City wastewater staff and the city manager briefed the Lebanon City Council on July 23 about a newly issued draft NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit, regulatory developments around PFAS/PFOS and biosolids, a draft master plan, and potential capital and operating impacts on the wastewater utility.

“Thanks, Ron. Mister mayor, members council, thanks for listening to us today. This might not be the funnest subject we'll ever talk about, but it's definitely necessary,” Jason Williams, a city staff presenter, told the council during the work session.

Staff said the city received an agency-review draft of the NPDES permit and requested an extension of the comment period to Aug. 22; the permit will then go to public comment. The current permit in use expired in February 2004, staff said. The draft permit includes new and tighter monitoring and sampling requirements that would increase laboratory work and staffing needs if adopted.

A central issue staff raised is biosolids handling. Staff described industry and regulator movement away from unrestricted land application of Class B biosolids and the potential need to move to a Class A product or different handling pathway. Staff said state and federal PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) rulemaking remains uncertain and could affect land application and landfill disposal; staff reported that landfill disposal has already become more expensive and that the city is currently paying about $6,300 to dispose of pressed sludge in dumpsters at the landfill.

Staff described two major capital streams from the draft master plan: a “liquid stream” project that in the master-plan estimate was about $31 million (to increase biological treatment capacity including an oxidation ditch and a new clarifier) and a “solids stream” project estimated at about $35 million (to add a centrifuge, buildings and a dryer). An operations building was estimated at about $4 million; total master-plan capital estimates were presented as roughly $70 million. Staff said these are planning-level numbers that may change with further design.

To reduce solids volume and create a marketable product, staff discussed installing a dryer that can raise solids content from the current 16–24% up into the 90s percent solids; staff noted other utilities sell Class A product and that a dryer can condense hauled material and reduce hauling and disposal costs.

Staff also described lower-cost alternatives they are evaluating for the liquid stream, including adding fine-bubble diffusers to existing aeration basins, which staff estimated roughly could reduce the $31 million need to something on the order of a multi-million-dollar improvement (one preliminary staff estimate cited about $2 million for diffuser retrofits, described as a rough guess). Staff emphasized that the master-plan numbers are preliminary and that design work and contractor input are needed to firm costs.

Funding and timing: staff described a mix of potential funding sources, including Clean Water State Revolving Fund loans (CWSRF) with some forgivable principal, direct appropriations, regional and federal grants, and local reserves. Staff reported the city has roughly $20 million set aside in reserves for wastewater and that, on a notional $50 million project, a 30-year payback could translate to a 28.5% increase to average utility bills and about a 60% increase to wastewater charges; staff stressed those are rough, planning-level calculations and that accurate figures require further design and financial analysis.

Staff recommended the council treat biosolids and liquid-stream capacity as priorities, continue to pursue grants and other funding, and prepare the community for phased rate adjustments. Councilors discussed whether to set an automatic inflationary increase or revisit rates case-by-case; some councilors expressed a desire to remain directly engaged each time the council considers a rate adjustment.

No formal council vote was taken on project design or rates. Staff said they will return with additional analyses, including expected operating-cost impacts from the draft permit requirements, and proceed with the public-comment process on the draft permit.