Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 08/18/1989Water Board Minutes August 18, 1989 Members Present Henry Caulfield, President, Tom Sanders, Vice President, Mary Lou Smith, Terry Podmore, Tim Dow, Tom Brown, Dave Stewart, Mark Casey (alt.) Paul Clopper (alt.) Staff Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Webb Jones, Tom Gallier, Andy Pineda, Steve Putnam, Wendy Williams, Curt Miller, Chuck Inghram, Molly Nortier, Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney Guests John Bigham, Agency Coordinator, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Brian Janonis, RBD Engineers Jonathan Ryan, Western Molecular Systems, Interested Citizen Members Absent Neil Grigg, Tom Moore, Ray Herrmann President Henry Caulfield opened the meeting, The following items were discussed: Minutes The minutes of July 21, 1989 were approved as distributed. John Bigham reported that precipitation is about 82% of normal. The CBT sys- tem reservoirs are about 56% of capacity. The local storage is approximately 54% and Granby Reservoir is at 60% and it's dropping rather fast. The Dis- trict anticipates that after October 15 they will be putting water back into Horsetooth. "For about a 30 day period prior to that, we hope to place from 100-200 canal panels in the Hansen Feeder Canal that goes between Flatiron and Horsetooth," he explained. "While we are doing that we will run water into Carter. We hope to get Carter and Horsetooth relatively full," he said. Granby will be very low which means we will have "a big bucket to catch whatever run off we are fortunate to get next year," he added. Mr. Bigham then referred to an article in the Coloradoan that reported on a sink hole at Horsetooth. He assured the Board that it has nothing to do with the dam. It's on the south end of the reservoir on the west side of the lower neck, actually adjacent to where they had removed some clay for the raising of the dams on Horsetooth. "We suspect, at this point, that there is a solution cavern below that and probably it caved in and the sink hole dropped down into it. There are engineers and geologists looking at it and Water Board Minutes August 18, 1989 Page 2 they hope to get some ideas as to what's causing it." There appears to be water bubbling up in the hole, and if that is the case, it means the water must be coming out of the strata above the reservoir and doesn't have any- thing to do with the actual impounding of the water in the reservoir. He stressed that the area is fenced because it is a very dangerous situation. Henry Caulfield pointed out that he and Larry Simpson have received some press, radio and TV coverage in recent weeks concerning the issue of other front range cities looking to the northeastern part of the state for water supplies, in light of the controversy over the Two Forks Dam. Mr. Caulfield asked if there were any questions for Mr. Bigham. He reminded the Board that Larry Simpson gave an update at the last meeting so things were covered pretty thoroughly then. "You said that reservoirs are about 55%," Tom Brown asked; "What are they typically at this time of year?" Mr. Bigham replied that he believes we are about 20% below average. The reservoirs should be 77% of average. Mike Smith provided background information on the subject. He explained that in past years the City has tried to encourage developers to look for ways to use raw water to irrigate large green areas. "We've never been too successful doing that," he admitted, "because the procedures are quite complicated." Recently a couple of homeowner's groups, "the people actually using the water," have been looking for other sources of water to irrigate their greenbelts, etc. One of the groups asked if the City might partici- pate. "It's a policy issue we've never discussed," he said. "Do we, as a City want to purchase back treatment capacity from folks who are using treated water to irrigate grass, or do we allow them to do it on their own without the City encouraging it?" Webb Jones, Utility Analyst, prepared a memorandum relating to the discus- sion of a raw water irrigation system for Parkwood Subdivision. In addi- tion, he provided an analysis of savings realized with installation of a raw water irrigation system in Parkwood funded by a $34,000 zero interest loan from the Utility. He stressed that staff is not seeking a direction on this particular case, but rather if the Board believes it is worth pursuing the development of a broad policy to encourage the use of raw water by dissemi- nating information on it, or by perhaps paying for part of it because the Utility would have some savings associated with it. At this point MaryLou Smith pointed out that she has a conflict because her firm, Aqua Engineering, did some work for the Parkwood Homeowner's Asso- ciation which formed the basis for some of their thinking. She said she would not participate in the discussion and if a vote is taken she will abstain. Webb Jones began by saying that Parkwood has gone further than some of the other associations with whom the City has talked. They hired Aqua Engineer- ing about a year ago to look at the possibility of using Parkwood Lake as a Water Board Minutes August 18, 1989 Page 3 source of irrigation water for about 12 acres that they currently maintain. Aqua Engineering prepared a feasibility study. The City was given a copy of it. Parkwood has used that as a basis for some additional discussions. They began about a year ago, by asking the Utility if we would commit to renting them water. "We said we would, because in effect, they gave us water when they developed and we have it in our possession and we would com- mit to leasing it to them for an extended period of time." They went a step further and have asked the Utility for some financial assistance to install a pumping station and some pipes to actually utilize the raw water. That's where it has been left with the Parkwood people, he said. Mr. Jones reported that, in the meantime, there have been a couple of other associations that have recently talked to the Utility about the same thing. He explained that the Aqua Engineering report stated that it costs $800-900 per acre of grass, based on the current price of water, "so you can see if you have 10-12 acres, it's fairly expensive." Consequently, people are beginning to look for alternatives, and the first place they turn is to the Utility. "Up to this point, we haven't had anything specific to give them," he said. Mr. Jones explained that staff went through some numbers with the Parkwood situation. "This gave us an opportunity to work with some real world num- bers," he said. "We tried to put some dollar amounts to what Parkwood pro- poses, and some of that is in the memo that was included in the packets." Mr. Caulfield asked staff to provide something that was easier to see. Mr. Jones then distributed the one sheet analysis that staff prepared. Parkwood had originally asked for a zero interest loan for the cost of their improve- ments. Aqua Engineering estimated that cost at approximately $34,000. The analysis lists the costs and benefits if the City were to make a $34,000 zero interest loan that lasted 10 years. "The bottom line is net savings. Given those assumptions, we would say that the Utility would save $6,685 today and Parkwood would save approximately 26,000." Those costs are depen- dent upon a number of variables. One variable is what you save in treatment plant capacity and what that is worth. "We are using a figure of $.35 per gallon," he said. "That's what we are going to pay this year when we do some optimization work at the plant. A few years ago we paid more like $.50 per gal. when we made the modification at the plant. Some engineers tell us that if we were to build some new capacity, it would cost perhaps $1.00 per gal. Those were the benefits we would obtain if someone like Parkwood starts using raw water. The plant capacity is then available to use for someone else," he concluded. Dave Stewart asked how that relates to our plant investment fee. Parkwood currently has seven irrigation taps, Mr. Jones replied, and based upon today's fees, they would have to pay $45,000 for those taps. Of course they didn't pay that much for them because they were acquired some time ago. Water Board Minutes August 18, 1989 Page 4 "Is that credited here?" Mr. Caulfield asked, "or the water rights?" "No, the PIFs are not credited," Mr. Jones replied. As for the water rights, there is some question about how they will be handled. If they ask the Utility to lease them the water, "in our view, it's essentially a wash." If they do acquire their own water through purchase or from one of their mem- bers, then there is a significant benefit related to the raw water. "We have plenty of Arthur Ditch water, there is no argument about that," Mr. Caulfield remarked. Dennis Bode commented that one of the concerns is that it may not be available the whole year, so it might have to be supple- mented with some other source of water; for example, CBT water. "Wouldn't they want a guaranteed amount of water delivered," Dave Stewart asked. "I think that's why they are considering purchasing their own sup- ply," Mr. Jones responded. Dr. Sanders asked what Arthur Ditch water is worth. "It's roughly $600-700 per acre foot," Mr. Bode replied. I don't think we want to set a precedent in buying back plant capacity," Dave Stewart asserted. "On the other hand I see this as a real advantage to the Utility to buy up plant capacity at $.35 and being able to sell it at a dollar," he added. He also remarked that he doesn't think we are in the free interest loan business. Terry Podmore asked how typical this is of the other situations where they might convert to raw water. "They're similar; the mechanics of it are dif- ferent in some areas," Mike Smith responded. "If we are setting a precedent here, how much are we talking about in total?" Mr. Podmore continued. Mr. Jones said the Utility has talked with 3 associations including Park - wood. They all seem to have the same amount of area; 10-12 acres and they use 35 AF per year, and they are all paying $9,000-10,000 a year for treated water. Some have access to a reservoir like Parkwood and some don't. Those without have asked what the possibilities are to obtain a well. That's far more complicated than using a reservoir. Each situation is a little differ- ent. "I think there is some potential out there. A number of associations irrigate grass and as the price of our water keeps going up, they are going to look for some relief some way," Mr. Jones contends. Mr. Stewart pointed out that any policy that would be created would tie into wastewater too. When we start expanding to the east, we can eventually start with a water reuse plan at the wastewater plant, and begin irrigating turf with the wastewater, he predicted. Mike Smith said, "if we were going to add capacity we would pay $.35 to $.50 or more to expand, and what we are doing is gaining capacity back. The question is, how much is that worth? Do we want to get it back free or are we willing to pay $.35 to get it back? Is there discussion on how we should proceed on that, he asked. There may be some advantage to providing some financial support, but the question is, how much? Water Board Minutes August 18, 1989 Page 5 Henry Caulfield pointed out on the bottom of p. 3 of the memo, that there is a reference to the ZILCH (Zero Interest Loans for Conservation Help) program offered by Light and Power. He stressed that he is not necessarily in favor of a zero interest loan but the Board ought to know what the policy of the City is here. "Did the City Council approve the ZILCH program including the zero interest feature? "Yes," Mr. Smith answered. Mr. Caulfield said that all over the country in the electricity field, these sorts of programs are being implemented to conserve electricity. Is this setting a precedent, since there may be those who would point out that the City approves this for Light and Power customers, he asked. Mike Smith responded that he probably would not let that have any bearing, at least at this time. It's something to keep in mind, but ZILCH has been around for at least 8-10 years, he added. Terry Podmore asked if staff ran any numbers to indicate the interest rate that would make the net savings between the Utility and homeowner's association about the same. Webb Jones said he came up with 7%. "If they paid 7% on our money their savings would essentially equal our savings given the assumptions from the table," he explained. "Seems to me that is not an unreasonable situation," Mr. Podmore said. We were conservative on one side, Mr. Smith explained, "in that we rated our benefit for the capacity at only $.35 per gallon. If you rated it at $1.00 per gallon, our net savings would be significant," he predicted. The $.35 is an average cost, isn't it, Mark Casey asked. "That's probably below average," Mr. Smith replied; "those are the kinds of costs you see on optimizations and additions type projects. If you build new, you'll see dollar costs." "This is something I think we need to consider carefully, "Mr. Casey, cau- tioned. However, he tends to think overall, in spite of that, that it prob- ably does make economic sense. The City needs to determine at what point there would be an incentive for the homeowner's associations to go ahead and make that investment. "If the City doesn't do anything, and we are looking at the Associations putting in $100,000 and getting back $7,000 a year over a 20 year period, that's an internal rate of return of about 3 1/2%, so "I doubt that they would do it," he said. "If the City subsidizes it so they are just investing $64,000 then the internal rate of return is up around 9%," he calculated, which, in his opinion, is about to the point where it would make sense for an investor to do it. He concluded that in terms of marketing it, the Utility ought to look at it. In other words, where do you need to be in terms of getting people to buy into it? Tom Sanders said he read the memo carefully and he contends that staff has spent too much time already in looking at the cost effectiveness of some- thing as small as several acre feet. "I think it's a bad precedent," he argued, "because there are all kinds of ways people could try to take advantage of this." If Parkwood were looking into this in terms of how they Water Board Minutes August 18, 1989 Page 6 could help the City save treatment plant capacity instead of looking to the City to help them reduce their costs, by using raw water instead of treated water, he would be more receptive. "I think it will go on it's own with or without our support," he stressed. He added that the thing that bothers him about the conversion to raw water is the possibility of cross connections if it's poorly engineered. He said that he is opposed to helping them at all, but he might consider helping subdivisions who include raw water irri- gation in their initial plans. Mr. Smith responded that part of the problem is the difference between who builds it and who lives there. Although the developers might like to do it, they don't have the motivation because they aren't paying the water bill. The people who live there are the ones who have to pay the bill. The home- owners are also asking why wasn't it done initially? Mr. Caulfield noted Terry Podmore's good point that the savings between the City and the associations should be split. What about that as a guideline, he asked. Dave Stewart restated his point. "If the Utility is assuming $.35 per gal, for plant capacity and it is really $1.00 a gal., that's $80,000 in plant capacity that we are getting back. That is a pretty good savings," he con- tends. He believes that this is something we ought to look at from a real- istic standpoint. On the other hand, giving them a 4% interest loan they couldn't get in the market now, would help them finance the conversion. As far as a decision today, Mr. Caulfield stated that Mike Smith doesn't expect the Board to come up with an answer. Therefore, the question is whether the Board should encourage staff to think about this further in light of this discussion, or do we kill the idea? Obviously Tom Sander's position is the latter. Mr. Caulfield believes that splitting the savings is probably a good equitable principle. Tim Dow suggested that there may be some extra elements to plug into the formula. It seems to him as a matter of policy, the Utility ought to encour- age it, if it is a "pretty conservative approach," and something that is weighted in favor of the City. Mr. Caulfield proposed that the Board concentrate on the argument of whether there should or should not be a loan at subsidized rates. Dave Stewart repeated that he can't see anybody obligating a homeowners Association for $40,000. Mr. Caulfield had asked Webb Jones previously whether there was any precedent for the type of pumping facility that is involved here where the City bears the cost. Mr. Jones responded that the closest thing would be the Parks Dept. Mr. Caulfield asked for a private example. "We know we subsidize Parks," he said. "There are other customers who use well water," Mr. Jones replied; "Woodward Governor, being one." Scotch Pines Village Water Board Minutes August 18, 1989 Page 7 also utilizes raw water. Others mentioned were Anheuser-Busch and HP. All of the ones that Mr. Jones knows of, do it on their own without help from the City. Mr. Stewart Pointed out that those are industrial/commercial operations. He also pointed out that Parkwood was built in 1967. Who was concerned about the cost of treated water then, Mr. Stewart asserted. Mr. Jones remarked that the people from Parkwood with whom he talked, were reluctant to try to get a loan, which probably means that they didn't want to get into debt. Tim Dow suggested that they are paying $10,000 a year now on treated water. "Can't they allocate a substantial portion of that to the new system, or set up a repay with the City on some percentage, 50-75% of what their recent historic costs have been, and put a quicker repay on it at a more reasonable rate with the City?" Mr. Caulfield clarified Mr. Dow's suggestion. The homeowners in the associa- tions pay a monthly fee anyway, so this charge could be in there too, and backed up by a contract with the City in which that portion of the money goes to the City as a payment, but he stressed,"it's not a mortgage." If we recommend that we help them through subsidy to complete this conver- sion, is there any concern for liability either real or perceived about any water quality issues associated with that, Paul Clopper wanted to know. He added that by quality, he means health and safety issues related to raw water being used for irrigation in a residential area. "Mr. Caulfield responded that "it isn't our water since it's not from our system." Assistant City Attorney Paul Eckman said he didn't think there would be a liability on the City's part, because it wouldn't be the City that is sup- plying the water; it's the association. "If we did perceive a quality problem, we could ask the association to indemnify us. "Wouldn't we have to notify Parkwood that it could be a potential problem," Dave Stewart asked. "We could notify them that there was a potential risk to children who play on the grass," Mr. Eckman stated. "However, they are wat- ering the grass with their raw water through their system," he said. In addition, perhaps we have helped them finance a system to make that pos- sible, motivated by our getting increased plant capacity. He concluded that he didn't think we would be liable for any problems in that connection. Where do Woodward Governor and Scotch Pines get their water? "They get it from Arthur Ditch," Mr. Smith replied. Paul Eckman pointed out that CSU irrigates their campus with raw water. "Yes, they do," Tom Sanders con- firmed, but that raw water is out of College Lake." Mr. Caulfield stated that Arthur Ditch water has a possibility to become polluted, whereas Col- lege Lake is not as vulnerable. Water Board Minutes August 18, 1989 Page 8 Dave Stewart stated that this issue is one that probably the Conservation and Public Education Committee should address. Marylou Smith, the chairman of that committee, replied, "yes and that's why it is hard for me not to contribute to this discussion." Dave Stewart moved that staff look at this proposal very seriously and try to come up with a policy that will benefit both the community at large as well as the Utility in terms of water conservation and saving plant capac- ity. Terry Podmore seconded the motion. Mike Smith pointed out that staff wants to know if the City should encourage this kind of action. The City can try to talk to various associations and try to convince them to do it with their own money; "We don't need a policy for that," he stressed. "We try to do that anyway. We are going to get to the point where we can say we are getting something back by doing this. Do you want to use some of those 'savings' to encourage this action?" Mr. Caulfield said he read that in Mr. Stewart's motion. Mr. Eckman added that the City Charter would require that the City get at least equivalent value out of the deal or we would be violating the charter by making a donation to a private interest. Mike Smith said staff would try to draft a policy for the Board to review at the September meeting. The question was called. The motion passed with 7 yes votes. Tom Sanders voted no for reasons stated previously and Mary Lou Smith abstained due to a conflict which she pointed out at the beginning of the discussion. Dave Stewart informed the Chair that he had to leave early so he asked to move to committee reports and the Sludge Options report, since the Engineering Committee was involved in both areas. Mr. Stewart reported that individual members of the Engineering Committee met with staff to discuss two items; one was the agreement with the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District and the City. The committee submitted their comments on the draft agreement. The other item was the Long Range Sludge Disposal Options Report. The Committee was in favor of staff recommend- ations and complimented staff for the very fine report. With respect to the first item, Henry Caulfield reported that there will be a meeting of the Steering Committee on August 30 to talk about the agree- ment. The Engineering Committee has some issues that we can talk about in the agreement, Mike Smith said. "We need to bring back the finalized agree- ment to the Water Board to review as a whole, and take action so the Board can make a recommendation to the Council," he stated. "Are there any substantive problems," Mr. Caulfield wanted to know. "No, there aren't," Mr. Smith replied. "What about the water quality issue," Mr. Caulfield continued. Dave Stewart announced that the committee agreed with everything. There don't seem to be any problems, he added. Mr. Caulfield r. • Water Board Minutes August 18, 1989 Page 9 asked how long it will take for the District to "come up to scratch" in terms of water quality parameters and at what cost?" Furthermore, is the timing of the costs such that it is realistic to have this agreement without getting into lot of hassle?" That also raises the question of tightening up that whole plant, "because ELCO and North Weld are not going to divide the water; it's got to be the whole plant." "Oh, but they are dividing it," Mike Smith replied. Mr. Smith went on to say that when they do their expansion they will have one section of the plant that treats water better than the rest of the plant. "Is there an issue here," Mr. Caulfield per- sisted. "The only issue is if they can meet it," Mr. Stewart responded. "They can't put their water into the water line without meeting the quality." He added that he was amazed that they are splitting the plant. That's going to be a real headache to run," he predicted. Their plan is to make a 10 MGD addition that has full conventional treatment and the rest will stay direct filtration," Mr. Smith explained. "What about the timing of this in relation to their demands," Mr. Caulfield wanted to know. Mr. Smith remarked that "they had better hurry! They took water from us this year," he added. If we get the agreement finalized, if that happens, they are going to have to perform quickly, or they will be in trouble. "We've made provisions that if we have excess capacity, we'll sell them water," he said. Mr. Caulfield concluded that if it becomes necessary between now and August 30, we will schedule a special meeting of the Water Board to discuss the agreement. Long Range Sludge Disposal Options Mike Smith reported that numerous staff members including Tom Gallier Steve Putnam and Chuck Inghram along with the consultant Brian Janonis, have pre- pared a very good report looking at future options for sludge disposal. The first area that creates problems for wastewater treatment is not having a place to put sludge, he said. Tom Gallier presented the following options to the Board: He said that they began the process about 2 years ago, when they were hear- ing some disturbing rumors coming out of Washington about the direction that EPA was taking with the new Federal Sludge Regulations. When some numbers were unofficially available, they began to look at the impacts of some of the beneficial use programs there are for sludge disposal now, "and it didn't look good!" The key problem was the EPA was proposing to establish cumulative loading rates for a number of pollutants that are present in the sludge, particularly heavy metals. What that means is they will tell you that on a specific piece of ground where you apply sludge to beneficially grow crops, you can only put so many pounds of a certain constituent over the life of that site. Once you have reached that cumulative limit, that's it. Theoretically, you can still safely pull off that site and use it for anything you want without endangering public health or present an environmental risk. That concept had already been introduced. What they are doing is substantially restricting the cumulative limits based on some Water Board Minutes August 18, 1989 Page 10 research they have done and a lot of people disagree with. Some groups are uncomfortable with the rationale that EPA used to come up with those numbers. He went on to say that his staff took that information when they started getting it and looked at the City's program. "We saw at that point that we could have some problems," he recalled. He said they began by trying to identify the key Issues: 1) System Growth This is just the natural growth we are seeing in the community. We can see that the capacity we have now for sludge disposal will last us for several years. 2) Land Development at the Resource Recovery Farm We can beneficially reuse sludge on the site by land applying it on the irrigated corn and we can also compost. What we are seeing in the last year or so since the Prospect Rd. interchange off I-25 was approved, is that development and development planning is really moving forward quickly. The site has been annexed into the City so that other properties along the interstate, on the east side as well as the west side, can be annexed. As time goes on, we see issues of odor and just the aesthetics of applying sludge at such a major entry point to the City. 3) Sludge Regulations He spoke about that earlier. 4) "Windows of Opportunity" What we mean by that are some low tech. innovative programs that we could initiate that might be available now economically, but might not be in the future. The bottom line is land, he stressed. If we consider a program that would use a lot of agriculture related land, we had better look at it now, because frankly, the market is at a down cycle at this point. Key Assumptions These guided them throughout the study. 1) Abandon the Resource Recovery Farm within Ten Years "We made an assumption that within 10 years, we will have to move off the farm. With the new regulations, they believe within 10 years they will have reached cumulative limits for copper and perhaps molybdenum 2) Protect Public Health and Environment. We want to make sure any program we do protects public health and the envi- ronment. 3) Sensitivity to Aesthetic Impacts We also want to be sensitive to the aesthetic impacts on the public of sludge disposal. People are becoming far more sensitive to sludge disposal in general. • Water Board Minutes August 18, 1989 Page 11 4) Commitment to Recycling That's based on economics. It's got to be at least close. The City's gen- eral philosophy is to recycle wherever feasible. 5) Optimize Costs We want to look at the long term total cost of any program that we do, not just the short term. Options Evaluated 1) Land Disposal * Co -Disposal This is basically taking it to a landfill, mixing it in with the solid waste that's there. It's a very difficult program to make work now because of the landfill situation we have in Larimer County. It's unlined and there are groundwater concerns, and as well as lot of other issues. In the future, in about 10 years, there will be a new landfill, and there may be some other options. * Mono -fill Basically this is just a "sludge Landfill." It's designed kind of like a hazardous waste landfill to protect the groundwater. Sludge is deposited without mixing it with anything else. A cap is placed over it and there is groundwater monitoring. * Dedicated Non-agricultural Surface Disposal It's just a long way of saying you put it on the ground and let it stay there. That's essentially what Colorado Springs has. They pump liquid sludge out to their site. Right now they are in a gray area with regard to regulations. They don't know what the effects will be on the public health and the environment will be as the material begins to blow away over the years. 2) Beneficial Use * Dedicated Agricultural Site That's essentially what the Resource Recovery farm is. * Private Ag. Site This is the other part of our program where we go out and contract with area dry land wheat farms and apply sludge at a low rate on their property. * Composting This item we are also using currently. We concentrated on our own composting program. We didn't look at some of the other more expensive composting options. Water Board Minutes August 18, 1989 Page 12 * Rangeland This is a new one that they developed a couple of years ago. It's been done on a limited basis but not on a large scale. For the first time with the cumulative loading limits, EPA thought they had better take a look at this; especially since there is a lot of rangeland available. 3) Incineration * Sludge Incineration They looked at constructing an incinerator at Plant 2. It's not a very workable option at this time. It is back east if you are land locked and landfills are full. You see a lot of it in urbanized areas. * Power Plant They were asked to look at co -incineration at the Rawhide Power Plant. There was some indication that Rawhide might have the capability to do that. PRPA's initial indication was they thought it might work. They asked their own consultant who works on their boiler system to do an initial analysis and ended up determining that there are some constituents in our sludge that can create serious problems for them in the long term. 4) Privatization Should we operate the program we currently have to dispose of sludge with our own staff and facilities and equipment, or should we look at hiring somebody, was the question. There is really only one contract hauler in the front range area of Colorado who does it on a large scale and that's Liquid Waste Management. We talked to them and got some very positive financial estimates about what they would charge to dispose of our sludge as a liquid. They are actually working for Greeley, Longmont to a certain extent and Loveland. Most of their disposal is in Weld County. However, once staff began looking at their track record, they found it to be pretty poor. In staff's opinion, the actual haulers aren't adequately trained for what they are doing. It's cheap and it's easy to do, but the risks are really serious. Engineering Sub -Committee Questions 1) Groundwater Impacts? Mr. Gallier said he couldn't get into that in great detail at this point. 2) Complexity of Rangeland Management? Based on what has been analyzed to this point, it's no more complex than what we are doing in terms of sampling, monitoring and in terms of trans- portation. 3) Regionalization? Long term potential for response will depend on which sites they look at or purchase, if that is possible. He stressed that we would never get into the situation where we would be mixing our sludge with anybody else's on a specific site. It's something we can look at, but don't wish to analyze in detail right now. Water Board Minutes August 18, 1989 Page 13 4) Total Long-term Cost? He said they looked at debt service on a specific piece of land. "We'll talk more about that in executive session," he added. 5) Complexity of Copper Calculations? Copper is on of the constituents that EPA is controlling. The regulations are actually quite simple, he said. Basically you are allowed to put on a certain pre -determined amount and when you reach that limit, that's it. You pull off the site. 6) Impact of Corrosion Control? This is on the water production side. The key limiting element in the new regulations that are proposed, is copper. The major source of copper in our sludge is from our own service lines in our system. The water is somewhat aggressive and tends to leach out copper; very small concentra- tions, but it tends to become more concentrated as it goes through the wastewater treatment system. If in the future we can limit copper in our sludge, that makes any scenario last longer, except that the second most limiting element is molybdenum. It's a little more difficult to take care of in our system because it's everywhere; it's in the soil and in the groundwater to a slight extent. It's going to be very difficult to remove it. Copper would close the farm for us in 6 years, moly would close us down in about 9 years. 7) Operating Cost Comparisons? He said they are very comfortable with what those numbers look at for the rangeland proposal which he discussed previously. This will be discussed more thoroughly in the executive session. 8) Pumping Liquid Sludge? Again we are talking about a specific site, he said. I can't discuss that in detail, but we did look at it. Pumping liquid sludge is certainly possible, but it's very expensive. If you pump up hill, the costs become even more substantial. 9) Revisit Co -Disposal at County Landfill? We will keep this option in mind, he said. There may be a long term potential to co -dispose of sludge, if it's handled properly. It may be a cost effective way and a safe way to dispose of sludge at some point in the future. Staff Recommendations 1. Continue beneficial use. 2. Pursue purchase of a large ranchland site for future sludge disposal programs. Water Board Minutes August 18, 1989 Page 14 (Discussion) If we were to obtain such a site, we would begin research on the site to determine baseline conditions and also to begin looking at different ways we can apply sludge and minimize the impact on the sites. They would like to do more research on drought conditions. CSU and USDA at the experiment station have done a great deal of research on rangeland that has been fertilized with commercial fertilizer, although it works differently from organically based nitrogen in sludge. Perhaps CSU could do some research on fine tuning things, he concluded. 3. Insure minimum of 2-year site life (Discussion) Being conservative with their estimates, they are using the proposed EPA regulations. "I think all interested parties agree," he continued, "that EPA is going to withdraw the regulations and re -issue them, which will mean they are probably going to be somewhere in between." Henry Caulfield pointed out that there has been no discussion of increased air pollution as a result of trucking long distances. "Air pollution may be more of a problem for us," he contends, "than say excessive nitrogen dis- posal." "From an EPA standpoint, it hasn't become an issue, Mr. Gallier responded, "although logically, from an environmental standpoint, it is." We took a little different approach, he continued. Pumping a liquid may be an alternative. We also looked at some other options, he said, including rail transport which is a possibility. It could reduce the cost of transpor- tation and also significantly reduce the environmental impact. Tom Brown said he has a difficult time seeing how trucking the sludge great distances "on land that is grazed by a few cows," is beneficial use. He added that he is not arguing that it is not a nice idea, but it doesn't seem to be a strong point. Mr. Caulfield pointed out that the language of the report seemed to down play the increased cattle and sheep production. "You mentioned wildlife, but you ought to be able to get more return on cattle and sheep in terms of economic returns," he suggested. "Although it certainly can be," Mr. tal- lier replied, "it's not a critical factor in the calculations at this point. We want to make sure we don't oversell this concept of returns of revenue," he cautioned. Tom Sanders observed "that even though it's not used for cattle, the sludge will provide more organic material to the soil and will bring more water to it, as well." He added, "and unfortunately more heavy metals, too." Tom Brown commented that it's a matter of time before this beneficial use i.e. heavy metals becomes a negative rather than a positive. "I must dis- agree somewhat with that, Mr. Gallier asserted. "The conservatism in the regulations as are set forth are designed to stop application in build up of metals before they create damage to the site, so when you reach that cum- ulative limit and you pull off the site, it is not restricted in any fashion for further use." Water Board Minutes August 18, 1989 Page 15 Mr. Caulfield pointed out that growing corn on the site of the Resource Recovery farm was considered beneficial use. "It wouldn't have been approved at all without that concept," he stressed. Mr. Gallier emphasized that "beneficial use is a concept that EPA is very tied into even though the regulations they are proposing are so restrictive." Mr. Caulfield believes that if the benefits from the improved land are emphasized more, it would strengthen the report." "That's a good point, Mr. Gallier agreed. 4. Transition off the Resource Recovery Farm within 1-0 years. (Discussion) "We can change that as conditions change, but we think that's a realistic assessment," Mr. Gallier stated. What happens to the site once we transi- tion from it, is more of a political and economic issue than one of disposing of sludge, he concluded. Comprehensive Engineering Master Plan (Discussion) Mr. Gallier emphasized that the report is not a comprehensive sludge master plan, because it does not cover the engineering detail of how you actually utilize the site. "What we are proposing is that once the regulations are firm and we have a clear picture of what is going to happen, and we do pro- ceed with a master plan, we can answer these questions: How best do we dis- tribute sludge on this site? What kind of program should we look at? Continue to staff all transport and disposal programs (Discussion) "We think that's important because if you privatize it based on what we are saying now, the track record is just not there." If you do turn it over to a low bid private operation, and they fail, the City is liable. "However, we will continue to look at it on a regular basis," Mr. Gallier assured the Board. MaryLou Smith moved that Water Board approve staff recommendations 1-6 along with the report. Tim Dow seconded the motion. Terry Podmore said that obviously we are looking at a much larger disposal site than we have right now. "Are we going to incur considerably greater monitoring costs because of dealing with a larger land area? "Not as great as you might imagine," Tom Gallier replied. "Each year we will only be working on a certain portion of the total site. We think it's very manage- able," he concluded. The vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. Water Board Minutes August 18, 1989 Page 16 At this point, President Caulfield called for an executive session to dis- cuss legal matters. Staff Reports Mike Smith updated the Board on the Water Treatment Plant No. 1 lease by the State Parks Division. "They didn't do anything this year because they ran into a snag." The State Highway Department said there can't be the kind of access the Parks Division was anticipating with the poor condition of the existing road. They will be required to modify the entrance to the water plant in order to allow public access. Those modifications will cost them around $80.000, he explained. "That means they will want more than a five- year lease," Tom Sanders surmised. Mr. Smith responded that they will prob- ably ask for at least a 10-year lease, so they can their investment out of it. The Board will be discussing this further at a future meeting, he said. Henry Caulfield announced that there will be an orientation for the new mem- bers in September. He also asked that election of officers be held in Octo- ber instead of September, after the orientation. Tom Sanders requested that staff schedule a tour of the Michigan Ditch before the weather becomes a factor. Mike Smith said that staff will arrange something soon. Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m. Secretary/