HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1983-11-29COUNTY SANiTATION
DISTRICTS NOS.1,2,.3,5,6,7 AND 11
OF
ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA
MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
ON
NOVEMBER 29,1983
ADMiNISTRATIVE OFFICES
10844 ~1TJJS AVENCE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA
.~-
a.?
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
th’~Pledge of Allegiance and invocation the roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum
~3ent for Districts Nos.1,2,3,5,6,7 and II as follows:
ACTIVE DIRECTORS ALTERNATE DIRECTORS
DISTRICT NO.1:
1
DISTRICT NO.2:
DISTRICT NO.3
DISTRICT NO.5:
DISTRICT NO.6:
DISTRICT NO.7:
DISTRICT NO.11
x Robert Hanson,Chairman
____Dan Griset
x Don Saltarelli
x Harriett Wieder
x Henry Wedaa,Chairman
x Don Roth,Chairman pro tern
x Barbara Brown
x Sam Cooper
x Donald Bolt
____Dan Griset
x Carol Kawanami
x Bob Perry
x Don Smith
a Dorothy Wedel
x Harriett Wieder
____Duane Winters
x Bruce Finlayson,Chairman
x Gerald Mullen,Chairman pro tern
x Barbara Brown
x Norman Culver
x Henry Frese
x Victor Grgas
x Don Griffin
____Dan Griset
x Frank Marshott
____Carrey Nelson
x Don Roth
x Charles Sylvia
x John A.Thomas
a Dorothy Wedel
x Harriett Wieder
____Duane Winters
x Evelyn Hart,Chairman
x Ruthelyn Plummer,Chairman pro tern
x Barr iett Wieder
x Elvin Hutchison,Chairman
x Evelyn Hart,Chairman pro tern
x Harriett Wieder
x Don Smith,Chairman
x Evelyn Hart,Chairman pro tern
x Richard Edgar
____Dan Griset
x Bill Vardoulis
x James Wahner
x Barr iett Wieder
x Ruth Bailey,Chairman
x Barriett Wieder,Chairman pro tern
a Ron Pattinson
____Orma Crank
x Robert Luxembourger
____Ronald Hoesterey
____Roger Stanton
____Todd Murphy
____E.Lieweilyn Overhoit,Jr.
____Marvin P.Adler
____Carrey Nelson
____Robert Kuznik
x Robert Luxeinbourger
____William Odium
____Norman Culver
____Gene Beyer
____John Hoimberg
____Roger Stanton
x Buck Catlin
____Roland Edwards
____Otto Lacayo
____Marvin P.Adler
____Bob Perry
____Norma Seidel
____Joyce Risner
____Jesse Davis
x Robert Luxembourger
____Charles J.Reii
x Sam Cooper
____E.Lieweilyn Overholt,Jr.
____Anthony R.Selvaggi
____Robert P.Mandic,Jr.
____John Hoimberg
____Roger Stanton
x Buck Catlin
____Philip Maurer
____Jacqueline Heather
____Roger Stanton
____Orma Crank
____Philip Maurer
____Roger Stanton
____Gene Beyer
____Philip Maurer
____Ronald Hoesterey
x Robert Luxembourger
____Larry Agran
____Harry Green
____Roger Stanton
____Don MacAllister
____Roger Stanton
____Don MacAliister
—2—
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
Thomas L.Woodruff,General Counsel,Walt
Howard,Harvey Hunt,Bill Knopf,Kris
Lindstrom,Don Martinson,Allan Burns,
Howard Stevens,Chip Cirements,William
Kosulich,Gordon Magnuson,Greg Baker,
Anderson,Verna Nepstad,Darrél Cohoon,
Hirsch,Fred O’Brien,Ray Lewis,Gloria
Jordan,Arnold Stein and others
The Boards convened in closed session at
7:36 p.m.to consider ~ersonnel matters.
At 7:56 p.m.,the Board~reconvened in
regular session.
the booklet mailed to the Directors on
information on shor~t and long—term
Directors that the consultant and
the same sequence as the presentations
It is the most cost—effective of the allowable alternatives because of both low
capital and operating costs.It also employs simple,proven t~chnology.The
—3—
.
11/29/83
STAFF ME~ERS PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
ALL DISTRICTS
Convene in closed session re
personnel matters
*************
Jim
Bob
C
ALL DISTRICTS
Reconvene in regular session
ALL DISTRICTS
Study session re long—term sludge
disposal alternatives
a
___________________________________
The Joint Chairman advi~ed the Directors
___________________________________
that the purpose of thi~adjourned
___________________________________
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 Bolt then declared this segment of the meeting to
be a study session to review presentations of the sludge disp~sal alternatives
from Districts’staff and consultants.
S
The General Manager referred Directors to
November 18th containing preliminary study
sludge disposal alternatives.He informed
staff reports on alternatives would follow
in the booklet.
Co—disposal at County landfills
Mr.Bill Knopf of John Carollo Engineers reviewed the co—dispo~a1 method’
currently being employed by the Districts at the Coyote Canyon~landfill to
dispose of the 25 truckloads per day of digested,dewatered sl~idge 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.
lW29/83
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 Reuse/Disposal
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,
~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 art 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 Cornposting
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 le~rel of revenues from
tipping fees paid by the municipal refuse haulers,and would significantly reduce
the volumes of sludge and municipal refuse requiring disposal.Be 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 includ!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.Hnopf 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 Cont~rol Board’s
relaxation of the 50%solids content for co—disposal.He fur~ther 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 landfil].irig 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
overview of the alternative of incineration following a Carve~—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.Re 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 dould nOt proceed
without changes to existing Federal law and State regulations.
—5—
U~/29/83
d
Environmental Assessment of Co—Disposal,Land Composting,Co—Combustion and
Mechanical Composting
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
EIS/EIR review process.
Discussion
The Joint Chairman op~ned 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 10,000,000 —11,200,000 123 —137
Mechanical Composting 16,000,000 —17,000,000 145 —187
Incineration Following
Carver—Greerifield
Evaporation**11,425,000 157
Ocean Disposal***(850,000)C 12)—(9)
—6—
11/29/83
Notes
*Net after tipping fees and energy recovery
**Net after energy recovery
***Savjngs after allowing credit for current costs of dewatéring,chemicals,
labor and energy
Following the discussion,Chairman Holt declared the study ~ession closed at 9:53
p.m.
ALL DISTRICTS The General Manager reviewed:the staff’s
Approving schedule and plans for written report of reccmmendations 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 22½%solids to the County’s Coyote Canyor~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 se~k specific ternis and
conditions whereby our agency can continue the co—dispc~sal 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 No~ember,l984,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 feasibilit~of the alternative
because of the obvious financial benefits to both the Districts and the
County as well as its limited environmental impacts.
—7—
I.1,~29/83 Minutes Revised
12/14/83
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
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:
coinposting 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
and Plant No.2 Districts’Reclamation Plant No.1 in
Fountain Valley and Plant No.2 in
Runtington Beach 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 Minutes Revised
12/14/83
the Districts’Reclamation Plant No.1 in Fountain Valley and P1ant~No.2 in
Huntington Beach 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 ro]~l 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 meejting 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:
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,Hl983.
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 ~hairman then
declared the meeting so adjourned at 10:19 p.m.,November 29,1983.
DISTRICT 5 Moved,seconded and du1~carried:
Adjournment I
That this adjourned meet~ing 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~carrie~1:
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:
Adiournment
Ph&1his a&journ~d ~in~9~the.Doord
of D1r~ctOr~O~C~U?It~?ni4aldon District No.II be adjourned.,The CflaLrman then
declared the.meetinc ~o ~d~ourn~d a~10:19 p.m.,November 29,l98~,
Secretary,Boards of Directors
County Sanitation Districts Nos.~1,2,3,
5,6,7 and 11
—9—
-
I