Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1999-0408 Study Session PACKET
i Council Communication WWTP Discussion Public Works Department April 8 1999 Study Session Submitted by: Paula Brown P� Approved by: Mike Freeman Title: Wastewater Treatment Plant Discussion Synopsis: As construction is rapidly progressing at the wastewater treatment plant site, several questions have arisen regarding the off site spray iffigation and biosolids reuse portion of the plan. Staff was asked to provide an update to the City Council to answer many of these questions and provide clarification as necessary. Recommendation: This item is for information only. After careful reconsideration regarding the health and safety impacts of the project, staff is moving forward based upon Council's initial program decision. Staff will put the off site spray irrigation and biosolids project out to bid in April, and recommend the actual contract award be held until June 30, 1999,pending the LUBA decision. Background Information: In September 1995, after nearly ten years of debate and discussion,the City Council chose to maintain it's wastewater treatment program and reuse the effluent. The impetus for this decision was Ashland's desire to reuse the City's treated effluent, maintain a healthy Ashland Creek, including providing replacement water in the summer season, and focus on the Council Goals to: • Replace the volume of WWTP effluent removal from Bear Creek • Support the natural ecology of Bear Creek • Satisfy the DEQ standards for effluent from the WWTP • Eliminate odors (to the extent possible) created by the WWTP • Minimize capital and operating costs of the WWTP • ...give full consideration to... wetlands technology to assist in achieving the WWTP goals There is a tremendous amount of information regarding wastewater treatment and the reuse or disposal of treated wastewater byproducts - effluent(water)and solids(biosolids). The City is experiencing the fears and concerns that other municipalities and regulatory agencies have faced with respect to the wastewater process in general and specifically with the reuse of treated wastewater. Many of the comments that the City has received from the community are derived from fear, not fact, and not understanding how the treatment process works and how the treatment process actually changes the content of the effluent and biosolids. The City is fully committed to providing for the health and safety of our citizens and neighbors, promoting higher quality in-stream water, and meeting all relevant regulations required for this project. The initial decision to keep the effluent for possible City irrigation or even direct reuse in the future demonstrates this commitment to health and safety. The plan is to use treated effluent r A water during the summer to irrigate a grazing crop on the City's property, and also to provide a better quality soil through use of the biosolid soil amendments. Regarding in-stream use, staff has received verbal confirmation from the State Water Master of the ability to transfer the existing TID water rights from the City owned irrigation property to leased in-stream rights and will continue to pursue this as the reuse project moves forward. Knowing their were fears and concerns, staff met with the neighbors and as a result changed design elements to accommodate many of their issues, increasing the project costs as a result. The federal EPA and state regulations(specifically Oregon, Washington and California) have established standards for effluent irrigation reuse and biosolids application for agricultural property to ensure human and animal safety. The City's proposal to use "Level II"effluent fully meets, and often exceeds, all of the regulatory standards and additional safety precautions. The City is using treated effluent only, not raw sewage, not biosolids, for agricultural irrigation on City owned land. Similarly, Class B biosolids used on the site for soil amendment, will meet or exceed all of the EPA and ODEQ standards for reuse. The City's treated effluent exceeds the regulations for recreational water contact. This land will have signs to inform people that reuse and effluent recycling operations are in place on site. Wind and other weather conditions will be constantly monitored to ensure there is no adverse wind drift or runoff of the effluent that is being applied on the site. There will be monitoring wells to ensure that there is no adverse impact to groundwater and wells. Significant exploration and evaluation of the site geology and soils became the basis for engineering design to ensure there would be no adverse impact. Direct"apple-to-apple" comparisons of wastewater treatment plants are not easy. Most treatment plants are designed to operate and meet state permit standards based on effluent discharges to receiving waters/streams. Most larger cities and communities operate secondary treatment plants. In some cases, mostly for large cities,there are some tertiary treatment options. Tertiary plants add a third stage to their processing which includes either additional clarification or filtration based upon the desired outcome. Not all tertiary plants are the same. Few treatment plants have to meet the standards for phosphorous reduction established by DEQ for Ashland's W WTP. Medford's plant does not have to meet these standards given that they discharge to the Rogue River. There is a plant in the Willamette Valley operated by USA that is required to meet the 0.08 phosphorous limit. Most areas, including California, do not have the stringent in stream nutrient limitations that Ashland must meet. Attached Information 1. Summary Table of Alternative System Costs 2. Staff Report Addressing Specific Questions from the March 2, 1999 meeting: — Quality of Treatment and Disinfection(SludgeBiosolid Portion) — Level II and Level IV Effluent: Oregon and California Reuse Limits — Recreational Water Quality Standards — UV Capabilities to Meet Effluent Disinfection Requirements — Effluent Aerosol Effects — Landslide Potential and Geologic Implications 3. Carollo Engineers letter Dated March 23, 1999 4. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Biosolids Program Summary(May 26, 1998) 5. Biosolids Recycling: Beneficial Technology For A Better Environment(EPA 832-R-94-009,June 1994) 6. Northwest Biosolids Management Association Biosolids Recycling Fact Sheets; "Environmental Effects"and"Agriculture"(both Rev. 7/97) 7. The Wenatchee World, October 5, 1997,"Don't Hold Your Nose"and related articles 8. California State Water Resources Control Board, Office of Water Recycling, Reclaimed Water Use in California, Draft Summary Sheet(Jan. 20, 1999) u 3 ° U C C 9 9 .N.. C N� � 6� � ❑ ` � C 7 U � � G y O .y. E E.2 o . .a .. E ^_°c °' ?: C � 3 n V V r 9 O'L .y-. C 7 ❑ C �' U U > O .�" .U. L' G js d ` C m2 e3 !( E `� a�..i,"' .v. 0 2 v eQU v a a '.:: O s 0 q CL E c h u m u oo u v r •� b u ? �� 'c � � cNn• � o g u b O C" c' ao vi O g Um » vi 3 o W f H In II'' 4 w N N cn N N NN O °c Ci a ,e e C ♦ e � N ° O y :moo Z` -3i `o u 4 w u Cam• y w V i U y w '$ a ° •^I C ast°" O H mQ cui0 pO O� Q cY C a3yv y v4 :` $ u 2a a $ ^v 4 i � v � „o• 'S °u3 u c E � o o 'y •� ° F A S E $ha`r v N 'e y � 'S a � � p $ u y mo o $ � u 4 5a: es y Q v 4 r..� N ;1.m e L v Q y N y = o '��.. V v .l C o ♦ m ° ♦ :°, G; c 5 o m 25 _ $ rte. uO $ •e2 c » �UO w0 •�°.. � • � '� $ �^ o A � T I�I1 �� ¢ � 3 °c ,5 y,�'. 3 ° z �' a °' c s�v °' e`o e � .e. � Q •y`c 3 •``c y � � � � c o Q p 0 C ` y .= v 0 d ° ° o� l V ?� d ♦ u 4 v O 00 Q yJ c v v . C u y _ c a y ° U y � G ♦ ° °' ♦. Q ° � y �1 u r > L o w•Erp 't o o `� r v = o a •°c E ° ° •°c e°. -°° v e� o ?' U U W cG t U ° U � r a; ARACNMFJ.IT� S WWTP Discussion Additional Background Information Council Study Session April 8, 1999 Each of the discussion topics mentioned in the Council Communication is outlined with more detail below. Treatment/Disinfection (sludge/biosolid portion) The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (PL 92-500)added a new dimension for regulation of sewage treatment plants. The goal of the Act was"to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters"with the ultimate goal of zero discharge of pollutants into navigable, fishable and swimmable waters. Sewage sludge was initially regulated in 1979. Since then,the USEPA developed the microbiological quality standards for land disposal of biosolids. These standards are generally referred to as the"503 Rule" or sludge application rules. The actual regulation is in Section 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 503 Subpart D, Standard for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge, initially promulgated in 1993. Two quality standards for sludge (now referred to as biosolids)are defined; Class A and B. Class A sludges are those that can be reused without restriction, and Class B places additional restrictions because there is a lesser treatment quality. Depending on the intended use of the processed sludge, communities can chose the disinfection quality. The intent of a Class A sludge product is to disinfect and reduce the levels of pathogen organisims to below detectable levels for completely unrestricted use. Class A sludges can be sold or given away in bags for application to home gardens and other uses. The intent of Class B sludge is to significantly reduce the pathogen levels and provide other precautionary measures so that there is no greater risk to the public, public health, and the environment than there is with a Class A sludge. Class B sludges rely on a combination of treatment and site restrictions to reduce pathogens. The site restriction prevent exposure to pathogens and rely on natural environmental processes to reduce pathogen levels to below detectable levels. These additional restrictions include restricting public access to the land applications site, controling animal grazing to certain periods, and preventing crop havesting for a period of time after application. In addition to pathogen reduction, a vector attraction reduction requirement,must also be met when the sludges are to be land applied. The vector attraction reduction is imposed to reduce the potential for spreading infectious disease agents by vectors(which include flies,rodents,birds, etc.). Again, it is important to understand the intended use of the biosolid/sludge product to define the necessary disinfection levels. Although Class A sludges are-basically unrestricted, the Class B sludge is allowable and safe with extra precautions. Ashland is designing the biosolids treatment for a Class B sludge which is the appropriate level for the reuse site; a restricted agricultural site with adequate space to allow for the extra precautions. Class A sludge is not required for the agricultural use and beneficial soil amendment for the Ashland site. Staff Report Details-April 8, 1999 Council Study Session (PCB) Page 1 Oil AU1Hpsxr N 2 Level II and Level IV Effluent: Oregon and California Reuse Limits Wastewater reclamation and reuse is not a new concept. More information is available from California's State Water Resources Control Board than from Oregon's DEQ. California has been steadily increasing it's water reuse operations for many years. Initial reuse regulations were promulgated in 1918 by the State of California. The City of Bakersfield has used reclaimed wastewater since 1912 for agricultural irrigation. In a study completed in 1987, California reported 854 distinct reuse areas using a total of 266,560 acre feet of water a year. By far,the largest use is agricultural irrigation at 63%, and the majority of the treatment plants serving water to reuse customers is on a small scale basis (86%are to those areas receiving less than 2500 acre feet per year. Reuse in California is encouraged as a means of using other than potable water for irrigation. A copy of the Draft Summary of "Reclaimed Water Use in California" as of January 20, 1999, is included as attachment 8 in this packet. California and Oregon are very similar in their classification of treated effluent for reuse. Reuse for pasture and farm irrigation requires a total coliform organism limit of 23 colonies per 100 ml. This is the same as Oregon's level II reuse water. California's additional restrictions for processed foods and reuse water are also the same as Oregon's limitations and restrictions. (Ref: California Municipal Wastewater Reclamation in 1987, California State Water Resources Control Board, Office of Water Recycling,June 1990) The wastewater treatment plant in San Luis Obispo was referred to by name at the March 2, 1999 Council meeting. Staff contacted the Utilities Director and discussed the San Luis Obispo treatment operation. As suspected, San Luis Obispo does not have a phosphorous limit for discharging to their creeks. Although they provide a quality tertiary effluent, suitable for discharge to the creek,they have no nutrient limits in the waters. As previously discussed, not all "tertiary"treatments are alike and very few treatment plant are required to meet the phosphorus standard set by ODEQ for discharges into the Bear Creek system. San Luis Obispo chose a higher level'of treatment(third stage to reduce turbidity levels) which required a significant initial capital improvement (over$30M) and requires an annual operating budget of$1.9 Million per year to operate plus an average of $200K additional capital improvements each year to maintain their state-of-the-art program. Recreational Water Quality Standards To determine bacteria levels and health standards, certain indicator organisms are used to identify possible contamination levels. Several indicator organisms are used including, total coliform, fecal coliform and E. coli. Their presence, in high amounts, indicates possible bacteria in the waters. Different levels are established to demonstrate acceptable limits for certain uses. Per the,DEQ 303d listing for water contact recreation,the bacterial fecal coliform limit is 200 colonies per 100/ml. Based on the City's NPDES permit for the wastewater effluent, our discharge limit to Ashland Creek is an in-stream standard based on E. coli and is a geometric mean of 126/100 ml and a max of 406/100ml. For comparison, Ashland Creek in Lithia Park has shown over 1500 fecal coliform colonies per 100 ml in the summer and although the data is sporadic,there have been numbers over 3900 (ref: RVCOG TMDL data 1995-1999). Level II water is based on total coliform and is 23 organisms/100 ml on a seven day median and two consecutive samples cannot exceed 240 organisms per 100 ml. Currently, the W WTP is disinfecting from 20-150 total coliform at low levels of UV irradiation. Staff Report Details-April 8, 1999 Council Study Session (PCB) Page 2 UV Capabilities to Meet Effluent Disinfection Requirements Ultraviolet(UV) is produced by special UV lamps filled with mercury vapor charged by striking an electric arc. The energy released by the mercury vapor, as a result of the electric arc, produces UV light or UV radiation. The UV radiation damages the bacteria cells thereby providing disinfection in the wastewater. In Ashland's case the wastewater is treated through the oxidation ditch, through the secondary clarifier and then instead of going to the chlorine contact chamber for a two hour detention period, the water is forced through the UV chamber where it is exposed to the medium pressure UV lamps for 10 - 20 seconds. Because UV is not a chemical agent, no toxic residuals are produced and has no adverse environmental effects. There are currently two major manufacturers of medium UV systems for municipal wastewater systems; Aquionix and Trojan. After careful consideration and bidding process, we chose to utilize the Aquionix product. There are two types of UV disinfection technologies; low and medium pressure lamp systems. The medium pressure system has been in operation for over 10 years and generally produces 50 to 80 times higher germicidal UV output than the low pressure systems (ref: Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse, Takashi Asano, 1998). Effluent Aerosol Effects Pathogen levels in aerosols caused by spraying of wastewater is a function of their concentration in the applied wastewater and the aerosolization efficiencies of the spray process. In general, spray irrigation processes have a mean aerosolization efficiency of I percent. Bacteria and viruses have been found in aerosols emitted by spray irrigation systems using untreated or poorly treated wastewater(ref: Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse, Takashi Asano, 1998). Ashland's effluent will be highly treated and disinfected before being emitted through the spray irrigation nozzles. Wind increases the viability of air transport, but with the extended buffers and the ability to monitor and control each emitter head,the precautions have been significantly increased to protect human (and animal) health. Using spray nozzles with large orifices reduces the formation of fine aerosol mists. Setback buffers on the City's site are at a minimum 100 feet and in many cases are more than 300 feet from the property lines. Ashland's proposed operations exceeds current regulations as only a 70 foot buffer is required. Landslide Potential and Geologic Implications Much has been inferred about unstable soils and landslide potential on the site. Carollo Engineers hired Foundation Engineering, Inc. (November 1998)to conduct an extremely detailed soils and geotechnical evaluation for the City's reuse site. Their report indicated the presence of ancient faults and debris flow deposits, but no recent or active faults have been identified (Foundation Engineering, Inc., and D'Allura evaluations). These faults and debris flows were of the Pleistocene age, over 1.6 million years ago. There was a slump that occured immediately above the TID ditch after the January flood. In discussions with TID personnel,this occured as a result of transporting water during the Flood to the City of Talent. Normally the ditch does not transport water during the wet season. As the soils were saturated,the soils above the ditch started to slump. TID staff would periodically dig out the slump areas, and ultimately this section gave away. This does not indicate the presence of landslides,and does indicate that the water and soil saturation must be monitored for localized slope failures. The geotechinical report provided the basis for design of the reservoirs and lagoons. Their report indicated low potential for seismically induced liquifaction or landslides, and low probability of subsidence, lateral spreading and ground rupture due to faulting. Other localized disruptions must be monitored during construction. Staff Report Details-April 8. 1999 Council Study Session (PCB) Page 3 Cost Comparisons Council asked that various options be examined and costs re-evaluated. There are two components to the treatment plant; effluent(liquid portion), and biosolids (or solids portion). Each of the components are discussed below and a matrix was developed showing the various combinations available. Effluent Alternatives: There are three alternatives for effluent reuse treatments: Level II reclaimed water(current plan), Level IV reclaimed water, and Discharge to the creek on a year-around basis. Level II Reclaimed Water. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has specific standards for different categories of treated effluent for reuse purposes (Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 340, Division 55). Both Level II and Level IV require biological treatment and disinfection at the wastewater treatment plant. Level II effluent requires weekly sampling and a total coliform limit of no more than 23 organisms/colonies per 100 milliliters. The treatment plant currently under construction is designed to produce Level II reclaimed water. The assumption used for cost comparison is that no changes to either the designed offsite facilities or the WWTP improvements currently under construction would be required. Level IV Reclaimed Water. Level IV effluent is not required for agricultural irrigation use. Level IV reuse water requires a higher level of disinfection and filtration. Level IV effluent for reuse purposes requires daily sampling and limits the total coliform to 2.2 organisms/colonies per 100 milliliters. Level IV use on agricultural land is less restrictive than Level II, however direct public contact is not allowed during the irrigation cycle, Level IV effluent cannot be applied where it can be sprayed onto food preparation areas, and signs must be posted indicating that the water is not suitable for drinking. Using Level IV water would change nothing on the offsite property. Level IV irrigation still requires the effluent storage ponds, pumps, effluent pipeline, and the irrigation system. Converting to Level IV water would require construction of additional filter units(Dynasand filter). Effluent from the secondary clarifiers would be pumped to a flocculation basin and then filtered using continuous backwash filters. Producing Level IV water will require additional annual operating costs. The filters and the flocculation basin would fit on the existing site, but would eliminate any future capacity on the site. Producing Level IV reuse water for City irrigation has merit for sometime in the future as indicated in the City's Comprehensive Water Master Plan. The costs shown for this Level IV option do not include costs for irrigation piping to other City properties. Discharge to the Creek Year-Around. Discharge to the creek on a year-around basis requires additional treatment facilities and will make the plant considerably more complicated to operate. The additional treatment facilities are needed to meet DEQ's 0.08 mg/I phosphorus limitation established by the TMDL on Bear Creek, which is in effect from May through November. The 0.08 mg/I limit is extremely stringent and there are only a few treatment plants in the country capable of meeting that limit. For cost estimating purposes, it was assumed that an anaerobic selector would be constructed ahead of the aeration basin to provide biological phosphorus removal. Also, new alum and polymer handling and feed facilities and tertiary clarifiers/flocculators and tertiary filters (Dynasand)would also be constructed. Secondary effluent would be pumped to the tertiary clarifiers/flocculators and flow by gravity through the filters to the creek. This alternative is similar to the treatment at the wastewater treatment plant operated by Unified Sewerage Agency on the Tualatin River. Producing effluent that can be discharged directly to the creek year around, eliminates irrigation reuse. Staff Report Details-April 8, 1999 Council Study Session (PCB) ._ Page 4 Solids Handling Alternatives at the WWTP Site. The current proposal for the offsite property includes the storage, drying and land application of biosolids. If the property is not used for biosolids reuse,additional improvements will be required at the W WTP site. Three alternatives for handling biosolids at the treatment plant were evaluated. All three would produce a Class B biosolids product suitable for application to agricultural property. Alternatives to produce a Class A product were not evaluated. Thickened aerobic digestion was chosen as the best and most likely option to be used on the site, and was the basis for cost evaluation purposes. This option requires thickening, aerobic digestion, dewatering, storage, and hauling. To meet state and federal regulations, 60 days of aerobic digestion is required, and would necessitate the use of the existing aerobic digester plus the construction of a new aerobic digester with sufficient odor controls. The solids would be thickened prior to the aerobic digester to reduce the volume needed. Digested solids would be dewatered using a centrifuge or belt filter press and hauled by truck for land application similar to what is being done today. The proposed additional facilities would fit on the existing site but would not accommodate any future growth. Abandoning the Existing System and Connecting to the Regional Facility: Costs estimates were requested for demolishing or abandoning in place the existing W WTP, sell the existing assets(land, equipment, etc), pay all current contracts (including the cost to break the contract) and connecting to the Medford Regional and BCVSA system. Without considerable extra staff and consultant time, the best cost estimates for this option are from the original Brown and Caldwell study showing a capital cost of$21,782,000, and a present worth cost of$30,623,000. The present worth cost has been adjusted from the 6% in the Brown and Caldwell study to 5%which is in use in.the current present worth calculations shown on the attached sheet. Other than that, all of the calculations are based on the original Brown and Caldwell study, and may be a bit low. The "Regional'option includes building the pipe to the existing BCVSA line in Talent, and all systems development charges for the Medford Plant and the BCVSA system based on figures generated in January 1995. No inflation has been added. Potentially four City personnel would be laid off which has been included in the present worth calculations. To date, $7,833,000 has been spent on design, construction management services, and construction of the on site process improvements. These costs are non-recoverable. There is approximately $1,020,000 of profit in the remainder of this $12,400,000 construction contract(15%of the remainifig$6,800,000). Add an allowance for unrestockable inventory of$250,000. This bring the costs to $9,103,000. There is a maximum of$1,000,000 in potential salvage value of equipment at the plant. Although the existing treatment plant may be able to be sold and developed, it is assumed that considerable additional demolition and site clean-up would be required. The land value would be negligible. There was an additional question as to whether or not the Medford plant would accept just the biosolids from Ashland. Initial conversations indicate that the Medford plant is"solids limited"and their current practice does not allow acceptance of sludge. As there was no positive response to this question, no further analysis was completed. Cost Summary: The table attached to the Council Communication for the April 8th Study Session summarizes the costs for alternative reuse solutions. More detailed analysis and costs are shown in the attached letter from Carollo Engineers. This project is the largest capital improvement project the City has undertaken. The total capital cost is $21.5 Million, of which the City has a Clean Water State Revolving Fund loan from DEQ for$15 Million and has asked for another$5 Million. DEQ has indicated they have limited funding available and any additional requests would be difficult to support, especially for enhancements which exceed their requirements. Staff Report Details-April 8, 1999 Council Study Session (PCB) Page 5 �EcaroLLo e n g i n e e r s j March, 23, 1999 Paula Brown I.. _ ` „ -�JD City of Ashland I C' --- 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520-1814 Dear Paula: At your request, we took a look at the extent and cost of the WWTP improvements if the off- site facilities were not built. Since there are concerns from the neighboring property owners about both the application of Level 11 effluent and biosolids on the site, and since there has been some discussion within the City of producing Level IV "unrestricted use" effluent, we looked at several treatment scenarios to assist the City in reevaluating their decision on the best treatment approach for Ashland's wastewater. Table 1 summarizes our evaluation of the treatment scenarios available to the City. The scenarios presented within Table 1 all assume that the City will continue with established policy that Ashland should not be dependent upon the Medford Regional WWTP for wastewater treatment services. We will continue to look at the cost associated with sending biosolids to Medford for treatment. We have made inquiries with Medford and BCVSA but have not heard back on their charges for treatment and handling of the biosolids discharged into the BCVSA system. Liquid Stream Alternatives We looked at three alternatives for treating the effluent, Level II reclaimed water (current plan), Level IV reclaimed water, and discharge to the creek on a year-around basis. Level 11 Reclaimed Water. As you are aware, the treatment plant under construction was designed to produce Level II reclaimed water. This water is suitable for a wide range of agricultural application but the state's rules do place some restrictions on its application. The assumption used for this analysis is that no changes to either the designed offsite facilities or the WWTP improvements currently under construction would be required. Level IV Reclaimed Water. Level IV water is the highest quality reclaimed water allowed by Oregon's regulations. It's use on agricultural land is unrestricted and it can be used for a broader range of landscape irrigation throughout the City. It's use is not entirely unrestricted since direct public contact is still not allowed during the irrigation cycle, it cannot be applied where it can be sprayed onto food preparation areas, and signs must be posted indicating that the water is not suitable for drinking. For purposes of this analysis we assumed that Level IV water would still require the use of the offsite property including the effluent storage ponds, the pumps, the effluent pipeline, and the irrigation system. Gzw0U4n0IMP8334.wpd 5100 SOUTHWEST MACADAM AVENUE. SUITE 430 • PORTLAND. OREGON 97201 • (5031 227 4885 • FAX (503) 2274747 IS 'Ne199 ARAcuMENr 43 Paula Brown City of Ashland March 24, 1999 Page No. 2 At some point in the future, the City could build a distribution system to distribute Level IV reclaimed water throughout the City, but this would not eliminate the need for the proposed irrigation improvements on the City's agricultural property. For cost estimating purposes it was assumed that the effluent from the secondary clarifiers would be pumped to a flocculation basin and then filtered using continuous backwash (Dynasand) filters. These filters have a lower cost than fixed bed filters and we have used them successfully at Napa Sanitation District and at Carson City, Nevada. The filters and the flocculation basin would fit on the existing site. Discharge to the Creek Year-Around. Discharge to the creek on a year-around basis requires additional treatment facilities and will make the plant considerably more complicated to operate. The new facilities are needed to meet the 0.08 mg/I phosphorus limitation established by the TMDL on Bear Creek. That limitation is in effect from May through November. The 0.08 mg/I limit is extremely stringent and there are only a few treatment plants in the country capable of meeting that limit. For cost estimating purposes, it was assumed that the WWTP improvements, in addition to what is currently being constructed, would include an anaerobic selector in front of the aeration basin to provide biological phosphorus removal, alum and polymer handling and feed facilities, tertiary clarifiers/flocculators and tertiary filters (Dynasand). Secondary effluent would be pumped to the tertiary clarifiers/flocculators and flow by gravity through the filters to the creek. The proposed facilities for this alternative are consistent with the treatment approach taken at Unified Sewerage Agency on the Tualatin River. The additional facilities would fit on the existing plant site. Solids Handling Alternatives As you are aware, the offsite property is proposed for the storage, drying and application of biosolids. If the property is not used for biosolids, additional improvements will be required at the WWTP site. We looked at three alternatives for handling biosolids at the treatment plant. All three produce a Class B biosolids product suitable for application to agricultural property. We did not evaluate alternatives that produce a Class A product. The three solids handling alternatives we evaluated are: Thickening, aerobic digestion, dewatering, storage, and hauling. To meet state and federal regulations, 60 days of aerobic digestion is required. This would require the use of the existing aerobic digester plus the construction of a new aerobic digester. We assumed the new aerobic digester would be covered and odor control would be installed. The solids would be thickened prior to the aerobic digester to reduce the digester volume needed. Digested solids would be dewatered using a centrifuge or belt filter press and hauled by truck for land application. Since the City can not consistently apply to farmer's fields on a year-around basis, we also included cake storage. G 1V,O W l I I D I01P93-24.Nyd 5100 SOUTHWEST MACADAM AVENUE. SUITE 440 • PORTLAND. OREGON 97201 • (503) 227-1995 • FAX (503) 227-1747 Paula Brown City of Ashland March 24, 1999 Page No. 3 Thickening, anaerobic digestion, dewatering, storage, and hauling. This alternative utilizes an anaerobic process to provide stabilization. The plant is currently providing anaerobic digestion but the digester is not of adequate size. This alternative would be more expensive than aerobic digestion and is not typically used on sludges from extended air activated sludge processes. Dewatering and lime stabilization. Dry lime is added directly to the cake after it is dewatered. The treated cake would be transported in a screw conveyor to a cake storage facility, where it would be allowed to sit for at least 24 hours to achieve the required contact time at high pH. An odor control system would handle exhaust from the dewatering/lime dosing building. This alternative has a lower capital cost than the aerobic digestion alternative and has the potential to save the City money. Because of the lime, the biosolids have a different, alkaline character. The local need for alkaline biosolids should be evaluated during predesign should the decision be made to keep all of the biosolids facilities on the WWTP site. For cost estimating purposes it was assumed that the aerobic digestion alternative would be constructed at the WWTP site. The proposed facilities would fit on the existing site. Table 1 summarizes the options available to the City to meet the discharge requirements established by DEO and to produce a Class B biosolids product. More detailed cost breakdowns are shown in the attachments. From the cost information presented in Table 1 it can be concluded that it would make little sense, from a cost perspective, to produce Level IV water and use it to irrigate the city's agricultural property. This alternative would require more treatment facilities at the treatment plant and still require the effluent pumping, storage, and irrigation system on the offsite property. If the City chooses to abandon the offsite property for use in recycling biosolids and effluent, the next lowest cost option is to discharge to the creek on a year- around basis. We hope this information helps the City in reevaluating their options. We have supplemental information on the assumptions that went into each alternative and would be happy to present that information to you in more detail. Very truly yours, CAROLLO ENGINEERS, P.C. iL, P.E. Principal Attachments G A%OU4I 10101P93-24.W W 5100 SOUTHWEST MACADAM AVENUE. SUITE 440 • PORTLAND. OREGON 97201 (507) 2271995 • FAX (503) 227.1747 \ , / § c _ n 1- co -IT 04 W # $ & _ C4 C4 N ] o ° ®C%l © 2 a / Lc . $ § § § \ f 3 � � � ( � ® � J � cf | cn 99 � LU cc � . IM ) ) � I � � ■ > ] tr � / �� » • ] ui .. _ C4 n _ to fD �m 2 �� Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Biosolids Program Summary INTRODUCTION The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is pursuing delegation of a partial program for the regulation of biosolids, municipal sewage sludge, biosolids compost or other EQ products, and domestic septage. The program covers treatment and land application of biosolids and domestic septage, and the distribution and marketing of biosolids derived products. The program does not cover incineration or surface disposal of sewage sludge or biosolids. The existing administrative structure in the DEQ Water Quality Division offers a sound basis for Oregon to beneficially use all of its biosolids,continuing more than 25 years of promoting biosolids beneficial use through land application. BIOSOLIDS PRODUCTS Annual production of biosolids in Oregon is—60,000 dry tons. Composted biosolids is about 8%of this amount,or—4,800 dry tons. Surface spreading of Class B liquid biosolids from tank trucks or field irrigation sprayers are the most common application methods used. Large sources typically apply Class B dewatered cake biosolids with conventional manure spreaders or specialized spreading equipment. The use of lime stabilized biosolids is increasing,especially at smaller aerobic digestion facilities. State standards are more specific than the federal regulations in a few key ways. These differences include the need for all septage to be alkaline stabilized prior to land application; setting a minimum 50 foot setback from all water bodies for land application of bulk Class B biosolids; requiring odors to be managed on a case-by-case basis; and requiring both biosolids management plans and site authorization letters prior to land application. Also, any sites that receive biosolids year after year are required to have a soils test for residual nitrate nitrogen prior to the third annual application. BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Oregon DEQ uses a three tiered system of Wrmits,plans, and site authorizations to regulate the generation,treatment, storage,transport,and land application of biosolids and domestic septage. All perraittees must operate their solids handling programs according to DEQ approved biosolids management plans,which are considered extensions of their permits. All land application sites require DEQ written site authorizations,which are also considered extensions of the source permits, through their biosolids management plans. The DEQ Water Quality Program is responsible for all biosolids permitting, including facilities producing composts made with biosolids. PERMITS The DEQ works directly with permitted sources to craft WQ permits appropriate for each facility, reviewing and approving biosolids management plans, and authorizing sites for land application. Permit conditions include relevant federal [40 CFR Part 503] and state [Chapter 340 Division 50 OAR] rule requirements. I May 26, 1998 �.ruuawr.. � 4A. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Biosolids Program Summary In DEQ regional offices, permit coordinators track the progress of permits from application through final permit issuance, and manage the mailing lists used to inform other agencies, the interested public, and newspapers about permitting activities. Mailing lists are large and cover all major newspapers in the state, as well as many organizations and interested people. Permit writers are also responsible for facility and site inspections, review of discharge monitoring reports, operator education and training, review of plans and annual reports, and enforcement referrals. The permit application requires preparing or updating a biosolids management plan, which includes available land application site information and site selection criteria for new sites. In some cases, new state biosolids requirements have led to'compliance schedules being included in new permits, with a date scheduled to submit revised biosolids management plans. The permitting process includes: • the preparation of a draft permit and fact sheet; • ' applicant review; public notice of the draft permit with public notice; • addressing all comments received; and o issuing the permit with public notice. Appeals of permits must be made within 20 days to the DEQ. Permit appeals are scheduled for hearing before the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC), DEQ's oversight authority. Subsequently, EQC decisions can be appealed to the courts. MANAGEMENT PLANS Biosolids management plans help assure that biosolids are well managed and beneficially used in a manner which protects the public health and the environment, and have been required by Wile since 1984. These plans are subject to public review as part of the permitting process and are considered enforceable extensions of a source's pennit. Biosolids Management Plans address: • " -solids stabilization processes; • biosolids quality; • annual solids production; • solids storage capability; • solids transportation; • spill contingency options; • biosolids land application site characteristics and site selection criteria; annual and long-term loading rates; and • crop fertilizer and site management requirements. . 2 May 26, 1998 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Biosolids Program Summary Sewage Management Plans approved under either a septage handling license or a WPCF permit(for land application),address the kinds and quantities of septage materials collected by the company,the kind of pumping,transport, mixing, and storage equipment used, and the disposal or beneficial use sites authorized for disposition of the collected septage. Any deviations from the management plans or use of the pumping equipment for materials other than domestic septage must be requested in writing in advance and must be authorized in writing by DEQ regional staff prior to such use. DEQ is attempting to improve conformance to these requirements through the license renewal process. SITE AUTHORIZATIONS Biosolids rules require sources who desire to land apply bulk Class B biosolids or septage to obtain advance written DEQ authorization for each proposed site. Sites are authorized by DEQ regional staff after a field visit, once site qualities have been reviewed based on soil surveys and maps, and only after local land use approval. Site management requirements are detailed in specific authorization letters,and approval conditions are considered permit requirements. In the past six years, DEQ regional staff authorized biosolids land application on more than 26,500 acres at more than 500 sites. Currently the total DEQ authorized biosolids land application site acreage is over 37,000 acres. Buffer areas required between biosolids land application areas and site features are adjusted to recognize: , • the extent of biosolids processing at a wastewater treatment facility; • the equipment used to apply biosolids; • the moisture content of the biosolids; • the soils and planned crop; • topography and landscape position; • surrounding land uses; • climate and wind; and • vegetation density surrounding the area to be amended with solids. TRAINING, UNIVERSITY ASSISTANCE & REGIONAL NETWORKS The DEQ emphasizes continual training of treatment plant staff to aid compliance. Annual operator short schools and technical assistance visits are used to provide training to both operators and management staff. Regional biosolids field staff and the DEQ state coordinator also meet regularly to discuss implementation issues and improve program understanding, efficiency and statewide consistency. Oregon State University (OSU) assists in implementing the program with their research programs and information from local extension specialists on soils, nutrients and crop management. OSU soil scientists have also collaborated with DEQ, the Oregon Association of Clean Water Agencies (ACWA), and the Northwest Biosolids Management Association 3 May 26, 1998 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Biosolids Program Summary (NBMA) to produce guidance, informational documents, and training on the land application of biosolids. Regional research and training activities are promoted whenever possible. DOMESTIC BIOSOLIDS TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE The DEQ receives ongoing advice from the Domestic Biosolids Technical Advisory Committee (BTAC), which has existed since 1989 as a standing committee to assist with making overall program refinements, drafting policies, and revising rules and guidelines for EQC consideration. The Committee played a central role in policy development while the state rule was revised after Part 503 was issued. BIOSOLIDS PROGRAM RESOURCES Currently, DEQ has—3.1 FTE to implement the biosolids program in Oregon. This staffing total reflects full use of Annual Compliance Determination Fees collected for biosolids. No new state resources are envisioned for the implementation of the delegated federal program, unless there are increased fees. Table 1 -Staff Positions and Duties FTE Position Types Responsibilities 1.0 Program Coordinator Program, rule & policy development; statute& rule interpretation; program coordination; database management; public information; assist with plan review& approval; liaison to state & regional organizations representing regulated municipalities. 2.0 Regional Biosolids Staff Program implementation; permit development; facility and site inspection; site authorization; compliance & enforcement determination; public information; rule interpretation; plan review& approval. 0.05 Regional Permit Writers Permit development; facility inspection; compliance & Inspectors & enforcement determination. 0.05 Regional Permit Coordinators Permit processing & coordination including public & Managers notification. Management of staff, budget& policy decisions. 4 May 26, 1998 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Biosolids Program Summary Table 2 - Biosolids Funding and FTEs Staff by Region Position Classifications FTE Position Cost (estimate) (estimate) State Coordinator NRS 4 1.00 $ 81,108 NWR NRS 3 0.90 $ 63,172 WR- Salem NRS 4 & EE 2 0.30 $ 22,642 WR- Roseburg NRS 3 0.30 $ 21,057 ER - Bend NRS 3 0.10 $ 7,019 ER- Pendleton NRS 3 & EE 2 0.20 $ 14,379 other regional staff NRS 3 0.20 $ 14,038 regional management & averaged 0.10 7,019 administration TOTALS: 3.10 FTE $230,434 Full cost figures represent maximum annual salary of each position class, multiplied by fringe benefits+ overhead [@—62%], plus services and supplies [@ $1,000 per FTE], multiplied by the estimated percentage of time spent on biosolids activities. NOTE: Projected 1998 salary increase of 5% is not included. Total Fee Funding $231,915 (from Annual Compliance Determination Fees) Total Salaries $230,434 (estimated) ENFORCEMENT Compliance assurance involves all of the program elements described,plus a credible enforcement response when needed to correct rule violations. Enforcement is intended to prevent environmental harm and to ensure a level "playing field" for all biosolids sources. DEQ is not able to inspect every site, or even every facility, every year. DEQ relies on the general public for information referrals on potential management problems such as odors, runoff, or other problems. Two recent examples of DEQ biosolids enforcement actions included fines for: • the negligent spray application of biosolids that entered surface water; and • failure to develop a biosolids management plan, coupled with over application of biosolids and no crop removal, which together presented a threat of nitrate leaching to groundwater. 5 May 26, 1998 Biosolids Recycling: Beneficial Technology For A Better Environment EPA 832-R-94-009 June 1994 Overview The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will continue to promote practices that provide for the beneficial use of municipal biosolids, while maintaining or improving environmental quality and protecting human health. Thousands of municipalities are currently land applying or otherwise recycling their biosolids. Both agricultural and non-agricultural sites benefit from the nutrient and soil conditioning value of biosolids, which is generally worth about $100 to $140 per agricultural application of biosolids. Biosolids have been used successfully in the production of many different food,feed, and horticultural crops;in the production of sod and the maintenance of turf,for improved forest productivity; and for reclaiming and vegetating areas disturbed by mining, construction, and waste disposal activities. EPA continues to provide guidance and rules for the safe use of biosolids. Its current rule for the final use or disposal of biosolids(40 CFR part 503)is the result of nearly 10 years of intensive study and development. This process involved detailed scientific risk assessment with careful evaluation of the available data,the use of improved model and more realistic assumptions. It benefited greatly by the extensive assistance of biosolids experts. The biosolids now being generated are for the most part low in pollutants,rich in nutrients and organic matter, and highly suitable for recycling as a result to EPA's clean water and pretreatment efforts. The Part 503 standards provide for a wide range of different end-use possibilities for these biosolids. Att�r�►�c.�r �►c EPA Policy on Beneficial Use of Municipal Biosolids EPA's"Policy on Municipal Sewage Sludge(Biosolids)Management" (49 Federal Register 24358 June 12, 1984)states that: "The U.S. Environmental protection Agency (EPA) will actively promote those municipal biosolids management practices that provide for the beneficial use of biosolids while maintaining or improving environmental quality and protecting the public health. To implement this policy, EPA will continue to issue regulations that protect public health and other environmental values. Local communities will remain responsible for choosing among alternative programs;for planning,construction,and operating facilities to meet their needs;and for ensuring continuing availability of adequate and acceptable disposal or use capacity." As noted in the policy statement, EPA prefers well-managed practices that beneficially use municipal biosolids. Such practices include land application of biosolids as a soil amendment or fertilizer supplement and various procedures that derive energy from biosolids or convert them to useful products. These practices can help reduce the volume of biosolids requiring disposal, thus reducing the rate at which the limited capacity of disposal facilities is exhausted. Other benefits derived from recycling biosolids include improved soil fertility and tilth,reduced need for and enhanced response to inorganic fertilizers, better growth and quality of crops, and decreased consumption of energy. Biosolids Are A Natural Fertilizer For many individuals, biosolids induce major emotional response. This response is understandable when you realize that ever since infancy, parents teach children that human waste is dirty and is to be avoided and flushed down the toilet. Compare this with the life-long experience of most persons familiar with animal waste as a material to be managed and used. Like animal waste,biosolids are a part of the natural cycle of life. They consist of organic compounds removed during wastewater treatment. An important perspective on biosolids,the natural fertilizer,can be gained from the following closer look: "Crops that supply our food and animal feed are grown in the soil. To grow, the crops need fertilizer and water. Essential soil fertilizer nutrients include carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, potassium, nitrogen, sulphur, calcium, iron, magnesium, molybdenum, boron, copper and zinc. Plants take up these essential soil-borne nutrients that are necessary for their normal growth. Using these nutrients and sunlight, plants manufacture organic carbon-rich foodstuffs such as carbohydrates. "The same nutrients that are essential for plant growth also are essential for the growth of humans and other animals. We gain many of these essential nutrients,along with carbohydrates, fates, and proteins, by eating plants. Wastes the are excreted from humans and contain these same essential nutrient elements that are in the foods we consume. These wastes go into the municipal wastewater system along with other household wastes. Municipalities also collect and wastewater from industrial and commercial sources. The residual solids generated during wastewater treatment were previously called sewage sludge. Sewage sludges that can be used are now being called biosolids to emphasize the beneficial nature of this valuable recyclable resource. Properly prepared biosolids provided a rich source of the essential fertilizer elements needed by plants to produce food. It seems only natural to return this rich source of nutrient and organic matter to the soil to perpetuate the cycle of life." Appropriate control is needed for the safe agricultural use of all fertilizers and soil conditioners,whether in the form of biosolids,other organic amendments, or chemically based fertilizers, to insure that the proper amount of essential elements are provided. Controls also are needed with all fertilizers and soil conditions to avoid contamination of groundwater with leachable excess nitrogen. Controls are needed with biosolids and animal waste, because, depending upon the level of treatment, disease-causing organisms (pathogens) may be present and vectors such as flies and rodents can be attracted that may transmit disease. These controls come from many sources. Some control comes from following State fertilizer recommendations and sound agricultural practices. Additional control is obtained by requiring wastewater treatment to reduce pathogens to levels that are not harmful. Pretreatment by industry, mandated by law, is another primary control that prevents excessive levels of unwanted pollutants in wastewater and the resultant biosolids. Pretreatment and source control have been very successful in reducing the levels of pollutants in biosolids. And finally, compliance with the new Federal as well as existing State regulations requires the careful implementation of management practices and the use of biosolids application rates based on crop needs. Agricultural Use of Biosolids EPA's policy that promotes the beneficial use of municipal biosolids is based on years of extensive study and experience. Hundreds of studies have been conducted as a basis for the safe use of biosolids. Moreover,thousands of publicly owned treatment works(POTWs)are currently using their biosolids as an organic fertilizer and soil conditioner on land throughout the United States. For example,over 99% and 90%,respectively, of all biosolids produced in Oregon and Maryland are used on the land. Examples of communities recycling their biosolids include Hannibal, MO (population 19,000), Madison, WI(250,000 population),and Seattle,WA(1.1 million population). Each of these municipal authorities have been winners in EPA's National Beneficial Use of Biosolids Awards Program. Hannibal MO and Madison,WI charge farmers for using their biosolids. Hannibal recovers 100%of the costs of hauling and spreading biosolids from its sales to farmers. Madison receives $12 per acre for applying their biosolids. Madison fertilizes 3,000 to 4,000 acres of farmland with biosolids each year and has farmers waiting with a total of 22,000 acres of farmland available for application. Seattle applies biosolids to forest as well as agricultural land. Since 1974,all biosolids from metropolitan Washington,DC (3 million population)have been used on land. In 1993 about 75% (87,000 dry tons) of dewatered biosolids produced was used on agricultural land in Maryland(4,000 acres)and Virginia(4,000 acres). The remaining 25%was composted for use by landscapers,horticulturalists,and the general public. The dewatered biosolids were applied to private farmland-by private contractors at no charge to the farmers. The farmers received $100 to $140 worth . of needed nitrogen,phosphorus,trace nutrients, lime and organic matter per acre from each 5 to 10 ton per acre application of biosolids. Table L.Value of 5 to 10 dry tons per Acre of Typical Dewatered Anaerobically Digested Biosolids Nutrient Lbs/Ac Applied Value/Ac($) Nitrogen 150 30 Phosphorus(P205) 150 30 Potassium(KZO) 10 1 Copper 7 14 Zinc 10 12.50 Sulfiu 20 10 Lime 1 ton 28 Spreading 15 Total Value' $140 'Value of organic matter is in addition to this total An additional benefit of biosolids is its suppression of pathogenic soil organisms such as nematodes that damage plant roots as well as specific plant root diseases that otherwise cause damage to commercially grown potted plants. Non-Agricultural Use of Biosolids The beneficial uses of biosolids are not limited to farmland application. Biosolids are used in silvicultural to increase forest productivity and to revegetate and stabilize lands that have been harvested or disturbed by mining,construction, fires, land slides,or other natural disasters. The application to forest land can shorten pulp wood and lumber production cycles by accelerating tree growth, especially on marginally productive soils. Studies by the University of Washington and the U.S. Forest Service in the Southeast,on ttie use of biosolids as a fertilizer in silviculture have shown as much as a three-fold increase in tree growth compared to controls for certain tree species. Biosolids are used productively to stabilize and revegetate areas destroyed by mining, dredging, and construction activities. Alkaline-stabilized,digested, air-dried and composted biosolids are frequently used to help revegetate mine spoil, highway embankments and median strips and other construction sites. Alkaline-stabilized biosolids are also used as a soil substitute for intermediate and final landfill cover. The use of biosolids in land reclamation efforts has proved very successful and comparable in cost to commercial methods in both large-and small-scale projects. For example,in a strip-mined area in Fulton County,IL,reclamation using municipal biosolids costs about$3,700 per acre,as compared with a range of$3,400 to $6,300 per acre using commercial methods. Studies in New Mexico have shown sustained improved growth and nutritional quality of desirable native vegetation on rangeland and reduced run-off of rain water from a one-time, 10 to 20 dry tons per acre surface application of biosolids. Studies in Colorado, with 1 to 15 dry tons per acre of biosolids applied,are being conducted to determine optimum rates to improve range quality and minimize public health and environmental risks. Early results from these studies show similar improvements in range quality and reduced water run-off proportional to the rate of biosolids application. Biosolids have been used to reclaim over 31000 acres of lands devegetated by mining and smelting activities in Pennsylvania. Biosolids are being used in combination with fly ash to revegetate soils at a Palmerton,PA,site which has been included on EPA's list of Superfund sites. The Palmerton site was so highly contaminated from 90 years of smelting zinc that all vegetation in the surrounding area was destroyed. The research team members from Allentown, PA, and the Pennsylvania State University, who were responsible for demonstrating the viability of the reclamation procedures,were recognized as winners in EPA's first National Beneficial Use of Biosolids Awards Program (1988). Biosolids Recycling: Practices and Benefits Biosolids may be used separately or in conjunction with chemical fertilizers. Particularly in soils that are low in organic matter, biosolids provide benefits that are not available from chemical fertilization. The biosolids'organic matter enhances the soil rooting media thus providing for better water retention, improved air exchange around plant roots, and increased ability of the soil to hold nutrients in a plant- available state(increased cation exchange capacity). In sandy, highly leachable soils,the tendency for biosolids'organic nitrogen to be released at a rate that is consistent with plant uptake,mitigates the loss of excess nitrogen into groundwater. The biosolids' organic matter had impacts on Yuma, AZ farmland that initially might have seemed undesirable. Herbicides became less effective because of their interaction with the changing sandy soil and organic biosolids matrix. Those fields,previously weed-free,now contained more weeds. On the other hand, the plant became more vigorous and better able to compete with weeds and withstand damage from insect pests. The changes that occurred because of biosolids usage allowed the farmer to decrease his costs for fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides by approximately $170 on each acre of his 12,000 acre farm. in some instances the total yield decreased compared to weed-free fields. However, the farmer's net return per acre increased (more dollars per acre profit). The same Yuma. AZ farmer, because of his enhanced yield and lowered costs from use of biosolids, decided to dedicate 10%of his land each year to producing grains for wildlife. Because of the farming changes that left more cover from weeds on all 12,000 acres and the 1,200 acres left each year with unharvested grain for wildlife, the dove and other wildlife population increased so substantially in 6 years that the Yuma region began to realize an unexpected$3.5 million increased annual benefit from hunting related activities.. Other Uses for Biosolids The sale of biosolids products to the public for many kinds of garden,nursery,household,and lawn uses continues to increase. Treatment such as heat-drying,composting,and treatment with alkaline materials, converts biosolids into useful products that can be considered "exceptional quality" if pollutant concentrations in the biosolids do not exceed the minimal levels specified in Table 3 of the Part 503 Regulation. These products are safe for unrestricted use by the general public. Generators of these products are required to have an ongoing monitoring program to ensure that the biosolids continually meet the "exceptional quality" requirements. Examples of these stabilized products include Milwaukee's heat-dried product "MILORGANITE", which has been produced and sold throughout the United States since the 1920's. Products of this nature have sold in bulk for as much as$190 per dry ton if high in nitrogen content and aesthetically pleasing. Kellogg Supply Company (a private California firm) has been producing and marketing composted biosolids products(e.g.,NITROHUMUS,TOPPER,GRO-MULCH)mostly in California,Arizona,and Nevada, for a similar period of time. Their products include composted biosolids that have come predominantly from Los Angeles, County, California, wastewater treatment facilities. Both MILORGANITE and NITROHUMUS have been used to establish and maintain grass playing fields in sports stadiums across the country--including the Rose Bowl. A composted biosolids product from Philadelphia called EARTHGRO has been used with great success for growing container plants and chrysanthemums. Even the White House has used composted biosolids to reestablish lawns. Several years ago, 825 tons of composted biosolids (COMPRO) were used in this highly successful project. Similarly,the lawns at Mount Vernon,the Washington Monument Grounds and the Governor's mansion in Annapolis, MD, were renewed with COMPRO. The fast use of composted biosolids on the Washington,DC Mall(nearly 6,000 dry tons)was in 1976 to establish Constitution Gardens in time for the United States Bicentennial Birthday celebration. COMPRO is currently being sold for$10 to $50 per cubic yard in bulk depending on quantity of delivery. The cost of their bagged product is $5 to $6 per cubic foot. Current research by Heneghan, et. al. regarding the potential use of biosolids to remediate soils containing high levels of lead by reducing the soil lead bioavailability shows promise. The research is indicating that appropriately produced and applied biosolids may help protect child health because the biosolids matrix reacts with the lead in contaminated soils to reduce the bioavailability of the soil lead. The research involved the feeding of laboratory animals an otherwise completely balanced diet that also contained 9% of either a low or high-lead containing urban soil mixed with 1%of different biosolids products. The preliminary results from these animal feeding studies show up to 50% reduced bioavailability of ingested lead,(i.e.,reduced absorption of ingested soil lead into the blood and body tissues reflected by bone levels). Such data suggest that children ingesting biosolids-treated soil and dust may have a decreased absorption of lead into the blood stream, thus lessening the potential for lead-induced nerve and brain damage. Additional research is needed with laboratory animals to determine the best form of biosolids to use and the reduction of bioavailability that is possible. Another stabilization method that is commonly used by many wastewater treatment works in anaerobic digestion. This stabilization process generally yields a Class B biosolids product as defined in EPA's Part 503 Regulation that has been spread for years on agricultural land in liquid form and is a dewatered product. One of the most economical and agriculturally beneficial methods for using biosolids is the land application of this type of stabilized product. Methane gas is generated during the anaerobic digestion process and has considerable value. For example,the Tampa,FL,treatment works recovers about$700,000 worth of electricity each year from methane it produces during anaerobic digestion. This is equivalent to approximately $65 worth of net electricity being produced for every ton of volatile biosolids removed from the digester. Tampa also uses heat removed from the electrical generators to provide more than 95%of the warmth needed for the digesters. All but 10 to 15% of Tampa's anaerobically digested biosolids are being heat-dried and marketed for between$85 to $120 per dry ton. The balance is being land applied in dewatered form. Tampa was recognized for this highly efficient operation in EPA's 1993 Beneficial Use Biosolids Awards Program. Expert Opinions Regarding Biosolids Useability In 1981,Del Monte Corporation,along with other food processors,announced that they would no longer accept fruit and vegetables for processing that have been grown on biosolids treated soils. Officials from the U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA),the Food and Drug Administration(FDA),and EPA met with representatives of the National Food Processors Association to address food processor's concerns. After analyzing the available health and safety information pertaining to these practices, the USDA, FDA, and EPA issued guidance and a joint policy statement in 1981 that was signed by the Administrators of each Agency. The Agencies endorsed using biosolids on land for producing fruits and vegetables, and concluded: "that the use of high quality biosolids, coupled with proper management procedures, should safeguard the consumer from contaminated crops,minimize any potential adverse effect on the environment," and "that, with the adherence to the guidance contained in this document, the safety and wholesomeness of the fruit and vegetable crops grown on biosolids amended soils will be assured." In 1983,over 200 health and environmental experts from the United States,Canada,and Europe met in Denver,CO,to assess the state of the art for biosolids use and disposal(ten years after a similar meeting in Champaign, IL). These experts arrived at a published consensus that the existing guidance and regulations were adequately protective of public health and the environment, provided that biosolids were used in accordance with those provisions. They concluded: "Guidelines have been developed to enable the environmentally safe use of biosolids containing median concentrations of metals and organics when the biosolids are applied at agronomic rates based upon nitrogen or phosphorus utilization by crops" "Groundwater monitoring for nitrate-nitrogen is not needed where biosolids nitrogen additions do not exceed fertilizer nitrogen recommendations for the crop grown." "Using biosolids for reclamation of disturbed land at rates higher than those for agricultural land, when properly implemented and managed, improves the quality of soils, groundwater or vegetation." "With proper management and safety allowances based on research data, land application is a safe beneficial and acceptable alternative for treatment of municipal wastewater and biosolids." Some concern has been expressed about the possibility that land-applied biosolids might damage crops, livestock, or the land itself resulting in possible financial loss to the farmer or his mortgage lender. Some concern has also been expressed about possible future loss that might occur if new discoveries were to show anticipated hazards from previous biosolids use. While there can be no guarantees, past experiences with agronomic use of biosolids have been very reassuring. Where biosolids have been applied in accordance with regulations, problems that have occurred are rare and generally related to inadequate field management and not biosolids quality-- virtually the same type of problems which have occurred from other normal farming practices. All research to date leads to the conclusion that the agronomic use of high quality biosolids is sustainable and very safe. B IOSOI.IDS NORTHWEST B IOSOLIDS Iru . :��>�.•.:, MANAGEMENT =•y� ENVI RONME common ASSOCIATION Long-term_ scientific studies have consistently demonstrated that biosolids recycling is safe and beneficial zahen performed in accordance with federal regulations and guidance. Now Much Do We Know? The management of biosolids to minimize environmental and health risks has been the focus of hun- dreds of university research studies conducted for many years. The results of this extensive research show that biosolids can be managed so that the risk of adverse effects to the environment or public health from land application of biosolids is extremely low. To ensure that biosolids are treated and appropriately managed, the United States Congress directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop comprehensive national standards to re- duce the risks and maximize the benefits of land application of biosolids. In February of 1993, EPA issued its biosolids use and disposal regulation, 40 CFR Part 503, commonly referred to as "Part 501" This regulation addresses the following: Metals A small amount of metals such as cadmium,lead,copper and zinc can enter wastewater from industrial .. drains, from homes and from metal pipes.These metal pollutants remain — =a in the solids throughout the treat- ment process. When biosolids are •• applied to the land, the metals cling .. to soil particles and organic matter and do not move down into the groundwater.Metals occur naturally in the soil and many metals are ac- tually plant micronutrients. The - -• - - - - - '- '° "' '"' '"' '"' "' t of metals in biosolids is care- Trend in Annual Avenge Cadmium Concentntisn• from 1981 through 1995 amour for King Counsy's west Point Treatment Rant oewatered Biosolids fully regulated and monitored. Government limits: In order to protect human health and the environment, the Environmental Protec- tion Agency (EPA) sets limits on the amount of trace metals allowed in biosolids.These levels are based on more than 20 years of research on how trace metals affect soils, plants and animals. ,n9.fore:�r�.. . ,o'•`•u ., :.�y• Senas;l.r o! ds�AQ •'/' aMP�o v...n-:ol..::.:... .'..'.,.:o�;:i;•lar".•• ban:. bia�oi;d� w^ ATTAruu:..•r d►'G • Pretreatment requirements: Rigorous "pretreatment' programs control the amount of metals entering wastewater treatment plants. Laws regulate industries to make sure that they dispose of their chemicals safely.This means that metals are removed from the waste stream before they ever reach the sewer.This ensures that biosolids contain metals only in small quantitid9. • Biosolids quality: Biosolids are routinely tested for metal concentrations to make sure that they comply with all regulatory requirements. Biosolids in the Pacific Northwest typically meet the strictest require- ments set by the Environmental Protection Agency. Pathogens Before treatment, wastewater may contain disease-causing microscopic organisms,such as bacteria and viruses, which are known as pathogens, or germs. • Federal lazu requires treatment to reduce pathogens: Digesters and other forms of treatment kill at least 90 percent of the pathogens originally found in wastewater solids. Additional treatment by heating or composting is required to eliminate pathogens in biosolids used in home gardens and landscapes. •The cleaning process:Conditions such as exposure to sunlight, lack of moisture or a relatively harsh soil environment destroy the few remaining pathogens that may exist in biosolids soon after they are ap- plied to the land. . Excess Nitrogen Biosolids contain organic and inorganic nitrogen and can be applied to plants as a fertilizer to dramati- cally accelerate growth. However, the addition of too much nitrogen, whether from biosolids or from a commercial fertilizer,can be detrimental to plant growth or can degrade groundwater or surface water. Sites receiving biosolids applications are carefully selected and managed to ensure the protection of water resources. Farmers and foresters consider plant needs and soil nutrient levels when applying biosolids to their crops and trees,providing only as much nitrogen as the plants can utilize. Trace Synthetic Organics Biosolids contain minute concentrations of certain regulated organic compounds including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, phthalates and plasticizers, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and solvents. Organic compounds found in biosolids are present in such low concentrations (near the lowest detect- able limits),that studies have found risks to be negligible.For this reason, the EPA did not include trace organics in the 503 Rule. Odor Odor issues are a common concern associated with biosolids applications. The odor varies depending upon the treatment process used and ranges from a strong ammonia scent to an earthy, organic smell similar to that of freshly sterilized potting soil. Odor perception varies from person to person. Nanlrast pow8ds Nl�agswt AswdAle� (Rev.7/97) 828 2nd Ave.MS 81;Seen,WA 98101-(598 phone:(206)(A4-1145 fec(206)689-3185 Wald Wide Wek Imp://v...mibami L"Q B IOSOLIDS NORTHWEST BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT gGRICUl mini iMXMMM ASSOCIATION Biosolids recycled on agricultural lands provide plants with essential nutrients that speed growth and increase crop yield. Seeking Solutions Maintaining crop production and sustaining the environment are constant challenges to modem agri- culture. Crop and livestock production remove nutrients from the land and can degrade the soil's struc- ture and moisture holding capacity. This creates the potential for nutrient deficiencies, erosion and negative impacts to water quality. Benefits of Biosolids One way to improve soil quality and combat further deterioration is to replenish the soil nutrients that are needed for plant growth and add organic matter to improve soil structure and moisture retention. Biosolids recycling is a safe and environmentally sound way to return both nutrients and organic mat- ter to agricultural soils, providing fertilization to crops and assisting in soil conservation. How it Works Biosolids contain essential plant macronutrients (used by plants in large amounts) including nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur, as well as plant micronutrients (required in smaller amounts) such as zinc and copper. Applications of biosolids allow these nutrients to enter the soil for plant use.Biosolids are retained in the soil and release nutrients slowly as they are needed by plants. Appropriate applications of biosolids prevent nutrients from leaching beyond the plant rooting zone into the groundwater. , Biosolids applications promote plant root growth and generally help plants to grow greener, more vigorously and often with improved yields. The dense crops grown by biosolids create large amounts of straw and other organic matter that can be tilled back into the soil, improving soil moisture retention,filth and erosion resistance, as well as increasing natural earthworm populations. Recent studies 1 �} have shown that organic matter used in agriculture helps suppress plant disease. The addition of biosolids can also help to moderate highly alkaline or acidic soil ' ) 1 conditions. ` Biosolids have been recycled on pastureland,dryland wheat,barley,canola,hops,corn, raspberries and orchards in the Pacific Northwest. Application rates are carefully designed to meet the needs of indi- vidual crops. Dewatered biosolids are typically applied with calibrated manure spreaders and tilled into the soil, while liquid biosolids can be sprayed or injected below the soil surface. °f binrolids•gyp°°yc '+horo•,.•m.•ar' h.o co;idc•too Research and Demonstrations LZese-jrch plots and demORStratloR Site-: inl'r shU Vin tnai the qua lit;of ca)D'>;1ruwn on biosolids-amencied soils ar0 egLLal or superior to those �?rown with commercial tertiliZers. BUJ<U(LU5 applica tlOils a150 �.^.en- - a 8flt Soil trough the aVdlilORal Crop Or,-aRic matter grOWn and tilled back into the soil, which improves water infiltration and moisture re- tention. Nhar's Happening? �- • Drylur!ci agriculture: On tJ'0S011QY21n 1eRCed. '�Otls, Farmers CdC"e Seen r y P } 110ou moisture retention (even dune- drOli�rrt conditions), reduced, t•'' +'• .: s `wind erosion damage and improved crop color. flanv dryland projects have shown considerable improvements in crop yield and vior and - _, soil properties. EllenSSurg, Everett, Kul,COUntii, Pullman, Spokane(Wash- ington) +' • Irri;sated agriculture: Biosolids are a desirable soil amendment in irri- r=r gated agriculture, reducing stress to plants between irrigation c cles. r..a` Fotlowim,biosolids applications to hi-hly alkaline soils, the return of a normal, healthy soil ecology is often indicated by renewed earthworm NZEMERS activity. Greater Vaneouuer Regional District (British Columbia); Boise. Assaa Grangez-ills(Idaho);Albania,Gresham,iWc llinnville, Salem(Oregon);Bingen, Bridgeport, Chehalis, Clark County, Enumciazu, Kennewick, King Counhr, Tacoma Washougal, Yakima (TiVash- ington) • Rangeland and pastureland: Biosolids improve the quality of grasslands and their ability to support grazing animals including cattle, sheep, bison and wildlife. Greater Vancouue Regional District (British Columbia);Eugene.Hilisborc--?rnif ed Sewerage Agency,Portland(Oregon);Birch Bay,Blaine,Lynden, Ezersan, Nooksak, Sumas—BBBLENS, Pierce Counter, Tacoma (TIVashington) Xey Plant Nutrients Provided by a Typical Application of Biosolids' lbs/acre N Nitrogen (available first rear) 11= P Phosphorus 210 K Potassium 11 Fe Iron 182 Mg iviagnesium Jo S Sulfur (as sulfate) 1.0 B Boron 0i Cu Copper 63 [vio Molybdenum 0'1 ,vin Manganese Zr' Zinc Ca Calcium Sased ,:>R: -: sin�=2 OlJSOtlds application at the rate of ?0 suet iCns per acre, Or a drl% tens =?r ac-° 4orthwest 3iasalids Management Asso(iation {ftev.is 97i 321 2nd Ave..!AS d1;�eatde.;44 13114.1599 phone:(206)624-1145 fax:12061 669-3465 nadd ride'xec Mostly sunny Sunday Im I...... I j1h,705.10—,31), %V...r/,/Page 3 HOME EDITION THE NTATCHEE WORLD P,,biml,d in tk,,appl,'al'i'al c,l th� or rlkm pu. cr 6'Ir t d,a, ,.'r Don "' t hold , your moose v . Farmers smell money when processed human waste is spread on their fields gz ..... ..... ........ ... AQWr 7 WWd 011010$/We WriCkUn A manure spreader distributes biosolids—processed human wast7 'nom King County—over a wheat field owned by Jim Ruud near Waterville. At top,a close-up look at the fertilizer on a field. A-IrTAca"p-mr a7 Hold your nose : Farmers smell money I By MICHAEL Mr,GLUSKEY brenks.Take a deep breath and vou'It notice 40.000 acres,mostly between Waterville World stall water a musty oreanic odor with a slightly and Mansfield have received or are signed ammonia smell. up to get the product.Many more would "It's the best WATERV ILLE—Put most people next to '-to me.the smell like it. a pile of processed human waste.and they'll means it's working:'said Biosolids are the organic residue from fertilizer I've pinch(heir noses and mm away.Put a Dou- f Dnve Ruud.)5.manager secondary treatment of sewage.The treat- ever SP.eO: =las County wheat farmer by it.and he'll see . :__-__ which h contacts wtjlh the heavn metals. King County has applied black gold and smell money. King Count to brine the biosolids to land since the early 1970s.first —Lem Farmers have quickly come to understand .�F. .: ! _ Y Y that the waste.called biosolids.can mm a biosolids to the Big Bend on forestry and composting opentions. Thomsen, good crop of wheat into a great crop. .c`.' '' wheat fields. King County also sends biosolids w hop Boulder Park Stand next to the jet-black piles.and you �ti' The biggest problem growers in the Yakima Valley. owner and can see small pines of plastic that survived for Boulder Park Inc.is The biosolids Cary nitrogen.sulfur and farmer the selvage processing system in King RuUD getting enough of the phosphorus to the sod,replacine costly County.Stick your foot in the pile and it stuff.Demand far out- commercial fertilizers.Researchers have crackles and crunches as the crusty surface - strips supply.More than 100 fanners owning This King County hqt photo shows how well biosolids work. The two shocks of wheat it kfP '1 on the right were � I treated with IdiAf '! J biosolids fertilizer. ,J.° ¢i i ` { N The one on the 1:0 I i I r far left had no fertilizer, while the r_ one next to it was treated with a standard com- mercial fertilizer. W. ;. c 1 e n r found that the biosolids incrcasc organic increased yields continue for years. matter in the soil. improve fertility and reduce Tests show wheat roots grow bigger in size. erosion,especially from wind. Increased soil giving the wheat a better chance to survive compaction has been the only problem.And winter.Sometimes the canopy of wheat is so the biosolids- in contrast to conventional fertil- thick that weeds don't get a chance to grow. izers. improve the soil for several years after eliminating the need for weed killers. Ruud application. said. "Its the complete package of the fertilizers:" Boulder Park started as a test project in Ruud said. 1992. In 1994,Poole.Thomsen and Glessner The Boulder Park founders tell about long- formed Boulder Park as an organized way to bring the biosolids to the farmers.Under the time friends who are mad they'r not getting contract, the King County Department of Nat- the organic fertilizer and joke about people ural Resources supplies a minimum of 20.000 mot ine sins so it will "accidentalh" be deliv- wet tons per year,enough to cover 1.000- ered at their prupertY. 1,500 acres. King County actually delivers "It's the best fertilizer I've ever seen:"said more than that. last year enough to cover Lerov Thomsen.53.who owns Boulder Park 1,536 acres. Boulder Park also receives a Inc. along with fellow wheat fanners Gary smaller amount of biosolids from the city of Poole and Larry Glessner.All live between Mount Vernon. Waterville and Mansfield. Before biosolids are applied, fields are Farmers paw 51 per eet ton for the hiosolids tested to determine the nitrogen needs of the and Boulder Park hands that fee directly to soil. Large trucks then dump the product in a King County. Ruud said. King County pays field, where it sits in piles until the farmer the haulm cost and also pays Boulder Park to spreads it.The biosolids work best the quicker apply the biosolids to the soil. Ruud said.The they're plowed into the ground. Ruud said. cost to farmers works out to 515 to$20 per However. the project could become a victim acre.comparable to the costs of commercial of its own success. Demand is greater than the fertilizers. Ruud said. supply. Tales of incredible vields abound in country "We're competing for every dmp of this we without irtigation or the rich soils of places can get:'Thomsen Bald. like the Palouse. Ruud,a fifth-genentlon wheat farmer,said,yields are 10- to 25-percent higher on land treated with the biosolids coin- Off Page One .2 Don ' t put that on a brochure Douglas County accepts thousands of tons of biosolids and sludge,but you can't call it a wasteland The biggest business is in biosolids. Boulder By MICHAEL McCLUSKEY World staff writer Park Inc.. based in Mansfield. has permits to apply biosolids to 40.000 acres throughout the W'ATFRVILLE — It's enough to make any dryland wheat-growing plateau. Most of the tuuri%m promoter blanch. hiosolids come from King County. The first Ever} year, thousands of tons of biosolids half of this year, 21,405 wet tons of waste were tint their way in«t ar d,rural Douglas County. delivered to farms in the county. Both the city of Bridgeport and the Douglas Trucks haul tons of processed human waste County Sewer District also dispose of biosolids from Seattle and Mount Vernon. which end up through land application. Since 1994, Bridge- nurturing dryland wheat fields. Septic tank port has pumped out its lagoons,put the residue wastes from Chelan and Douglas counties are in p to cloth bags and left the bags on pallets to also spread on fields overlooking East dry for three to six months. About two truck- Wenatchee and Wenatchee. loads a month of the dried sewage are spread It's not just human wastes that are importeJ «r Douglas County. Sludge froin apple juice on rive nearby dryland wheat fields.The East plants in Cashmere and Wenatchee winds up on Wenatchee-based sewer district delivers the fields.too. residue left over from its treatment onto fields Sonic farmers pa to have the waste hauled near Pangborn Memorial Airport. onto their property.Al S I per wet ton(it's about Both Tree Top and Glico have been disposing 80-percent liquid). hiosolids add nutrients that of fruit-processing waste for several years by help produce excepuonal crops of wheat.The injecting it into the soil. Tree Top's waste is county's dry climate.types of soils and distance spread onto a wheat farm southwest of Water- to water make it attractive to dispose of wastes. ville and Glico's into a grass field near Pang- said Ron Draggoo. the county's solid waste barn Memorial Airport. Tree Top estimated it program director. And it's accepted in the would spread about I million gallons this year. cnuniv Tree Top's waste is spread by injection into the "Tile farmers and political climate are such soil. Glico's waste is spread onto the soil by a thev'll accept it:" Draggoo said. "Douglas tanker and plowed under by the landowner. Counn• has newer discouraged land application Apple Valley Pumping and W W Pumping of biosolids if it's monitored:' each have dump sites on opposite sides of Blue The human and agricultural wastes have dif- Grade Road, north of East Wenatchee. Both ferent names, depending on their source and companies pump out septic tanks and spread how they're treated. Biosolids are the treated the contents on fields. They are required to till products of primary and secondary waste-water the Septage into the ground within six hours. treatment plants. Sludge includes organic but do not have to otherwise treat it. wastes, mainly leftovers from making fruit Last year,Apple Valley spread nearly t mil- juice. Septage is the term for wastes pumped lion gallons. In 1995, WW Pumping spread out of septic tanks. 135,000 gallons. "If all are applied correctly, there should be If chemical toilet waste is mixed in with the very little risk to the public:" said Randy septic tank waste. however. it must be pre- Phillips of the Chelan-Douglas Health Depart- treated before it can be applied to the land. ment. Apple Valley and WW Pumping now only have Biosolids are designed to be spread over permits to apply septic tank waste and would Farmlands. he said. Septage has less treatment have to modify their permits to include chem- that, the others and must be tilled into the land ical toilet waste. within six hours of application. Sludge. '"there's a world of difference between matc- because of its organic nature, prises very little rial that has sat in a septic tank for five to seven risk. Risks increase. however, if the biosolids years and something that potentially could have are not properly treated, if the sludge includes only heen in there for hour,:' Dtaggoo said. rn her industrial wastes or if the septaee is com- Another bumper crop Big Bend wheat farmers say P VIT:T_ Me this year's crop is one of the 0% bestever K S7=_IGME(E:ri ...... A By RICK )Ncrid agricilture writer V WE UO Of' the hiE:Il ATR'. ILL Iplains oil the Bit, Bend. �ill eips uoino: and E!01112 aric, Iwr,1C:;l . 'of Wit, Bi, Bend farmers hai- r!`, Z� ve%tillt one of their best cops gust. 'or how late it will they've set a record cold n it,; Coil and put ill he before the storage. t growers ts around ile WFWhile otll'n wheat it -o p this slate ale j Q, an average ci bumper Crop ill 1990 veal. follo,�vijlL it ihaI*s not [he :;jc for wheat Farme-s in the Big Bend —the high dryland plateau that sits in the stool: of the Columbia Rivet as it be!,js toward Grand Coulee t did region region li Dam. Fanner., in this and region to lc:ll.ly Le, as their the do P east and south last vear.This year.they"i t! naking up to] 11 t A Y 0 o W bLlShCN oftwheat pCi ield�;of 0 ere hil%,e be,,jj reporied in areas where flN, ',(I to 40 hUSI)CIS were eXPC'IeLl. -onle fiel& lleal. Coulee City yielded norz-. than J()O ILIAICIS Per 3(]•*C "On r strops tuc very good." said John ... o Central Wash- Andel'sOn. 111"' - f' 5. im-nim Grain Growers Association. a Owers c(j(.j,t:jljtivc based in Witteirvillo: Moll the SiWiC S ajTCS1 _"'rain Stonl."e all(' P. Tile conipariv handles. I . �hipping c o' I on IV train IOS w .. [tile winter wheat : 10 acres in Df)Li- ,lown irl abor t 00.0c elan. (i_1irlogan. Gr,:.it and Lin- (Ill Counties. "Last year w•isn'ra banner year For us. 1111100"ll it w•ijs low-the state. This year ,veraeC.' he said. .vats up ab,jul 1i percent. well ahovC Solne of the best yields around Water- �AN Me were on land treated with bio.solids t ,jul :ante koin Kiiii: County' Waste LrCat- lent Plants. 'This was the year we've been 'r, Said L);jvC Ruud. manager ol' I . i()Uijcj Creek. Inc. The corri Richard Z::;nes northwest of leli\,C[S (11•1 hioSOlid I'C!_EiIiLe1* to lb"Ell Growers were not opillilistic about of Waterville Waterville. Fe Ofl I:1,_1llCj-s :1111 :indoi%vners in lh(• aieii- (heir crops last spring when their Winter dumps a flood says It's the :hose who have used the PrOdUCI for the planted Wijcijt N,is still l under of Stan winter biggest cm.c h(j\vCI it 10- [o 25-peric-Cnt or snow. Wheat plants will develit)n a wheat into a he's ever had. ut tew S lciu.:lse ir. pro doinon :his yea: aver Lliscasc C:ilicd sno,,k mold a;ue. hcinu lieid% !ilN trick as he 10111 iltOtG/ lone' renods. Sonic I- harharvests a field Orn-7earrook zzrs were jiscj. he said. )i,ned rot five mondis. The hitz,"Cst surprise is 1101A, oluot1h Atlde:sorl npected laiincr; ill !lii%1C 3 jj(,ljs ;!Its u11lnic_ Including so me[hintz st has been colill 0 floor ciop as a result. :111d Some -lid. HW Iji" 13c:ld 'angle set. Rain. ettel the harvest Flulds to alhe! tstilmlte.,. said Andeison. A.:tCrMIC ims iv,-ei•,ed U Gale more he said ' 1,11! - ncjc�, ll I rco (aton to Fir t�I; s Friday September 12.1997 • The Wenatchee World - _ The wheat fields of the Big Bend are turning out a bumper crop this year. r J 'Y: . �S4Y9 �s. `" [ ,, ,_� t ; 'M• World abrol 't •- •� ' Dan Seabrook Wheats. Bumper wheat crop p p From Page ! "1'd like to say 1 was really brit- soil. if it rains before the young year, only slightly more than the liana but there was a certain amount plants poke through, the land must 100-year average. But it's about an of luck involved.You never know it' be reseeded. inch and a half more than in the you're going to get the rain." "Timing is everything;' said same period the year before. The Abundant rain and cooler daytime Troutman. Dry weather forced him area get. an average precipitation of temperatures helped the wheat to stop harvest and take time to only about 10 inches a year. develop full heads of grain that set seed. Wet weather halted every- The big difference. said Mark local test weight records, but the thing.Troutman finally finished bar- Bareither of the Waterville Natural heavy crop has also prolonged har- . vest Wednesday, but others are still Resources Conservation Service. is vest. Thick wheat takes longer to a1 it, that snowmelt went into the soil mature. And when it rains, it takes Anderson estimated only about 60 because the ground didn't freeze longer for the fields to dry. percent of the Douglas County over last winter. Farmers like to harvest in the heat wheat crop has been cut. In the The Waterville-Mansfield area of August. Routinely. they're done Coulee City area, harvest is about also had several dousing rains this by the third week of the month. 85-percent complete. spring and summer, about 4 inches Then, it's time to plant next year's Anderson said wheat isn't selling worth. Thal rain• combined with crop. before September rains set in. very well right now even though increased moisture from snowmelt. "We don't like to cut in Sep- allowed adventurous farmers to try tember because the days get shorter, prices are low. Growers are hopeftd something new• and there's dew in the morning. demand and prices will increase Wade Xrouunan, for example, What takes a day in August, takes later in the year. planted 800 acres of Northern two days in September.- said That's the way it usually works, spring wheat. a venture that would Troutman. said Troutman, but many growers have seemed.foolhardy most years. Already behind schedule, farmers were hurt last year because prices "The moisture was there, so we have had to stop their harvests in reached an all time high in Sep- decided to plant;' said Troutman. a order to plant next year's crop.They lenmber—about $5 a bushel —and fourth-generation wheat grower plant only about half of the land then dropped drastically after that. who fanned about 1.800 acres this they own or lease each year because Portland prices are still about 50 year north of Mansfield. The spring it takes a little more than a year to cents a bushel lower than they were wheat had yields more than double grow a crop on the normally at this time a year ago. said normal, while his winter wheat parched land. Planting must be done Anderson. but that's mainly due to yields were only average. before fall rains come and crust the harvest time oversupply. 10 T N O O O p O F — N N T b Q — — � O O O O O O N � � N F — � T d �•O - ('�1 N 00 O o b O � v 10 ? T N ac Wl C Q O OO •5 h h m N O F b 3 " U 5 V 7 o C4 0 0 0 0 o N Ch u R' V] 7 0 0 � m v F " m E > v m a a a o y o ^ vl %D ^ � � V v N Nt x • a V U � a a a h n o F N 3 - •E 0 o 0% e U a v c ? oo a to U pp U p: N U " ro •� o « s `o u �` o U _ :5 y o ad " � 7 m V 0 O � p c o �rteu+KENr �S OREGON ADMINLSTRATIVE RULES CHAPTER 340,DIVISION 65-DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TABLE 1 (OAR 340-55-015) TREA'T'MENT AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR USE OF RECLAIMED WATER* NOTE: This table specifies the allowable beneficial purposes for various levels of quality of reclaimed water. If reclaimed water is to be applied to a specific beneficial purpose, all requirements - except advisory notices, but including footnotes, listed for that level of reclaimed water and use must be met. CATEGORY Level I Level 11 Level III Tavel rV Biological Treatment X X X X Disinfection Clarification X Coagulation X Filtration X Total Coliform(organisms/100 ml): Two Consecutive Samples N/L 240 N/L N/L Day Median NIL NIL 23 23 Miu amum Samplin Frequency N/R 1 per week 3 per week 1 per day Turbidity(N�U): 24-Hour Mean N/L N/L N/L 2 5% of Time During a 24-Hour Period N/L N/L N/L 5 Sampling Frequency Hourly GENERAL Public Access Prevented Controlled Controlled No direct . (fences (signs, (signs, public gates rural or ruralor contact Iocksj nonpublic nonpublic irrigation lands) lands) cycle (Numbers in the Table Refer to Footnotes) Buffers for Irrigation: Surface: Surface: 10 fL None 10p rfL 10 tt. required s-teay 78 fL specific Agricultural: Food Crops N/A N/A N/A Unrestricted Processed Food Crops N/A 1 1 Unrestricted Orchards and Vineyards N/A 2 2 Unrestricted Fodder, Fiber, and Seed Crops not for Human Ingestion 3 1 1 Unrestricted Pasture for Animals N/A 4 4 Unrestricted Sod N/A 1 1 Unrestricted Ornamental Nursery Stock N/A 1 1 Unrestricted Christmas Trees N/A 1 1 Unrestricted Firewood N/A 1 1 Unrestricted Commercial Timber 3 1 1 Unrestricted Parks, Playgrounds, Schoolyards, Golf Courses wit Residences N/A N/A N/A 5, 6 Golf Courses without Contiguous Residences N/A 5, 7 5,7 5, 6 Cemeteries, Hi hway Medians, Land- scapes withoutrequent Public Access N/A 5, 7 5, 7 5, 6 Industrial or Commercial Use N/A 9, 10, 11, 12 9, 10, 11, 12 9, 10, 12 Construction Use N/A 9, 10, 11, 9 10 11 9, 10, 12, 13 12, 13 1'2, Y3 Impoundments: Unrestricted N/A N/A N/A 8, 10 Restricted N/A N/A 8, 10, 14 8, 10 Landscape Impoundments N/A 8, 10, 14 8, 10, 14 8, 10 1 -Table 1 (September, 1991) I OREGON ADWNlISI'RATIVE RULES _ CHAPTER 340 DIVISION 55—DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY •DEFINITIONS: Surface: Surface irrigation where application of reclaimed water is by means other than spraying such that contact between the edible portion of any food crop and reclaimed water is prevented. Spray: Spray irrigation where application of reclaimed water to apps is by spraying it from orifices in piping. Processed Food Crops: Those which undergo thermoprocessing sufficient to kill spores of Clostridium bowlinum.Washing,pickling, fermenting,milling or chemical treatments are not sufficient. N/A: This level of reclaimed water not allowed for this use. NIL- No limit $: Required treatment for this treatment level. N/R: Not required. FOOTNOTES: 1 Advisory Notice Only.The Oregon State Health Division recommends that there should be no irrigation of this level of effluent for 3 days prior to harvesting. 2 Surface irrigation where edible portion of crop does not contact the ground,and fruit or nuts shall not be harvested off the ground. 3 The Department may permit spraying if it can be demonstrated that public health and the environment will be adequately protected from aerosols.Advisory Notice Only.The Oregon State Health Division recommends that there should be no irrigation of this level of effluent for 30 days prior to harvesting. 4 Surface or spray irrigation:No animals shall be on the pasture during irrigation. 5 Signs shall be posted around the perimeter of the facility's perimeter and other locations indicating that reclaimed water is used for irrigation and is not safe for drinking,and in the case of effluent quality Levels 11 and III for body contact(e.g.,for Level IV, ATTENTION:RECLAIMED WATER USED FOR IRRIGATION—DO NOT DRINK-ATENCION:RECLAMADO DESPERDICIO DE AGUA USADO PARA LA IRRIGACION.NO BEBA EL AGUA;for Levels II and III,ATTENTION;RECLARYTED WATER USED FOR IRRIGATION—AVOID CONTACT—DO NOT DRINK-ATENCION:RECLAMADO DESPERDICIO DE AGUA USADO PARA LA IRRIGACION—E VITE EL CONTACTO—NO BEBA EL AGUA). 6 Reclaimed water shall be applied in a manner so that it is not sprayed onto areas where food is prepared or served or onto drinking fountains. 7 Reclaimed water shall be applied in a manner so that it is not sprayed within 100 feet from areas where food is prepared or served or where drinking fountains are located. 8 Signs shall be posted around the perimeter and other locations indicating that reclaimed water is used and is not safe for drinking, and in the case of effluent quality Levels II and III for body contact(e.g.,for Level N,ATTENTION:RECLAIMED WATER—DO NOT DRINK-ATENCION:RECLAMADO DESPERIDICIO DE AGUA—NO BEBA EL AGUA;for Levels II and III, ATTENTION:RECLAIMED WATER—AVOID CONTACT—DO NOT DRINK-ATENCION:RECLAMADO DESPERDICIO DE AGUA—E VITE EL CONTACIO—NO BEBA EL AGUA). 9 The Department may impose more stringent limits on the use of reclaimed water if it believes it is necessary to protect public health and the environment. 10 There shall be no disposal of reclaimed waters into surface or groundwaters without authorization by an NPDES or WPCF permit. 11 Use of reclaimed water in evaporative cooling systems shall be approved only if the user can demonstrate that aerosols will not present a hazard to public health. 12 Members of the public and employed personnel at the site of the use or reclaimed water shall be notified that the water is reclaimed water.Provisions for how this notification will be provided shall be specified in the reclaimed water use plan. 13 Unless decontaminated in a manner approved in writing by the Oregon Health Division,tanker trucks or trailers that transport and/or use reclaimed water shall not be used to transport potable water intended for use as domestic water.A tanker truck or trailer used to transport and/or use reclaimed water shall have the words'NONPOTABLE WATER'written in 6-inch high letters on each side and the rear of the truck.The words"NONPOTABLE WATER'shall not be removed until decontamination as approved by the Health Division has occurred. 14 Aerators or decorative fixtures which may generate aerosols shall not be used unless approved in writing by the Department. Approval will be considered if it can be demonstrated that aerosols will be confined to the area of the impoundment or a restricted area around the impoundment. ADVISORY NOTICE ONLY The Oregon State Health Division recommends that persons who must handle irrigation or other equipment for reclaimed wastewater or who are exposed to reclaimed water should he fully advised of any hazards associated with such exposure and should be provided with necessary-protective clothing. (September, 1991) 2-Table 1 MEMBER AND PATRON RESPONSES: FEEDBACK QUESTIONNAIRE [April 7, 1999] The following table summarizes responses from two grouts as of noon on April 7, 1999. (1) Members of Friends of the Ashland Public Library returned postcards by mail; of the 303 mailed on March 29, 1999, 127 had been returned by our deadline. (2) Patrons of the Ashland Library returned response sheets to a locked box placed next to the architects' model on March 30, 1999; 122 responses were received, of which 16 had comments only and four were unintelligible. Support For.... Original Design Fundraising to Reduced Design and $7.6 m Bond Reduce Bond and Reduced Cost Members [N=127] 40%a (51) 47% (60) 31% (40) Patrons [N=102] 47% (48) 21 % (21) 32%b (33) a Multiple responses were permitted; therefore, percentage totals can exceed 100. b The Response Card for the library drop box included the option "Only renovate the Carnegie." Nine respondents checked this response only and were included in this box. I i REPRESENTATIVE COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS AND PATRONS, BY TOPIC [Feedback sheet received by April 7, 19991 Supportive of proposed design: • I see the original design as totally reasonable and support the bond. Above all, do not just build a smaller version--we will regret it ! • Ashland will support this plan; it' s a library-using town • It' s about time ! • Build it right for what we deserve . • Top priority is renovate the our Carnegie; check parking access across street or in front of Carnegie Supportive of reduced design: • Need more details on how space reduction will affect services • It' s too grand; compromise . • Build in phases over several years . • We need a basic library without lounges and meeting rooms • Like to see the cost of renovation or a smaller design before deciding • Stay on current grounds but go higher, put parking underneath Financial comments • Need a strong campaign and confidence to pass bond issue • $7 . 6 mil bond is not outrageous • What is the life of the bond? Other remarks : • Many comments requesting more parking • Many comments regarding the policy on dogs MEMBER AND PATRON RESPONSES: FEEDBACK QUESTIONNAIRE [April 7, 1999] The following table summarizes responses from two groups as of noon on April 7, 1999. (1) Members of Friends of the Ashland Public Library returned postcards by mail; of the 303 mailed on March 29, 1999, 127 had been returned by our deadline. (2) Patrons of the Ashland Library returned response sheets to a locked box placed next to the architects' model on March 30, 1999; 122 responses were received, of which 16 had comments only and four were unintelligible. Support For.... Original Design Fundraising to Reduced Design and $7.6 m Bond Reduce Bond and Reduced Cost Members [N=127] 40%a (51) 47% (60) 31% (40) Patrons [N=102] 47% (48) 21 % (21) 32%° (33) a Multiple responses were permitted; therefore, percentage totals can exceed 100. The Response Card for the library drop box included the option "Only renovate the Carnegie." Nine respondents checked this response only and were included in this box. REPRESENTATIVE COMMENTS FROM bO HERS AND PATRONS, BY TOPIC [Feedback sheet received by April 7, 19991 Supportive of proposed design: • I see the original design as totally reasonable and support the bond. Above all, do not just build a smaller version--we will regret it ! • Ashland will support this plan; it' s a library-using town • It' s about time ! • Build it right for what we deserve . • Top priority is renovate the our Carnegie; check parking access across street or in front of Carnegie Supportive of reduced design: • Need more details on how space reduction will affect services • It' s too grand; compromise . • Build in phases over several years . • We need a basic library without lounges and meeting rooms • Like to see the cost of renovation or a smaller design before deciding • Stay on current grounds but go higher, put parking underneath Financial comments • Need a strong campaign and confidence to pass bond issue • $7 . 6 mil bond is not outrageous • What is the life of the bond? Other remarks : • Many comments requesting more parking • Many comments regarding the policy on dogs MEMBER AND PATRON RESPONSES: FEEDBACK QUESTIONNAIRE [April 7, 1999] The following table summarizes responses from two groups as of noon on April 7, 1999. (1) Members of Friends of the Ashland Public Library returned postcards by mail; of the 303 mailed on March 29, 1999, 127 had been returned by our deadline. (2) Patrons of the Ashland Library returned response sheets to a locked box placed next to the architects' model on March 30, 1999; 122 responses were received, of which 16 had comments only and four were unintelligible. Support For.... Original Design Fundraising to Reduced Design and $7.6 m Bond Reduce Bond and Reduced Cost Members [N=127] 40%a (51) 47% (60) 31% (40) Patrons [N=102] 47% (48) 21 % (21) 32%b (33) a Multiple responses were permitted; therefore, percentage totals can exceed 100. b The Response Card for the library drop box included the option "Only renovate the Carnegie." Nine respondents checked this response only and were included in this box. REPRESENTATIVE COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS AND PATRONS, BY TOPIC [Feedback sheet received by April 7 , 19991 Supportive of proposed design: • I see the original design as totally reasonable and support the bond. Above all, do not just build a smaller version--we will regret it ! • Ashland will support this plan; it' s a library-using town • It' s about time ! • Build it right for what we deserve. • Top priority is renovate the our Carnegie; check parking access across street or in front of Carnegie Supportive of reduced design: • Need more details on how space reduction will affect services • It' s too grand; compromise . • Build in phases over several years . • We need a basic library without lounges and meeting rooms • Like to see the cost of renovation or a smaller design before deciding • Stay on current grounds but go higher, put parking underneath Financial comments • Need a strong campaign and confidence to pass bond issue • $7 . 6 mil bond is not outrageous • What is the life of the bond? Other remarks: • Many comments requesting more parking • Many comments regarding the policy on dogs r APPENDIX B: STANDARDS FOR OREGON PUBLIC LIBRARIES: 1994 Introduction A. Library Governance Since the 1940s, it has been a common practice of national and A public library should be legally established and maintained as state library associations to adopt standards for public library a public agency in accordance with the provisions of ORS 357.410 service.Such standards have generally provided a means by which to 357.430 and ORS 357.221 to 357.286. Public libraries estab- library managers,citizen library board members,and local offi- lished as departments of city or county government should have cials can assess whether the resources that are being provided for an advisory board comprised of five to fifteen citizens appointed local library service are sufficient.The American Library Asso- and organized in accordance with ORS 357.465 to 357.490. ciation maintained a set of standards for public library services until 1966,when the decision was made to follow a new approach B. Hours of Service that emphasizes local needs assessment, planning, and evalua- The following standards do not include overlapping hours in dif- tion.While more and more public libraries are adopting this new ferent library facilities.All service schedules should include week- approach,there still appears to be a need for public library stan- end and evening hours. dards that represent a consensus of professional opinion on what is necessary to the provision of quality library service. Population served by library Adequate(hrs/week) Excellent(hrs/week) In response to this need, the leadership of the Oregon Library 1 - 1,999 30 50 Association appointed a task force in 1987 to develop a set of 2,000-4.999 30 50 standards for Oregon public libraries.This task force was charged 5,000-9,999 45 65 with developing standards that would deal exclusively with re- 10.000-24,999 50 65 sources necessary to"adequate"and"excellent"library services. 25,000-49,999 50 65 The leadership of OLA further specified that the standards be 50,000-99,999 55 72 - stated in quantitative terms to the extent possible.The document, Over 100,000 55 72 Standards for Oregon Public Libraries: 1988, was adopted by the OLA membership.OLA procedures were since amended au- C. Library Staff thorizing the membership of a division to adopt standards or guide- The most important component of good library service is an edu- lines for library service or library practice that correspond to their cated and experienced library staff dedicated to providing the specific interests and concerns. The Public Library Division of highest possible quality of library services to the public.Funding OLA began the process to revise the standards in 1993 with a should be provided by the governing authority for staff to take survey of all public library directors.In 1994,a representative of advantage of continuing education opportunities and to partici- the Public Library Division Executive Board and the State pate in state,regional,and national library associations.The mini- Library's library development administrator proposed revision mum starting salary for an entry-level professional librarian's after reviewing the survey results and comparing the original stan- position in Oregon should be$25,000. dards to actual statistics of Oregon public libraries and the most recent Consumer Price Index. The Public Library Division Ex- ecutive Board approved the revisions on January 14, 1994. The Population Adequate' Excellent- Public Library Division approved the revisions on April 6, 1994. served by library Total MLS Total ML5 The OLA Executive Board accepted Standards for Oregon Pub- 1 - 1.999 1 0 2 1 lic Libraries: 1994 on June 3, 1994. 2,000-4,999 1 /2.000 0 1 / 1,000 1 5,000-9.999 1 /2.000 1 1 /1.000 2 10,000-24,999 I 12,000 2 1 / 1,500 4 25,000-49,999 1/2,500 4 1 /2,000 6 50,000-99,999 1 /3.000 6 1 /2,000 8 Over 100,000 1/3,000 1/ 12,000 1 /2,000 1/6,000 *Numbers represent 40-hour equiva lent paid staff positions. 18 w APPENDIX B: STANDARDS FOR OREGON PUBLIC LIBRARIES: 1994 D. Library Resources E. Library Facilities Public libraries should have written collection development poli- Spacious,modem facilities are essential for good library services. cies that include materials selection, procedures for reconsider- Library facilities should be conveniently located and easily acces- ing materials,evaluation,and weeding of the collection.All citi- sible to all segments of the population. The minimum space re- zens should have direct access to a public library collection of quirements shown below refer to the total square footage in all li- current and useful materials in a variety of formats and indirect brary facilities, including branches and mobile or portable facili- access, via interlibrary loan and by other means, to all of the ties. Square footage requirements beyond the minimum standard library collections in their region and within the state.Standards will depend upon local library service goals,and,in particular,on for collection size are as follows: the amount of programming that a library chooses to undertake. Population Adequate Excellent Population served Minimum space requirement served by library Books Audiovisual Books Audiovisual 1 to 1.999 3,000 square feet 1 - 1,999 10,000 200 20,000 400 Threater of 3.000 e 2.000 to 49,999 B square feet or 2,000-4,999 15.000 300 25,000 600 .75 square feet per capita 5.000-9,999 3 pc 500 5 pc 1,000 Over 50,000 .6 square feet per capita 10,000-24,999 2 pe 1,500 4 pc 3.000 25,000-49.999 2 pc 3,500 3 pc 7,000 F. Library Operating Budget 50.000-99.999 2 pc 5.000 3 pc 10,000 All public libraries need adequate and stable funding from a variety Over 100,000 2 pc .lpc 3 pc .2 pc of sources,public and private.Funding should be sufficient so that a wide range of library services can be provided without charge to -Numbers represent volumes or physical units of library materials. local residents.Standards for total annual support of public library pc=per capita services,from all sources,are as follows(1993 dollars): Annual withdrawals of seldom used,outdated,or worn materials Population should comprise 2-5% of the collection. An annual acquisition served by library Adequate Excellent budget should be provided which will maintain the quality of the 1 - 1,999 $37,000 $62,000 collection. 2,000-4,999 $18 per capita $37 per capita 5,000-9,999 $16 per capita $34 per capita In addition to the above,a public library should have subscriptions to 10,000.24,999 $16 per capita $31 per capita periodicals as follows,with a minimum of 25 subscriptions: 25,000-49,999 $16 per capita $27 per capita 50,000-99,999 $16 per capita $27 per capita Population served by library Adequate Over 100,000 $16 per capita S25 per capita 1 -9,999 1.5 per 100 population - 10,000-24,999 1 per 100 population Over 25,000 .75 per 100 population 19