5.6. SR 08-05-1996ity of
ITEH 5.6.
MEMORANDUM
River
Mayor & City Council
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Pat Klaers, City Adn~ ~trator
August 5, 1996
WWTP Evaluation
Attached for your review are two very positive reports from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) regarding the compliance of the city
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and the Annual Evaluation and
Planning Survey for the city WWTP. Superintendent Darrell Mack will be
in attendance at this council meeting to discuss both of these reports.
According to the attached information, the city is in compliance with all
MPCA requirements. One issue noted in the survey report relates to the
availability of sludge storage land and I am sure that Darrell will discuss this
issue with the council.
A couple of years ago, the city had concerns with the MPCA report and the
city's compliance to state regulations. As the council may recall, at that time
the plant was undergoing an interim expansion project. This expansion
project was Phase I of the overall plant improvement project that is currently
taking place. After having troubles a few years ago with broken equipment,
which was normal considering the life of the plant, it is nice to be back in
compliance with all MPCA requirements.
Per request of the MPCA, after reviewing these documents it is appropriate
for the City Council to formally accept the 1996 Evaluation and Planning
Survey.
13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425
,Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
July 8, 1996
Mr. Darrell Mack
Wastewater Superintendent, City of Elk River
City Hall, 13065 Orono Parkway
Box 490
Elk River, Minnesota 55330
RE: 1996 Annual Evaluation and Planning System
Dear Mr. Mack:
Thank you for participating in the 1996 Annual Evaluation and Planning System (AEPS) process. We
have completed our review of your evaluation and enclosed is a report based on your responses. In
addition, for all municipalities which discharge to a surface water, a summary of some of your daily
monitoring report data for calendar year 1995 is also enclosed.
We recommend the report be discussed at an upcoming municipal council/board meeting. In some cases,
items identified in the report may require immediate attention. Comparing the data from all of the
evaluations may help identify areas of concern for your wastewater system. After the meeting, the
mayor/municipal chair should certify that the municipality has discussed the report, and submit this
certification to the MPCA. If possible, this should be done within 30 days of your receipt of the report.
The certification can be in the form of a letter signed by the mayor/chair.
Many municipalities are using the AEPS as a planning tool for their wastewater system. Review of the
report provides a great opportunity for municipal councils/boards to learn about their investment in
pollution preventio, n. Take this opportunity to encourage them to visit your facility and see it in action.
We hope the report information will prove useful in planning for the future of wastewater treatment in your
municipality. If you need any assistance or have any questions regarding the AEPS process, would like
assistance in implementing suggestions from the report, or would like a copy of the summary report, please
feel free to contact me at (612)296-8766 or 1-800-657-3864.
Sincerely,
Deb Lindlief
Training and Information Management Unit
Point Source Compliance Section
Water Quality Division
DL:jae
Enclosures
cc: Municipal Official
520 Lafayette Rd. N.; St. Paul, MN 55155-4194; (612) 296-6300 (voice); (612) 282-5332 (TTY)
Regional Offices: Duluth · Brainerd · Detroit Lakes · Marshall · Rochester
Equal Opporlunity Employer · Printed on recycled paper containing at least 10% fibers from paper recycled by consumers.
Permittee: ELK RIVER
Permit No: MN0020788
1995 S~Y DATA
No. of Months No. of Months
Influent Measurement No. of Months Near or Over Over
Parameter Typ~ Reported Design Flow Design Flow
FLOW Ave. Quantity 12 0 0
Effluent
Parameter
Measurement
Pipe # 1
TSS Ave. Concentr
TSS Max. Concentr
TSS Ave. Loading
TSS Max. Loading
CBOD Ave. Concentr
CBOD Max. Concentr
CBOD Ave. Loading
CBOD Max. Loading
No. of Months
w/ Discharges
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
No. of Months
Near or Over
Permit Limits
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Months
Over
Permit
Limits
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Months
Not
Reported
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
>>> MUNICIPALITY: ELK RIVER
This report contains responses to questions you answered in the Annual
Evaluation and Planning Survey. Although you answered all the applicable
questions in the survey, not every answer received a response in this report.
We provided a response only when ananswer indicated that there is an issue
whichmay need resolution.
MPCA staff have assigned a point value to the v~rious questions in this survey,
with the exception of questions in Section 8, Future Needs. Points are given to
responses that indicate that there may be a problem to be addressed. Each
section is worth 100 points. If your system received a score greater than 50 in
any section, you should carefully review the report responses for this section
to determine if your system is operating effectively and efficiently. We hope
this report proves useful both in planning for future wastewater needs and in
resolving current problems. II you nee~.assistance in implementing any of the
suggestions in this report or nave quesmmons concerning the report or survey
process, please feel free to contact the Training & Information Management Unit
of the MPCA at 1-800-657-3864.
>>> SECTION ONE: TREATMENT SYSTEM PHYSICAL CONDITION
Your responses to the questions 2, 4, 7, and/or 12 demonstrate your awareness
that major repairs or replacement are needed in the next five years. As you are
aware, this requires a great deal of planning, including funding, construction,
permit modifications, and choosing of a consultant.
Score for SECZION 1: 33, WHERE 0 IS BEST AND 100 IS THE MAXZVi%4. If your score
is greate--~ t~50, ~f~I~i~-~-S~v~'y6~ filled out and our report
responses for this section to determine if your system is operating efficiently.
>>> SEC~fIONTWO: SYSTEM LOADINGS AND PERFORCE (from your DMR's)
Based on the monthly D.M.R. data you have sutmtitted over the last calendar year,
the following conclusions can be drawn:
.... ~_~pr SECTION 2: 0 WHERE 0 IS BEST AND 100 IS THE MAXIMUM. If your score
ms greater than 50, examine your DMR's for the last calendar year and note if
your system is operating efficiently.
>>> SECTION THREE: COIJ,~CTION SYST~4
Question 27. Review the influent flows into your treatment systemto determine
if infiltration and inflow are a problem and establish a plan for correcting any
problem identified.
Score for SECTION 3: 8, WHERE 0 IS BEST AND 100 IS THE MAXIMUM. If your score
is greater than 50, carefullY review the ~urvey you filled out and our report
responses for this section to determine if your system is operating efficiently.
>>> SECTION FOUR: BIOSOLIDS
Question 34.3. We suggest a minimum of six months of sludge storage to allow
flexibility in the operation of your system. However, there is no such
requirement in the state or federal rules at the present tine. Each city must
evaluate their sludge storage needs based on field access. Field accessibility
depends on a number of factors. One is the types of crops grown in your area.
For instance, row crops do not allow access in the sunmer. Another factor is
what ~quipment your city has for hauling and land application. Finally, there
a~e s±ope restrictions for winter applications. Present state rules restrict
winter application to sites with less than a 6% slope. Furthermore, in the
rules planned to cca~ out in fall, 1996, the state is planning to restrict
winter applications to sites with a slope less than2%.
Question 34.6. You indicated that you plan to obtain new landspreading sites.
Be aware that the approval process takes one to three months. If you have not
completed an application or need information on the application process, please
contact Jorja Dufresne at 1-800-657-3864.
_Score for SECTION 4: 10, WHERE 0 IS BEST AND 100 IS THE MAXIMUM. If your score
is greater tha~ 50, care~ul±y review~che ~urvey you filled out and our report
responses for this section to determine if your system is operating efficiently.
>>> SECTION FIVE: S EPTAGE ~~
_ ~qcnr~ for SECTION 5: 0~ WHERE 0 IS BEST AND 100 IS THE MAXIMUM. If your score
is greater than 50, carefully review the survey you filled out and our report
responses for this section to determine if your system is operating efficiently.
>>> SECTION SIX: TREATMENT SYSTEM OPERATIONAND~CE
Score for SECTION 6~ ~ WT{ERE 0 IS BEST AND 100 IS THE MAXIMUM. If your score
is greater than 50, carefully review the survey you filled out and our report
responses for this section to determine if your system is operating efficiently.
>>> SECTION SEVEN: FINANCIAL AND ORDINANCE STATUS
c~o~f~_of ~r.se~r?~ge ch~e syst.ems a~d s~wer use ordinances is cc~plexand
~z~ ~-mu~mcmpa±znmes wnzcn recezved zundmng frem the federal or state
cons5rucnlon grants program or the State Revolving Fund (loan program) face
certain requirements in the area of ordinances. We have sample ordinances and
charge systems which you can use to create your own documents. If you have
questions ~ncerni~g ordinances, c.h~_rge systems, rate setting, or whether you
must meet Ene requmrements of specmfic funding programs, please contact the MPCA
Training & Information Msunagement Unit at 1-800-657-3864.
Question 76.5. You~ sewer use ordinanc? ~hould require annual notification of
cost to all users, users should be notzf~ed annually regarding what is
encc~passed in the user charge.
Question 78.1. Since you have individual sewage treatr~ent systems (such as
on-site septic tanks), your sewer use ordinance should deal with such systems.
As one aspect of municipal wastewater treatment, you should require inspection
and maintenance plans for such systems. After January 1, 1998, all existing
rdi.n~nces governing individual sewage treatment systems must cc~ply with Minn.
., c~. 7080 and must be submitted to the Agency for review.
Question 78.4. When new hcmes are constructed in your service area, you should
consider what is the optimal approach to treating the resulting wastewater. Any
new construction should be consistent with your municipality's long-range
development plans. Ail new construction or replacement of an individual sewage
~reatment system (such as an on-site septic tank) requires a cc~pliance
mnspection by a firm licensed to inspect individual sewage treatment systems.
_ Score for SECTION 7: 35, WHERE 0 IS BEST AND 100 IS THE MAXIMUM. If your score
is greater than 50, carefully review the survey you filled out and our report
responses for this section to determine if your system is operating efficiently.
>>> SECTION EIGHT: FUTURE NEEDS
Question 85. Connection of currently unsewered homes to your treatment system
will add flows and loadings to your treatment system. If your system does not
have capacity for these additional flows and loadings, an expansion will be
necessary. In addition, a sewer extension may be needed.
JUL 2 5 199~
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
July 24, 1996
The Honorable Hank Duitsman
Mayor, City of Elk River
City Hall
13065 Orono Parkway
Elk River, Minnesota 55330-1900
Elk River Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facility
NPDES Permit No. MN 0020788
Compliance Monitoring Survey
Dear Mayor Duitsman:
Enclosed is a copy of the Compliance Monitoring Survey report which resulted from an inspection
of the Elk River Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facility conducted on June 12, 1996, by
Ken LeVoir of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Brainerd Regional Office.
The Compliance Monitoring Survey consisted of a visual inspection of the facility and a review of
the monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports. Based on the results of the Compliance Monitoring
Survey, the facility was found to be in compliance with the terms and conditions set forth in the
facility's NPDES permit. Please refer to the attached Inspection Summary.
No further response to this report is necessary.
If you have any questions concerning this lettcr or the Compliance Monitoring Survey report,
please call me at the Brainerd office, 218/828-2492, or on my cellular phone at 1-800-930-6939.
Sincerely,
Ke6neth C. LeVoir
Inspector
Enclosure
cc;
Darrell Mack, Operator
Stephanie Christensen, MPCA/St. Paul
1601 Minnosota Drive; Brainerd, Minnesota 56401; (218) 828-2492, VAX (218) 828-2594
Central Office: St. Paul Regional Offices: Duluth · Brainerd · Detroit Lakes · Marshall · Rochester
Telephone Device for the Deaf (TDD): (800) 627-3529
Equal Opportunity Employer · Printed on recycled paper containing at least 10% fibers from paper recycled by consumers
Facility: Elk River Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facility
Address: City Hall, 13065 Orono Parkway
Elk River, Minnesota 55330-0490
Permit Expiration: 12/23/00
Phone: (612) 441-7420
Responsible Official: Hank Duitsman Title: Mayor
I Certifications/Expiration: Class A 7/1/96
Operator:
Darrell
Mack
IClass:B
Transaction Code: N
Inspection Type: C
I
NPDES/SDS #: MN 0020788
Inspector Code: S
Inspection Date: 6/12/96
Facility Type: 1
Facility. Representatives:
Darrell Mack
Titles:
Wastewater Superintendent
Inspector: Ken LeVoir
AREAS EVALUATED DURING INSPECTION
Collection System
Lift Stations
Flow Measurement/
Instrumentation X
Treatment System X
Disinfection X
Dechlorination NA
Process Control X
Laboratory
Maintenance
Program X
Sampling X
Pretreatment
Solids Handling X
Records X
Reporting X
Discharge Monitoring
Reports X
Effluent Data X
Compliance Schedule
Construction Schedule X
Il Compliance Stares: Compliance
INSPECTION SUMMARY
A Compliance Monitoring Survey was conducted on June 12, 1996, by Ken LeVoir of the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to determine the compliance status of the facility
with the terms and conditions of its NPDES Permit. The following is a summary of the findings
and comments resulting from that inspection.
COMMENTS:
The installation of a second clarifier and second high-rate trickling filter tower is
progressing and is due to be operational this summer.
Construction on the rest of the facility, including new influent/effiuent flow proportional
sampling equipment, additional final clarifier, removal of the old RBC equipment, main
building and lab reconstruction, new gas flare, and solids handling areas, is proceeding
on or ahead of schedule.
Some seeps still exist around the base of the first high-rate trickling filter tower.
Construction of the second high-rate tower has apparently been altered in order to avoid
this problem again.
Mr. Mack and his staff have done an excellent job in continuing to operate the plant during
the construction period and remain in compliance.
Biosolids are disposed of on a city-owned site. The land application ofbiosolids program
was not evaluated as part of this inspection.
DEFICIENCIES/CORRECTIVE ACTIONS:
No violations were noted during the reporting period associated with this inspection.
Signature of Inspector
Date
Comments and questions shouM be addressed to:
Kenneth C. LeVoir
Pollution Control Specialist
1601 Minnesota Drive
Brainerd, Minnesota 56401
218/828-2492