03-20-85 S&W Comm Minutes•
March 7.0, 1985 SEWER AND WATER COMMITTEE 3:00 P.M.
Chairman Nystul, Committee members Palmer, Ruiz, Springer, and Manning
attended. Also present were Mayor McDowell, City Attorney Neier, Pic
Olsen, DPW Hammer, Roger Hopkins, reporter from the Daily Interlake,
Steve Cummings, and four guests: Ed Barth, environmental engineer with
Barth Tec, Inc., Cincinnati, OH, Richard Sedlak, Research Director with
The Soap and Detergent Association, NY, NY, Damann Anderson, Soil Scientist
with RSE, Madison, WI, and A.G. Payne, Regulatory Services Division of
Proctor and Gamble Company, Cincinnati, OH.
C. Nystul opened the meeting and turned the meeting over to Ed Barth.
Mr. Barth has retired from 30 years with EPA and is author of a phosphorus
removal manual. He presented a handout, "Brief Outline of Phosphorus
Control Technology," to each person present and his presentation was
based on the information in the handout. The stated reason for the
meeting was information, not solicitation.
The presentation included engineering approaches to phosphorus,
efficiency ranking of systems, an overview of facilities around the country
and what may be expected in the future. Choices of systems included
biological, chemical and chemical/biological control, and the addition
of chemicals to the biological system at some point in the process.
Mr. Barth pointed out that there is always a need for a chemical back-up
system.
• There was discussion of the phosphorus coming into and out of.
the Kalispell plant, the cost of phosphorus removal, and the developing
technology for biological phosphorus removal.
The committee agreed on the need to address the phosphate problem
in Ashley Creek and Flathead Lake. The guest -persons testified that the
3% discharge rate will not affect the lake. C. Palmer stated that 15%
of the problem comes from 40% of the population (the city) and yet
controls are placed on the city residents rather than on the whole basin
population. Attorney Neier asked if anyone was dealing with non -point
sources run-off, erosion, etc.
There was some discussion of phosphate detergent bans and how
effective they were in bringing down the phosphate levels. The guests
indicated that in the 6 Great Lakes states bans were tried first,
treatment plants followed. Studies in 4 states indicated bans do not
change phosphate content. Mr. Barth left a copy of a study on detergent
phosphate bans and water quality with Mayor McDowell.
C. Ruiz asked why plants are not designed to take care of any and
all chemicals:? Or are new chemicals being introduced which then must be
dealt with as they appear? The answer Mr. Barth gave boiled down to the
fact that new research and knowledge leads to new controls. Early records
indicateall people were interested in was removing the lumps, and the
progression then went through BOD and suspended solids, sudsing, and other
• non -specifics until in the 1970's on we are dealing with specifics: NH4,
nitrogen, and now pesticides and heavy metals. Mr. Barth indicated
that some EPA mandated regulations show a lack of gathered information
and assumptions of problems without adequate proof.
Page 2
Sewer and Water
• Pic Olsen indicated that each mg. of phophorous removal costs
money and that everyone in the drainage should share in these costs.
Kalispell at this time is not adding anything for phosphate control.
Alum compounds are the most commonly used and we would need to check
the surrounding area for suppliers before coming up with a cost figure.
Gladstone, MI compares with Kalispell and it costs the city approximately
2.2�/1000 gallons.
C. Ruiz made the point again that the treatment plant contributes
less than 25% of the problem, leaving 75% due to other sources. He
asked if there was not a sewage treatment with NO discharge. Land -
treatment has no discharge but a large amount of land is needed for
winter lagoon storage. Then soil removes phosphates by absorption.
However, nitrates may be a problem with this system.
ajg
•
Chairman Nystul closed the meeting.