1983-12-27 Public Hearing on Facilities Plan TranscriptCouncil Meeting of 27 December, 1983
PUBLIC HEARING ON FACILITIES PLAN
Council President Schroder - Mr. Deaton would you introduce that.
City Manager Deaton - Sometime ago the Council authorized the administration to proceed
with the preparation of plan for expansion of the Janesville Waste Water Treatment
Facility, in the past six years there have been at least two occasions when the City
has been under moratorium and were prohibited from making sanitary sewer line extensions,
because the final affluent from our treatment plant did not meet state requirements.
We have in 1983 had two months when we did not meet those requirements, because our
plant was unable to treat the quanity and strength of waste that was being received.
The procedure for expanding the plant is a three -step process: Step 1 being the
preparation of a facilities plan for the propose of determining just what should be
built in order to bring the treatment plant up to standard where it will be able to
accept and treat the waste that we can anticipate receiving at the plant over the
next twenty years. Following the completion and approval of the facilities plan by
the DNR, we then may go to the second step which is preparation of plans and specifications
for the construction of the treatment plant expansion; the third step then is the
actual construction itself. In preparing the facilities plan, there have been a
number of contacts with particularly the major contributors of waste water to our
treatment facility and potential major contributors —those who may be increasing or
decreasing the volume and strength of waste they contribute to the plant. There also
is - was a presentation to the public a couple of weeks ago of the facilities plan,
we had some citizens here, some representatives of industry and also some Councilmembers
and tonight is an announced time for public hearing on.the facilities plan. There is
no action required by the Council this evening, but it is an opportunity for the general
public to speak up on this..to make any comments they have relative to the plan, to
ask any questions they may have relative to the facilities plan, a number of plans have
been made available and have been checked out from time to time from the Engineering
Department, so that those that are interested may have an opportunity to review it,
and the comments that are received this evening and the questions that are addressed
will become a portion of the submission to the DNR so that everyone's comments will
be forwarded on and the department will have the benefit of these public comments when
they evaluate the plan as it is submitted to them. The City hired the consulting
engineering firm of Strand Associates, Inc. to prepare the facilities plan and this
evening we have with us Mr. Mike Doran, representing Strand Associates - he did a
great portion of the work on the facilities plan and he will make a brief presentation
of the plan to the public. Following that we can then open the matter for public
comment. Mr. Doran.
Mr. Doran - Thank you Mr. Deaton. The report that has been prepared is very technical
in nature and it's very long and the intent this evening, ladies and gentlemen, is
just go over some of the very - highlights of the report briefly and to not dwell on
some of the technical issues, but to provide a general overview. The facilities plan
was based on a - the need to provide for sewer service for the population in the
planning area that would be defined by the City of Janesville and the four surrounding
townships - The Town of Janesville, the Town of Harmony, the Town of LaPrairie, the
Town of Rock. This planning area is identical to that planning area that was used
for the area -wide plan that has recently been prepared.
The plan was based on meeting the needs of the populated area of the planning area
to the year 2006—this would represent twenty years of service for the new facilities
that would be constructed as part of the project. An important part of this activity
was projecting the populations. The City had prepared population projections previously
for use in the area -wide plan and these projections were used for purposes of the
facility plan and extended an additional six years to the year 2006. The population
that has been used for the City, year 2006, is 70,000 people.
There are major elements in the facilities plan. The first element is looking at
the collecting sewer system to determine if there are sources of infiltration of ground
water into the sewer system or inflow of surface waters into the sewer system that can
be economically removed and thereby reduce the cost through waste water treatment.
Now the City has prepared, in the last five years, and completed a substantial effort
in locating and eliminating sources of extraneous water into the sewer system. We
found in reviewing the -City records, that approximately 2 million gallons a day of
this excess filtration and inflow had been successfully removed by the City's efforts.
As a result of this, there is not a great deal of additional work that has been found
to be economical. We did, however, locate five sources of infiltration inflow that
would result in removal of about 200,000 gallons per day of infiltration inflow at
the waste water treatment plant at a total capital cost of about $17,000, so we determined
that this amount of infiltration inflow removal is economical, but that it does not
appear economical at this time to do substantial additional insystem investigation tc
try to locate additional sources.
The second phase of the project related to an evaluation of the intercepting sewers
within the City. These are the main sewers that convey flows from the various collecting
sewers that serve the neighborhoods and industries in the City. The need was to determine
if the capacity of these intercepting sewers was adequate to serve existing and planned
future needs of the community. It was identified that there are four areas within the
intercepting sewer system that require reinforcement, in order to provide this necessary
capacity. Items No. 1 & 2 are siphon crossings of the Rock River, item No. 3 is a
intercepting sewer that serves the south side of the City and the fourth item, listed
as a small sewer along Memorial Drive, is currently overloaded.
The cost of these improvements total approximately 1 million dollars and it is recommended
these improvements be made to provide necessary capacity to serve the planning area needs
during the planning period.
The following step was to project the flows and loadings that would arrive at the waste
water treatment works during the planning period. You can see that we made projections
for the year 1996, 2001 and 2006. As the projections of flows and loadings were very
close for all three years, in other words, most of the anticipated growth was expected
to occur early during the planning period, it was determined most appropriate to plan
the total 20-year projected growth and to size the expanded facilities on this basis.
Estimates were then made of the domestic loadings, which would be the loadings from the
residential and commercial sources within the community, the industrial loadings, the
major industries located within the community, and allowance was made for reserve capacity
for future unanticipated industrial expansion. In addition, had to provide for infil-
tration inflow that had previously been identified. After the anticipated future needs
had been determined, the next step was to look at the existing treatment works and to
determine the areas of deficiency at the plant. We found that in all the major process
steps at the treatment plant that under current conditions overloading existed and
these would only be compounded in the future as the loading at the treatment Forks were
to expand. We found that the primary clarifiers, which under current operating conditions
and design standards were rated for about 6 million gallons per day. We find that
currently they're receiving over 13 million gallons per day of flow, and the needs for
the year 2006 were about 17 to 18 million gallons per day. We find that the aeration
basin and:the final clarifiers which make up the biological treatment system, similarly
are overloaded to an extensive degree and in both the hydraulic and the organic loading
aspects. We also found that the anaerobic digestion system, which is the means that
the treatment plant for stabilizing the sludges or the solids that grow up during
waste water treatment, that these units also are substantially overloaded at the present
time and are in need of expansion.
In addition to the violation of water quality standards, Mr. Deaton mentioned a few
moments ago, there is another environmental aspect that needs to be addressed in terms
of the expansion at the treatment plant and that is the environmental issues related to
odors and other nuisance conditions that are resolved from the operation of an over-
loaded plant, and the expansion that is proposed will also address these environmental
factors that the residents that live near the treatment plant at the present time, at some
portions of the year have undesirable conditions in this regard.
A number of alternatives were evaluated for the expansion at the treatment plant. These
included three different biological treatment approaches - they all involved the maximum
utilization of the existing facilities in the effort to keep costs at a minimum. It
was determined that the most economical approach whould be to expand the existing system
of single stage activated sludge. We also evaluated a number of alternatives for handling
the sludges that are generated during waste water treatment. We determined there again
that the most economical approach would be to expand the existing system of high rate
anaerobic digestion. We determined a number of other features to the treatment plant
should be added that are not present at the current facilities. The first unit process
would be thickening the waste biological sludge. That results in a substantial improvement
in the costs for handling the sludge, the expense associated with digestion of the
waste biological sludge, and the last unit operation that we recommend added to the
facilities is that of dewatering the digested sludge and this provides a flexibility
to deal with the sludges that are generated at the treatment works during the winter
months when it is not acceptable under current guidelines to apply this digested sludge
to the land during the winter months because of the potential for environmental problems
when spring thaw comes and the sludge can run off into surface waters.
I would like to put up a schematic diagram of the proposed facilities and just very briefly
go through the unit operations that are involved and talk about the approximate level
of expansion that is recommended as part of the report. The flow scheme goes from left
to right on the top, or the waste water treatment units. The influent screw pumps and
bar screens we recommend as part of the report a minor expansion of those facilities.
Pumping capacity is substantially there at the existing treatment plant. The bar screen,
however, we are recommending an additional bar screen to the existing one that's there.
The erated grit tanks is recommended that no additional tanks be constructed, but that
mechanical equipment be installed to properly handle the grit that accumulates within
these units. Primary clarifiers - these are the units that are responsible for the
settlement and removal from the waste water of the growths, heavy solids that are
settlible during waste water treatment, we are recommending a doubling of capacity of
those units. The aeration tanks and final clarifiers similarly in expansion of approximate
200% to those units. Chlorine contact tanks, about a 100% expansion to that volume.
-2-
The metering flume and step aerator are currently adequate. The units down on the
lower part of the figure relate to the sludge handling..we mentioned the waste activated
sludge thickeners, those are new units. The digestion facilities we are recommending
about a 100% expansion current capacity and as we mentioned a few moments ago, the
addition of belt presses to dewater the anaer (?) digested sludge. The proposed
means of dealing with the sludges generated is to continue the liquid land application
program during the good weather period of the year, and to sanitary landfill the
dewatered sludge during the winter - during severe weather conditions.
I'd like to spend a few minutes talking about the anticipated costs of the project.
The total initial capital costs are estimated to be about 17 million dollars. In the
construction costs area about $14,000 for the sewer system rehabilitation, about
$800,000 for intercepting sewer improvements and about 13 million dollars for the waste
water treatment facility addition. Following construction of the facilities, we have
estimated a annual operating budget requirement of about $3,400,000 including operation
and maintenance of the facilities, depreciation on the capital tax equivalent and a
return on investment for invested monies in the facilities. All these figures represented
in 1983 dollars. Based on the esitmated annual operating budget and other factors, we
have estimated the cost to the various user classes within the community the 3.4 million
dollars approximately half of it being raised from residential customers, about $480,000
from commercial, a little over a million dollars from industrial customers and the
remaining from public users of the system and miscellaneous income to the utility. The
anticipated average residential cost would be approximately $30 per quarter, after the
project was in place as compared with a little over $18 per quarter under the proposed
interim rates.
As Mr. Deaton had indicated at this point in time we are nearing the end of step 1 -
that is the preparation of the concept plan for the expansion. What I projected up to
now is a schedule for the remaining part of the project. It is anticipated that the
plans and specifications for the expanded facilities could be completed by the middle
of 1984, that construction for the new facility to be complete by approximately the end
of 1986. I realize that was a very quick run through on a very technical subject - so
if any one has any questions, they should go up to the podium and state their name and
we will do our best to answer any questions that you may have at this time.
Schroder - Thank you Mr. Doran. The public hearing then is open. Is there anyone who
wishes to address the Council - has questions of Mr. Doran regarding the waste water
pollution control facility - the report that we have just heard? No questions from
any one? Yes sir.
I am Ruppert Moe, 746 Cornelia - One thing I wanted to ask, on your old unit is that
being used any more? As I recall, when they built the new sewage plant, it was with
the projections of the City of being in the neighborhood of 50,000 people, and also
the old one was supposed to be still operational when they - if it was overloaded, the
new one, why the old one could be used to take up any access load. Now I wonder has
it ever been used since the new one has been put in, or is it still operational —can it
be used?
Schroder - I don't think it works exactly the way you -'re saying, but I would ask Mr.
Deaton or someone from the Engineering Department to answer that question.
Deaton - Mr. -President, the old facility has been sold to the S�herex Chemical Company
and they now use that as a pretreatment facility for their waste before it comes into
the municipal system ... I don't know when that sale took place.
Moe - One other thing, when they make your projections here, they have projections
going up to 2010 or 2006,your projections were made on the old one too, but according
to your ...to the paper a night or two ago, I think it was in the news of ten years
ago - there was a new plant opened up and it was ...it had the labor to take care of
it at that time..now that was a new plant and still it ha.d a hard time handling the load,
according to the paper the other night... it said it was at capacity —opened up at
capacity.
Deaton - I am not familiar with the article you are addressing, I realize there was one
in the paper ... the current plant, as I understand, opened up about 1968, Mr. Beatty is
that correct - 1970 ?
Moe - 1973 - it was in the news for 10 years ago.
Deaton - I hate to ever disagree with the newspaper, but
Moe - Well I realize you weren't here ... I - probably none of the Councilmen were on at
that time..
Deaton - I have to rely on the City Engineer here - our expertise here, because he was
around.
Beatty - It was under construction in 1968 and 1969 and it opened in 1970.
Deaton - So that would be thirteen, nearly 14 years ago. I guess any time you make
-3-
projections, you realize that several things are liable to happen, and most likely
one is...your projection is going to be wrong.
Moe - One you annex another twenty or thirty acres or so - when you do annex another
20 or 30 acres is that not going to put an additional load on the sewer plant? Would
it be wise not to try to annex quite as much ... I imagine it must be quite expensive
to lay these new sewer lines out..somebody's got to pay for them. What I am thinking
about...I am retired and on a fixed income, adding another $18 for each quarter that's
going to be quite a burden..our taxes went up 11% and Social Security went up 32% and
then this added on with all the other prices, that's my big thought ... I understand if
the DNR is after you to - you have to do something, but
Deaton - The new sewers that are constructed are paid for predominately by the abutting
property owners ... they are not a burden on the users or on the taxpayers. We put new
sewer lines in by assessment against the property. Certainly the people contribute
waste have to pay to have the waste treated and I would agree there may be some point
where it is optimal to say that this is as much waste as we want going into this treat-
ment plant. The thing we have to consider when we look at annexation, however is not
just one item - we cannot make our decision on annexation just based on how it may
affect our waste water treatment plant. We have to look at all of the aspects of our
municipal government, and not only just the government but all of our community in
determining what is best relative to any annexation. But you are correct, sir, if
the plant's full then we start adding more to it we are creating a problem.
Moe - I was hoping there would be more Senior Citizens here to help me .... all right,
thank you.
Schroder - Thank you sir. Anyone else wishing to speak on this subject? Yes sir.
Mark Ecklund, 1110 Laramie Lane. I had a couple questions. On the design, and I think
I'll just hit a couple things here as a general thought in my mind. You show here that
the primary clarifiers have a rated capacity of about 6 mgd,reading about 132 now -
future at 17. In your preliminary discussion you said double the capacity of the primary
clarifiers.... well if you double six, it is still less than the current loading on the
plan, so I don't..I guess I am not understanding what's happening when you double some-
thing, that's double isn't it?
Mike Doran - That question is fairly complicated, and I understand how you got a question
in your mind over that. The 5.8 million gallons per day of rated capacity at the present
time also is based on those units receiving waste activated sludge from the biological
treatment system, and the plan calls for removing that source of additional solids
loading and puttini7place a separate waste activated sludge thickening system. With
that being done, the capacity of the units is increased substantially by approximately
40 percent.
Ecklund - You mean the City is recycling waste activated back into the primary clarifiers?
Doran - That's correct.
Ecklund - Why wouldn't they recycle into the aeration tanks?
Doran - I am not talking about return activated sludge - I am talking about the waste
activated sludge, that access bio mass that grows up within the system needs to be dis-
posed of.
Ecklund - You mean it's not run straight to the disgesters then?
Doran - No - it used to be common practice in activated sludge plants to utilize the
primary clarifiers for the co -thickening of primary sludge and the waste biological
sludge. Unfortunately, one drawback of that was the reduction in the capacity of
the primary clarifier.
Ecklund - ok - you said you worked with industry on what - in determining what they
are going to do over the next twenty years to provide load to the plant. What does the
City do to design commensurate with industry and have some guarantee that that industry
is going to do that and not increase the load? How do we as a citizen have some
protection against a flow that's listed here for an industry being x amount and ten
years from now it's twice that ... they pay maybe a larger sewer fee, but our plant was
designed now, it's not designed five years or ten years from now —what kind of guarantees
do we have that those industrial flows don't double, or get larger or even get smaller..
do we have any - is there a way of getting a guarantee?
Deaton - Mr. President, there is some question about how much you can guarnatee anything
- you know where we have agreed on death and taxes are probably guaranteed, but beyond
that there is not a great deal. What we have done, however, is meet with each of the
industries in the City that make a major contribution to the system, and we are asking
them to inter into a contract with the City, based upon their current and their projected
flows, and to make essentially some promises to us based upon that. Now, I guess the
-4-
r
r
question comes what if General Motors annouces that they are going to double their
capacity, and a result contribute substantially more to our waste stream, are we
at that point going to tell them we would rather you didn't do that and we would
rather you took your employees and your investment someplace else, or are we going
to say - well that's a problem we are going to have to deal with when it happens it
may mean some more investment in our community to accomplish this. I guess I would
have to answer that the same way I answered Mr. Moe relative to annexation. Certainly
there are problems that come with annexation and if we are going to have more people
and build more houses, and if we are going to generate more waste then we are going
to have to deal with that. If we also get some major industrial expansion that is a
wet industry that is going to make some contribution to our wastewater treatment plant,
perhaps one that isnq�,re now we certainly can't now inter into contracts with somebody
that is not even here then we are going to have to evaluate their coming and see what
their contribution to our waste stream is going to be and whether it's something we
are going to accept or whether we wish to try to accommodate it, or it may be such
that we can't accept it. Right now we are in a condition where we cannot accept a wet in-
dustry iE'itiwishes to come to the City of Janesville and it has hampered our efforts at
trying to generate jobs for the people that are unemployed in our community.
Ecklund - So basically we can work with the current industry? In those contracts have
some time frame to get worked out before design gets implemented? Because you are
planning on designing here pretty soon.
Deaton - You ask me a question - I'll have to refer to Mr. Rogers, Director of Public
Works.
Rogers - Yes, we have been in the process of dealing with the largest industrial users
inside the City limits and we do expect to firm up contracts with them very early, if
not before the design process begins.
Ecklund - ok - because nothing was said about that in anything that's done here. ok
..the last point I had to make is about replacement of equipment. I was here January
or December 7th or 6th, whatever, and we discussed that a lot of equipment has to be
replaced, either because of high maintenance problems and costs and I guess the final
clarifiers all are going to be replaced... because they don't go around was the answer
that I got. Now this equipment should have a twenty-year design life, and basically
if you replace it in '85 or'86, you are cutting that life short by 25%... now that 25
percent, I think has value, whether it's very small value and it's cheaper because we
pay only half the cost to replace those units now than it would be to go in and replace
them in 1990 or '91 or something like that,...I don't know..I don't have any answer
there. Has that kind of thing been looked at? Have those tanks been dewatered... are
they rusted out, are they falling apart on us ... I just don't think that because a unit
doesn't go around in the winter time is adequate unless the City has tried 70 different
ways to try and fix that problem in the last ten years.
Deaton - Mr. President, I addressed this same issue with Mr. Lyle Hurd who is also
here representing Strand Associates. It was the administration's opinion that we should
not just replace equipment because we may be able to get a 50% federal grant to pay for
the replacement, just because it happened to be old instead of new. It's somebody's
money - somebody's tax money and it's some user's money... whether it comes from strictly
the City of Janesville or whether it's a State of Wisconsin grant or whether it's an
Environmental Protection Agency Grant coming from the federal government. Mr. Hurd
assured me that his firm was very sensitive to this issue, and that we were in a situation
where a great deal of our equipment, even tho it may originally have had a 13 or 20 year
design life, was going to have to be either totally rebuilt or replaced in a very short
period of time whether we had a plan expansion or not. Now I acknowledge I had to rely
upon them somewhat along with Mr. Fredrickson who operates the plant and our other
engineering staff, but that was the answer I received and I found it to be appropriate
answer , but I will let Mr. Doran respond to any details he may wish relative to that
question.
Doran - Well, first of all I would like to say there is a great deal of existing equipment
that is recommended to be retained and to become a part of the expansion facilities and
in that regard we evaluated those units that did have remaining service life and in all
cases where we found that service life remained on equipment we certainly did not recom-
mend that those particular units be replaced. The type of equipment replacements that
we do find necessary, however, are those units which either are required just substantial
amounts of effort on the part of the maintenance staff to keep them in operation to the
extent that it is just an uneconomical endeavor, or those units that are needed to be
taken out of service because they are not reliable under certain circumstances and then
that in effect results in a violation of treatment standards. Getting back to the clari-
fiers that don't go around for example —if the clarifier mechanisms don't go around or
don't go back and forth in the case of the primary collectors that results in a situation
where solids cannot be adequately removed from those units, if they cannot be adequately
removed, they end up in the Rock River and that results in violation of treatment standards
There is another example that being the aeration equipment, it is at the point in time..
those particular units probably only have a 15 year life (about) and they are at 14 years
now, they also, if they were to be utilized as part of the plant expansion would resolve
in substantial cooling 6f the wastewater in the biological treatment system. The degree
-5-
of biological treatment is very much associated with maintaining warm temperatures in
the treatment process, so we were all very much concerned about keeping those units in
service in the face of them being at the end of their useful life and in all probability
of them seriously affecting the performance of the treatment system because of the cool-
ing effect. There are a number of additional examples like that but just to expound
on Mr. Deaton's coments, we did make every effort where it was possible to retain the
existing structures and equipment within the expanded plant.
Ecklund - Will you be putting forth some kind of further report? Why, say, the primarly
clarifiers are failing, you say they don't go around, I agree, .they don't remove sludge
but there's other clarifiers around this country and they work, I don't know ... is it..
do they..are they wore out that they don't follow a track properly —or something
I guess if they are not properly maintained that is something the City's gotta shape up
on and improve their maintenance... maybe we have been skimpy on trying to maintain
them the last ten years and giving proper budget to maintain and that's a different sort
of problem - but on December 7 you said that new technology and they just go around..
I've thought about that a lot. You didn't say anything that you dewatered the tank and
the metal is all but deteriorated and gone ... they —you replace the gear box every year
at a cost of $45,000, nothing like that —just said they didn't go around.
Doran - Well, first of all I'd like to say there is a good deal of detail in the report,
itself and I am not sure you have had the opportunity to read through it all...
Ecklund - no
Doran - One particular example that possibly we could talk about is the effects of severe
winter weather on the operation of the existing clarifiers... now the existing clarifiers
are somewhat unique for this climate in that the mechanisms are driven by a tractor tire
that rides on the outer periphery of the tank and you..requires maintaining non -slipping
condition between that tire and the top of the tank at all times ... for the mechanism
to continue to rotate. During very, very severe winter conditions, for example during
ice conditions or blizzard conditions, the presence of snow and ice makes the continued
operation of these units impossible because the tires can't develop traction on the wall
of the tank anymore under those conditions, and this is the type of thing that no amount
of operation and maintenance attention can really attempt to cope with and it certainly
is not the fault of'the plant staff, it's the - a fact that manifests itself because
of the original design of the equipment.
Ecklund - I don't know - I haven't heard of the City of Beloit having that problem and
they got the same kind of clarifier so that's why I harp on that so much. Thank you.
Schroder - Thank you Mr. Ecklund. Anyone else wish to address the Council on this
subject? Anyone else have any questions? Want to speak further on the wastewater
disposal plant? Public hearing is closed. Any Councilmembers have questions of
-Mr. Doran or the administration that they wish to bring up at the present time? OK -
as was pointed out, Council need take no action on this tonight - information that we
received will be included in report. Councilmember Miles.
Miles - Yes, I have one question - I don't know who I should address this to...I believe
the City of Milwaukee have a wastewater plant where they utilize or resell this as
fertilizer. Has this been investigated - feasible.
Deaton - I will let Mr. Doran respond.
Doran - The City of Milwaukee actually it's the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewage District
operates two wastwater treatment plants. One of the wastewater treatment plants, I
believe was originally constructed in about the 1925 to 1930 area and at that time part
of the sludge management program, they installed equipment to basically dry and bag
the sludges that were generated in wastewater treatment and at that time it was one of
the only operations of it's sort in the country and over the years it developed a very
wide spread distribution of the product and it was very successful program for them.
Unfortunately, the process involves fairly heavy use of natural gas to provide for the
drying of the sludge and in recent years, the natural gas prices began to soar ... they
began to look very carefully.at continued use of that operation. What they did find
was that because of their initial investment, in the facilities and because of the
available market for the product, almost nationwide, that they should continue, but
they wouldn't incorporate a similar facility at a treatment plant..indeed didn't at the
new treatment plant that was built just quite a few years ago at the south end of the
meto area. That particular system was built at the south shore, they didn't incorporate
the Milorganite operation because the energy costs and their utilizing a system very
similar to what is being currently utilized at the City of Janesville treatment plant
and what is recommended to continue. In summary, the energy costs are high for getting
the water out of the sludge and it makes that approach not economical for the City of
Janesville.
Miles - Thank you. You did answer that question, now I have another question. You
indicated that you had intended to utilize trucks to transport this waste to the landfill.
Is this going to create problems at the landfill and what kind of a life span are we
going to probably lessen?
Doran - That's a very good question. We
untilized in the landfill as a result of
volume of the landfill and therefore, we
life of the sanitary landfill. The City
those severe part of the year when it is
for the application of the sludge.
calculated the amount of space that would be
the operation at being about 3% of the total
believe it is not significant factor in the
could minimize that by landfilling only during
not possible to utilize the agricultural land
Miles - That would be anytime the ground is frozen - or anytime it's too wet?
Doran - Well to some degree the treatment plant can store sludge for short periods of time.
The anaerobic digestion system has floating covers on the tanks so that for days and
possibly as long as a few weeks, sludges can accumulate in the plant - during the wet
weather period and in that fashion the operating staff could get around a period of
that sort of a problem and not have to haul to the landfill. I would expect the City
would only have to haul to the landfill during the winter months and if they had some
sort of equipment malfunction at the plant that required them to go to the dewatering
approach as a backup.
Miles - Now would this type of a cover - floating cover - this will provide an odor
for our residents in that particular area?
Doran - No - it would-.not-in:fact, that is a very, very common practice ... the existing
...there are two existing digesters at the plant and one of them was originally designed
with a floating cover. The floating cover has a gas seal around the outer peripheral
(tape is changed ...space) there very valuable fuel and part of the proposed plan is
to utilize this fuel in an engine generator system to provide (tape skips) however,
the plan does compare quality of the sludge relative to heavy metals with sludge that
are typically found in municipalities and if you compare the data that are collected
on the existing sludge you will find that in general they are very low in heavy metals
compared to most sludges that are generated in communities with industry and the metals
in fact are not a threat to the application sites where the sludges would be applied.
Part of the program that is developed for the land application for the sludge does
consider the metal content and there are limits placed on the amount of sludge that can
be placed on a particular site to prevent against the accumulation of the heavy metals
in the soils at a particular site.
Deaton - I would also comment, Mr. President, that one of things that we are working on
in collateral with this is our industrial waste pretreatment ordinance that will require
the control and to some extent the removal of heavy metals by the generating industries
before it enters our waste streams, and one of the criteria in determining how much
heavy metal the system can accept is the..one of the controlling factors is the amount
of heavy metals that can be accepted in an on -land disposal system so when we determine
how much we can accept we base that on how much we are capable of disposing and so we
expect that a great portion of the heavy metal problem will be taken care of by the
industries that generate those heavy metals.
Schroder - Since this requires no Council action we will go to the next item......
Transcribed from tape of Janesville City Council meeting held on 27 December, 1983.
Helen R. Pike
Office of the City Clerk
December 29, 1983
—7—