Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/16/94CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION June 16, 1994 4:00 p.m. Council Chambers Members present: Murphy, Getty. Members absent: Mayor Rooff, Jordan, Collier, Krizek, Anders, Mollenhoff. Moved by Krizek, seconded by Collier that the Agenda, as proposed, be approved. Ayes: Six. Absent: Mollenhoff. Motion carried. Agenda items for the council meeting to be held on Monday, June 20, 1994, were reviewed and discussed with representatives from departments who had items on the agenda. Moved by Krizek, seconded by Anders that the meeting be adjourned at 4:50 p.m. Ayes: Six. Absent: Mollenhoff. Motion carried. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION June 16, 1994 4:50 p.m. Council Chambers Members present: Mayor Rooff, Jordan, Collier, Krizek, Anders, Murphy, Getty. Members absent: Mollenhoff. Moved by Murphy, seconded by Anders that the Agenda, as proposed, be approved. Ayes: Six. Absent: Mollenhoff. Motion carried. Mayor Rooff held a discussion on the Water Pollution Control facility. He presented letters from the Water Pollution Control staff, Councilperson's Anders letters regarding Grundy Center and Marshalltown facilities, his list of concerns as well as letters from IBP and Eagle Tannery and discussed each in detail. Ed Nevers, a representative from RUST, stated he agrees with about everything that was said today. Both systems are very good. RUST has used both systems, same bugs, same treatment processing. It is merely a matter of configurations. In a SBR system, you are trying to accomplish many different functions in the same tank, the bugs are the same. SERs will work, in fact RUST has designed them. In the last three weeks, one of the engineers made a presentation at the Wastewater Regional Conference in Chicago regarding a SBR RUST designed and built, which is in operation in Florida. Its a good system. The key in this whole thing is the size and the cost. RUST can design and build it for Waterloo's size but it is not going to cost less than an activated sludge system if your comparing apples to apples. If you look at similar treatment capabilities, RUST is convinced from what they have seen from EPA documents and other reports that it is not cost effective in this size of a facility. There is some cost estimate savings projected for Waterloo, but if you look closely there is a lot less aeration capacity that is proposed. RUST put together a cost estimate on an activated sludge system whereas RCM put together a cost estimate on a SBR system. RUST estimated the cost one way and RCM estimated the cost another way. There has been no comparison of cost savings related to the two systems using the same cost estimating procedure. As for RUST's recommendation, if the city wanted to go with a SBR system, RUST could design a system that would work. There are a lot of shortcomings associated with a SBR system for this size facility. In terms of an activated sludge system, there are different components designed specifically for that operation. In a SBR system, your combining a lot of different activities into one tank in an effort to save money in construction costs. It hurts the overall efficiency of the operation. Council Work Session June 16, 1994 Page 2 Sam Claassen, a representative of RCM, stated he is concerned about the tone of today's meeting. The tone seems to be "why we don't use SBRs" in Waterloo. Both technologies use the same process, they are different, the design has to be done properly, and facilities have to operate properly. That is true of either type of facility. What RCM showed in their report is a $3.4 million capital cost savings. To arrive at this cost savings, RCM used all of the components that RUST has proposed that were common to both alternatives, including the cost estimates and sizing, so that when we got to the end there would be very little room to debate as to whose cost estimate was right. RCM only looked at the very few units that were different. They did spot check some of their cost estimates. The basic message RCM would like to give to the city is that if the SBR is designed and operated properly, it will work. IBP had four areas of concern that Mr. Claassen spoke with them about, and were greatly appreciative of the cost savings of the SBR. He was concerned about the levels of ammonia and was not aware of a treatment facility that had high levels of ammonia and could they nitrify with high levels of incoming ammonia. The Marshalltown, Iowa facility has an influent ammonia of 160-180 MGL, and Waterloo (IBP) has about 120 MGL. Marshalltown's effluent is putting out an ammonia concentration of less that 1 MG/L. When RCM's study was completed, they contacted the DNR by telephone and told them that RCM was proposing a SBR facility. Mr. Daryel McCallister did not say anything about effluent limits but did say a SBR would be acceptable to the Iowa DNR. The largest SBR facility in the United States is in Cleveland, Tennessee and is designed for 9.2 MGD, which is the average flow. They are satisfied with the SBR. It is an upcoming technology that will work if designed and operated properly and it will represent a large cost savings. Moved by Getty, seconded by Anders that the meeting be adjourned at 6:32 p.m. and that discussion be continued at a work session scheduled for Monday, June 20, 1994 at 5:00 p.m. in the large conference Room. Ayes: Six. Absent: Mollenhoff. Motion carried. Tom Campbell Acting Clerk/Auditor