05-08-85 S&W Comm Minutes1(
May 8, 1985 SEWER AND WATER COMMITTEE - DHES 4:OO P.M.
Chairman Nystul and Councilmen Saverud, Ruiz, Springer, Palmer and
Manning in attendance. Also present were Mayor McDowell, DPW Hammer, Verle
Olson,Steve Cox, Paul Stokes, George Murgel, Marc M. Spratt, Abe Horpestad,
(WQB), Scott Anderson (WQB), Dick Pedersen (WQB), and Roger Hopkins from the
Daily Interlake.
Chairman Nystul brought the meeting to order and the gentlemen from
Water Quality Bureau presented information and answered questions. The following
items were presented and discussed.
The change in Ashley Creek classification was caused by a change in
standards for discharge. This leaves three choices: 1. Discharge into Ashley
Creek seasonally or year round, 2. Discharge into the Flathead River, or 3.
No discharge.
Degredation was explained and effluent limitations discussed. The possibility
of an appeal for a possible variance for non-degredation to the Board of
Health was an alternative.
C. Nystul asked why this problem had not been addressed previously. The
permit is for five years and the renewal causes a second look at the situation
which includes any changes in the standards. The question was then would we
need to change again at the end of another five years?
Public Law 92-500 calls for designation C to be fishable and swimmable.
• Ashley Creek above the plant is C-2. Cannot settle for anything less or
lower the rating. The 1973 adoption of "non-degredation" means maintenance of
high quality.
The Dept. of Health and Environmental Sciences would support the choice
to go for Flathead River degredation, although they realize that that would be
politically volatile in this area.
Problems with Ashley Creek: Too much ammonia, level of dissolved oxygen
too low (the result of the accumulation of discharge and growth of plants from
phosphorus discharge- death of plants in fall causes oxygen loss). Dissolved
oxygen recovers downstream.
Funding: DHES indicated 75% funding level would be available by using
existing 201 grant and increasing on that. They are concerned with how long
the grant can sit there without activity. City needs to finalize proposed
draft and modify the permit.
Discussion of no discharge option - land use application. Variable
discharge is a possibility but the City would have to monitor -difficulty in
this has not made it practical. Purchasing of land for land application:
Grant application available. City needs engineering study to show solution
that is within permit limits.
Time limit for response: 1. Comments on draft permit limits - 2 weeks and
arrange with consulting engineer. 2. Engineering of alternative analysis - no
time frame but need to see action within about 30 days (for defense to EPA).
.1
0
SEWER AND WATER COMM14ITTEE -DHES
May 8, 1985
Page 2
DPW Hammer commented that it makes no sense to try to save Ashley
Creek by dumping it into the Flathead River when it all ends up in Flathead
Lake anyway.
DHES needs from City: Scope of work, engineering contract, and scope of
cost. Paul Stokes will get with Scott Anderson to see if this is covered under
the scope of work under the 201 grant.
Sludge handling: Lots of sludge - nowhere to go! DHES cannot re -issue
sludge disposal permit. Have asked for alot of things from City and have not
received. DPW Hammer indicated that they were told that they didn't need
a permit.
Beneficial Use: Application of sludge on agricultural use, no contamination
of ground water. No license needed. Proof of beneficial use - DHES requires
quarterly monitoring to retain this designation. Need soil samples, application
rate, and characteristics of sludge. This information should have been sent
in response to Jim Lighter's letter of November 1984. Must have by'end of
week or could be a restraining order and formal administration orders to get
things moving on a solution.
C. Nystul indicated the ABF tower still had problems, City had changed
media ($40,000) and it didn't help. Any assurances that what we do next will
work? Answer: Nothing is foolproof.
Permit: Interrim permit limits will be what the plant is capable of
achieving at this point. The final limits on the permit will be those that
the plant is designed for and will include a time factor. This means that
the City will not be in violation continually as the problems are worked out.
ajg