Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-0105.SS.MINMINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL January 5, 2000 Council Chambers, 275 E Main CALL TO ORDER Council President Hauck called the meeting to order at 12:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 275 E Main. IN ATTENDANCE Coancilors Laws, Reid, and Fine were present. Mayor Shaw arrived late. Staff present: City Administrator Mike Freeman. Public Works Director Paula Brown. and Assistant City Administrator Greg Scoles. I. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT COST UPDATE AND DISCUSSION Public Works Director Paula Brown explained to the council that the purpose of this meeting is to provide them with int~rmation and that this is not a time for decision. She stated that staff will come back to the council for a final decision pending DEQ final approval and the pending LUBA appeal result. Brown provided council with background information on the anticipated construction costs for the oft-site reuse improvements. Brown referred to Option One, the current on-site project, and explained that the delay of not moving forward with the off:site project has caused the city to incur $900,000 in costs to the on-site project, primarily due to the sludge management. Carollo Engineer. Bob Eimstad explained that there are two requirements for permitting, one for a discharge to the creek and the other permit is related to the bio-solids. Eimstad explained that there was no way to treat thc bio-solids to meet the regulator5' requirements without having the off-site facilities on the site. Brown explained that the current design for level Il spray irrigation, would use 350 acres of the 840 acres of city property, for the spray effluent area and agricultural reuse. She stated that the bio-solids on this site would go to lagoon storage for nine months out of the year and go into drying beds at the top of that site for two to three months of the year. Brown further explained, that once they are dried, they are land applied in dry form to the site as soil amendment on the upper piece. She clarified that DEQ has not yet give the city final approval, but has given conceptional approval and is continuing their discussions with the Health Division. Some of the discussions, have suggested that there may bc some design modifications to the existing design and would meet approval. Brown clarified for the council that the on-site processing project was put out to bid pending DEQ's final approval. She explained that this is not something that is unique or original that DEQ gave their final approval after this process. Brown stated that they were led to believe the city would have DEQ approval, and that DEQ is required to go through a process of gaining acceptance from other agency, which they did not again. Brown further explained that the city did receive approval through the dam safety, and other agencies, including some indication of approval from the State Health Division. She explained that at this point, it led to a DEQ. State Health issue that they are trying to work out. Eimstad explained to the council the city is under a time constraint to get this built with a compliance order, so they were trying to compress the schedule as much as possible~ He stated that they have been in constant contact with DEQ from the beginning of both projects, and that both the city and DEQ did not anticipate the comments made by the State } Icalth Division, which stopped DEQ from giving the final approval at the last minute. Brown commented that the two agencies are continuing their discussion regarding this matter, and that their decision will not just affect Ashland pmiects. gimstad pointed out that there are Oregon Administrative Rules that set standards for reused water, and that lbr each level of treatment for reclaimed water, there are different standards. He stated that the city was meeting or exceeding the requirements of these standards in every particular case, and DEQ was comfortable with this. He stated that there Council Study Session 1/05/2000 Page I of 3 two dift~rent issues, the application of bio-solids (sludge) and the application of the reclaimed effluent. He explained to the council that there is a nationwide trend to increased use of reclaimed water from wastewater treatment plants, including agricultural use. Eimstad explained that the most common uses of bio-solids, is to put it on agricultural property. He explained that there are two concerns, metal accumulation in the soil over time and bacterial contamination of l'ood crops. He stated that metal accumulation issue is an issue with larger municipalities. [Smstad explained the numerous changes made to the design to address local concern and site issues. These include, I ) soil moisture sensors, weather station & computer control system; 2) swales to control accidental excess surface runoff; 3) T.I.D. canal and creek water quality monitoring program; 4) line T.I.D. canals; 5) increased buffers; 6) reduced pressures and increased orifice size; 7) relocated facilities to reduce visual impacts; 8) changed access point and access road; and 9) contoured earthwork cuts and fills. Eimstad commented on the potential changes to address reuse concerns. He explained that re chlorination of reuse water will add chemical to oft-site area and increase capital and on going O&M costs. He explained that planting trees for wind break may be useful and if smaller sprinkler heads are used it may result in less aerosol dispersion and allow pressure reduction. Council discussion regarding the health risks for this type of spray irrigation. Eimstad stated he was aware of no methodology developed to determine the health risks associated with the spraying of effluent. He stated that it is ignorance on our part in determining what the level of risk is. ('ouncil discussion regarding ti:cai coil i'orm colonies per 100 mi in various waterways in our area and it was pointed oul that the effluent being sprayed would have been significantly chloroformed before discharge. The council questioned whether any existing wells have been tested for contamination and Brown clarified that this had not been done, but could be done. Brown explained that there had been informal testing of various waterways for contamination and the results showed that the level of coil form was higher than what is expected to be discharged by the city spray program. Brown stated that due to the current upgrades to the water treatment plant, we have a higher quality of water than what we had a few months ago. I'wo additional options were presented by Brown that if it were council directive, it would require additional council action. The options are a year around creek discharge/bio-solids off-site and year around creek discharge/bio-solids at Ihe Wastewater Treatment Plant. Option Fwo is a year around creek discharge/bio-solids off-site that would require additional filtration for phosphorous removal to meet DEQ creek standards. It would also require DEQ permit modifications to allow a creek discharge year around and increase capital costs $2.5 million. Stated that,a.,,"~ this would result in higher O&M costs of $120,000 per year and the temperature effects for the creek discharge are unknown. -D~ ~ Council discussed the possibility of separating bio-solids Ii'om the spray effluent. Eimstad explained that there is no mechanism for DEQ to monitor the separation of bio-solids and spray effluent. Option Three is a year around creek discharge/bio solids at WWTP and would require additional filtration for phosphorous removal to meet DEQ creek standards, require DEQ permit modifications to allow a creek discharge year around, higher capital costs of $3.5-5.5 million, higher O&M costs of $200,000-$300,000 per years, unknown temperature effects for creek discharge, may require acquisition of Parks Property, and require new site for ultimate use of liquid bio solids. Council discussed the importance of looking at all options, which include putting the effluent back into the creek, and including the costs and problems associated with all of these options. Council Study Session 1/05/2000 Page 2 of 3 I.aws stated that he could not support an option where there may be a possibility of health risk and would rather spend the money to avoid health risk. Shaw suggested that data be retrieved from other state health divisions, where spray effluent is used~ to use as a guideline in this decision making process. Eimstad clarified that there are lots of ways to quantil}/health risks. Council discussed the importance of continuing the wetlands demonstration project and the possibility of using wetlands on a larger scale. Brown explained that the next steps in this process include discussion with DEQ and the State Health Division, review recommendation's DEQ may require, final project recommendation to the council and then council input on approval process. Citizens spoke regarding information previously provided to staffregarding sludge alternatives, cost clarification of the $900,000 costs, and support of continued wetlands demonstration. An agricultural environmentalist, who had recently mnved to this area, provided additional information and offered her services to city staff and the council. ADJOURNMENT l'he meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Submitted by Barbara Christensen, CiO Recorder/Treas~rer Council Study Session 1/05/2000 Page 3 of 3