City Council - Public Works and Natural Resources Committee

City of Bellingham Public Works and Natural Resources Committee Minutes December 6, 2021, 10:00 AM Mayor Seth Fleetwood Contact: (360) 778-8200, ccmail@cob.org Council Members, Michael Lilliquist, Chair www.cob.org/council Gene Knutson, Lisa Anderson All meetings are held in the City Hall Council Chambers at 210 Lottie Street, Bellingham, WA, unless otherwise noted. Call to Order Roll Call Council Standing Committee Meeting Open to the public to attend. Note: there is generally no public comment period for Committee sessions. Standing Committee Members receive reports and information, ask questions and, when appropriate, vote on a recommended action for consideration by the full Council at the Regular Meeting. The notice of Committee Meetings identified below also serves as notice of Special Meetings of the City Council at the times identified as Council Members who are not members of the committee routinely attend and participate in the Committee Meetings. Committee Chairs give a report of the Committee Meeting at the Regular Meeting in the evening prior to deliberation and formal vote in the order shown below: Public Works and Natural Resources Michael Lilliquist, Chair Gene Knutson, Lisa Anderson 23182 1. Post Point Resource Recovery Project Update p. 3 Eric Johnston, Public Works Director, opened the presentation by discussing the fact that the incinerators have reached the end of their useful life and they need to be replaced. He discussed that the approach for this project included the triple bottom line plus methodology, factoring in the environmental, social, technical and financial cost of replacing them, including a specific amount of public outreach. The conclusion of the study led to the discovery that, while minimal, PFAS contaminants do exist in Bellingham. Ultimately, he recognizes that the ideal solution would be to not have PFAS contaminants in the system to begin with (by a state of federal ban on the production of these systems). The City of Bellingham does not have an industrial producer of these types of chemicals and the sources are coming from us (consumers and users) from a variety of sources. The next step is to pursue a different delivery method and he is requesting Council approval for this. The Council has already taken action to pursue in the direction of bio digestion. Public Works and Natural Resources Committee Minutes Page 1 December 6, 2021  Natalie Sierra, Professional Engineer specializing in biosolids, presented on PFAS with comparative studies of Michigan (industrially impacted biosolids), Maine (soil-screening), and the San Francisco Bay area. People are the main contributors to PFAS in the state of Washington. Department of Ecology has concluded this as well. Humans get this from their diet. Other sources include carpets and food packaging. Wastewater treatment plants are recipients of the PFAS. PFAS have been found in groundwater near land application sites. Legislatures and state environmental agencies are expressing increased concern about PFAS in response to general public awareness. PFAS has been found in residuals and land applied soils not impacted by industrial sources. In terms of unit of measure, there is the need to differentiate between a part per trillion (ppt) and a part per billion (ppb). The former is equivalent to a single drop of water in 20-olympic sized swimming pools. In terms of time: ppt = 1 sec/31,799 years; ppb = 1 sec/31.7 years). 1 microgram(ug)/kg = 1 nanogram (ng)/g. This can often be consuming, because different researchers use different measurements for PFAS. In this presentation, Michigan uses the former (ug/kg) and Maine uses the latter (ng/g). In general, typical PFAS ranges in biosolids are 60-450 ug/kg. Conclusion from San Francisco (178 ng/g): the level of treatment did not have a statistically significant impact on the PFAS concentration, and the levels are generally comparable. Important to know is how quickly PFAS samples can become contaminated – people who test these samples are not supposed to shower that day, use chemicals (lotions, shampoos, etc.) or wear fabrics that may contain PFAS in them. Published data sets will include different PFAS species (some with 8, others with 20, etc.) An unusual behavior of PFAS is that they can transform into other species through the wastewater treatment process, in the soil matrix, in the environment in general (making it very hard to track what is actually going on). Sierra discussed a comparative study between Michigan and Maine where Michigan used a targeted based approach on industrial inputs (analysis of land applied biosolids across the state led to characterization of “industrially impacted biosolids at 150 ug/kg PFOS. Contrastingly, Maine applied soil screening standards and conservative fate and transport models to regulate biosolids (5.2 ng/g PFOS, 2.5 ng/g PFOA). Compared to both Michigan and Maine, Bellingham is well below both (Bellingham PFOS vs Maine: just over 3 vs 5.2; Bellingham just over .5 PFOA vs Maine 2.5). When conducting a PFOA comparison, Bellingham is very close to the levels of the San Francisco Bay Area. In a PFOS comparison between Bellingham and the Bay area, Bellingham’s levels are a bit lower. Focusing specifically on Washington State: Post Pont Wastewater lower for PFAS of 14 sampled plants in WA and below EPA advisory standard for drinking water (70 parts per trillion), no known industrial discharges in high-risk PFAS use categories, Bellingham drinking water supply non-detect for PFAS. Mike Olinger, Assistant Public Works Director of Operations, provided a presentation with an update on the Point Post Resource Recovery Project. The Public Works and Natural Resources Committee Minutes Page 2 December 6, 2021  following Post Point and Off-sire Facilities are required: Digestion at Post Point (new digestion facilities located in northeast corner of Post Point), Off-site Biosolids Processing (required to convey Class A digested solids to a marketable product), Market Outreach (identify potential private partnerships for off-site processing and/or marketing of product), Biogas – Pipeline Injection (scrub digester gas for pipeline injection, establish gas utility requirements and agreement). The RFP is set to open on December 16, 2021. Currently, they are past 10% of design and are still on track for construction to commence in 2023 and for the project completion by 2025. Mike and Chad will bring forward to Council a proposed long-term schedule on December 13, 2021 (including milestones for Council actions for 2022 and 2023). Chad Schulhauser, Assistant Public Works Director of Engineering, discussed alternative project delivery. Typical project delivery includes design, bid, built (two separate contracts and the City owns the project). However, an alternative project delivery has a wide spectrum of deliverables. One of them is called, “general contractor/construction manager (GC/CM)”. GC/CM is defined in the RCW (39.10). The two standards in WA State include: GCCM and design build. With GC/CM, the public agency will select the design contractor early on. The selection would be based on qualification and overheard cost. The result: two separate contracts (one with the designer/consultant and one with the GC/CM firm). The contracts are closely tied and a relationship. Another option would be Progressive Design-Build (one contractor and owner’s advisor/consultant). This option would be in two phases. PW sat down with the consultant to understand which is the better option (including comfort zone assessments, delivery methods and key attributes): Progressive Design-Build versus GC/CM. The result: GC/CM is the best option for a project of this magnitude. The two key differences: specification-based delivery versus a performance-based delivery; traditional roles and times vs brand new product with Design Build (which the City has never done). Ultimately, Public Works recommends moving forward with GC/CM and asks Council for their approval. In summary, this update included a summary of recent laboratory test results from the Post Point Resource Recovery Plant as well as a discussion of alternative project-delivery methods. The update was broken into two sections: testing results and project delivery. Samples were tested for Per-and Polyfluorinated Substances (PFAS) compounds as requested by the Council on July 26, 2021. Comparisons to other studies and regulatory requirements were also presented. Furthermore, staff provided an update on the project, which included options for delivery of a multi-hundred-million-dollar project. The results: PFAS compounds were found in the waste, but that the levels were relatively low. As has been discussed, no national standards are currently in place for what are acceptable levels of exposure in biosolids as a result of waste treatment. A couple of states have adopted standards, including Maine Public Works and Natural Resources Committee Minutes Page 3 December 6, 2021  (Bellingham’s levels are toxic and enduring molecules, but they remain below Maine’s level). There was continued discussion on what that would mean if we continued with biosolids and did indeed have contaminants, what the available uses for those would be, the regulations would be, and what the cost would be for continuing with that as the approved method, or what the cost would be with other methods. This discussion will be continued with possibly altering or putting a pause to proceeding. For now, as an interim step, the City will continue to proceed along the pathway as initiated in 2017, to move towards bio digestion as a way to replace the current incineration technology for human waste at Post Point, which is energy intensive, polluting, destructive, and increasingly unviable. Staff requested Council to apply to the Washington State Project Review Board to use the General Contractor-Construction Manager project delivery method for the project. In this situation, a contractor is brought in early in the design process, so the design process can proceed based on their knowledge and understanding of how it would be built to reduce future problems and also to share the risk when the building processes occurred. MOTION to move forward to recommend staff to direct staff to apply to the state Project Review Committee for certification to use the general contractor/construction manager (GC/CM) contracting procedure for delivery of the Post Point Resource Recovery project. MOTION CARRIES 3-0. Adjournment Public Works and Natural Resources Committee Minutes Page 4 December 6, 2021