MINUTES SAFETY/SERVICE STANDBY COMMITTEE Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 4:30 p.m.______

Members present: Kreun, chair; Brooks, Kerian.

Others attending: Council Members Gershman, Christensen; Todd Feland, director of Public Works, Candi Stjern, Al Grasser, Mark Walker, Beecher Vaillancourt, Steve Burian (AE sub consultant to Black & Veatch), and Scott Carr, Black & Veatch. Representatives of Simplot and RDO Foods were also present.

1. Bio-solids Management Facilities Plan. Chairman Kreun stated they are all aware of the wastewater treatment plant that's being designed and built and very close to operation and with that comes along another problem is our management, and they have been putting a plan together on how to manage the new wastewater treatment and also to build an economical biosolids plant that will handle needs of the industries as well as the city's without putting us too far in debt and to use it economically; that in the last few months they brought on A & E and Black and Veatch to help us with this plan so we can consolidate some of the usages of the wastewater treatment plant and the biosolids plant. He stated this is an overview of our plan that we have in place, lot of work and thought has been put into it and would like them to consider it very heavily when the presentation is finished and to ask questions of consultants and staff until get into actual implementation of the whole program.

Todd Feland, director of public works, stated to present to the subcommittee and then bring to the city council in January, and looking for a three part presentation; that the consultants will go into some of the alternatives and alternative treatment strategies; most of the issues they've looked at are some of the things they've done and what can they do in the future, and where do they go from here and if deemed some of the ideas are good, still need approval from the ND State Health Department and EPA and need to finalize some of those previous discussions. He stated the presentation will include the alternatives, alternative treatment strategy and where do we go from here.

Scott Carr, Black & Veatch, reviewed their draft report on biosolids management plan prepared for the City of Grand Forks. Steve Burian, Advanced Engineering, also made comments re. the plan. Mr. Carr stated the definitions of sludge which is by-product from the wastewater treatment process and biosolids is sludge that has been treated to where they can be beneficially used as a fertilizer or soil amendment. He stated they noticed is the component of sludge that is generated as a result of flows and loads from industries (RDO and Simplot) actually comprise about 75% of the sludge that is going to be generated at the future facility. He stated that RDO and Simplot each have their own wastewater treatment process (much like the City's) and as part of those processes they generate sludge, and the sludge comes through the sewer to the wastewater treatment plant; they then asked does it make sense to take the sludge from the industrial plants and handle that separately, not total wastewater discharge because for Simplot the sludge comes back, RDO has some additional treatment on it so not creating as much sludge, but there's a potential for actually handling those sludges at the industrial plants and the advantage of that is that industrial sludges has no domestic or no human wastewater component in it, all food wastewater product and does not require as much treatment to be of beneficial use, and looked at it over a 20-year period at two options (one option being separating it out and providing facilities at the industries for handling those sludges separately and over a 20-year period looking at a savings of roughly $9 million to Page 2 handle those separately. The other advantages without that sludge coming through the plant would be a little bit easier for wastewater treatment superintendent to manage the wastewater treatment process. He stated their next step was to establish the alternatives they were going to evaluate - 5 alternatives and each one had a separate component where the industrial sludges were being handled at the industries providing facilities at the industries and the industries providing the manpower and those costs were included in all the alternatives. He stated their goal was to identify the 5 best options that would meet the City's long term needs.

The biosolids management alternatives were reviewed along with comparison or project costs: 1) Bale-fill disposal (commercial as backup) 2) Land application (bale-fill as backup) 3) Land application (commercial landfill as backup). 4) Heat drying with land application (bale-fill as backup) 5) Composting and distribution (bale-fill as backup)

Comparison of Alternatives and costs for municipal components ($ millions): 1) Dewater raw, air dray and bale-fill - Project $9.6 and O&M $0.54/yr. 2) Digest, dewater, air dry, and land apply - Project $10.6 and O&M $0.54/yr. 3) Digest, dewater land apply - Project $11.2 and O&M $0.72/yr. 4) Thermal drying - Project $13.0 and O&M $0.72/yr. 5) Composting - Project $13.9 and O&M $0.69/yr. with 2) recommended alternative because of the flexibility of the outlets and felt to be low capital and O&M cost and would provide flexibility for the future. Steve Burian stated that if the City approved the recommendation of Alt. 2 that the council would want them to look at designing that in such a way that if you have to go to composting, this would be the thought process and if go to thermal drying here would be the footprint in the thought process and if have to add additional capacity in the future, how would that be staged and that Alt. 2 although the number you'd heard before was more like $25.6 million for buyout solids, the big advantage of Alt 2 is $15 million less than that and with that you'd want to challenge them to look very futuristic in terms of how do they design this and construct it so that we don't over invest today but have a good strategy so that you're in a good position to use that flexibility moving forward, whether that be Class A or new wastewater regulation, lagoon challenges, etc.

Kerian asked to go back to the Class B issue, the land applications and on what land would they be looking at and what use. Mr. Carr stated it would be basically serve as a nitrogen fertilizer material and probably 5% nitrogen content that would be primary value to farmers and would be looking at row crops (corn, beans, etc.), that AE looked at the region and the land characteristics, looking at more than 10 miles out from the plant to find suitable land, there is a relatively high water table close into the plant that would cause problems for laying application but once get beyond that there is quite a bit of acreage available for it and would be working with the local farmers to arrange time periods for laying application. He stated that nationwide that is probably predominant method - about 40% of material is land applied with Class B type material. Another large portion of material is used thermal drying dry product used as a fertilizer also. He stated the City would have to meet under federal regulations that regulate metals and City shouldn't have a problem with that and stabilize for the package control - it has been treated to reduce the containments to a suitable level. Mr. Burian stated Class A would be one step better in all of those areas. Mr. Carr stated the city would have to track the Class B products where it goes and how much has been applied on the site and EPA requires reasonable level of monitoring and record keeping; with Class A treatment that product you could use in Page 3 your home garden, front yard. Kerian asked if Class B material could be used as cover in the landfill; Mr. Carr stated they talked to the State initially about that because their under- standing is that you need some soil augmentation at the landfill and thought it might be great to blend in with the soil out there to further extend its use but feedback from the State is No - they would not allow that because its not considered an inert material because there's still some bulk and solids, that they went out about a month ago and talked to the State about this program and the same people were there and were very recept ive and the manager of the solid program stated we don't have enough dirt and need augmentation and were willing to work with the City and do some trials and it may be a possibility. Mr. Burian stated that Fargo is putting all of theirs in the landfill but for those putting it to beneficial use are Moorhead and Bismarck (are doing all Class B land application) and Bismarck is going through a wastewater master planning effort and they intend to stick with Class B land application with the idea that only if somebody mandated Class A down the road they could make that transition - he stated when you get to Class A the further you treat it, the less nitrogen it has in it - with nitrogen in the Class B it reduces their input cost and that could be best marketing strategies and both Moorhead and Bismarck have landowners that are willing to work with them because of the input cost reduction but somewhat cumbersome in handling it and if it gets to be expensive at all, cheaper to go over and buy ammonia or normal fertilizer because of the application method is more simplistic and have to make it convenient for them and no costs and works out well and that is the way they factored everything - that they looked at all these alternatives with zero revenue. Mr. Carr stated with thermal drying, not lose much nitrogen with that, but com-posting does, but quite a few utilities charge for the heat dry product but receive benefit for Class B product. (some places charge nominal rate and charge transportation of material and wanted to establish a value for it because it is a valuable product). Mr. Burian stated wanted to look at with zero revenue is that you wouldn't count on that but with the idea if get enough farmers in the program and as moving forward the momentum you gain may provide with that opportunity in the future but didn't want that to prejudice the alternative valuation.

Advantages of the recommended management plan: Alternative 2 - Digest, dewater, air dry and land application (bale-fill as backup) 1) one of lowest cost options (capital and O&M) 2) Uses existing facilities for stabilization. 3) Low level of complexity. 4) Provides multiple outlets for product. 5) High level of flexibility - facilities can be expanded in future for higher level of treatment.

Disadvantages of the recommended management plan: 1) Moderate odor potential from air-drying operation. (distance odor travels depends on climatic conditions, given plant location over to airport and probably not greater than with existing lagoons - in spring have some odor problems) 2) Requires use of an existing reactor, which limits capacity of WWTP

Implementation Issues: 1) location of facilities at industries presents financing headaches. 2) lagoons can still be used for some treatment 3) land application requires a proactive program to enlist public support. and Implement Solutions:

Page 4

1) Baseload the WWTP to optimize operation 2) Build biosolids processing for only domestic equivalent portion. Design to be expanded if needed. 3) Bypass excess wastewater and biosolids to lagoons.

Mr. Carr and Mr. Burian also reviewed updated treatment option, ramifications if lagoons are closed and next steps.

Mr. Burian stated they had the $11.1 million and the range of estimates from $9.6 up to $13.9 and the City is interested in how do you practically implement that and how do you get the funding for it and how pre-pay and when look at locating the facilities at the industries, whether that's $11.1 million conservative number or something slightly less and one dilemma they wanted to look at when you add $11.1 to the other numbers and then getting close to original estimate of $25.6 and they have been challenge d to be as cost effective as possible. He stated they have 1300 acres of lagoons, open water surfaces adj. to wastewater treatment plant that they currently plan to keep in service when the wastewater gets done operating you're going to put the treated wa ter from the wastewater plant into the lagoons and have a buffer there so prevents you from having to use additional treatment at the plant and the wastewater will run through the lagoons and be discharged as it is discharged now. He stated they talked about the requirement of different entry of land application requires program to enlist public support, there was a brainstorming process by the consulting team if different from adding $11.1 at the industries and picking one of these alternatives (Alt. 2 if the City accepts their recommendation). Mr. Vaillencourt stated they were looking at the charge with the two lines - two different prices, one was the industry price and our price, nearing $21 to $25 million but going to show result of brainstorming and will be very beneficial to everybody. Mr. Burian stated we're using all tried and true processes to do this but in terms of being creative and using all of the assets that you have in place or that recommending under Alt. 2, think with the Health Department and the EPA's blessing, found creative way to use all of the different assists the City has in place plus new ones to handle this using just the cost for the municipal portion of the $10.6 million estimate. Mr. Carr stated what are the implications if don't do all the facilities at the industries but if let that come through, the tanks the effluent from the plants as well as the sludge, and have selected Alt. 2 and with that they are taking one tank out of production so out of the wastewater treatment process - look at baseloading the wastewater treatment plant at some flow, current flow averaging somewhere between 7 and 8 mgd and the plant designed for an average of 10mgd with a peak up to 35mgd and said look at baseloading the plant at some 10 minus x and bypass everything above that to the lagoons and take advantage of that existing treatment pass to the lagoons -

Mr. Carr stated the main issue with EPA is this sludge going to the lagoons, when they first talked with the State they seemed to buy o ff on this concept, the issue here is when send sludge to the lagoons is this microbubble flotation sludge, no digestion, is going to one of the big primary ponds for 3 years and if you keep doing that, EPA classifies that at a surface disposal site (sludg e monofield, landfill) and requires extensive site monitoring and City has deter- mined that you don't want to have to pay a surface disposal site. In this concept the sludge would be going to the lagoons with the effluent wastewater so won't be separate and some benefit with the sludge going to the lagoons for further treatment of that effluent - this is where EPA and the State have permit compliance, certain limits you have to meet and this concept will meet your permit requirements.

Page 5

Mr. Vaillencourt stated that in looking at this scenario looking at the plant operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, biosolids system is designed to operate Monday through Friday, 8 hours a day, designed to maintain and hold are operating costs and maintenance costs, and if problem can kick it up to 16 hours a day or 24 hours a day, could dredge sludge, take it in and take it through a dewatering equipment just like putting on a second shift and disposing it at site or landfill. Mr. Carr stated another option would be that there are a lot of contractors out there and that's their business and they go out and dredge lagoons and could dewater the material and deliver it to an air-drying pad where could be air dried to be used. Mr. Grasser stated the whole idea behind these concepts is instead of trying to come up with a final solution and invest all the money into the big plant and big biosolids facility is to step into this in phases and leave as many doors open as they can so in the future they can on both the biosolids and on the treatment side in case they have to close down the lagoons but don't make that big invest- ment today. Mr. Burian stated if they had a crystal ball or if rules all static and existed today wouldn't be here recommending that but things are evolving and build practical facilities now that is flexible so that when challenges come up are in a position to economically address them.

Kerian asked if there was a difference in where industrial and where residential - Mr. Carr stated it will be as it is right now, and rather than going through lagoons will come through the new wastewater plant, only difference is that taking one of the basin and using it as a digester and peak flow, going to bypass and there would be no separation of the industrial versus the domestic, no way to do that short of putting in new pipelines from the industries and not looking at that. Mr. Burian stated they did look at that but cost was pro-hibitive, some minor treatment and certain amount of reduction before it goes out. Mr. Carr stated it is all coming into the sewer, whether human or industrial wastewater, through the wastewater plant, and the activated sludge it is generating is under federal regulation and is wastewater sludge and has a domestic component to it and has to be managed under federal regulations - 503 is the number of the regulation.

Mr. Feland stated the lagoon is in lieu of the $11.1 million and if didn't have that lagoon, wouldn't even be thinking of doing this - we have infrastructure and can we use this for a viable alternative in lieu of the $11 million at industry.

Kerian asked what timing is on EPA approving this. Mr. Burian stated that because the report was written as a separate approach and came up with this strategy toward the end of the process, they've been authorized to do a little additional work in subsequent memorandum that summarizes more of this page, and that State Health Department and EPA has asked that they want both the report and that memorandum once council has approved that, so that they have something tangible, they have given some positive verbal indications but never commit without seeing something written, and don't know when they approve it if there will be any strings attached, need to get council approval on the recommended alternative with the contingent approach and once they do the additional work, forward that all to the Health Department and EPA so they have something tangible to approve.

Mr. Carr stated they met with the State Health Department a month ago and presented the concept to them, they were very supportive of it; since then just made a phone call with them and EPA and EPA was very supportive of it and indicated that at least until they saw something and not commit to anything until they have it in writing in front of them - and over the phone stated sounds like no problems taking the sludge and the effluent to the lagoons and wouldn't classify those as surface disposal facilities down the road, they may not even require dredging. Page 6

Kreun stated they haven't signed off on it and that's why authorized them to go ahead and do this extra work so that they can get that in writing, and that's what we're after to make sure that they commit before we commit any more.

Mr. Burian stated that given what they've heard is building up to the practical boundary and not doing any more until they find out until somebody says no or the lagoons can't be operated and then still have two options in their full disposal at that point.

Mr.Carr stated in their memo going to have to stipulate and lot depends on how the plant performs, modeling it based on no operations data. Mr. Kreun stated they would run that plant for approx. a year and be able to get the data.

Mr. Carr stated what the next steps are - going to do further evaluation for this memo to help document that concept, following that once everybody approves the City and initiates design for the dewatering facilities so that three-year period window and meet that requirement and monitoring the wastewater treatment plant as operations start up - and as the City starts thinking down the road and start looking at CIP requirements and start looking at disinfection facilities as well as outfall requirements and that's long range plan of action. He stated that concludes their presentation and have included in the back schematics of the additional alternatives they are evaluating.

Mr. Vaillencourt stated the last page in the book shows the economic comparison of separate vs. combined systems and if were going to build a system to handle all the solids, whether building separate facilities at the two industries and building facility at the plant to handle all the solids, would be looking at a 20-year present worth at $36,400,000 and at a combined system would be looking at $45 million and what they are proposing today is about $11.1 million plus operating costs. Mr. Burian stated that Mr. Vaillencourt made a good point that the $21 vs. $33 is comparable to the $10.6 that they are recommending provided they can get by in all of their approaches. Mr. Vaillencourt stated they are here to ask committee for approval to go to council to present this plan and for council to give approval to go to the State and EPA to work this into agreeable thing. Mr. Kreun stated part of the committee's responsibility is to gather this information and to make a recommendation to the council and would like comments from industries whether it will enhance the industry, that both companies have been in the process along with the City. Simplot stated this is best alternative. Kreun stated it gives us the ability to work with our residential people but also with commercial people - there might be costs down the road. Mr. Feland stated there will be costs d own the road. RDO agreed with Simplot, and at point best they can do - his concern is down the road is if they end up needing to remove their own biosolids because EPA doesn't go for the plan or change their minds - they are constantly getting tougher and tougher and if have to remove their own biosolids then will there be a fight because the City will expect industry to pay for not only removing the biosolids but helping the City fund what they have to do. Kreun stated they can't speak for future councils but want to work with industry as much as they possibly can to keep their costs in line.

Mr. Feland stated what industries are concerned about, can't make that decision today because they don't have all the details, but they are going to want to know is if we are all going to share in the $10.6 million facility as percentage of whoever uses it and later if have to do something which is $11 million plus cost of money at that time, then going to share in that or how finance the project - those are some of the issues they will have to work out. Christensen stated that they have a study going on besides this as to how they are going to structure our fees going Page 7 forward and have other people hired to help us with that and hope to have report on that study sometime in January/February of next year and part of that is how do you cost out these things - that he is satisfied with this process, value their input and aware of capacity to pay or not pay; and as they go through this fee structuring, reanalysis and get the CIP going will have a better feel for how all of this is going to be delivered. RDO rep. stated they were not negative because he is really impressed with the committee that started with a way to look at things and that they did an about face looking for a better way to do things and appreciative of that and looking for best alternative for them now. Kreun stated to bring the industries along with them as they go forward is their intent. Mr. Feland stated if they move this forward into January they will come to the Committee of the Whole with recommendation of Alternative 2 contingent upon alternative treatment strategy and then go to city council in January and get some answers back and final answers in February/March and asked if they do move this forward if having a similar presentation at the Committee of the Whole. Kreun stated taking time tonight to make the recommendation to bring this to the Committee of the Whole and presentation should be brought to CW so gets on TV and to the public so that they understand the City is working with the industry and with the public and as much publicity as can get and then bring it forward to the council for a vote. Mr. Burian stated without questions it was a 30-minute presentation; Kreun stated they would put it on CW agenda and adjust meeting so not 3-4 hour meeting.

A rep. from RDO asked about the initial plan for $10-11 million and how that might be split up now - Mr. Feland stated the fairest thing would be for us to split the $10 million and that in the future if have to do something else, split it down wherever the cost of service provided. Kreun stated a lot of this is perception right now.

Kreun stated he would like a recommendation from the committee to the council to bring this to the committee of the whole and from committee of the whole to the city council for vote in January. Mr. Feland stated they will have to come back to council once they get some final answers (back to standby committee and to committee of the whole, etc.) It was so moved by Brooks and Kerian.

Kerian questioned what change to be made to our current process for the $10.6. Mr. Vaillencourt stated it would make a change in the current process as it would be taking one of the reactors out of service and turnin g it into a aerobic digester, building a dewatering facility on the site that allows serving conservative estimate of 7 dry tons/day using lagoon con-tinuously. Mr. Feland stated in looking at the schematic its aerobic digestion, belt filter presses, trucks, building, concrete slab and trucks either going to balefill or to land application - the $540,000 relates to the operation and maintenance of this and the $10.6 relates to all the capital infrastructure from the aerobic digestion forward and this would be retrofitting that existing reactor tank. Mr. Burian stated there is no money in there to do something better at the current wastewater plant.

Upon call for the question and upon voice vote, the motion carried 3 votes affirmative.

The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m.

Alice Fontaine, City Clerk