Loading...
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