1996-10-21 T 1
Minutes of October 21, 1996, as amended November 19, 1996
THE MATTABASSETT DISTRICT
The monthly meeting of the Board of Directors of The Mattabassett District was
held Monday, October 21, 1996 at the Administration Building, Cromwell,
Connecticut. Present from the Town of Cromwell were Directors Mary Konopka and
Doug Sienna. Present from the Town of Berlin were Directors Livio Dottor, Ed
Gentile, and Horace B. Van Dorn. Present from the City of New Britain were
Directors Dominic Badolato, Sebastian Cannamela, George Rothstein, Robert
Scalise, Dennis Taricani, and John Wright. Also present were William Weber -
District Counsel, John Batorski - Operations Manager, Gary Simpson - Maintenance
Supervisor, and Christian Bratina - Executive Director.
The meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m. by Chairman Dominic Badolato, who
introduced Ed Gentile, the new director from Berlin. A roll call was taken, a
quorum was present.
Chairman Badolato asked if there were any objections to adding a report by our
consultant Kris Vernenkar on the Fluidized Bed Incinerator (FBI) to the agenda and
to allowing members of the public to ask questions. Hearing no objections, Mr.
Vernenkar of Thermal Process was introduced. Mr. Bratina showed slides of some
of the problems that are occurring with the FBI. Mr. Vernenkar explained how the
system, a fluidized thermal oxidizer, works. The process of combustion oxidizes the
sludge material. The five foot deep fluidized bed takes the sludge to combustion at
approximately 1400°F. To complete combustion, a minimum temperature of
approximately 1500°F is needed. The Freeboard is designed for 1600°F but operates
mostly at 1500 to 1550°F. The gases of combustion then pass through the Primary
Heat Exchanger and then to the Secondary Heat Exchanger. The off gases are
cleaned of fine particles and soluble gases with a venturi and impingement tray
scrubber. The Primary Heat Exchanger recovers exhaust heat to lower fuel
consumption. The Secondary Heat Exchanger is utilized to recover heat to reheat
the exhaust flume to eliminate the steam plume and improve dispersion. In the
process of combustion, if the sludge is reasonably dry, about 25% total solids, you
do not need any fuel, which means the process is running by itself. In the past year
we have not had 25% total solids, as a result fuel is needed to burn. When this
happens, the incinerator capacity is reduced because the oxidizer is designed to
evaporate a maximum amount of water per hour. The Primary Heat Exchanger is
protected from over temperature by freeboard quench sprays. As the sludge gets
wetter, more burning takes place in the freeboard, and more freeboard quench water
is required. As this happens the airflow through the Primary Heat Exchanger
increases. It is not known where the Primary Heat Exchanger leaking now. It is
most likely either in the main expansion joint or in the tubes. The manufacturer has
been informed and will pay for the repairs under warrantee.
1
r i
Minutes of October 21, 1996, as amended November 19, 1996
Mrs. Konopka stated that she felt the belt presses need to be investigated because
she sees so much reference in the reports not only to the technical aspects but to the
sludge. Mrs. Konopka suggested getting something to dry the sludge. Mr.
Vernenkar stated the staff has been very good in spotting problems and making
recommendations. Mrs. Konopka asked, if we dry the sludge, operate the incinerator
as Mr. Vernenkar recommends, and replace what needs to be replaced promptly and
efficiently, why should problems reoccur. Mr. Vernenkar replied that as we get the
cake dryer, problems will begin to subside. Mr. Bratina noted that we have planned
on performing trials to see if we can find a belt filter press to provide a dryer cake,
however even when we have a dryer cake it does not mean we are not going to have
erosion and corrosion problems. A dryer cake will show some improvement, but not
substantial. Mr. Taricani asked what caused the clinker. Mr. Vernenkar reported
that a clinker generally forms when you have less than optimal fluidization. Then a
clinker begins to grow which further reduces fluidization. Samples were sent to an
outside lab for testing to help determine whether the fusion occurred because of a
low melting point, unburned carbon, or poor fluidization. Mr. Wright noted that
when you have a clinker build up in the bed, you get an uneven burning and this
increases the freeboard temperature. Mr. Van Dorn asked if it would be better to
control the temperature by the addition of more air instead of water. Mr. Vernenkar
responded that it would take too much air to reduce the temperature. Mr. Wright
asked if moisture from the windbox helps form the clinkers. Mr. Vernenkar reported
that there needs to be sand with a very wide particle size distribution. When grit is
added, we can end up with too much sand with a large particle size causing poorer
fluidization and clinker formation. Mr. Wright asked if this could cause damage to
the Heat Exchanger. Mr. Vernenkar reported that this would not cause damage to
the Heat Exchanger, the temperature before the Primary Heat Exchanger is
monitored and is less than the maximum. The FBI will be shut down for two to
three weeks to do all of the repair work.
Mr. Vernenkar reviewed the problems, noting that the normal refractory life is about
seven years before it all has to be replaced if the unit is operated 8-16 hours per day,
5 days per week. He has never seen it last longer than 20 years. This one has been
operated for the last six years 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Mr. Vernenkar
stated that we should get another one to two years of life before replacing it. If the
refractory is not installed well with a lot of mortar, you can have exhaust gases
reaching the steel shell causing corrosion problems. In recent installations he has
had castable poured between the refractory and steel to reduce gas penetration. In
the bed and roof areas we have castable and there is no sign of corrosion. Mrs.
Konopka asked if we don't have corrosion. Mr. Vernenkar stated that we have not
seen corrosion in these areas. In the blowers we have corrosion because of the gases
from the Belt Filter Presses. The Primary Heat Exchanger has a leak and the
Secondary Heat Exchanger needs to have at least five tubes replaced. We are
reviewing a quotation from Swemco for the venturi replacement. At two plants in
Canada which operate continuously, they have two venturi throats, one in service
and one standby, and one standby incinerator. Mr. Van Dorn clarified that the
2
L �
Minutes of October 21, 1996, as amended November 19, 1996
venturi doesn't hold up due to the high velocity induced erosion. Mr. Wright asked
if the venturi was made out of chrome-moly. Mr. Vernenkar reported that it was
made out of 304 stainless steel with silica carbide wear plates. Mr. Rothstein noted
that Mr. Vernenkar used the term standby, and stated that we should have a standby
incinerator. Mr. Wright noted that you could run two incinerators at the same time
at a lower capacity. Mr. Dottor asked what the cost for a second incinerator would
be. Mr. Vernenkar reported that the approximate cost for a second incinerator would
be $7 to $7.5 million dollars installed. Mr. Bratina asked if our unit is wearing out
faster than others. Mr. Vernenkar responded no, that industrial and some Canadian
plants that run at 100% capacity spend 7% per year of the capital cost on
maintenance. This amounts to approximately $250,000 per year. Mr. Wright asked
if a centrifuge produces a dryer cake than a belt filter press, and increased volume.
Mr. Vernenkar reported that centrifuges can produce a dryer cake, but for the same
volume they are more expensive. A benefit of dryer cake is that you don't have to
have as efficient a heat exchanger. Mr. Bratina asked if he had any concerns about
the emissions with the current conditions. Mr. Vernenkar reported that he did not as
long as we have at least 4% oxygen. Mr. Scalise asked if he recommends that we
get a backup venturi scrubber. Mr. Vernenkar did not recommend it, but noted that
there is a benefit.
Chairman Badolato invited questions from the public. Richard Becker of Cromwell,
asked if this problem is due to our using too much oil and that this decreases the
capacity. Mr. Vernenkar replied that if you reduce the amount of oil that you burn,
you could burn more. Mr. Becker asked whether the solids should be at 24% instead
of 22% and whether the District measures the temperatures. Mr. Vernenkar replied
that the solids are measured daily and the temperatures are measured continuously.
Mr. Becker commented that the District should have someone on a full time basis to
watch the process. There is a concern in Cromwell about the second incinerator, as
to whether it is to act as a backup, generate more profit, or a combination of both.
The plant has been operating on one incinerator since it was opened. Service to the
community should be the primary concern, profit a secondary concern. Chairman
Badolato responded that he had not heard any discussion of profit for the need for
the second incinerator but more a concern for a more continuous and effective
operation. Profit is not a primary motive when discussing a secondary incinerator.
Mr. Becker asked if the sludge brought in would increase significantly. Chairman
Badolato respond that there has been no discussion of this, only general discussion
of the need. When the time comes, this will be a consideration. Chairman Badolato
reported that we have advertised for a Staff Engineer and the Personnel Committee
is reviewing our staffing needs. Mr. Becker stated that if the District said it wants a
second incinerator for the smoothness and continuance of operation and not to
increase significantly the amount of sludge coming in, it would allay a lot of fears.
Chairman Badolato expressed that the people from Cromwell over the last couple of
years should recognize that everything that is possible has been done here to
eliminate the odors, we may never completely eliminate them, but at least reduce
them to the minimum. This Board is sensitive to what Cromwell is going through.
3
Minutes of October 21, 1996, as amended November 19, 1996
Mr. Becker stated that the District has significantly reduced the odor problem, that
over the last several years the District has done a fine job.
Tony Scierka of Cromwell asked if the plant is running harder than it probably
should. Mr. Vernenkar reported that when the sludge gets wetter, it is. Mr. Scierka
asked if this is from the sludge and where it is coming from. Mr. Bratina responded
the sludge is coming from all over, the problem is not so much the volume, we cut
back our production as we need to. The problem with incinerators is that there are a
lot of reoccurring maintenance problems, components fail and have to be replaced.
As far as the odors, they are not from the incinerator, most often they are from the
Wet Packed Tower Scrubber. We have had a number of problems with the nozzle
plugging and we have not had a good way of finding out when that happens. We are
testing new analyzers now to monitor it now. Mr. Scierka stated that his concern
was how much sludge is coming from outside our service area and whether it is
costing us more to handle this sludge. Mr. Van Dorn pointed out that the plant had
operated for twenty years without to much of an odor problem when it used the
chemical coagulant system and the federal government required that we use the
biological process. Mr. Scierka stated that his issue is his family's health as well as
the odor. Chairman Badolato replied that it is clear we are taking in more sludge
from other communities, however we have a four million dollar budget and we have
an income as a result of the sludge of two million dollars. If we don't bring in the
sludge and raise two million dollars and reduce our budget by half, we are going to
hear the communities say that the rates are too high. The communities don't see that
we are only assessing them for two million dollars and not four million dollars.
Bringing sludge in from other communities allows us to save the communities a
great deal of money. We will be setting up a committee to review the entire sludge
management program including sludge testing and transportation. Mr. Scierka asked
when we will address the safety issues. Mr. Bratina reported that we do have safety
control, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Air Compliance
issues a permit for the incinerator and we have to meet that permit. The Federal
Environmental Protection Agency has a set of regulations which we have to meet.
We test for the parameters in the sludge, more frequently than required, as well as
stack testing. We are meeting all of those requirements. The sludge is tested as it is
going into the incinerator, and we also test the sludge that is coming in, and there is
no significant difference. The tests show that the sludge coming is extremely
consistent. Mr. Scierka asked if there was any sludge processed in the past two
years that did not meet DEP requirements. Mr. Bratina reported that all the sludge
entering the incinerator has met DEP and EPA requirements, the only area where we
have had a problem has been in he sulfur oxides/sulfuric acid emissions. We
installed a sodium hydroxide addition system and a new mist eliminator to correct
this. Mr. Scierka commented that on the stack there were sulfur deposits. Mr.
Bratina reported that there is sulfur in the sludge as well as in food, sulfur per se is
not a problem. There is a limit for sulfur which we meet. Mr. Scierka asked if there
is anything that detects it. Mr. Bratina reported that there are sulfur dioxide
analyzers which we are investigating purchasing. Mr. Scierka asked if there is any
4
Minutes of October 21, 1996, as amended November 19, 1996
other technology to provide a wider spectrum of analysis of sludge on site. Mr.
Bratina reported that he was not aware of anything which is continuous, that the
most important thing in the fluidized bed incinerator is monitoring the oxygen. The
oxygen is monitored continuously and as long as the oxygen is above 2% you have
complete combustion and you are not going to have emissions problems. If we take
a look at the metals emissions, most are within 0.01% to 1% of the limit. So even if
we had a 100 fold excursion, we would still be within our permit. If we take a look
at the pollution: the sulfur dioxide, sulfuric acid, nitrous oxides, etc. and compare it
with Route 9 we find that Route 9 is the larger source. For a lot of the parameters of
concern, the incinerator is comparable to a couple of diesel trucks. Mr. Scierka
asked if the stack testing is continuous. Mr. Bratina reported that the stack testing
is performed roughly every five years, the last complete test was in 1993. Mr.
Scierka questioned whether for three years we know what is coming out of the stack.
Mr. Bratina reported that EPA performed an extensive study of incinerators, and
what they determined is that the best way of monitoring what is coming out is to
determine what is going into it. EPA established a list of heavy metals to be
monitored on the sludge going in. Based on the stack tests, we know what the
percent removal is and as long as the concentration of the sludge going in is below
an established number we know what is coming out is within the regulations. Mr.
Scierka asked if the sludge tested is sent out to an independent lab. Mr. Bratina
reported that some sludge testing is sent to outside laboratories. Mr. Scierka asked
how many loads come in on a daily basis. Mr. Bratina replied approximately ten
loads per day. Mr. Scierka asked how many samples are collected. Mr. Bratina
reported that a sample is taken from every load and the laboratory does a visual
inspection and a certain percentage will be tested. Mr. Scierka asked what
percentage is tested. Mr. Bratina reported that he did not know exactly, we do not
test every sample nor do we test every gallon of sewage coming into the plant. What
we do, as any business does, is test a statistically significant number. A couple of
per cent is significant when there is a minor variation in the sludge and the
concentration is well below the permit. Mr. Bratina stated that he will prepare a
report on the testing program. Mr. Scierka stated that he felt there was not enough
testing.
Brien Robertson from Cromwell asked Mr. Bratina how much the stack test
completed in 1993 cost. Mr. Bratina reported that a complete test costs about
$55,000 and an abbreviated test costs about $35,000. Mr. Robertson asked if we
should go five years between these tests. Mr. Bratina reported that that is DEP's
opinion. Mr. Robertson asked Mr. Bratina to clarify his position on the belt filter
press. Mr. Bratina reported that most belt filter presses provide cake solids in the
range of 22 to 23% total solids, whereas we ran at 25% for two years which is
extremely high for a belt filter press. We are now operating closer to "normal"
which may be due to the other sludges as well as our activated sludge system. We
will be looking at several newer presses to see if they can improve the cake solids.
We also want to modify our aeration system to see if that can improve the
dewaterability of the sludge. We intend to work on this over the next 6-12 months,
5
Minutes of October 21, 1996, as amended November 19, 1996
it can take several months just to set up the tests. The incinerator problems that we
have are not due to the belt filter press, the lower cake solids only lowers our
capacity. Mr. Robertson commented that it was described as a lose-lose situation if
the District does or does not take in sludge, however to the Town of Cromwell it is
the bigger loser. He stated that the town does not want to be the regional sludge
disposal site, the second incinerator would be one thing but he would want
guarantees that the District would not then ask for a third. Chairman Badolato
thanked the public for their presence and comments, and stated that their comments
and interests are being considered.
Minutes September 9, 1996
Mrs. Konopka noted a correction on page five, the last sentence of the second
paragraph needs to have "the" struck where it says ". . . more sludge so that the a
certain capacity . . ." Mr. Weber pointed out on page ten, under Counsel Report,
that the third line which reads ". . . legal description drafted, viewed . . ." should be
". . . legal description drafted, reviewed . . .". The corrections will be made.
Mr. Scalise moved, seconded by Mr. Sienna, and the following was unanimously
adopted:
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the September 9, 1996 meeting be accepted
as corrected.
Treasurer's Report
Mr. Bratina reviewed the Cash Flow Graph, our expenditures are slightly above last
years and the revenue is ahead of last year. We expect to remain within the budget.
We have received all of the assessments from our constituent and contractual
members. Sludge management is ahead of forecast. The Miscellaneous Income is
ahead of what we had budgeted, due to the load shedding program we entered into
with Northeast Utilities. Mr. Van Dorn questioned whether the interest of $8,600 is
low. Mr. Bratina replied that the interest is accrued when the investment matures.
Mr. Van Dorn commented that interest on the bonds is paid twice a year.
Mr. Dottor moved, seconded by Mr. Gentile, and the following was unanimously
adopted:
RESOLVED: That the Treasurer's Report dated September 4, 1996 to October
16, 1996 be accepted and placed on file for audit.
Budget Statement
Mr. Bratina reported that we have corrected the Budget Statement to remove the
items received in Fiscal Year 1996. The only items that are high are
217-Hypochlorite due to higher usage in the summer, and Vehicle Repairs which are
6
Minutes of October 21, 1996, as amended November 19, 1996
a periodic item. Overall we have spent 17% of our budget and we are 25% through
the year.
Mr. Van Dorn asked if there are any outstanding bills for Cardinal Engineering. Mr.
Bratina reported that they are generally a month behind on their billing and he had
just received a bill today. Mrs. Konopka stated that Mr. Vernenkar had mentioned
that he had an outstanding 1993 bill. Mr. Bratina reported that there had been a
disputed billing from Mr. Vernenkar, which he thought had been resolved. Mr.
Vernenkar was asked to resubmit any bill he thought had not been paid so that it can
be straightened out. Mrs. Konopka asked which account the outside testing is
charged to. Mr. Bratina reported that the outside sludge testing is listed under
208-Lab Supplies.
Mr. Scalise moved, seconded by Mrs. Konopka, and the following was unanimously
adopted:
RESOLVED: That the Budget Statement be approved.
Bills To Be Authorized For Payment
The bills for payment were reviewed. Mr. Scalise asked what the metal detector was
used for. Mr. Bratina reported that an observation well along Route 9 at the Ash
Disposal Site in Berlin had been paved over and we tried unsuccessfully to locate it.
Mrs. Konopka questioned the ash lagoons for $15,000. Mr. Bratina reported that the
two ash lagoons on site are for the incinerator fly ash. They fill up every one to two
years. Mrs. Konopka asked if the DEP cares where the ash comes from. Mr. Bratina
reported that the District has a permit which limits the ash taken to the Ash Disposal
Site to that created by our incinerator on site. It does not restrict what sludge we
can burn on site.
Mr. Dottor moved, seconded by Mr. Gentile, and the following was adopted
unanimously with Mr. Cannamela absent:
RESOLVED: That the Operating Fund bills in the amount of $330,479.71 be
approved; That Construction Fund bills in the amount of $0.00 be approved;
That the Capital Non-Recurring Fund bills in the amount of $20,311.98 be
approved; and that Payroll in the amount of $155,318.91 for the period
August 31, through October 12, 1996 be approved.
Staff Reports
Mr. Bratina reported we received repayment of $2.3 million from EPA for our
secondary expansion project. We expect to receive another $48,000 from EPA by
the end of the year. EPA will audit the account. Once the audit is completed, DEP
will pay us approximately $450,000 for their remaining repayment. We expect that
to be completed in early 1997.
7
Minutes of October 21, 1996, as amended November 19, 1996
Mr. Bratina reported that the plant effluent quality was poor during September, we
did have an excessive amount of filamentous bacteria. A certain amount is very
positive, however when there is too much the sludge does not settle or dewater well.
Mr. Van Dorn asked if this is something we can predict and prevent. Mr. Bratina
reported that there is a variety of biological species in the activated sludge and the
distribution is always shifting. It is difficult to control the distribution. We have
recently changed the configuration of one tank from a complete mix to a plug flow,
however it is not a good plug flow. We may see some, but not much improvement.
We have also been studying anoxic and anaerobic selectors, where we reduce the
oxygen in a portion of the aeration tank so there is no free oxygen. This would
require a physical modification to the tank but would substantially reduce the
excessive filamentous bacteria and improve the sludge dewaterability.
Mr. Van Dorn asked about the plan to duct the air from the filter press hoods. Mr.
Bratina reported that the odorous belt filter press air is ducted to the FBI. We want
to improve our odor control from the belt filter presses and reduce the corrosion in
our incinerator. We have found corrosion in our FBI blowers from the air coming
from the belt filter presses. We may also be getting some corrosive air from Sludge
Storage Tanks to the FBI due to a leaking valve. We also do not have a back up for
our Wet Packed Tower Scrubber, so if we have a problem with its pump or have to
clean it we do not have any way of positively controlling the odors from the Sludge
Storage tank. Since we need to build an odor treatment system for the belt filter
presses, we would like to pipe that in with the duct that comes to the Wet Packed
Tower Scrubber to act as a backup. Mr. Van Dorn suggested that when the
incineration of the belt filter press odors was planned, we all thought that was the
best way and maybe that was a bad decision. Mr. Bratina noted that at the time we
all had concerns about the corrosive nature of the odorous air but unfortunately there
was no data from other facilities to determine the affects. Mr. Van Dorn suggested
that perhaps we should duct this odor to another biofilter. Mr. Bratina reported that
we have considered it but the area requirement is sizable and we still are having
problems with the biofilters. Our efforts optimizing the Wet Packed Tower Scrubber
gives us more confidence in that technology. We have noticed that the air flow has
been dropping in the biofilters so we have to take a look at those to make sure they
are working properly.
Mr. Bratina reported that we did not have any odor complaints in September but we
have had five so far in October. Several occurred on October 1st when the FBI was
down and we were trucking filter cake off site. We were filling the truck with filter
cake sludge, which is odorous and this may have caused the complaints. We were
adding hydrogen peroxide to the sludge going to the belt presses to reduce the odors
at the truck site and as soon as Mr. Batorski received the complaint he increased the
dosage. We also had a problem with our Wet Packed Tower Scrubber when the
hypochlorite pump tripped out when we got a surge of hydrogen sulfide. At certain
times, we have to monitor the wet scrubber more. Mr. Batorski is also testing some
hydrogen sulfide analyzers before and after the Wet Packed Tower Scrubber which
8
a
Minutes of October 21, 1996, as amended November 19, 1996
should help us control it. Mrs. Konopka asked if we would be sending more sludge
out in future shutdowns. Mr. Bratina reported that we would, whenever we get
backed up with sludge it becomes that much harder to catch up. If it is old sludge,
we get a lower cake solids which reduces our FBI capacity. We also received some
odor complaints on October 7th of a broccoli type of odor and that is a mercaptan, a
specific type of a sulfur odor. Various types of mercaptans are often found in
sludges and it is very difficult to know why the odor changes. Mr. Batorski did find
that we had one nozzle on our Wet Packed Tower Scrubber partially plugged, which
may have allowed the odor to escape. At the WEF Conference, Mr. Bratina reported
that he had spoken to a manufacturer about a catalyst to place on the recycle line of
the wet scrubber that reportedly will substantially reduce those mercaptan type
odors. We will be setting up a test of the unit. Mrs. Konopka asked when this
would be done. Mr. Bratina reported that he has to get in touch with the
manufacturer and arrange the test and that this should be done this winter.
Mr. Bratina reported that we brought Mr. Vernenkar in September 10th when we
realized the fuel consumption was higher than normal. He could not determine why
there was a problem. When we found the Secondary Heat Exchanger was leaking,
we took the FBI out of service to inspect it and found holes in five of the Secondary
Heat Exchanger tubes and a clinker inside the Reactor. After we restarted we found
a leak in the Primary Heat Exchanger. The Primary Heat Exchanger leak explains
the clinker and the high fuel consumption. Inspecting the brick inside the reactor,
we should plan on replacing it next year and place an insulating castable between
the brick and the steel at an estimated cost of approximately $80,000 to $100,000.
We did find cracking in the inlet of the Primary Heat Exchanger which could well be
the source of our leak. American Shack believes it is more likely coming from the
inlet than the expansion joint. Mr. Bratina reported that we should buy a spare
expansion joint for the Primary Heat Exchanger in case we need it. We don't know
the cost, a rough estimate is $7,500. At first we thought we could most cost
effectively replace the Secondary Heat Exchanger. Since then Caldon Refractories
found a better tool to remove the tubes, lowering their estimate of the repair cost so
that we now feel the best option is to repair it. We have had problems with
excessive wear in the venturi tailpiece. We are reviewing drawings for a
replacement unit. We also received a new mist illuminator and installed most of it.
We had one section that was too tight to install so we will finish the installation
with our next shutdown. Once completed we will perform some more sulfuric acid
emission tests to confirm its effectiveness. When we started back up we drew
foam/sludge from the Sludge Storage Tank and found the valve which isolates the
FBI air supply from the Sludge Storage foul air duct is leaking. We would like to
isolate the valve but it does provide us with a back up odor control for the Wet
Packed Tower Scrubber. At this time we plan to wait until we install a new Belt
Filter Press odor control system.
Mr. Bratina reported that he had discussions with DEP Water Compliance the need
for future denitrification. DEP is studying the Long Island Sound eutrification and
9
Minutes of October 21, 1996, as amended November 19, 1996
their opinion is that we will likely be required to denitrify within the next five
years. Mr. Van Dorn asked what this means in terms of equipment or tank
expansion. Mr. Bratina reported that it is going to require expansion of the aeration
requirements. At this time we are only using two of the four aeration tanks. If the
denitrification requirement for Total Nitrogen is around 10 mg/1, we may be able to
reach the requirements with our existing tankage after reconfiguring them. If the
Total Nitrogen limit is low, it may require the addition of two to four more tanks.
At this point we have no way of estimating the costs until we know what the effluent
requirements will be. Mrs. Konopka asked if this would affect bringing in
Middletown. Mr. Bratina reported that increasing the flow capacity affects our
Secondary Clarifiers more than the aeration tanks. However as part of the
regionalization study, the potential denitrification needs will have to be reviewed.
There is space for additional aeration tankage.
Mr. Bratina reported that Anchor Electric has basically completed the lighting
retrofit. There is a minor punch list. We expect it to be completed by next month.
Mr. Van Dorn asked if we have paid them anything. Mr. Bratina reported that we
have made monthly payments based on the work completed, holding back 5%
retainage.
Mr. Bratina reported that we did find problems with our Sludge Storage Blower and
trucked it to Vermont for repair after getting permission from the Chairman for out
of state travel. Our preventive maintenance backlog has increased from 346 hours to
392 hours. One of our mechanics was unable to return to work due to a medical
problem, and today we just hired his replacement. We should be catching up soon.
Mr. Bratina noted on the laboratory report that we have one observation well we
could not locate at the Ash Disposal Site. It was covered when Route 9 was
repaved. Mr. Bratina will be discuss with DEP whether we need to replace the well.
The lab tested 29 liquid wastestreams for toxicity. One wastestream, FBI Brewster,
indicated some toxicity so we advised them that we will no longer receive that
material. The 16 sludge we tested did not show any signs of toxicity. Mrs.
Konopka asked how many truck loads per day are received. Mr. Bratina replied that
there are roughly ten a day or approximately three hundred per month. Mrs.
Konopka asked how many sludges were tested. Mr. Bratina replied that roughly one
hundred samples were tested for pH, solids, and volatiles, or approximately 30%.
One of the most important checks is the visual and smell test the lab does of each
sample, if a sample appears unusual we then perform additional tests. Mr. Van Dorn
noted that we do reject sources when there is an indication of toxicity. Mrs.
Konopka stated that after two days of odors and the problems with the incinerator
she invited people to attend the Board meeting, and she appreciated the Directors
listening to their concerns.
Mr. Van Dorn moved, seconded by Mr. Scalise, and the following was unanimously
adopted:
10
Minutes of October 21, 1996, as amended November 19, 1996
RESOLVED: That the Staff Reports be accepted as reported.
Finance Committee
Mr. Bratina reported that the Finance Committee met on October 1st to discuss the
repayment of $2.3 million from EPA. We are expecting two additional repayments.
The committee considered whether we should return the monies to the towns and/or
transfer it to the Capital Nonrecurring Fund. After considering all of the options,
the committee concluded that the monies should be left in the Construction Fund
until the audit is completed, and hopefully next year when all of the funds have been
received we can handle it all together. Mr. Van Dorn noted that the Operating Fund
loaned money to the Construction Fund at one point and the $600,000 should be
returned. Mr. Bratina reported that the auditor is just completing their report, we
are waiting for their accounting of what that fund transfer should be, and we should
receive the audit within a month.
Mr. Dottor moved, seconded by Mrs. Konopka, and the following was unanimously
adopted:
RESOLVED: To accept the Finance Committees report and recommendation.
Engineering Committee
Mr. Scalise reported that the Engineering Committee met and reviewed the request
for a License Agreement by TCI Cablevision to construct a concrete encased, PVC
duct bank for fiberoptic cable across our trunk sewer on White Oak Drive in Berlin.
Cardinal Engineering has reviewed the design and recommended $100,000 bond.
Based upon our recent history we would set an initial annual fee of $351. Chairman
Badolato asked Counsel Weber if he had put together this license agreement.
Counsel Weber advised that he had not but he had reviewed it and there is a small
change page 5 section 12. The definition ". . . the new license year fee . . ." should
read, ". . . the new license year . . ." Chairman Badolato asked if it meets the
District's standard for the amount of the annual fee. Mr. Bratina reported that he
calculated the rate based on an impacted length of 175 feet at the rate of $200 per
year plus $0.75 per foot. Counsel Weber developed the master license agreement,
we revised it for this application, and we will send it to Counsel Weber for a final
review prior to signing. Chairman Badolato asked if the Board has approved the
formula. Mr. Bratina reported that the Board has not. Mr. Taricani noted that he
had suggested we make some kind of consistent formula or criteria. Mr. Bratina
reported that he understood the Board did not want to establish a strict formula in
case an unusual situation occurred. This formula was discussed and used for the last
license agreement but has not been approved. Chairman Badolato asked if we were
going to base the fee on the usage or the value of the usage. Mr. Bratina reported
that he had discussed this with Cardinal Engineering and was advised that it can be
expensive to determine the construction value of the improvements over the
right-of-way and this was brought to the Engineering Committee. Chairman
11
•
Minutes of October 21, 1996, as amended November 19, 1996
Badolato suggested that if there is value to it we should get some value in return.
Mr. Cannamela asked what we charged Wal-Mart. Mr. Bratina reported $1,000 per
year and that with the TCI agreement we made the annual license fee indexed for
inflation. Chairman Badolato noted that we do not want to hold them up but that we
want a reasonable fee.
Mrs. Konopka moved, seconded by Mr. Sienna, the following motion:
MOTION: That the Executive Director be hereby authorized to enter into a
license agreement with TCI Cablevision for a planned activity within the
Trunk Sewer Easement on property located in the Town of Berlin as per
drawing by Diversified Technologies Corporation titled Plan Showing Cable
Installation White Oak Drive - Berlin, Conn. dated 9/96 with an annual fee of
$331 and a performance bond of $100,000 following review of the License
Agreement by Counsel Bill Weber.
Mr. Taricani stated that he felt there should be a standard, set formula. Mr. Bratina
reported that the Engineering Committee had discussed the options and decided to
use this formula, we can change the formula but a decision will need to be made.
Mr. Scalise reported that he thought the Engineering Committee adopted that
formula without bringing the formula to the Board for approval. This does not mean
that we always have to use it. Chairman Badolato asked if we could approve the
request subject to negotiation of the fee. Mr. Van Dorn stated that he thought we
should use a set rate per foot. Mr. Gentile expressed that the value changes like real
estate values. Chairman Badolato stated that we should set up a formal formula,
until recently we were giving it away for $200 per year. Counsel Weber noted that
when we took the land we paid for it based on the difference of the value of the land
before our easement and the value of the land after our easement. Mrs. Konopka
suggested that maybe the Finance Committee should discuss this issue.
Mr. Taricani moved, seconded by Mrs. Konopka, and the following amendment was
unanimously adopted:
RESOLVED: To amend the motion with the stipulation that the annual fee
will be negotiated by the Finance Committee and the Chairman of the Board.
The following motion as amended was unanimously adopted:
RESOLVED: That the Executive Director be hereby authorized to enter into a
license agreement with TCI Cablevision for a planned activity within the
Trunk Sewer Easement on property located in the Town of Berlin as per
drawing by Diversified Technologies Corporation titled Plan Showing Cable
Installation White Oak Drive - Berlin, Conn. dated 9/96 with a performance
bond of $100,000 and with the annual fee negotiated by the Finance
Committee and the Chairman of the Board and following review of the
License Agreement by Counsel Bill Weber
12
Minutes of October 21, 1996, as amended November 19, 1996
Mr. Taricani moved, seconded by Mrs. Konopka, and the following was unanimously
adopted:
RESOLVED: To charge the Finance Committee and the Chairman of the
Board to come up with a formula for the license agreement annual fee and
report to the Board at the December meeting.
Mr. Scalise reported that the Engineering Committee reviewed the bids to replace
the aeration tank headers. The lowest bid was from R.H. Wright Construction for
$36,169. The Executive Director felt confident that the bid was not an error, that
they could complete the construction for that price. Mr. Rothstein asked if there
was a bid and performance bond. Mr. Bratina reported that there was a performance
bond but not a bid bond.
Mr. Scalise moved, seconded by Mr. Van Dorn, and the following was unanimously
adopted:
RESOLVED: That the Executive Director be authorized to enter into a
contract with R.H. White Construction for Replacement of 18" Diameter Air
Piping at the bid price of $36,169.00, using funds drawn from the Capital
Non-Recurring Account.
Mr. Scalise reported that we looked at the replacement of the Sludge Storage
grinders. Mr. Bratina noted that we invited several manufacturers to bring in
demonstration models and only two did. One, Muffin Master, which we have used
for other purposes here brought in a model that was not fully satisfactory. They
brought in another model which was better and slightly cheaper, but we are
recommending the Robbins & Meyers because we think it is going to have a lower
overall cost when we include the maintenance. The existing units cost
approximately $28,800 per year to operate. For the Muffin Monster we estimated a
power cost of $2,000 per year and repair costs of $5,300, totaling $7,400. For the
Robbins & Meyers Pipeliner we estimated the power cost of $4,200 and repair costs
of $2,900, totaling $7,100. The installed cost for the Muffin Monster was only
$31,696 versus $33,720 for the Pipeliner. The District share, what we would
actually pay, for the Muffin Monster would be $19,018 and for the Pipeliner
$20,232. That difference is not significant. Maintenance Supervisor Gary Simpson
noted that the Muffin Monster has four mechanical seals and three were leaking
during the demonstration. Whereas we have used the Pipeliner for years and have a
better track record with it and it provides a better ground sludge.
Mr. Scalise moved, seconded by Mr. Van Dorn, and the following was unanimously
adopted:
13
. i
Minutes of October 21, 1996, as amended November 19, 1996
RESOLVED: That the Executive Director be authorized to enter into a
contract with Wescor Assocs. for two Robbins & Meyers Model P415G100A
Pipeliners and one quick change cartridge assembly at a total cost of $31,600,
using funds drawn from the Capital Non-Recurring Account.
Chairman Badolato noted that there are three items which need to be added to the
agenda for action. Mr. Bratina reported that the most cost effective repair of the
Secondary Heat Exchanger was to purchase the tubes and inserts from American
Schack at a cost of $5,950 and to contract with Caldon Refractories for the labor to
remove, install the tubes, and reinstall the unit on a time and material basis at a cost
not to exceed $30,000. During the repair shutdown we will need to haul sludge
offsite to MDC at a disposal cost of $210 per dry ton or to NETCO/Waterbury at a
cost of $49 per wet ton which is the equivalent of $213 per dry ton at 23% total
solids. Mrs. Konopka asked how much sludge we would haul. Mr. Bratina noted
that we do not have a limit, that it will depend on how long we are down, our
estimate is approximately $30,000. Mr. Bratina reported that when the Engineering
Committee reviewed it, the repair costs were higher than for a new unit, but that
Caldon found a way of reducing the repair costs.
Mr. Dottor moved, seconded by Mr. Scalise, and the following was unanimously
adopted:
RESOLVED: To add to the agenda the following items: purchase of tubes
and inserts from American Shack to repair the Secondary HEX, a contract for
repair of the Secondary Heat Exchanger, and hauling of sludge off-site.
Mrs. Konopka asked how long the work would take. Mr. Bratina reported that our
estimate is nine days, but we don't know where the leak is in the Primary Heat
Exchanger. The projected total cost to make the repairs, with sludge disposal, is
$56,000.
Mr. Scalise moved, seconded by Mr. Rothstein, and the following was unanimously
adopted:
RESOLVED: That the Executive Director be authorized to purchase tubes
and inserts from American Schack for repairs to the Secondary Heat
Exchanger at a cost of $5,950. That the Executive Director be authorized to
enter into an agreement with Caldon Refractories for repairs to the Secondary
Heat Exchanger on a time and material basis at a cost not to exceed $30,000.
That the Executive Director be authorized to haul sludge on an as needed
basis to the Metropolitan District Commission at a disposal cost of $210.00
per dry ton and/or to NETCO/Waterbury at a disposal cost of $49.00 per wet
ton.
14
4 a
Minutes of October 21, 1996, as amended November 19, 1996
Mr. Bratina reported that the Mattabassett Regionalization study advisory panel
came up with a short list of engineering firms to interview this week. Old Saybrook
has expressed an interest in hauling septage by rail for disposal at the District.
Personnel Committee
Mrs. Konopka noted that there was no report. Mr. Van Dorn noted that Personnel
Committee has several things to look into: the employment contract with the
Executive Director that has been hanging since December, the search for a Staff
Engineer, and considering an executive secretary, business manager, or
superintendent to help out the Executive Director.
Real Estate & Insurance Committee
No Report
Safety. Energy & Publicity
Mr. Batorski reported that there was one minor accident with a wire brush, a door
was repaired in the primary tunnel, the lighting retrofit is about 99% complete, and
we are investigating new sludge storage recirculation pumps.
Mr. Scalise moved, seconded by Mrs. Konopka, and the following was unanimously
adopted:
RESOLVED: That the Safety, Energy & Publicity Report be accepted as
presented.
Counsel's Report
Counsel Weber reported he drafted a cost of living provision for the Middletown
sludge agreement, reviewed and commented on the Wal-Mart draft letter-of-credit,
and reviewed the letter of credit that has been revised. The letter of credit that was
submitted was not in accordance with what we required in our agreement. Counsel
Weber reviewed the state statutes regarding motor vehicle exemptions, we are
exempt. Counsel Weber reviewed the Charter, the By-Laws, State Statutes, and
Case Law regarding the delegation of authority to the Chairman for the appointment
of committees. The Board cannot delegate legislative authority, however, there are
a number of cases that say they can delegate powers that are administrative or
executive in nature. Counsel Weber reviewed the minutes for the past eighteen
months to update the Board Policy book and revised the index to reflect the update.
Counsel Weber reviewed the Special Acts and the Freedom of Information laws to
determine whether a secret ballot is an appropriate election procedure. The Freedom
of Information act says that for every vote that the Board takes, you should be able
to determine who voted which way. In looking at the FOI rules and our Charter, a
ballot isn't necessarily secret. There is no reason everyone can not sign their name
on their ballot for the purposes of Freedom of Information. There is no conflict, we
15
•
Minutes of October 21, 1996, as amended November 19, 1996
can comply both with out Charter and the Freedom of Information laws. Mr.
Cannamela asked if we have to keep the ballots. Counsel Weber reported that we
do. Chairman Badolato asked that Counsel Weber provide a written opinion.
Mr. Gentile moved, seconded by Mr. Van Dorn, and the following was unanimously
adopted:
RESOLVED: That the Counsel's Report be accepted as presented.
Mr. Cannamela asked if we had a second incinerator. Mr. Bratina reported we have
a second incinerator, the Multiple Hearth Furnace, but it does not meet the EPA or
DEP emissions criteria. It has a permit and we could operate it, but DEP would
probably issue an order to shut it down and since it does not meet the EPA criteria
so we could be fined by EPA. Mr. Cannamela asked what it would cost to make it
meet the standards. Mr. Bratina reported that New Haven has recently completed
modifications of their old Multiple Hearth Furnace at a cost in excess of $4 million,
and that he is in the process of getting more detailed capital and operating cost data.
Mr. Cannamela asked for a report on the cost of to upgrade the Multiple Hearth
Furnace.
New Business
None
Adjournment
Mr. Scalise moved, seconded by Mr. Van Dorn, and the following was unanimously
adopted:
RESOLVED: That the meeting adjourn. m
The meeting was adjourned at 11 :06 p.m..
c
+Y
N -fit
` zt _, c7
Z:,; C-) --o
The next meeting of the Board of Directors will be Monday, Novembe?:' -199tat
7:30 p.m. at the Administration Building, Cromwell, Connecticut. 7
N
16