Valley Brown, representing Fountain Valley, who request for deletion of mechanical moved: composting and co-combustion sludge processing and/or disposal alterna- That the mechanical composting and tives at Reclamation Plant No. 1 co-combustion alternatives at the Districts' Reclamation Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley be deleted from further study because they are not technically and environmentally sound. Following the second to the motion a discussion ensued among the Directors regarding the impact of passage of the motion on continued EPA and State grant funding of the project and the Districts' compliance with the EPA and SWRCB EIS/EIR regulations. It was then moved and seconded: That the motion to delete mechanical composting and co-combustion alternatives at -8- 11/29/83 the Districts' Reclamation Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley from further study because they are not technically and environmentally sound be tabled. Following a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion to table had passed. In response to a request from Director Brown asking for a roll call vote, the Chair ruled that the vote had been taken and the motion stood as declared. DISTRICT 1 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this adjourned meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 10:19 p.m., November 29, 1983. DISTRICT 2 Moved, seconded and duly carried: s Adjournment That this adjourned meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 10:19 p.m., November 29, 1983. DISTRICT 3 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this adjourned meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 10:19 p.m., November 29, 1983. DISTRICT 5 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this adjourned meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 10:19 p.m. , November 29, 1983. DISTRICT 6 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this adjourned meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 6 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 10:19 p.m., November 29, 1983. DISTRICT 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this adjourned meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 10:19 p.m., November 29, 1983. DISTRICT 11 Moved, seconded and duly carried: . Adjournment That this adjourned meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 10:19 p.m. , November 29, 1983. Secretary, Boards of Directors County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 -9-